Would you abort a fetus if it had Downs Syndrome?

[GenesisNemesis]

Dawkins says it's immoral not to.

 

[Playball40]

When I was young I always thought I would. When I was pregnant at 36 and I was offered an amnio I declined as I wouldn't have aborted if she had DS. I think for me it changed when I got to know Angelica. A little girl with DS that came to my school. No other private provider would take her in the after school program because she still wore pull ups (dumb reason). Anyway, I had her for many years until we closed and I am still close to Angelica and her mother (as are my children). She is twelve now and starting middle school. She is truly a pleasure and cannot imagine a world without her in it so I guess I'm glad her mom chose not to abort (she was over 40 when Angelica was born and is her only child).

 

[Angry Floof]

I think it's possible that he might be losing his mind.

 

[BH]

I wouldn't.

 

[Ford]

Well if we're dragging out personal stories, then I have to include my cousin. Born with Downs and a serious heart condition she was given maybe 2 years to live by the doctors.

That was about 40 years ago, and she's still around. Last I heard she was doing well in an assisted living sort of facility. It was very difficult for the family, but I can't really imagine her simply not existing.


No, I wouldn't.

 

[abaddon]

I wonder how many pro-choice persons are ok with aborting fetuses that, had they been born, might have grown into normal healthy kids and adults... yet are upset by Dawkins saying what he said?

I could point at anyone and say "See, that person wouldn't exist had he been aborted!" If that means the abortion of that person would have been wrong, looking at things retroactively, then why aren't ALL abortions wrong?

 

[Toni]

Like others, when I was younger, I think I would have. For one thing, I had spent many years helping to care for my mother after her traumatic brain injury. I knew very well what issues there can be when helping someone with cognitive disabilities cope with life and providing least restrictive, supportive, kind care to help them live their lives as well as they can. I always wanted more than one child and I did not think that if I had a child with Downs that it would be fair to expect siblings to pick up their care after I was gone.

What has changed my thinking for me is that there have been so many brave--heroic, really and I don't like to use that term lightly--parents and families and others who have worked so hard to change the way we view disabled individuals and people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. Today, people with such disabilities are living independently, holding jobs, living full lives. Not all are, of course, but many are. This is a far, far cry from when I was a kid and disabled children were never seen, often sent to institutions far from home and rarely even acknowledged. Because of the numerous other medical issues that can accompany Downs, many did not live past childhood.

I am grateful that there are those who are far wiser, far braver, far more determined to do what is right and to help shape a world where disabled individuals can be a part of society.

So no, I wouldn't abort due to Downs or many other disorders. There are some disorders where I would consider termination.

That said, I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses, regardless of the health or prospective health of the fetus.

 

[credoconsolans]

I would.

You're taking a chance that the DS child will be able to eventually live independently...and if they can't? You have a child that will outlive you and will always need care.

A coworker currently has this problem. His DS child is also in a wheelchair and incapable of caring for himself. He and his wife don't have a lot of money and their other children live overseas and show no intention of ever coming back to care for their brother when their parents die. He will probably end up in a home somewhere, cared for by strangers.

 

[Juma]

You are not aborting an actual person, you are aborting a featus. And in this case a featus with great risks. Of course there are happy examples, but does that outweigh the risks?
And fact is: you dont hurt anyone. As Dawkins says: try again.

 

[Juma]

L
So no, I wouldn't abort due to Downs or many other disorders.

Think of it like this: since abortion +try again gives you an option, you actually willfully decide that your child shall have that disorder if keep it. I find that very disturbing!

 

[credoconsolans]

You are not aborting an actual person, you are aborting a featus. And in this case a featus with great risks. Of course there are happy examples, but does that outweigh the risks?
And fact is: you dont hurt anyone. As Dawkins says: try again.

L
So no, I wouldn't abort due to Downs or many other disorders.

Think of it like this: since you can try again, you actually willfully decide that your child shall have that disorder. I find that very disturbing!

Well said.

 

[Angry Floof]

His statement was not that it's better to abort, or that it's disturbing not to, but that it is immoral to not abort a Downs fetus.

He sounds like a religious mouthpiece with this statement. It makes no more sense to me, and reflects no more respect for choice and autonomy, than the absolutist, invasive shit that comes from the Pope.

 

[Unbeatable]

I will never be the person in a position to choose whether or not to abort a fetus. I do however always approve of the choice to abort, and I would approve even more in a case where the fetus was known to have Downs Syndrome. The only thing preventing me from agreeing with Dawkins' actual statement is the fact that I can't really sincerely endorse ideas like "immoral" or "moral responsibility".

 

[Lugubert]

I will never be the person in a position to choose whether or not to abort a fetus. I do however always approve of the choice to abort, and I would approve even more in a case where the fetus was known to have Downs Syndrome. The only thing preventing me from agreeing with Dawkins' actual statement is the fact that I can't really sincerely endorse ideas like "immoral" or "moral responsibility".

Totally agree. I have seen at a close distance parents struggling with a DS child, and, in another case, an even more rare chromosomal disorder. Yet another case still has no diagnosis after some 4 years - chromosomal or birth defect? I admire those parents for their efforts, pity their lost quality of life, and know that I wouldn't have been up to it.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I will never be the person in a position to choose whether or not to abort a fetus. I do however always approve of the choice to abort, and I would approve even more in a case where the fetus was known to have Downs Syndrome. The only thing preventing me from agreeing with Dawkins' actual statement is the fact that I can't really sincerely endorse ideas like "immoral" or "moral responsibility".

Totally agree. I have seen at a close distance parents struggling with a DS child, and, in another case, an even more rare chromosomal disorder. Yet another case still has no diagnosis after some 4 years - chromosomal or birth defect? I admire those parents for their efforts, pity their lost quality of life, and know that I wouldn't have been up to it.

IMO, the knowing that " I would not have been up to it" reflects the wisdom of one's being aware of their own limitations and has nothing to do with morality or immorality.

Personally, what would have guided my choice to abort a fetus diagnosed with DS is also that "I would not have been up to it". Not because I would have experienced a sense of detaining a copyright on character and morality.( as it appears Dawkins detains...).

Since a couple of personal anecdotes were shared, I will relate mine and what thought process I undertook : when I did my clinicals in a nursing home, 2 of the residents were "orphaned" adult DS. In their mid-thirties. Both cases, parents had passed away and no family or relatives. What crossed my mind was not "they should have been aborted so that they would not be living in such sub standard conditions in an understaffed nursing home " rather, why do we as a society "dump" them in an environment where the vast majority of residents cannot benefit of personal interactions and communications leading to building an affectionate rapport between them and their caregivers (Nursing home Staff)? That NH environment void of those rapports is one where they were dumped and will die.

 

[Playball40]

I will never be the person in a position to choose whether or not to abort a fetus. I do however always approve of the choice to abort, and I would approve even more in a case where the fetus was known to have Downs Syndrome. The only thing preventing me from agreeing with Dawkins' actual statement is the fact that I can't really sincerely endorse ideas like "immoral" or "moral responsibility".

I will no longer be in the position of having to choose, but I agree with what you are saying. I see not point in placing "morality" on such a difficult decision. I know/knew myself well enough to know what I could and could not handle at certain periods of my life. I completely support and understand someone making the choice to abort as well as the choice not to. I place no moral standing on either.

 

[PyramidHead]

I am of the opinion that abortion is always the moral choice, regardless of the genetic condition of the fetus. The Downs Syndrome example is just a more vivid case of what is true of any pregnancy: by aborting it, you prevent the child's future suffering, and harm no one in the process. Downs Syndrome or not, that's not a chance that comes along very often. I agree with Dawkins.

Of course, if the fetus is brought to term, the newborn is entitled to nothing less than the most loving and nurturing environment her parents (and we as a society) can give her. But even the perfect parents living in an ideal society cannot shield their child from every form of pain. The only way to do that, without hurting anybody else, is to abort.

 

[Unbeatable]

I will never be the person in a position to choose whether or not to abort a fetus. I do however always approve of the choice to abort, and I would approve even more in a case where the fetus was known to have Downs Syndrome. The only thing preventing me from agreeing with Dawkins' actual statement is the fact that I can't really sincerely endorse ideas like "immoral" or "moral responsibility".

I will no longer be in the position of having to choose, but I agree with what you are saying. I see not point in placing "morality" on such a difficult decision.

Well I see the point-- the point is to push people into making the approved-of (i.e. "right")decision by manipulating their incentive structure. If you have a preference about people's actions, "morality" is one of the tools you could potentially use towards influencing said actions. My problem isn't with the application of morality to this specific issue; my problem is with moral realism in general. While I don't recognize a moral obligation for me to be honest, I nonetheless have a sufficiently strong preference for honesty that I'm unable to make claims of the sort "Doing X would be immoral".

I know/knew myself well enough to know what I could and could not handle at certain periods of my life. I completely support and understand someone making the choice to abort as well as the choice not to. I place no moral standing on either.

I understand the choice to bring a sentient being into this world, but I never approve of it. I merely support the legal right to make it.

 

[doubtingt]

I don't think Dawkins' statement is very outrageous at all. If its flawed, its flawed in a nuanced point or reasoning and not in any fundamentally wrong values, since its really just trying to apply to most defensible core moral principle that if your actions lead to negative effects on another person, and you could have either avoided those actions or prevented those effects, then its an immoral act.

Also, notions that this is just like religious claims that abortion is immoral are nonsense. The biggest problem with religious morality is that it claims absolutism and objective truth status for moral judgments no different than judgments of fact. Dawkins is a moral relativist despite frustrating confusions between theories of how morality arises in our brains versus claiming that moral judgements have objective truth value. Also, Dawkins is not deferring to authoritarianism as the basis for his moral. He's trying to apply the most sensible and socially/politically defensible general principle of moral judgment. Everyone makes moral judgments all the time, and the most sensible one's are rooted in the "don't harm other people" principle Dawkins is trying to apply by recognizing that if a fetus is not a person to whom moral standards apply, then what you do that impacts a fetus is not a moral issue, but if that fetus becomes a person then those actions and inactions take on moral value.

Whatever moral status one assigns to aborting a fetus because you are not ready to deal with consequences of your actions, then clearly aborting a fetus with Down's has at least if not better moral standing than that.
I cannot think of any moral principle that could validly applied to support viewing it as less moral or even less desirable than abortion generally.

As to whether it is immoral to NOT abort a Downs fetus, that is a valid question. When you abort your action has no effect on a person, because fetuses are not people and an aborted one never becomes a person. When you do not abort, then anything you do or don't do while it is a fetus ultimately has an impact on a person. If you smoke and drink while pregnant and your baby in born with resulting birth defects (including Down's), then weren't your actions immoral?
You did something that produced a person with Down's, even though you could have acted differently and avoided that outcome. Turning to inaction rather than actions, if you go on an unhealthy diet to keep yourself thin while pregnant and your baby is born with defects as a result, wasn't your diet an immoral act?

In contrast, if you do these things in early pregnancy but always planned to and do abort the fetus, then aren't those act either less immoral or completely morally neutral? If you don't think so, that how can aborting a fetus ever be morally neutral?

These get pretty close to Dawkins statement that failing to act in way that results in a person with Down's is immoral. I think the biggest difference between my examples and failing to abort a fetus with Down's would be that your inaction results in a negative outcome of a person having Down's, but the is offset by the positive "gift" you've given of them being a person at all. Aborting the fetus would have prevented a person having Down's but it also would have robbed them of the positive outcome of being a person. So, at best and worst, aborting a Down's fetus is a moral wash. But note that this argument requires the idea that abortion robs the fetus of the gift of being a person, which gets awfully close to being a basis for abortion in general being undesirable and somewhat immoral when not to save the mother's life.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Dawkins says it's immoral not to.

This is something that should be left to the potential parents to decide, regardless of what I may think.