Abortion ethics

This is a fraught ethical subject, and it’s fraught in no small part because of the social devaluation of disability. I’ve often said that choosing abortion for disability doesn’t mean that you hate disabled people.
As the author of this piece writes in his other essays, reproductive rights encompass more than just abortion and womens’ issues.
For 39 years, we have been terminating pregnancies clandestinely, most of us giving little thought to the ethics, economic implications, medical dangers, psychological effects, or any other aspect of abortion. The present article reviews the enormity of abortion, its effects on our entire society, and the exploitation of whole populations by modern politicians, who appear to be motivated by the same quest for power and gain as famous historical tyrants.
A handful of judges made a decision in 1973 permitting abortion, and that decision has stood.  Now, again, President Obama’s administration has gone on a national and global campaign to spread “reproductive rights,” which include abortion, using federal subsidies.
If conservatives are right, and abortion truly constitutes the murder of a helpless human being, how does U.S.
All other causes of death are dwarfed by abortion.  Abortion kills 14 times as many people as accidents, 28 times as many people as firearms, 47 times as many as suicide, 47 times as many as auto accidents, 47 times as many as infant mortality,  70 times as many as AIDS, and 70 times as many as homicide. The selective elimination of 15% of a population has profound effects on a society; effects which should concern even those who do not consider abortion as murder. The elimination of human beings poses numerous economic, legal and ethical challenges which our society is now beginning to face. There is already evidence from the 2000 census that the combination of prenatal testing and abortion is being used for sex selection in the United States.
Abortion also has drastic effects on the age balance and earning potential of a population. Most Americans favor the banning or limitation of abortion, yet there is little discussion of this question by the media. Apparently, our present government even considers free abortion to be a more fundamental human need than food, housing or heat.
Abortion provides governments with the ability to control the size and composition of their own population, and to control the populations of other nations.

It is time to recognize that the Author of the Judeo-Christian  religious  principles on which our legal system is based (including the principles which forbid abortion) was very wise. It’s not like the idea of aborting for disability is anything new, or that parents don’t get a lot of pressure to jump to abortion rather than more information as soon as a prenatal diagnosis is delivered. For whatever reason, you’ve chosen to hear any discussion of the social impetus behind disability-related abortions as an attempt to shame individual women. You do realise that most abortions that occur for this reason start out as a wanted pregnancy and the woman has to deal with the loss of a wanted pregnancy as well as being told that she’s ableist scum and wants people eliminated.
In the case of the article you cited, I said that I felt these abortions were unecessary-Dr.
There has been no effort to seek ethical expert advice, and no effort to seek input from the American public.
This new United Nations Expert Document reaffirms that there exists no right to abortion in international law.  The San Jose Articles are signed by an number of legal, public policy, and medical experts from numerous countries. Constitution, ObamaCare, Planed Parenthood, pro-life Democrats, psychological effects of abortion, reproductive rights, Roe v.
In this piece, in which not a single actual living disabled person appears, the author proceeds to lay out an argument for abortion for disability that has, rightly, gotten the disability community up in arms. Those choices can include abortion, preparing for birth, taking special precautions, and other measures that are private medical decisions. Choosing abortion because you don’t have the capacity to care for a child is a reasonable ethical choice, and it’s not the only option, though I’d note that people are not exactly lining up to adopt disabled children, nor are social services rushing to provide support to disabled children and their families.
We need to be asking why discussions about abortion for disability focus on how awful disability is and how painful it is to have a disabled child, instead of how terrible it is that society can’t be bothered to promote the welfare of disabled people. The fact that there are anti-choice websites that conflate the death of a child and an abortion or miscarriage does not mean that abortion is killing or murder. Me pointing out that no one makes decisions in a vacuum, that disability rights analyses of such terminations are a reflection of that fact, and that most people who have written on this issue support a woman’s right to have an abortion regardless of her circumstances is not going to impact your perspective. That's why the pro-legalized abortion crowd loves that term because it takes away emphasis from the procedure they know they can't defend from a scientific angle.

Inevitably, the fact that it’s possible to test for many common disabilities means that abortion for disability is going to come up as a topic. I’d be curious to know which other disabilities she believes fall under the rubric of ‘suffering.’ Individual parents need to make individual choices based on available information about the pregnancy and their lives, something I think Sierra and I can also agree upon, but she’s pushing very hard on the argument that abortion for disability is almost necessary if you want to make the correct ethical choice for a pregnancy. Choosing abortion because you feel no one could offer the child a good quality of life is a value judgment on someone else’s life, but it’s also a personal choice because you’re the one carrying that fetus, which makes it yours to make and no one else’s. Because their lives aren’t worth living (see ‘suffering’ above) and their parents can’t afford to give them the quality of life they deserve, the natural solution is not agitation on a larger scale for social change to tear apart the system that forces people to make the decision to abort for economic reasons, but to simply promote abortion as the right moral choice. Abortion is therefore a form of killing, and aborting one’s wanted fetus because of a disability is therefore a statement that that fetus is better off dead than being born with a disability. From their perspective, the fetus was a child, and that child is now dead, but their abortions were still the right thing to do. I find it hard to be receptive to people who equate abortion to the killing of living beings. Ultimately, the option people feel most comfortable with is a personal decision, and that decision is the most ethical one for a given pregnancy.
This is something disability advocates tend to recognize and, yes, we tend to take offense, regardless of where we stand on the issue of abortion rights. But it does mean that I think people making decisions about abortion on the basis of disability need to actually do their homework to find out what they, and their children, might be facing if they decide to continue with the pregnancy.
I find it hard to be receptive to someone who equates abortion to not wanting people to exist anymore.

Pregnancy symptoms eating a lot
Ways to conceive without penetration

Comments to «Abortion ethics»

  1. skazka writes:
    The most heartbreaking medical the apparent bodily problems related when you're making.
  2. VETERAN writes:
    Nonetheless, have problems or challenges prospect for untimely delivery, ectopic.
  3. Ugaday_kto_ya writes:
    For the child, it puts strain on the the sixth month.