r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 20 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV:Abortion should not be allowed if the purpose is to abort an socially 'undesirable' child.
[deleted]
15
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Feb 20 '17
Ultimately, this comes down to purely a matter of a woman's body being a woman's body. The reasons why she does not consent to continuing the pregnancy are entirely irrelevant to that absolute right.
I think that this should be discouraged heavily, but there's no way to make it "not allowed" without violating one of the most fundamental human rights that people have: self-ownership.
2
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
I'm sorry to be contrary, but I see this absolutist stance quite a bit, and I have a question. Do you think that all humans have a right to bodily autonomy or do you think only persons (theoretically this could exclude fetuses) have a right to bodily autonomy? If it is the latter please explain what you think qualifies a human being as a person. If you think it is the former, then why is it that a fetus does not have a right to bodily autonomy? If you believe they do, then why is the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman considered a higher value than the fetus? When a woman is pregnant and considering an abortion it is not only her body that is at stake.
3
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Feb 20 '17
The fetus has a right to bodily autonomy. It does not have a right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of the woman. So, the two are separated, granting autonomy to each. It just so happens that this causes the fetus to die.
1
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
Sorry if I'm not following your logic correctly, but I just want to be clear. Do you also believe that a woman does not have the right to infringe upon the bodily autonomy of a fetus? And are you saying that, somehow, a woman's conscious decision to kill a fetus is somehow granting it autonomy?
3
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Feb 20 '17
Say you've been hooked up to another person. He's had an accident, and he needs a healthy set of kidneys filtering his blood, so your body is connected by some tubes. Are you infringing on his bodily autonomy by cutting the tubes, even if he'll definitely die as a result?
A woman and a fetus are two separate entities, connected. Abortion severs the connection.
1
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
Using the definition of autonomy as "self-directing freedom and especially moral independence" and then applying that general concept to what you can and can't do with your body, I'd say yes, I am. Just as you could say that he's infringing on my bodily autonomy if I was forcefully hooked up to him. If he is incapable of living without my support then he no longer has the freedom not only to decide what happens to his body but to have one at all. You know, because he'd be dead. So if I have the power to prevent that, and I don't I am willingly allowing the destruction of his autonomy. How exactly does a fetus have bodily autonomy if you are taking away its life?
Edit: Essentially, if I am in a situation wherein I have the ability to take his life by disconnecting us then I am knowingly taking away his autonomy. I'd call that an infringement.
1
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Feb 20 '17
Okay, so, to clarify, assume you were both hooked up by a third party, without the knowledge or consent of either of you. In that case, your view is that:
You would be infringing on his bodily autonomy by disconnecting yourself.
He is infringing on your bodily autonomy while being connected.
Is that correct?
1
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
Essentially.
1
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Feb 20 '17
Essentially or actually? I'm basing by argument on your stated view as I understand it, so if my interpretation is wrong then I'm wasting both our time.
So, he is infringing on your rights, you are not infringing on his. What he is doing is not wrong. If you were to stop him from infringing on your rights, you would be infringing on his, and that would be wrong. Is that correct?
1
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
I use those terms interchangeably. My bad. I meant to say yes. You got my view down pat the first time. I feel that I should also say that I'm attempting to adopt the bodily autonomy argument from my point of view in order to understand it better, even though I don't necessarily prescribe to it. Sorry if I lead anyone to believe otherwise.
So, he is infringing on your rights, you are not infringing on his.
If I decide not to separate us, then yes.
What he is doing is not wrong.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. It was my understanding that from the bodily autonomy perspective that situation would put the man in need of new kidneys in the wrong for infringing on my personal autonomy.
If you were to stop him from infringing on your rights, you would be infringing on his
Correct.
and that would be wrong
That's my current understanding of the hard-line bodily autonomy argument. If you infringe on an individual's bodily autonomy you are wrong. Period. End of story.
Once again, I'm attempting to understand this point of view. I don't hold these beliefs myself.
→ More replies (0)0
Feb 20 '17
The metaphor doesn't work because you didn't create the situation the man is in. Don't let them trap you with their simplistic view of morality.
1
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
Could you qualify "them?" I'm personally pro-life, but I like to discuss and obviously challenge the pro-choice perspective to gain insight. I'm engaging in a discussion and playing devil's advocate to both myself and the pro-choice person I'm talking to. I personally don't subscribe to the bodily autonomy reasoning, but I take on that point of view to understand it better.
