How ethical is it?
I am talking about foetuses that have been tested in the womb and confirmed to have some type of birth defect. The process of carrying out the confirmation is done by a process called prenatal diagnosing.

Prenatal diagnosis is testing and diagnosing for diseases or conditions in a foetus or embryo before it is born.
The aim of prenatal testing is to detect birth defects such as neural tube defects, down syndrome, chromosome abnormalities, genetic diseases and other conditions, such as spina bifida, cleft palate and sickle cell anemia. Common testing procedures include amniocentesis and ultrasonography.
Most of these tests can be done in the first trimester of pregnancy (first three months) and some of them can be done in the second trimester(third to sixth month).

Do you think aborting foetuses with these types of defects is ethical or moral? Is abortion better than letting them live and suffer misery for the whole of their lives due to these defects? Or should abortion be avoided regardless of the diagnosis because it is considered to be murder?

i don't know how ethical it is for others....
but if i found out my unborn child will suffer from a disease in which some of the symptoms will put them in excruciating pain..i don't think I would be able to live with myself to go on with the pregnancy.

other than that, if they have down syndrome/autism or are even born missing a body part (or parts)...then I will continue with the pregnancy.

MsDarkSkin: i don't know how ethical it is for others....
but if i found out my unborn child will suffer from a disease in which some of the symptoms will put them in excruciating pain..i don't think I would be able to live with myself to go on with the pregnancy.

wow, I thought this thread was going to die a slow, horrible, no-reply death lol.

I also think it would be better to abort a pregnancy than to let the child be born and then face pain and suffering for the rest of their lives. I know there are people who would argue that a life is a life and God created the foetus like that for a reason (and such stuff), I just wanted more clarification/explanation from such people on why it is better to birth a baby that would suffer than to abort a barely conscious foetus.

other than that, if they have down syndrome/autism or are even born missing a body part (or parts)...then I will continue with the pregnancy.

Why?

yeah. these days the nonsensical threads with no real purpose other than to gossip and bicker get the most views/comments. threads like these that used to "make" nairaland...well...

anyway,

i don't like to see adults in pain much less a child.
imagine if that baby is mine? just the thought of it makes me feel uneasy.

To answer your question,
I would choose to have the other children because physically they won't suffer and pain.
Sure they would not be considered "normal" but at least they would have conditions we could adjust to and make life easier for the both of us.

MsDarkSkin:
To answer your question,
I would choose to have the other children because physically they won't suffer and pain.
Sure they would not be considered "normal" but at least they would have conditions we could adjust to and make life easier for the both of us.

Really? You do know that a lot of stress is associated with raising a child like that don't you? Besides what is the difference between aborting a foetus with say, sickle cell anaemia and aborting a foetus with down's syndrome?

I would abort a foetus that has been diagnosed with down's syndrome. Reason being that foetuses don't feel pain (infact they don't feel anything) up till the 18-24th week of pregnancy and down's syndrome can be detected in the 9th week of pregnancy, so there.
I know this probably makes me look like a bad person but I don't want to have a child that would be born to live a life that is subpar to those around him/her or have to depend on others for the whole of their lives because they have some sort of mental retardation.

fellis:

Really? You do know that a lot of stress is associated with raising a child like that don't you? Besides what is the difference between aborting a foetus with say, sickle cell anaemia and aborting a foetus with down's syndrome?

I would abort a foetus that has been diagnosed with down's syndrome. Reason being that foetuses don't feel pain (infact they don't feel anything) up till the 18-24th week of pregnancy and down's syndrome can be detected in the 9th week of pregnancy, so there.
I know this probably makes me look like a bad person but I don't want to have a child that would be born to live a life that is subpar to those around him/her or have to depend on others for the whole of their lives because they have some sort of mental retardation.

sis you do know that down syndrome comes in many forms right?
one can have down syndrome and still be functional: drive cars, operate machinery, conscious/aware of their surroundings and are otherwise normal except maybe they'd physically appear different from the "norm".

I do agree with you about the sickle cell. that is a painful disease with many sufferers being lucky to survive pass their 40s but as I have stated before, any time i find that my child will suffer from pain I would not have the baby.

that is just my mindset at present. I am going to give myself another 5 years before i think about children so between now and then my mentality may change but i couldn't live with myself knowing my child will suffer.

"mild down syndrome"...AHA!! that's what I was referring to above.
they have the appearance and may have a little difficulty performing certain tasks but they can hold conversations and can function on their own.

below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIcbFrt4F_c

he has mild down syndrome.

the thing is though, that you'd have to have the baby and watch it's mannerism as it grows to know the level of severity. so it's a gamble really.

viewing this topic: batty5

really?

omfg.

Your question is a rhetoric. And the answer is No, it is not ethical aborting fetuses with congenital anomalies or conditions that may cause functional impairments such as mental retardation. Like most questions of ethics, it is a tough call.

Personally, I believe life begins at fertilization, and this is the principle upon which I base my reasoning. As such, I believe Induced abortions for such purposes as 'preventing painful and sub-normal lives' are a grave disrespect of the human life.

Fetuses that will live should be allowed to live. It is not for us to determine who will live and who will not live.

Ok, who will determine the dividing line between what constitutes a 'serious' congenital anomaly or 'impairment'....one that should require abortion? Will the same conditions that will strike you as a 'serious anomaly', strike the other person the same way? Or do we just abort any fetus we personnally feel will not give us our desired quality of life?

Consider that sometimes we have babies who develop cerebral palsy with severe mental retardation, after sucessful pregnancies and intrauterine development, following birth trauma, birth asphyxia, neonatal infections and so on. Do we 'abort' or 'kill' such babies afterall ....as they are going to 'cause and experience pain', maybe as much as babies who developed their abnormalities congenitally?

Again, do we put our family members to death because they developed a disorder, or abnormality, in adult life, that have left them mostly dependent, thereby living in pains and causing others pain too.

Or is the intrauterine fetus just easier to do away with?

While many congenital anonalies may happen spontaneously and idiopathically , many of them yet are caused directly or indirectly by the mother's behavioural practices while pregnant. Have we considered that too?

These are difficult questions, but anyone who believes that we do not have a right or authority to take ANY HUMAN life will not support *** INDUCED abortion, *** for such reasons.


Or do you not believe that LIFE starts at fertilization? Or that they are Humans?

omicron: ...Consider that sometimes we have babies who develop cerebral palsy with severe mental retardation following birth trauma, birth asphyxia, neonatal infections and so on. Do we 'abort' or 'kill' such babies afterall ....as they are going to 'cause and experience pain' as much as babies who developed their abnormalities congenitally?

Do we put our family members to death because they developed a disorder, or abnormality, in adult life, that have left them mostly dependent, thereby living in pains and causing others pain too....

very good points...
this is tough...

my question for you sir is, would you be ok with your partner bringing forth a child who would most likely suffer pain due to a disorder or birth defect?

MsDarkSkin:
sis you do know that down syndrome comes in many forms right?
one can have down syndrome and still be functional: drive cars, operate machinery, conscious/aware of their surroundings and are otherwise normal except maybe they'd physically appear different from the "norm".

The larger percentage of down's syndrome patients have severe mental retardation. There is a higher percentage that the child would be severely retardedd than that it would have mild down's syndrome.

Each to his own I guess.

omicron: These are difficult questions, but anyone who believes that we do not have a right or authority to take ANY HUMAN life will not support ANY INDUCED abortion, whatever the reasons.

What about in a situation where a woman was rayped and got pregnant? Should she avoid abortion and give birth to the child instead?

Or in a situation where the birth of the child is going to put the mother at risk of dying? Should abortion also be avoided?

Its not ethics really, its more a matter of choice and beliefs.

fellis:
How ethical is it?
I am talking about foetuses that have been tested in the womb and confirmed to have some type of birth defect. The process of carrying out the confirmation is done by a process called prenatal diagnosing.

Prenatal diagnosis is testing and diagnosing for diseases or conditions in a foetus or embryo before it is born.
The aim of prenatal testing is to detect birth defects such as neural tube defects, down syndrome, chromosome abnormalities, genetic diseases and other conditions, such as spina bifida, cleft palate and sickle cell anemia. Common testing procedures include amniocentesis and ultrasonography.
Most of these tests can be done in the first trimester of pregnancy (first three months) and some of them can be done in the second trimester(third to sixth month).

Do you think aborting foetuses with these types of defects is ethical or moral? Is abortion better than letting them live and suffer misery for the whole of their lives due to these defects? Or should abortion be avoided regardless of the diagnosis because it is considered to be murder?

Personally for me i BELIVE strongly in having a CHOICE and CONTROLLING an Event for FAVOURABLE outcome..

If am convinced beyound reason of a Genetic,Mental or Physical defects would CAUSE PAIN and harmper a Child full Expression of living life to the Fullness!
I WOULD GLADLY ABORT D FOETUSES.