It is Immoral to not abort a Downs Syndrome Foetus?

-1=e^ipi · September 11, 2014

The OP is; “It is Immoral to not abort a Downs Syndrome Foetus?”

Get rid of the double negative and it reads;

Is it moral to abort a Downs Syndrome Foetus?

These questions are not the same thing. Do you need me to draw you a venn diagram or something?

Big Guy · September 11, 2014

These questions are not the same thing. Do you need me to draw you a venn diagram or something?

Sorry, no time.. I am trying to count the number of angels on a venn diagram and calculate the square root of -1.

-1=e^ipi · September 11, 2014

Sorry, no time.. I am trying to count the number of angels on a venn diagram and calculate the square root of -1.

Number of angels is zero.

The square roots of -1 are i and -i.

WestCoastRunner · September 11, 2014

The OP is; “It is Immoral to not abort a Downs Syndrome Foetus?”

Get rid of the double negative and it reads;

Is it moral to abort a Downs Syndrome Foetus?

The question should really read, “Is it moral to abort a foetus BECAUSE it has Downs Syndrome”.

My position is that it is the choice of the mother.

His question stands 'It is immoral to not abort a Downs Syndrome Fetus?'

Re-read the op. And it is 'Down', not 'Downs'. I made the same mistake.

On Guard for Thee · September 11, 2014

I figured this thing was off to a bad start when the original statement was presented as a question. In any case I am grateful I live in a country where laws tend more and more to be based on public safety than somebody or others idea of "morality"

September 11, 2014

I think it was more a surprised question on Dawkins' position. I don't think anyone in the UK takes him seriously, either.

Mighty AC · September 11, 2014

I figured this thing was off to a bad start when the original statement was presented as a question. In any case I am grateful I live in a country where laws tend more and more to be based on public safety than somebody or others idea of "morality"

I'm glad we have a choice as well. Those that would abort a fetus with a serious genetic abnormality can do so and those that wouldn't don't have to.

I think it was more a surprised question on Dawkins' position.

Dawkins' position is very clinical and unemotional. He simply finds it unethical to choose to continue a pregnancy when a birth defect is certain. I can respect that position. Thankfully, we currently have the freedom to make up our own minds on the issue and proceed accordingly.

-1=e^ipi · September 11, 2014

The square roots of -1 are i and -i.

Actually, I should probably give a better answer, in case someone accuses me of giving false information.

The number of square roots will depend on the Set we are talking about (Or more specifically, the Ring, since if we are talking about square roots then it is reasonable to expect there to be two binary operations on this set that satisfy the properties of a Ring). The real numbers have zero square roots, where as the quaternions have six square roots of -1. Though in most cases people will be using the complex numbers, since the complex numbers satisfy the nice property of algebraic closure, in which case there are only the two mentioned above.

Edited September 11, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

Hal 9000 · September 20, 2014

Instead of aborting, why not just wait until babies are born then decide whether to kill them or not?

September 20, 2014

Because that could result in arguments. Once the birth is over, both parents would have equal rights with the kid. It might be difficult to reach consensus.

Big Guy · September 20, 2014

Instead of aborting, why not just wait until babies are born then decide whether to kill them or not?

I understand and respect that you are against abortion but would like to follow your logic. If you feel that the embryo or fetus or whatever should be considered a baby then when do you believe that life begins. What is your position on contraception. Do you believe that tube tying in the female, thereby allowing any female eggs produced to die and be absorbed, should also not be allowed?

Hal 9000 · September 20, 2014

I understand and respect that you are against abortion but would like to follow your logic. If you feel that the embryo or fetus or whatever should be considered a baby then when do you believe that life begins. What is your position on contraception. Do you believe that tube tying in the female, thereby allowing any female eggs produced to die and be absorbed, should also not be allowed?

It's not just a question of "where life begins", I think life is there right from semen and egg. I'm not against contraception or tube tying by any means - I don't believe the Monty Python song stating that "every sperm is sacred" either. The question i think about is; when does a fetus become a baby? And... if you can predict mental abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, then is that a fetus or a baby?

Even abortion I'm not 100% against, it's the stage of the abortion that I take issue with.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Hal 9000

Mighty AC · September 21, 2014

Even abortion I'm not 100% against, it's the stage of the abortion that I take issue with.

Where would you draw the line?

Hal 9000 · September 21, 2014

Where would you draw the line?

I find it somewhat hypocritical that if a baby is born at 7 months and the mother drops it in a dumpster, we are outraged and call it disgusting - we may even want to see her prosecuted, yet a woman can go to a clinic at 8 months and have her baby aborted legally and ethically - and we (as a society) are all OK in our support of her decision.

P.S - I'll refrain from my (too graphic) description of abortion.

Mighty AC · September 21, 2014

I find it somewhat hypocritical that if a baby is born at 7 months and the mother drops it in a dumpster, we are outraged and call it disgusting - we may even want to see her prosecuted, yet a woman can go to a clinic at 8 months and have her baby aborted legally and ethically - and we (as a society) are all OK in our support of her decision.

So at what point would you draw the line? Would you allow any exceptions?

Big Guy · September 21, 2014

I am a right-to-choose advocate who believes that "life" begins at birth. There are a number of reasons and all of them have been posted on this board at various times. I have no intent on trying to convince others because that is their choice. I do understand that others disagree and have their own views based on the criteria that they deem valid. That is why I try to seek out those who differ from my views and are prepared to share them in a civilized and respectful manner. That is also why I too would like to see why Hal 9000 is comfortable in his/her position.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Big Guy

Hal 9000 · September 21, 2014

So at what point would you draw the line? Would you allow any exceptions?

I suppose there could be some exceptions, but when that happens it inevitably becomes a slippery slope and then the exceptions become the norm. In fact, that's probably why abortions are so common place now.

For me, it's a similar argument to the euthanasia debate. Where do we draw the line? At pain, whose pain? What type of pain? I could say that my exceptions would be in case of rape or incest, but then girls would claim date rape (some of which is valid) which slides to "I don't like the guy", I could say physical disabilities, but then are we aborting babies with a spinal defect, cleft palates, club feet or an unformed limb?

I know people with Down Syndrome who are productive people (in their own way) and actually brighten up a room or show inspiration to others around them. Maybe we should tell Alex Bilodeau (and I do hate the example) that his brother should've been on the abortion list. I, myself probably should've been on the abortion list, but that was during a time when young mothers went to live with Grandma for a few months and gave the baby up.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Hal 9000

September 21, 2014

I find it very similar to the ~~euthanasia~~ assisted suicide debate in that it is solely about the choice of a person what happens to them, and their bodies. I'm male, and obviously I will never have to choose whether or not to undergo an abortion, but I want the right to choose to end my own life for whatever reason I choose. No-one should have the right to deny me that. To force me to live on when I don't want to.

In the same way no-one should have the right to force a woman to carry a child to term. She can choose to have an abortion for any reason, as far as I'm concerned.

Edit> I always post too quickly, then dash off to do something else. Euthanasia <> Assisted Suicide. I realise that.

Edited September 21, 2014 by bcsapper

Hal 9000 · September 21, 2014

At some point the woman should be accountable for the baby growing inside her, I don't think that accountability should start at birth.

P.S - To be more clear, I should've said "accountable to the baby growing inside her".

Edited September 21, 2014 by Hal 9000

September 21, 2014

I don't disagree with that. I would not like to be the one who decides when. Even the SCOC won't touch that.

jbg · September 22, 2014

I find it somewhat hypocritical that if a baby is born at 7 months and the mother drops it in a dumpster, we are outraged and call it disgusting - we may even want to see her prosecuted, yet a woman can go to a clinic at 8 months and have her baby aborted legally and ethically - and we (as a society) are all OK in our support of her decision.

P.S - I'll refrain from my (too graphic) description of abortion.

I am pro-choice but were it otherwise you would call it a slippery slope. Their has to be boundaries somewhere.

Mighty AC · September 22, 2014

In fact, that's probably why abortions are so common place now.

How common are abortions? Is your issue with the abortion itself or the level of development the fetus has achieved before it's destroyed?

We probably agree that a sperm is not a human life and jerking off, using birth control or wearing tighty whiteys doesn't count as murder. So at some point we have to make a distinction between the parasitic potential life that is growing inside a woman and a human life with rights. In order to draw the lines required for legislation we need to define in a very black/white manner this point in time. It sounds like you don't like the idea of killing potential lives, but understand that it is ethical and/or necessary in some cases. However, you seem to be struggling to clarify the point at which we must draw the line.

Personally, I am comfortable with the abortion of a fetus early on for any reason. However, I'm not comfortable with destroying a late term pregnancy for reasons beyond medical necessity or that the baby will certainly have severe abnormalities.

Mighty AC · September 22, 2014

I don't disagree with that. I would not like to be the one who decides when. Even the SCOC won't touch that.

I agree. In Canada late term abortions are extremely rare, yet some people are calling for legislation. I think too many really want to restrict choice and others are unaware of how rare late term abortions are. Anyway, if we are to create legislation then lines have to be drawn and rules have to be created. The problem is, legislation will lead to just as many, if not more, sad and unfortunate cases than we have in our current situation which allows medical professionals to decide if a late term abortion is acceptable or not.

In my opinion, those who oppose the ability of medical experts to decide the merits of a late term abortion actually want to impose their own ideology on the parties involved.

Hal 9000 · September 22, 2014

As bcsapper said the SCOC won't touch the issue. To draw a line anywhere would draw the ire of every feminist and pro-choicer in the country - especially if it's the conservatives that proposed it. Saying "no" to any women's group is political suicide.

I have what I would call a "point of no return", but I've just retained from identifying it.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Hal 9000

Mighty AC · September 22, 2014

I have what I would call a "point of no return", but I've just retained from identifying it.

So you're fine with both Harper and JT choosing the status quo then? You seem rather bothered by the status quo for someone who is unwilling to offer any ideas on how legislation should be enacted. Funny how those (and not you specifically) love to tag JT with their 'ABORTION ON DEMAND' catch phrase yet have no comment when asked to elaborate on their position.

Maybe we have achieved the ideal situation without legislation then? Or maybe it's just a difficult practice to legislate, thus requiring the judgement of professionals....something conservatives seem to fear.