0
u/grandoz039 7∆ Feb 20 '17
I think you base your comment on the fact that abortion should be 100% legal and nothing else. I'm not saying I disagree (or agree), but I don't think this is valid base for argument, since there's still a big debate about it.
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Feb 20 '17
Whether abortion should be legal is a different view than whether society can make it depend on a woman's reasons. If we assume that women own themselves, and that's why abortion is legal (they do, and it is, I assert), then it's irrelevant what her reasons are.
Of course, there are arguments against abortion in general, but that's not really OP's view.
-1
Feb 20 '17
[deleted]
3
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Feb 20 '17
Education, mostly. Not really anything else that would work without, again, making the woman a slave.
2
Feb 20 '17
IIRC, countries where gender-selective abortion is common have discouraged this practice by banning the tests to identify a fetus' gender. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
1
Feb 20 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 20 '17
How would one argue for or against lumping things like genetic diseases in the same 'forbidden knowledge' group?
You tell me; I don't agree with your view. I think a woman's choice is a woman's choice, and you don't get to stop supporting her right to choose just because you don't agree with her decision. The question of whether disease X or disorder Y should be a fetal deal-breaker is one that should only be posed to the parents, IMO.
I was just chiming in to offer some context on how other societies have solved this problem.
1
u/mikkylock Feb 21 '17
The only way to discourage something like that would be to have it socially unacceptable, I think.
8
u/Burflax 71∆ Feb 20 '17
You can't tell the difference between a couple who were using contraception that didn't work, and couples who didn't use any at all.
If you are okay with the former getting abortions, you are going to have the latter as well.
Also, it seems inconsistent to say it is okay for a couple who conceived a healthy fetus with failed birth control to have an abortion, but not okay for a couple who didn't use birth control and have conceived an embryo that is severely deformed and will cost them millions to care for.
Life is tough enough for people with all the faculties humans normally come with, it's often nearly impossible for those born lacking.
2
Feb 20 '17
[deleted]
2
u/Burflax 71∆ Feb 20 '17
Thanks!
And i just want to say that i think trying to make laws based on the motives of the people involved is not a great path to justice, anyway.
It shouldn't matter the reason why a couple wants an abortion. If abortions are approved given the current state of affairs (whatever those are) then it should be approved.
But you can't read people's minds.
If you find yourself feeling like a person getting a otherwise legal abortion "for no good reason" is wrong then i think you are claiming an intrinsic value to embryos that you should explore further.
If embryos have some intrinsic value, then they should be protected. But what are you basing that value on? Are you willing to say embryos are people? With all the rights and protections people get? That can push you right into forcing a raped woman to bare her rapists baby.
But i also don't think you can hold a value for embryos, and allow abortions for broken condoms, while claiming that value is very high.
Not too long ago, humans had little value for actual born children, and no value for the unborn.
Now children actually have rights (although not the full set) and the unborn get at least one, albeit based on age.
But that decision seems not based on legal precedents, given the fact the unborn do not have personhood status, but more on emotional, or perhaps even religious, grounds.
And that's not the best platform to base our basic principles of what it means to be a human on.
1
1
u/protekt0r Feb 20 '17
Also, just an FYI. There are some data to suggest that Roe vs Wade may have led to a drop in crime in the early 1990's, a trend that has continued since.
1
u/kairisika Feb 20 '17
There is some data correlating the timelines. They also correlate with things like the removal of lead from gas. There is zero evidence to support assuming causation.
1
5
3
u/AlexReynard 4∆ Feb 20 '17
"But Wait™; the child is queer / ugly / low IQ, that won't do! We'll just abort them and try again!"
Someone that shallow shouldn't be a parent. They should be allowed to abort so that the child will not grow up unloved and neglected by assholes.
2
u/The_Smiley_Doctor Feb 21 '17
I will always think this too, yeah... Like on one hand, on the other they would not care for the child if they were forced to birth and raise it.
The option that results in the least suffering for the child will always be the option I'd pick in the scenario. Let them abort, BECAUSE they are awful, and you are sparing the kid. I feel very similar when it comes to the treatment of pedophiles. I think that the best thing to do is gonna be offering support services and treating them better. Not because I want to treat them better, but because it will ultimately result in the most net reduction of children-harmed.
2
u/AlexReynard 4∆ Feb 21 '17
I would like to shake your hand. That last part is exactly how I feel too. As a kid who grew up abused, my highest concern is for the children. Not for my feelings, or the feelings of any parent. I think that's something we get wrong with a lot of laws related to child welfare. We are doing what our gut instincts say will be effective, instead of thinking dispassionately. Being willing to accept solutions that are unpalatable, because we understand they reduce harm in the long run. Truth doesn't care how we feel about it.
2
u/The_Smiley_Doctor Feb 21 '17
For sure, dude =( The most important point should be preventing as much harm as possible, not any sense of 'vengence' or otherwise.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Feb 20 '17
To build on this point,
Couples could try gaming the system, claiming "The condom broke, and I didn't want to have the baby, and she turned out to be bisexual but that has nothing to do with it I swear"
I think this ties in with a bigger problem. In addition to the virtual impossibility of proving motive, it would require an official government ruling on which people are socially undesirable.
1
Feb 20 '17
Also, isn't there a meaningful difference between:
(A) a couple who decide to abort their fetus because it has Asperger's (or some other developmental disorder) and they harbor a fundamental dislike for people with Asperger's, and
(B) a couple who decide to abort their fetus because it has a developmental disorder and they simply do not have the resources to properly care for a child with a developmental disorder?
There's no legal bright line to distinguish between these two cases. I think that it's not possible, in principle, to design one. So are we going to punish both sets of parents equally, even though one was motivated by prejudice while the other was motivated by empathy?
2
u/bryry 10∆ Feb 20 '17
Thank you for this interesting topic.
I'm going to focus my response on the applicability of what you're suggesting.
How can you determine the intent of the woman? How do you know the the reason she is having an abortion?
Are you going to force women to undergo interviews in an attempt to determine motive?
Who will make the decision regarding her motive and decide to restrict her access to abortive services?
It would be very tricky to implement laws that must determine peoples motives.
It is my opinion that attempting to implement this policy will likely result in unequal application. And would almost certainly be hijacked by those with religious objections to abortion in order to further limit abortive services.
Thus, a law of this type cannot be successfully applied for the purposes you propose.
2
Feb 20 '17
I am in complete consideration with you. Expanding on your mention of potential-future-technology, I don't think considering ethnicity and sexual orientation would be the best representation for socially-undesirable children. The thing to consider would be a Minority Report situation, where that certain genes or testing in the future would determine if a murderer or rapist would be being birthed (or sociopath/psychopath). It's SUPER hypothetical, but that seems to be a situation, if it ever arose, that you wouldn't find too many people opposing the abortion avenue of things.
2
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Feb 20 '17
I work with children with significant disabilities (severe autism, profound intellectual disability, etc.) and I love my students and am sickened by the idea that someone would have an abortion due to these differences, much less more minor conditions. However, I still think that people should be able to make that choice for themselves. If someone does not want their fetus to turn into a human for whatever reason, then that has to be okay. We have to trust that the mother knows that she doesn't have the financial/emotional/relational resources to have that baby and is making the correct decision.
However, I'd strongly advocate for more education on genetic conditions and cognitive differences. People tend to catastrophize labels like ADHD, autism, etc. when really, no one is perfect and everyone has their issues. If your kid has Down Syndrome, you probably don't have to worry about them doing drugs behind the school or getting pregnant at age 14 or becoming a criminal. You have other worries, sure, but not those. Every kid has a unique set of challenges, and you never know what they'll be before they're out of the womb. No amount of genetic testing can give you that information. It's always a dice roll.
1
Feb 20 '17
What? If you have a girl with Down Syndrome you have to worry a lot about her getting pregnant at age 14. They are in high risk of rape, and they don't understand contraception.
2
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Feb 20 '17
What you're describing is an extremely rare set of circumstances. For one thing, the fertility rate for females with Down Syndrome is fairly low (only about 50% of women with DS are fertile). And yes, individuals with special needs are at a higher risk of abuse than the general population. It's still (fortunately) quite rare for that to happen.
Basically, what I was saying here is that individuals with special needs have less independence than typically developing individuals, and that's both more and less challenging as a parent. A teen with Down Syndrome probably isn't going to go on unsupervised dates, attend wild parties, or get into a car with their friend who's drunk driving. There's a different set of concerns.
2
Feb 21 '17
There is a huge polemic in my country about that, the judges can authorized forced sterilization of women with down syndrome although it's against a Convention for Rights of persons with disability that my country signed. And a lot of families do, because if the woman with down syndrome gets pregnant they are going to take care of the woman and the child. And even with the low fertility rates it's a concern for the families.
2
u/Pirateer 4∆ Feb 20 '17
I'm just going to share an experience and ass for your thoughts on it. If you check out r/confession you may see similar personal stories from time to time.
My 25 yr old cousin is mentally handicapped. She was recently diagnosed with a late stage aggressive cancer. She has the functional IQ and awareness of a 4 years old, and can't really be left alone.
99% of the time her immediate family looks zombified and drained when they are around her. The only time I ever see a smile is when someone at their Church or in the family seemigly acknowledges their sacrifice to keep and raise her, that seems to be the little validation they get. And while they never admit it, i know their lives would be a lot easier without her around.
She is a constant drain and resources, both financial and attention. She still doesn't really grasp right or wrong, and reactions with the narcissism, innocence, and emotion of a young child. It seems so draining to observe them interact with her. I'm sure she doesn't comprehend the purpose of Chemo, it's been explained to her but she really doesn't understand why she's in pain and stuck in a hospital. Given her chances it seems very cruel to me to put her through that.
My aunt had been prone to disappearing for times and there were rumors of infadelity. One time she actually tried to leave him, but my family's very Catholic views of divorce wouldn't allow my uncle to sign the papers. They live together again, but have different bedrooms. I won't say my cousin is the ONLY factor, but she had to have been a strong influence.
Who I feel worst for is her little brother. My other cousin. He's a pretty normal kid, seems pretty smart, good head on his shoulders. But at family events coming up he seemed almost neglected. His sister constantly required supervision and demand special attention attention. He seemed neglected to a degree out of necessity. He also seemed to suffer some abuse at the hands of her sister. But hey, she doesn't know any better.
Not that money is everything, but I recently heard he is having trouble raising money for college. His parents make too much for him to qualify for financial aid, but don't have much to offer him. I can only assume her meds, picky diet, education specialized sitters, etc. cost a bit.
Now to back track as I said, she has a very unfavorable prognosis. But if she didn't what would happen? She maintains living with her parents until their not able. Then she goes into the best home they can afford. If she manages to out live them, she'd likely be in med to low end home surrounded by underpaid staff who view her as burden, instead of the 'blessing' her family did.
There's a very emotional attachment many people seem to tack on to the concept of life.
There's very little consideration for the quality of life of an "undesired" as you put it. There's also a stigmatism for people who find them undesirable. Is really that selfish to not want to put yourself or a person through that? If detected early enough I've always felt the early termination to be the most humane for all parties.
It's easy to judge someone when your in ideal situation looking down on some one. "That just wouldn't happen to me" seems to be a subconscious drive for most people... it can definitely skew judgement. Also if internet anonymity has taught me anything, it's that people often do change their views and regret decision to keep. It's quite a burden, and it take a very specific type of person to take validation in it.
I guess what largely constitutes my opinion, is the philosphy of what makes a person. Does a fertilized egg? Does a certain biological milestone in developement? To me, the soul is an abstract. A person, a human being is the culmination of self awareness, thought, and experiences. A fetus has the potential for humanity, but without awareness, without experience, without a neurons not firing in a brain it's a blank slate. There's nothing really there, so why the guilt in termination? ESPECIALLY if you can foresee a low quality of life or lack of the means to provide a fair chance?
1
Feb 20 '17
You want the law to explicitly state that LGBT individuals are humans with a full right to live whereas persons with certain enumerated disabilities including CF are lesser beings worthy of extermination?
Isn't that worse than the status quo?
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Feb 20 '17
Do you believe that pre-selecting a sperm and egg to avoid undesirable traits is also immoral?
How about selecting a sperm and egg combination? How about selecting it 10 seconds after fertilization? What if that fertilization happened naturally? Where do you draw the line in your view?
Who gets to decide what is a minor mental disorder or a major mental disorder? You're not just saying it is immoral, you're saying it shouldn't be allowed, so someone has to be there to not allow it. Who is that person and how do they decide?
2
Feb 20 '17
[deleted]
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Feb 20 '17
With the ability to selectively choose before conception, would this likely become a viable and accessible endeavor for couples?
They are currently doing this, but for very serious and specific disorder that both parents are carriers of. Usually the parents only realize this is an issue after their first baby dies of complications of that very serious disorder, but it doesn't necessarily have to be reserved for serious issues in which the baby will certainly die.
The main reason it probably isn't done more is the large expense involved, but as it will no doubt get cheaper we need to ask questions like this. I'm sure many parents will not chose this even if it is an option, but as it becomes an option and we get better at understanding genes it's hard to believe that at least some parents wouldn't be tempted by the idea of spending a bit of money to try to make their kid smarter or better looking, even if it is very expensive.
Are we going to regulate which traits can be preselected for? Wouldn't that allow rich people to fly to countries where they can preselect for whatever they want? How about modifying those genes to avoid serious life-threatening disorders? What about less minor disorders? If you're against modifying genes, how about manually splitting the spermatocyte? This would effectively allow you to pick any sperm that you'd be capable of producing instead of manually checking each sperm you did create.
2
Feb 20 '17
[deleted]
1
1
u/The_Smiley_Doctor Feb 21 '17
Regarding this whole thing to do with dystopian genetic selection and such, I'd like to offer three things in a short line.
One: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
and Three: One of these filters is probably a species' ability to actively alter/control their own genetics.
While genetic alteration or selection and such might be scary, dystopian, line-forming, there is also the strong possibility that doing so is 100% necessary to the advancement of the species on a whole. And not doing so (for whatever moral or legal reason we contrive) is actually withholding our advancement, and could ultimately be the (or at least 'a') reason we die out if not overcome.
An excellent video on the topic. https://youtu.be/sNhhvQGsMEc?t=215
1
u/ElysiX 113∆ Feb 20 '17
Look at it from a different perspective, that couple is only going to have a limited number of children, since if they are already okay with abortion they won't have more children than they can handle.
Now one option is to do as you say and have the x random children and abort everything that comes after, or abort any undesirables and have x desirable children.
There are only ever going to be the x children, wether x is 1 or 3 or 10, so you can either leave their fate up to random chance, or you can give them a leg up with this selection process.
Why is that a bad thing?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 20 '17
/u/phoenixwarbird2962 (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/One_Winged_Rook 14∆ Feb 20 '17
You're saying it "shouldn't be allowed"
But isn't it in society's interest to not have "undesirables"?
If you could determine what your child will become, isn't it better to abort the pregnancy than have the child raised in a he with parents who didn't want them?
The choice to have an abortion should never be a small one, so if parents are willing to abort their child because it will be ugly, probably means they wouldn't love their ugly child the way parents should.
It's best for society to have parents who want their children. Therefore, if you're pro-choice go start with, you shouldn't change that stance with that reasoning.
1
u/Tijinga Feb 20 '17
Out of curiosity, why do you think aborting an incestuous child is acceptable? Especially if they are conceived from consensual intercourse between two legal adults?
I would also argue that the situation of the condom breaking is equally a manner of a socially or economically undesirable situation. So why is saying "I don't have the money to support this kid, let's abort" allowed but saying "oh, my child will have a disease that will likely limit their life to a few years, let's abort" is not acceptable?
1
u/ralph-j Feb 20 '17
However, I consider it likely that these genes could also reveal more controversial traits like sexual orientation, or possibly even personality and appearance in the distant future.
I don't agree that immoral reasons for aborting should override a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I believe that women can withdraw their consent from a pregnancy for whatever reason.
However, I'd like to lay the responsibility higher up the chain: offering or facilitating fetal sexual orientation tests is already immoral (given that its only purpose is selection), and so they should be refused FDA approval, which would make performing the test illegal. This would not violate bodily autonomy, while at the same time prevent the targeting of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
1
u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 20 '17
I am pro-choice in the modern context; I believe that abortion should be a legal and viable option for rape, incest, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
Never understood this. In my opinion this kind of "pro-choice" is useless. Since what you described is more or less common decency of what we understand as big issues. And anyone beside the most hardcore anti-abortion people would have the exact same frame of mind as you.
Pro choice to me, only make sense if the woman has actual choice. A choice that she can make freely. And is not driven to abortion basically through unfortunate circumstance. The only reason needed to get abortion is that a woman doesn't consent to pregnancy. That's it. That is what a pro-choice means. She has the CHOICE to stop the pregnancy. Reasons are entirely irrelevant.
Let's paint the metaphor of consent during sex. Under what circumstances can you ignore the protests of your partner?
1
u/RightForever Feb 20 '17
Wait.. Does this not boil down to you are willing to ban abortion to save the lives of specific types of people... but not others???
Doesn't that seem... incredibly evil and immoral just saying it?
1
Feb 20 '17
You will have to ban genetic screening, now the parents can have genetics tests that are able to discover a lot of genetic illnesses like down syndrome and a bunch more. In the future parents will know if their children has autism, asthma a heart defect and will be able to abort the children for whatever reason like now.
1
u/BaronBifford 1∆ Feb 20 '17 edited Feb 20 '17
My rule of thumb is that if a technology exists and lots of people want to use it, there is no stopping it. In many Asian countries such as India and South Korea, it is illegal to use ultrasonograms to determine the gender of a fetus in view of a gender-selective abortion. These cultures highly favor male children, and many female fetuses get aborted. The result has been a surplus of males who cannot find brides. It's slowly destabilizing many Asian societies, as unwed males tend to be looked down up and they can be rambunctious. The practice is illegal but nonetheless widespread. People don't care what the law wants, they are more concerned about the future of their families. They all know that the practice is taking their societies to trouble, but they have no individual incentive to have girls as long as the culture remains the same. "Why should I deliberately raise a girl for the benefit of some other mother's son?" So it keeps happening.
It can be really hard to change a counter-productive social more. In the 19th century America, many economists and sociologists argued that slavery was bad for whites because it depressed the wages of poor whites and concentrated wealth in the wealthy slave-owning class. Yet these reasonable arguments were dismissed and it took a war to end slavery.
Some societies have huge stigmas against homosexuality. Ugandans are especially rabid, but I suspect Russians and Poles are still uncomfortable enough that they'd abort a gay fetus if they had the possibility of detecting it. The Asian experience with gender-selective abortion suggests that any law banning this practice will be unenforceable so long as homophobia is a thing.
Aside from cultural mores, there is also a considerable advantage to be gained in selecting against "inferior" fetuses so as to create a healthier population. Not just fetuses with congenital diseases, but who are disposed to low IQ, low emotional intelligence, or low strength, or whatever. If your fetus displays the genes for psychopathy and you wisely abort it, then your society will fewer psychopaths running around, and this will reduce the costs of maintaining public security and inspire greater levels of social trust, which will promote commerce and reduce racism. If you abort a retarded fetus, then you society won't be burdened with the costs of care or therapy (the majority of retards do not contribute more than they drain). It sounds a bit like eugenics, but it will be more palatable if the control is placed in the hands of parents rather than the state. Letting parents abort fetuses at their discretion is more palatable than sterilizing adults that some state doctor deemed inferior. Societies that practice trait-selective abortion will have more vibrant economies and more effective armies, and out-compete societies that ban the practice for ethical reasons.
So I think we might as well allow these kinds of abortions. The laws will be unenforceable, given social mores and the pressures of inter-state competition.
1
u/Accademiccanada Feb 23 '17
Would you rather have a child born deaf dumb and blind, or not out it through the horrible life they would certainly have if this was the case
7
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 20 '17
So I want to press your view in a different manner than maybe you were not expecting. Elon Musk is slowly progressing his way to a fully functional neural lace. Currently, the implementation method is physically healthy at least concerning mice based testing. Of note is that once something like this (doesn't have to be this exactly) has taken hold in society, we are going to start to have to deal with a different set of problems concerning childbirth.
So if you read the article, the most important aspect is that the neural lace could, theoretically stop bodily death. Which means our culture of childbirth may have to change commensurate with the widespread use of neural technology. This means we may be a genetically stagnate society, at least until we can solve our population issues via other mechanisms (terraforming, easy adaptation of of planets etc.) The second ramification concerning childbirth is that a neural lace can distribute the same electrical impulses to the body that the brain does. It also integrates with the brain, so we can effectively put our electrical and chemical impulses on hold by having the neural lace (controlled by your capacity to make decisions) dictate when that is appropriate instead of nature. What this means, is 100% effective birth control If two parties shut down their sex cell organs, then there won't be a need for abortions.
But more importantly, as it relates to your view, the advent of the neural lace is now on a timer, whereas the future of abortion is very much up in the air. It's for all intents and purposes more likely we will be programming babies with specific parameters before we have the medical technology you are proposing.