Part 2: what if you found out their diagnosis 1 week after birth
Abortion is fine no matter what, but in particular for this case yes; Down’s syndrome isn’t the almond eyed happy somewhat simple child that Facebook memes make it out to be. They can have awful congenital heart disease, they have a much larger chance of getting leukemia, and they age seemingly twice as fast, a Down’s syndrome person in their forties is incredibly frail. They’re happy enough people and can often enjoy a good quality of life, there’s a guy who is a bartender in Buffalo at a Mexican restaurant who makes amazing drinks, for one, and there’s nothing wrong with having a child with Down’s if you want, but if you find out you are pregnant with a baby with Down’s you really should see medical genetics and have a fetal echo and maternal fetal medicine and ensure you make a decision that works for you. There are Down’s syndrome babies who never leave the hospital because of the comorbidities.
It is ethical to abort in the first part of the pregnancy. If tge fetus has a chance of disability or mental disorder.
No one is ready to take care of a disabled person instead of a healthy child.
It is ethical to give the child up for adoption (now tge adopter should be ready for the same problem).
Also it is also ethical to keep it.If it’s ethical to abort just because you don’t want the kid (and it is), then it’s ethical to abort for any reason.
Also, it’s no one’s business why people choose to abort.
it’s no one’s business why people choose to abort.
This. The only answer to “why” is “fuck off”, and for so many reasons. It’d suck to agonize over the decision, and once it’s made to then be second-guessed by some rando.
I mean more like “is a life of suffering worth living and would a parent want that for their kid” rather than the ethics of abortion
Preventing incurable pain and suffering to a conscious being is ethical. There is dignity in both life and death.
I don’t know about the ethics, but forcing people to carry to term a baby with a significant developmental disability is unconscionable to me. It is very likely to ruin their marriage, finances, sanity, life, but the people that manage to do it are saints.
Would it be ethical to knowingly give someone a 99% chance of a severe illness within a few months?
Bye Felicia
It’s kinda besides the point. If a woman wants an abortion she should get an abortion. Downs syndrome or not, it doesn’t matter.
I don’t mean in a her body her choice kinda way, I mean is it more ethical to let them live their natural life knowing that they would possibly suffer immensely vs not letting them live a life at all
So you’re asking should all prior with special needs be terminated so they don’t suffer? Should all poor people?
Kinda slippery slope there tbh…
I think that anyone who isn’t ready to be a parent should have that option not to. Special needs or not. Forced birth and zero support after is terrible.
Personally I think having children as a whole is unethical 🤷♂️
Abort whenever for whatever.
I think it’s ethical to abort any baby. It’s parasitic on the host, if you don’t consent to the idea how is it any worse than getting a flu vaccine
If you don’t think you can provide a better life for your kid than state care could I see putting it up for adoption to be ethically mandatory
What you’re asking about is eugenics. People with downs syndrome can lead rewarding lives. Many people who work with those of us with downs say that they have the highest satisfaction with life of anyone out there. They do require a lot of costly and time consuming care in early life, but there is no reason a child born with downs can’t have a life they find fulfilling.
Given that, I would say if a mother’s only reason for aborting is the downs syndrome, that probably leans towards unethical. However if there are any other reasons a mother might choose to abort that fetus, it’s ethical. But terminating a pregnancy because the child has an “undesirable” trait is both eugenics and ableism which rarely result in ethical decision making.
Even under the umbrella of downs syndrome being the only reason, I think there’s variability. “I won’t be able to take care of this child” is quite different from “This child has an undesirable trait.”
Is it ethical to abort a child with any kind of disease/syndrome that requires more resources, time, and money than the parents can afford? If we had rephrased it as an adoption, it would be inarguable child abuse for a couple to adopt a special needs child they have no capability of raising.
I don’t disagree with you. Unwanted children do not have happy outcomes, especially those with disabilities. However if you are applying the logic of adoption to that of eugenics you should tread carefully. If society is allowed to impose restrictions on adoptions, why not biological parents? Perhaps pregnant women should have an income test? If a mother can’t afford to feed her child should she be allowed to retain custody or have the baby at all?
If a pregnant person decides they cannot afford it or aren’t up for the commitment that’s ethical. If a pregnant person decided to abort out of some pity for people with downs, well that’s eugenics and ableist, so probably unethical. Pragmatically though the result is the same.
Personally I interpreted the question as an individuals dilemma, I never intended for it to be a societal, or government sweeping legislation or expectation to abort any fetus with disabilities, just whether or not it was ethical for an individuals decision to abort. I dont think government or law should exist at all, so I wouldnt support any government restrictions on reproductive rights
As fucked up as it sounds, if it’s early enough that there isn’t any chance of it being considered alive, I’d let the family decide whether or not to do it on their own because not every family is capable of that type of constant care and/or affording the bill to pay someone to help.
As for a week after birth, as fucked up as it sounds, if you truly cannot afford the constant care, then probably putting them up for adoption to a family that can afford the care is better, IMO, than not being able to afford to care for said child and having potentially seeing them die from lack of care you cannot afford.
Sometimes you need to make hard decisions to keep afloat financially.
I remember discussing this in an undergrad biomedical ethics class. Pls don’t ask us to do ur homework lmao
Jury was still out by the end of class discussion btw. This one was complicated lol
I had business ethics so it was boring questions like “should we advertise to kids” or “do cigarette manufacturers have souls”. But ya this seems to be pretty divisive so far.
Yeah it really splits the crowd. There were three case studies from the course but I can’t find my offering’s outline and I forget the third case study. The first one was: “A woman signs a form saying that if she gets dementia she wants euthanasia in the late/developed stages of the illness. Later, she gets there, but this ‘version’ of her has a really high quality of life and is quite contented. Do you follow through?”
In between there were discussions of frameworks like Aristotelian/Kantian/utilitarian ethics. There were also some medical specific stuff, like the biopsychosocial model of disability. Pretty neat overall, though tbh I wish I took an ethics class more relevant to my current academic pursuits (math)
It’s not ethical to not abort the pregnancy in this case. There is nothing wrong with getting rid of the fetus, there is everything wrong with letting a person disabled to this stage from the start emerge.
About part 2: I think euthanasia is ethical in this case. Certainly more ethical than emotional blackmail with “unborn child”.
sure, even after birth
zero ethical dilemma for me
Part 1: Yeet
Part 2: Looks like I’m down with the sickness.
