You are viewing [info]hiker_chick's journal

 
Previous | Memories | Share | Next
 
hiker_chick
hiker_chick
17 July 2005 @ 10:19 pm
I just don't know  


Read a column today about eugenic abortion, which is aborting fetuses that would have had birth defects, genetic diseases, and/or a bunch of other things that they can now detect early in a pregnancy. So, I'm really, really pro-choice, but the column did ask some tough questions:

--Should people be able to abort based on physical and/or mental handicap?
My gut reaction says yeah, but the article was talking about if/when the general populace has genetic testing available that parents with handicapped kids, e.g., Down's syndrome, will then be *expected* to abort rather than placing extra burden on themselves, their families, the world at large, etc. I'm not necessarily granting the premise, but it's not impossible.

--Should people be able to abort based on other traits that they don't desire, e.g., gender, eye color, etc.?
My gut reaction says no, but see above about my being pro-choice. Is it the parents'/mother's prerogative or not?

--If a doctor does not test for a particular condition and the kid turns out to have it, can the parents sue the doctor?
The article referred to this as a "wrongful birth" suit, and, apparently, parents are filing and winning these suits. I hate the concept but find the name amusing in a twisted sort of way.

--If a parent knows that a child would be born with a handicap but chooses not to abort, can the kid later sue the parents for having had her anyway (called a "wrongful life" suit)?
This actual question doesn't interest me nearly as much as the concept of kids suing parents for imperfect genes/upbringing, everything from serious abuse/neglect to not having enough money to send her to the Sorbonne.

No answers here (unless y'all have any). I don't usually rant about politics, and this isn't a rant. It was just some angles I hadn't previously considered.

 
 
Current Mood: pensivepensive
 
4 comments | Leave a comment
 
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Keikaimalu[info]keikaimalu on July 18th, 2005 06:18 am (UTC)
It is tricky stuff. Interesting, the questions that come up as technology creates more options and more possibilities. I have a friend who's a medical ethicist; I should run some of these past her.

My feeling about being pro-choice is that we must trust women to make the best, most moral and compassionate decisions as to their (potential) pregnancies. I believe women are capable of such decisions, and indeed, as the pregnant ones, are the only ones capable of such decisions. I do know, though, that that's an idealistic notion and there are lots of screwed-up women out there who aren't going to adhere to my lofty beliefs.

Don't know if that answers anything or not.
jaunthie: South Parkicized[info]jaunthie on July 18th, 2005 04:12 pm (UTC)
My $.02:

I too am pro-choice, which to me includes the right and responsiblity of the mother to make the ethical and moral decisions about when and why to terminate a pregnancy. I might not agree with her reasons, but I definitely agree that it is her choice.

As for the "wrongful birth" suit, it's yet another egregious example of the "it's someone's fault" hyper-litiginous society we live in, and I hope these cases are being laughed out of court. It's neither the doctor's fault this condition existed nor is it certain that if the test had come back positive that the mother would have chosen to abort. If you want to sue because the doctor screwed up the test, fine - but that's standard medical malpractice territory, same as if the docs screwed up any other medical test, and not a special case of "wrongful birth". Sheesh.

As for the "wrongful life" - if we had decent euthenasia and assisted-suicide laws, any person who felt that their life was intolerable because of their handicap (or disease, or maiming, or whatever) would never have to resort to a lawsuit, now would they? *sigh* I'm sure someone out there will try a wrongful life suit at some point, if they haven't already.
blulupine[info]blulupine on July 19th, 2005 03:58 pm (UTC)
these concerns aren't really about choice
They're about access to abortion. There really are two questions: can a pregnancy be terminated, and who decides? In India and China now, female fetuses are aborted with such regularity that those societies face a sociological nightmare as the ratio of males to females rises precipitously. What will this do to the position of women in society? Increased power or less because women become luxury items to be bought and controlled like prize mares? Polyandry? No, never that without a massive change in underlying cultural values -- after all, a major reason for patriarchy is so a man will know whose child his (wife, mistress, girlfriend, rape victim) is bearing.

There will always be abortions, and the issues you raise are the effects of technological advance on the basic reason: people don't want the pregnancy brought to term. The new aspect is that the woman carrying the pregnancy is the one who gets to decide. We've just used science to extend the range of reasons.

If Roe v. Wade were cancelled this afternoon, and all 50 states outlawed abortion (God forfend!), it would still happen, and it would still happen, at least among the rich, for some of the reasons that are causing you to ponder. It's just that more women would die of it, at least among the less than rich, and women would have lost the power to decide what was going to happen to their body, among the rich, poor, and in between.
Miz Hatbox[info]miz_hatbox on July 20th, 2005 05:35 am (UTC)
Sounds like an article specifically written to make the reader question their pro-choice beliefs (or else pat themselves on the back for their anti-choice beliefs).

Regarding eugenic abortions for eye color and whatever: Some people say reprehensible things but we uphold the right to free speech. Likewise, some people would abort their fetuses for reasons we find morally repugnant, but we should still protect their right to choose.

Regarding society expecting women to abort: Do you really think this current conservative climate is ever going to "expect" women to abort children with conditions? I find it highly unlikely.

re Wrongful birth: I would like to see specifics regarding the lawsuits in question. If this is an accurate representation of these suits, which I doubt, and such suits catch on, what will probably happen is that fewer doctors will do any testing at all, on the grounds that if you test for anything, you might be expected to test for everything.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, but that doesn't mean that the lawsuit isn't frivolous. I think we should be more concerned with how litigious society is getting, that these arguments could be considered less than farfetched.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )