Reply With Quote
Yeah.
People who changed the world AND overcame significant handicaps:
Dan Rather
Bill Cosby
Alex Van Halen
Tina Fey
Natalie Portman
John Ritter
Warren Buffet
Annie Lennox
Dennis Scott
Art Linkletter
Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
Benjamin Bratt
Jack Welch
Orville Redenbacher
Tony Dorsett
Chris Burke
Laura Lang
Joey Lauren Adams
Bill Engvall
Yeah.
- especially those bolded... Changed the world? Sure about that?
Give me a break. That was just off the top of my head.
I assume the utilitarian would make that argument, assuming that a) the child was indeed suffering and b) there was no known/achievable solution/fix to the condition.
Personally speaking, I'm very averse/wary of being "ok" with any abortion after the first trimester, and even then I'm not a big fan of the idea. But if I knew that child was going to have huge medical problems? I might. Hard to say until you're in that situation. Another reason why would be that, while a "healthy" baby would take time and money away from my two other children, a child with severe needs would take even more so away from my other two children.
I'm not saying there's a "right" answer by any means. I don't think there's a bright line here.
It's definitely a strange case, because it messes with our perception of what makes one a "parent". Genetic material, or carrying the child? As an FYI, if the surrogate carried the baby to term in the state they were in, the genetic donors had planned on laying claim to the child and giving it up to the state for adoption/foster care.
Did you see the baby in the video/story? I could be wrong (I don't know all of these names), but I don't think any of the above overcame handicaps that large.
Yup, most of those have ADHD/dyslexia type disabilities-----totally different from not being able to live an independent quality life disabilities.
They are also not the type of disabilities that would be determined through prenatal testing, so they have no bearing on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
Last edited by mrsmaalox; 03-06-2013 at 04:05 PM.
if you believe that once a baby is born that killing it is wrong under any cir stance, you have to ask yourself at what point does the abortion become the same thing as killing a newborn.
That's where I don't see the difference between it being healthy or not.
I'd also say that if the utilitarian argued that killing an infant is ok, he would need to leave the debate hall.
Last edited by Blake; 03-06-2013 at 04:10 PM.
I didn't watch the video but did read the story and see the pic. My gut reaction was the the genetic parents were maybe more concerned about their inconvenience and financial drain instead of that of the baby. But then again, the story was pretty much told from the surrogate's point of view. They kind of skipped over her wanting extra money to abort.
]Whatever though, it's impossible to put myself in either party's shoes. But I do have a problem with the genetic parents having any kind of right to make the surrogate get an abortion.
I can't hear this sentence in anything but Richard Crenna's voice. Silly, I know.
As to the question as by the thread le, yes. The surrogate signed the agreement which left termination rights with the parents. It was their call to make.
IDK. If it's getting boiled down to the agreement, it doesn't seem like they adequately defined the terms of what cons uted a "severe fetus abnormality". Although it obviously seems severe, they left the door open for dispute by not further specifying.
True, and their lawyer sort of admits as much, but at the same time I don't know how you try to narrow down terms like that without just opening more loopholes. I know I'm not saying anything you don't know, but the list of things that can go wrong along the course of prenatal development is staggering and the fact that the patient is inside another human being makes any absolutely definitive diagnosis impossible. Do you go down that impossibly long list and decide which ones are severe and which ones are not? Is there a numerical threshold on the odds to be set that makes a 20% of a major heart defect acceptable when a 25% chance isn't? I guess my objection is that if she was opposed to abortion on moral grounds she shouldn't have signed up this.
I agree. It'd be damn near impossible to cover everything that could cons ute "severe" and also within that, acceptable levels of any particular malady.
Don't know the answer to your question. But until one becomes pregnant, I'm not sure they could definitively say they weren't opposed to abortion. Seems like it'd be a hard contract to enforce if it came down to a jury.
I think that's the thing most people have the hardest time with about abortion... When is it a "person" and not just a bunch of cells? I'm not sure where that line is. If I had to make one, I'd say first trimester.
As far as killing babies go once born, I would assume the only good answer would be a mercy killing in the event that there was no chance for survival. By extrapolating that idea out, one could say that in order to prevent that child the suffering up until that point, it would be more merciful to abort before the fetus was aware of its existence. Especially if you were relatively sure that you couldn't afford the treatments/medication needed after birth.
I don't think you can pinpoint a time when it 'becomes a person.' We don't know about the biological basis for consciousness in general to make that statement. OTOH, I believe you can tell definitely when it is 'not a person.' For example, when there is no spine.
catholic church dont believe in abortion cause they always need victims
Nope because we never know it all when it comes to life. Even rocks come alive so no breaking rocks.
Lots of folks will consider the following statement a cop-out, but it is what I believe:
I can't make that determination for the biological sperm-and-egg donors nor for the womb-vessel. I am glad that I never had to face such a decision. But it would have been MY decision to make, not anyone else's; certainly not a bunch of legislators of either gender. Certainly not a priest who has never had a child nor borne responsibility for one.
Had it been me, I would likely have made the decision if it was during the first trimester. I honestly don't believe there is anything approaching a human life at that point. After that? Man, I don't know. I would have hated it either way. I would have hated having to bear and care for such a poor child/adult, and I don't know that I would have had the moral cer ude to abort it, even though I think that MAY be the right decision.
In short, as I said at the beginning, it has to be the decision of the parties directly involved, and all the rest of us can stand back and say "there but for the grace of...",relieved that all we have to do is feel sorry for the folks making the decisions and bearing the result of those decisions.
As much grief as I have given you (deservedly, by the way) in the Spurs forum, I have to say that your observation in this instance appears, unfortunately, perfectly made and expressed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions