|
Lien posted:Ok, as a person with a couple of developmental disabilities (not Down's syndrome), I think some of these takes suck and seem pretty eugenicist. Society is ableist, and is structured so it's not accessible to a lot of people. That doesn't mean you remove the people that society is inaccessible for, it means you make a less lovely society. I don't want to be "fixed" on the developmental disability front because I've gotten myself into a niche where I can succeed-- and I recognize that not everyone is as lucky or as privileged as I am, but again, that speaks to improving society, not getting rid of people who are different. All of this. Concerns about having children with a disability says that a society isn't doing enough to take care of those who have disabilities. Any other argument rests on the idea that there isn't actually a place for people with disabilities.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Lien posted:Ok, as a person with a couple of developmental disabilities (not Down's syndrome), I think some of these takes suck and seem pretty eugenicist. Society is ableist, and is structured so it's not accessible to a lot of people. That doesn't mean you remove the people that society is inaccessible for, it means you make a less lovely society. I don't want to be "fixed" on the developmental disability front because I've gotten myself into a niche where I can succeed-- and I recognize that not everyone is as lucky or as privileged as I am, but again, that speaks to improving society, not getting rid of people who are different. I'm not exactly sure who you are addressing specifically, can you be more specific? I don't think people are discussing what "society" as a whole, top down should be doing, only what society should allow in terms of individual choice and the ramifications and implications of that. Because I think iirc that's the context of the OP is that if you have the right to choose and 100% bodily autonomy, then I think you're tacitly accepting the right for the woman to not carry a child to term if it may have a disability; and if this is a problem then you're only option is to restrict access to abortion which interferes with the right to choose, how do you address this? Simply strengthening the social safety net in exchange for restrictions on abortion is presumably not acceptable for a large amount of people. It's partly why I brought up genetic engineering (assuming it becomes technology as widespread and convenient as vaccination) because it presents a third option that allows a woman to carry a child to term they would have wanted to, but wouldn't if screening revealed a major disability and I wonder what thoughts people had on that and how it does or doesn't recontextualize the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not exactly sure who you are addressing specifically, can you be more specific? I don't think people are discussing what "society" as a whole, top down should be doing, only what society should allow in terms of individual choice and the ramifications and implications of that. I'm not talking about strengthening the social safety net in exchange for restrictions on abortion; I think that's gross. I'm talking about strengthening the social safety net so that if people do have the knowledge that they're going to have a disabled child, it's not going to impact their life in a life-changing (often career-ending for women) or negative way. Right now, the choice related to pregnancy isn't *really* about having a disabled child or not, imo it's about the impact that a disabled child will have on the parent's life, and then the kind of life that the child will have in a deeply ableist society. All of this is couched in living in a really grossly ableist society, globally. And this discussion really seems to perpetuate it, especially with the genetic engineering bit, because the presumption is still that the world would still be so ableist that living in it with a disability would be untenable, or that people would not want to care for members of their family under certain conditions. If our society fully accommodated and was set up for disabled people to live in it, this would not be a discussion. Like, I honestly find this confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
I think it depends on the nature of the disability. I don't see my own disability as something that has contributed anything positive to my life whatsoever; it's basically entirely negative, though it is fairly minor. If I could get rid of it, I would; if I could make sure no one else had it (or a worse case of it, particularly) I certainly would. I don't consider it an integral part of me any more than I would consider the same about a cancerous tumor. Maybe it is a societal thing; I don't know. My relationship with my own disability is such that I don't think it is entirely society's fault that it sucks. I see things I can't do but would like to do, and that's reality being a prick, not society. And I'm pretty lucky all things considered. On the other hand, it's not genetic so I have no particular skin in this specific debate. If it were, and I learned my hypothetical child was going to either have exactly what I have or a significantly worse form of it... I don't know what I'd do, but I can't say I'd rule out abortion (not that it would be my decision to make, what with the penis and all).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Anecdotally, I have a sister with cystic fibrosis, I'm the older brother without. If it went the other direction the second child would not exist. My parents went through the insurance gauntlet with my sister and came out the other side in one piece, and now that I'm a bit older, I would consider my own parents growth to be stunted by having to devote their spirit and resources to dealing with it. My sister and I have had numerous conversations about it, she's doing great after a double lung transplant. Which only culminated when my sister got thrown on SS; off my parent insurance at 19. My family lucked out. Hindsight is 20/20. if you had some form of hindsight at the beginning, morally I believe you'd be obligated to take it. Not a popular opinion, but my experience would dictate it. I've made a choice to not have biological children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Anecdotally, I have a sister with cystic fibrosis, I'm the older brother without. If it went the other direction the second child would not exist. My parents went through the insurance gauntlet with my sister and came out the other side in one piece, and now that I'm a bit older, I would consider my own parents growth to be stunted by having to devote their spirit and resources to dealing with it. My sister and I have had numerous conversations about it, she's doing great after a double lung transplant. Which only culminated when my sister got thrown on SS; off my parent insurance at 19. My family lucked out. Thanks for sharing. It's a difficult and emotionally charged subject, to be sure. I think another issue is that, when it becomes a personal issue, we're all very attached (obviously) to our loved ones and to ourselves. But choosing not to have a child for whatever reason is acceptable. No one knows what the alternative is; what non-existence is like. To shift it to a less morally ambiguous topic: one of my best friends was the result of an unplanned pregnancy, for example, and while I believe my life would be worse for him not being in it, I can't say it would've been morally wrong for his parents to have used birth control, or to have had an abortion if they wished to do so. Those are the roads not taken, no one knows where they lead and we can't find out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Choosing to not have a child for any reason is acceptable but it's also a sign of a bigger problem if people are choosing to not have children because of the lack of care for those children. I know for me everything my family ran into with my disability was either a lack of resources available to us or care being too expensive. That's not hard reality, that's being told I'm less valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
I'm not sure that people would, given the choice and applicable circumstances, be any more likely to choose to have a disabled child instead of a non disabled child even if we lived in a socialist utopia that gave cradle to grave assistance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm not sure that people would, given the choice and applicable circumstances, be any more likely to choose to have a disabled child instead of a non disabled child even if we lived in a socialist utopia that gave cradle to grave assistance. That still doesn't mean our resources shouldn't go to a world that makes it easier for everyone by providing for them. The alternative is one that makes it easier by just saying some people are not allowed to exist, or if they do they're damned to a miserable existence. That second one sounds a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
It feels like it should be possible to do both though. Have a society that provides that assistance, while also handing out and putting major investment into treatments like CRISPR so the choice no longer has to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:That still doesn't mean our resources shouldn't go to a world that makes it easier for everyone by providing for them. The alternative is one that makes it easier by just saying some people are not allowed to exist, or if they do they're damned to a miserable existence. That second one sounds a lot worse. 100% agree, we need to do so much better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Everyone who is now, or will in the future be, alive deserves to exist and live in a minimum standard of comfort and dignity. That's really non-negotiable for me. And if, with the availability of genetic screening, a mother makes the choice to not get screened, or not abort as a result, that choice must be respected. But that doesn't mean that the choice to use screening and/or abort is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It feels like it should be possible to do both though. Have a society that provides that assistance, while also handing out and putting major investment into treatments like CRISPR so the choice no longer has to be made. Even with perfect genetic editing ability we will need an accessible society because poo poo Happens, from birth to death. This is about eliminating one very specific category of disability: those with a genetic component that can be screened for (and possibly, later on, corrected) in-utero. That's not even close to a majority of disabilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Even with perfect genetic editing ability we will need an accessible society because poo poo Happens, from birth to death. This is about eliminating one very specific category of disability: those with a genetic component that can be screened for (and possibly, later on, corrected) in-utero. That's not even close to a majority of disabilities. I'm completely agreed of course. Just like with vaccines there's people for whom it won't be effective for, or other socio-economic or medical barriers that prevent its use, and so society should be able to lend a hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
Is in uterine crispr even a thing that exists? You could fix Ivf embryos but is anyone actually gene altering embryos in the womb?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is in uterine crispr even a thing that exists? You could fix Ivf embryos but is anyone actually gene altering embryos in the womb? I think the assumption is that if this isn't currently the case, it's probably inevitable that it will probably eventually exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
On the subject of accommodations and building a more accessible society, I would just like to say: it's something we should absolutely do, it's something that we must do, but we can't pretend it solves every problem. For those who right now can't fully participate in society, I can see how that would seem like the top of the mountain at the moment, but speaking as someone with a disability who only rarely needs actual accommodations as a result: it still bites rear end. Even if there's nothing that you have to do which you can't do, there's still poo poo you want to do but can't do. Skiing? Oh, can't do that. Skating? I don't think so. Rock climbing? Probably not. Martial arts? Ehhh, no. Yoga? Doubt it!* I accept that I'm lucky that these are the problems I'm dealing with, and not something worse, but I still resent the fact that there's poo poo I would like to do that I can't do because my body was born that way, and no amount of accommodation is ever going to fix that. * Yeah I do know there are adapted versions of these things for disabled people. None of them are for "just slightly hosed up" people. You either have people judging you because you're poo poo at the normal version, or because your slightly too able-bodied for the accessible version. Or, at least, that's my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Anecdotally, I have a sister with cystic fibrosis, I'm the older brother without. If it went the other direction the second child would not exist. My parents went through the insurance gauntlet with my sister and came out the other side in one piece, and now that I'm a bit older, I would consider my own parents growth to be stunted by having to devote their spirit and resources to dealing with it. My sister and I have had numerous conversations about it, she's doing great after a double lung transplant. Which only culminated when my sister got thrown on SS; off my parent insurance at 19. My family lucked out. I think part of the issue is there's a spectrum of disability. Tay-Sachs, for example, is one that people really seem pretty resolute on letting go. Meanwhile, some people have clubbed thumbs (this is genetic) and it scarcely matters at all, though it's unlikely anyone would ever select for it. At what point are you selecting against something in their best interests (i.e. not existing for 6 weeks in screaming pain) versus tinkering with a dangerous notion of "optimization"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think part of the issue is there's a spectrum of disability. This is really the heart of the issue. I've had some pretty deep conversations about the ethics of this (my graduate work was in genetics at a childrens' hospital) with a lot of experts and this is the bioethics landmine that tends to dictate how you think about the rest of it. And yeah, if we can CRISPR our way out of Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, or muscular dystrophy we'll likely do it. There are a lot of developmental disabilities for which that's a lot shakier -- I recall Marfan Syndrome specifically being one that prompted a looooooot of debate -- and we obviously want to avoid designer editing The abortion question and the gene therapy question are also rather different. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is in uterine crispr even a thing that exists? You could fix Ivf embryos but is anyone actually gene altering embryos in the womb? Nobody is doing human embryo editing because the state of the technology means it's unethical regardless of the genetic target -- a Chinese researcher who did so had his career destroyed -- but it's conceivable that we could get there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:This is really the heart of the issue. I've had some pretty deep conversations about the ethics of this (my graduate work was in genetics at a childrens' hospital) with a lot of experts and this is the bioethics landmine that tends to dictate how you think about the rest of it. And yeah, if we can CRISPR our way out of Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, or muscular dystrophy we'll likely do it. There are a lot of developmental disabilities for which that's a lot shakier -- I recall Marfan Syndrome specifically being one that prompted a looooooot of debate -- and we obviously want to avoid designer editing Do you mind going into detail about the issues of editing tech and why we could work around ethical issues?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Rockit posted:Do you mind going into detail about the issues of editing tech and why we could work around ethical issues? The major reason nobody is doing editing of human embryos is because the technology currently has an unacceptably high risk of introducing "off-target" mutations - that is, a change in the DNA that is different from the one you meant to implement. Since this is a genetic change that would end up in every cell, you're basically just throwing caution to the wind and leaving to chance whether your attempt to fix a CFTR mutation (causes cystic fibrosis) in the embryo or germ cells introduces a different mutation elsewhere that messes the kid up permanently. We will not be editing implanted embryos until we can get the off-targets down to near-zero and/or be able to routinely do full-coverage whole genome sequencing of implanted embryos... and we won't be doing intrauterine editing until we've crossed the IVF threshold. And naturally, then the choice is which genes you should and should not edit, but we're not even to that stage yet. What we'll see much sooner are treatments for genetic diseases that occur in localized tissues so you can use it for treatment in adults. There's some really promising work out there for ocular and blood diseases, for example. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The major reason nobody is doing editing of human embryos is because the technology currently has an unacceptably high risk of introducing "off-target" mutations - that is, a change in the DNA that is different from the one you meant to implement. Since this is a genetic change that would end up in every cell, you're basically just throwing caution to the wind and leaving to chance whether your attempt to fix a CFTR mutation (causes cystic fibrosis) in the embryo or germ cells introduces a different mutation elsewhere that messes the kid up permanently. We will not be editing implanted embryos until we can get the off-targets down to near-zero and/or be able to routinely do full-coverage whole genome sequencing of implanted embryos... and we won't be doing intrauterine editing until we've crossed the IVF threshold. That's was very informative man. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
It's interesting that you mention Marfans, because that's specifically the one I have. I don't want to make this The Marfan Hour but I think people would be way more into getting rid of it if it made women short and chunky instead of taller and longer-limbed. Even though it can kill you! (Men, I don't know. At least height is a "good" trait for both men and women.) It's also the source of a lot of my general skepticism. You start getting into a lot of what people really value when you're talking about a condition that gives women long legs but can make their aorta explode. Also it hurts! 
Pick fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
To put my own spin on this issues I've got a weird sense of luck in which I've got two heart defects that was managed due to early pill taking down to almost asymptomatic levels if you can believe it. This stuff is definitely a spectrum and i don't think if someone had their defects just was manageable they would tell by their genes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:If we want free and unrestricted abortions, it requires us not to question the motives of the persons having them. I feel like this is completely unavoidable; and it enters this open space between what is legal (which should be objective) and what is moral (which can not be). There are many reasons one could get an abortion for which I'd think you're kind of an rear end in a top hat, but it's also not my business. That doesn't mean I or others might not still think you're an rear end in a top hat and we're just going to have to be able to deal with this as a society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I feel like this is completely unavoidable; and it enters this open space between what is legal (which should be objective) and what is moral (which can not be). I mean ultimately, it boils down to whether you have the right to control of your own organs (yes). However, some really gnarly results might come from that, but also not entirely because of individual assholishness, but because the individual decision of persons is so molded by an inhospitable society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Cefte posted:It would be possible to construct a system where abortion was free and unrestricted, but to additionally regulate the medical investigations that would inform certain abortions, which is already in place for sex determination in India and China. That is literally not unrestricted. Selectively withholding information so you can have "unrestricted, wink wink" abortion isn't a solution... and sometimes that won't be an option. We could have an argument about whether select restrictions are good or not but I really, really, really don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:That is literally not unrestricted. quote:We could have an argument about whether select restrictions are good or not but I really, really, really don't want to. Cefte fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Cefte posted:No, that is 'literally' unrestricted abortion, and restricted antenatal sonography - in the Indian context, the law was very clearly couched (and rather poorly implemented) with the intention of supporting wide-spread access to abortion as a necessary arm of women's health, and also to rout out sex selection. The restricted interventions are those around sex determination, and the legal frameworks that regulate medical termination and antenatal sex determination are (last I looked) entirely separate. This dispute seems like it hinges on the meaning of the word “unrestricted”. You’re right that in that system a woman can have an abortion freely and nobody can question her motives or stop her because she’s doing it for the wrong reason. BfM is also right that in that system a woman can’t have an abortion for sex selection without breaking the law. It’s just that the law breaking doesn’t happen at the time of the abortion, it happens when she gains the information she needs to decide on the abortion. Perhaps she can go abroad, but if the whole world worked that way then women would be able to have abortions for the purpose of sex selection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:BfM is also right that in that system a woman can’t have an abortion for sex selection without breaking the law. quote:Perhaps she can go abroad, but if the whole world worked that way then women would be able to have abortions for the purpose of sex selection. My initial assertion remains: on a legislative level, is it possible to draft an act that restricts medical investigations that would in some circumstances inform medical termination of pregnancy, while leaving legal access to abortion (till so many weeks) free and unrestricted? Yes. Is that a limit on procreational autonomy? Absolutely. Is it a limit on abortion? Literally, no. Cefte fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jan 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Cefte posted:The problem with this statement is that he is, literally, wrong, because at least one of the laws in question (the PC/PNDT law) does not apply to a woman who has an abortion, or who seeks sex selection information. It sanctions medical professionals who provide the regulated service, and carries no criminal or civil penalty for the service user. This, for me (and for the drafters) was an important distinction, because the matrix of for & against sex selection / for & against abortion provision contains a large population in each corner, and the use of sex selection legislation as a tool to limit abortion access would have been a real goal of one corner of that matrix. Can a woman legally abort a fetus because it is female?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Can a woman legally abort a fetus because it is female? This is not a productive avenue for 'where's the rule that says a dog can play basketball'; there is no rule that the dog cannot play basketball, because the law is constructed of enunciated rules. If you're asking in practice what would happen if a woman walked into an early pregnancy unit and said loudly 'I am here to abort my female fetus', then I'm not in a position to provide personal insight as to the practice on the ground in India, but I would hope it would involve a very rapid and thorough safeguarding check. Interestingly, while I was checking my own memory, I discovered the sexual determination Act has been updated since last I looked, and my characterisation above was partially incorrect - the full text is here. They've added a ramping fine and potential imprisonment for seeking sex determination, not just for providing it, but specifically exempted the pregnant woman from penalty. quote:(3) Any person who seeks the aid of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or imaging clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or imaging specialist or registered medical practitioner or anyother person for sex selection or for conducting pre- natal diagnostic techniques on any pregnant women for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4, he shall, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. I suspect the gendered language underscores the intent of that amendement. Cefte fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jan 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think part of the issue is there's a spectrum of disability. The spectrum here is important. People even in this thread are using false equivalency to suggest those who abort due to a disability start to sound like eugenicists which is a take for sure, but I find in general anytime these arguments come up they are always using examples from the lower end of the spectrum. No sane person is arguing that a woman shouldn’t be able to choose to not have a child that will die in two weeks of agonising existence. The vast majority of people are not arguing to say you can’t get the choice Down’s syndrome is detected. But if you mention neurological disorders eugenics abd hot takes get mentioned. It gets brought up as ablist, but it’s pretty ironic for people with disabilities on the lower end of the neuro tier list ignoring non verbal, aggressive, severely socially stunted conditions. “The state should pay!” Like money is the only reason. It’s offensive to suggest people are only worried about problems with kids for money, and it’s offensive to even come close to calling a woman’s right to choose eugenicist, and frankly gently caress anyone who tries to moral panic parents who would only want to have a child who had a lower risk of these issues (however hypothetical these tests are depending on what we are talking about).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
I can kind of understand , without agreeing with, why folks wouldn't want a kid with Downs Syndrome. Its loving hard work. One of my good friends has an 18yo daughter with a condition (A gene deletion) thats left her non-verbal (She seems to understand folks just fine, she just cant talk beyond grunts and noises) and a drastically diminished learning capacity. Theres a very good chance my friend will be caring for her daughter until either one of them dies (disturbingly the daughters condition is so rare nobody knows what long term implications are). She's a lovely girl, nobody meets this kid and walks away with anything but a smile, but she's probably never going to be independent, or at least fully independent. The thing is though. My friend wouldn't exchange her daughter for the world. She adores the kid, and is utterly committed to devoting her entire life to keeping the kid. And my friend has had sleepless nights over the question "If someone had warned you would you have kept it". Because she wouldn't have. And that would have denied her , her lovely daughter and the rich ways in which this kid does spread lightness and joy around the place. She's an incredibly optimistic kid who knows who she is, but refuses to let that ruin her stride. At the end of the day, children are more important than adults, I genuinely believe that. Even the meekest and least capable of them still deserve the absolute right to not be let down by the adults of the world. By actually giving children with disabilities all the support needed to reach their best, even if it that best is just living in a group home, or managed acoomodation, or even just living with a willing parent.To me that better than trying to make these kids disappear. What we NEED to be doing is supporting the parents who are entasked with raising these kids. Even Down Syndrome can have radically different outcomes depending on early intervention, and access to specialists, and the like. There are now large populations of the Down Syndrome community living independently or semi-independently. Some with jobs, some even finishing highschool and even college (in milder cases). It doesnt have to doom people. But we have to support the people who make those outcomes happen. Not abandon mothers to fight for their kids, without institutional assistance duck monster fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 07:14
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I can kind of understand , without agreeing with, why folks wouldn't want a kid with Downs Syndrome. Its loving hard work. One of my good friends has an 18yo daughter with a condition (A gene deletion) thats left her non-verbal (She seems to understand folks just fine, she just cant talk beyond grunts and noises) and a drastically diminished learning capacity. Theres a very good chance my friend will be caring for her daughter until either one of them dies (disturbingly the daughters condition is so rare nobody knows what long term implications are). She's a lovely girl, nobody meets this kid and walks away with anything but a smile, but she's probably never going to be independent, or at least fully independent. I mean this with absolutely respect and not trying to be sassy as i agree with your post but answering the question of “should someone be able to terminate in case of disability and worrying about how they can care mentally and financially for that child” with “society should support the parents” is answering a seperate question. For fun, what if someone said “I want to be able to abort my pregnancy as I didn’t know the father and I can’t afford being a single mother and don’t want the baby” and a religious person answered in a similar way. After All I believe children should be supported. Ultimately as squeamish as this makes people nothing should get in the way of a woman choosing, and if someone finds it distasteful that someone else wouldn’t want to put up with condition A or B then too bad, your opinion is literally not a factor. Just like anti abortionists opinions aren’t a factor in it either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 07:23
|
|
|
To be honest, I think it's kind of bizarre people even want to ban providing sex-selection services. Sure, it sucks when one gender is preferred or prioritized, but forcing people to gamble on having a child they know that they want less doesn't sound great for the child either. You can't mandate loving a child.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 07:43
|
|
|
teacup posted:Ultimately as squeamish as this makes people nothing should get in the way of a woman choosing, and if someone finds it distasteful that someone else wouldn’t want to put up with condition A or B then too bad, your opinion is literally not a factor. Just like anti abortionists opinions aren’t a factor in it either. I'm not suggesting that. I'm not talking at the level of individual choice here other than to relate an annecdote. I'm talking as a society that the decision to abort becomes less complicated if women are guaranteed that they wont have to raise the child in miserable poverty. I am vehemently opposed to taking away a womans choice to chose. And my statement about "children are more important than adults" isn't a statement on abortion. Fetuses arent children, they are cell clusters. I'm talking about what happens once the child is born. duck monster fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Shiiit i thought they were joking about pick's eugenics thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
You'd have to really, really have not read the opening articles to think this is a pro-eugenics thread, which means you broke the cardinal rule of the OP which was "read the content we're discussing".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 08:52
|
|