Abortion and Disability

No. Those grounds simply aren't enough. Either abortion is a moral travesty or it's not. The idea that abortion is acceptable if a child is going to be born with a disability but unacceptable if it isn't (which I believe is what the question here entails, because we are framing disability as some sort of special case here) is simply ridiculous, and that's because if that is what we are saying then we are saying that it is okay to abort human persons if they are disabled it follows that we are saying that it is acceptable to commit infanticide on disabled humans, it is acceptable to commit murder on disabled adult humans.

No one's saying that you crazy bastard. There's a difference between preventing life, and ending an already established one.

No one's saying that you crazy bastard. There's a difference between preventing life, and ending an already established one.

I don't think you understand the sort of disability that we're very often talking about here. Often, it's the sort of birth defect that is unsurvivable, or will cause incurable pain, of the sort that you wouldn't allow an animal to live through.

For instance, anencephaly, pulmonary aplasia, conjoined twins (in some cases), holoprosencephaly, and Patau syndrome (NB graphic medical pics in some).

This is not about cleft palates and club feet.

I really don't think that anyone should be dictating that someone has to carry a baby to full term when it will not survive the birth, or will live a short and miserable life.

Agreed, and I think it would be helpful to frame the argument here more in terms of would it be acceptable to euthanasia infants born with such conditions, because in my opinion that's more in line with the debate at hand. We have established that this is a human person, but have also established that born or not the kindest thing to do is to end this persons life.

I don't agree. If it's going to end up being euthanased at birth, then what is the objective benefit in forcing the woman to go through the trauma of pregnancy and birth when she knows that there will never be a baby to take home? The hormones involved are very powerful, and women who suffer stillbirths and neonatal death often suffer tremendously.

Tell that to all those girls that are killed/abandoned in China/India for being born without a penis.Sex-selective and disability selective abortions are closely linked because they are both concerned with aborting undesirable traits.

Which is precisely why we have abortion in the uk, to prevent unwanted babies/babies with undesirable traits from being killed/abandoned/neglected.

Oh most definitely, and perhaps it wasn't clear what I was trying to say. If abortion is acceptable. If there's nothing wrong with it then there really is no difference between aborting because the child would be born disabled or aborting for any other reason (morally speaking the action is the same because the act isn't ending the life of another person).

What I'm framing my response in is in the context of abortion of disabled foetuses as being some sort of special case (which I believe is implied in the question here) wheee we are saying hypothetically there is a point where we think that abortion is wrong for a certain degree of development for healthy foetuses but not for disabled ones, and I say hypothetical, this is enshrined in law in fact. What are we saying here? We are saying that at this point foetuses are to be considered people, who have the right not to be killed... Unless they're disabled. There is dissonance here because there is no other situation where we would establish that there is a human person and that it is unacceptable to end their life if they're 'normal' but acceptable if they are disabled,

Have I made myself clear?

Also responses like yours are the reason why debate on abortiion is next to impossible, it simply becomes shouting match full of ad hominems. It's not helpful and it's not constructive. Rethink how you respond next time please.

I thought sex-selective abortions are illegal in the UK?

The idea that abortion is acceptable if a child is going to be born with a disability but unacceptable if it isn't

I've never heard this idea. Ever.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That idea is enshrined in law. The legal limit for abortiion of healthy foetuses is 24 weeks, the legal limit for disabled foetuses is 40 weeks.

That idea is enshrined in law. The legal limit for abortiion of healthy foetuses is 24 weeks, the legal limit for disabled foetuses is 40 weeks.

A slight red herring, it does exist primarily for foetuses with horrendous conditions that they're not going to live through and the life they do have will just be one of immense suffering for the brief perioid they are alive. That said the 40 week limit exists for things like a cleft lip.

Perhaps that's because some disabilities aren't detectable until later than 24 weeks?

Also, upon learning that you're carrying a disabled child I'm sure the additional time to consider an abortion is very beneficial.

The difference in time limit doesn't suggest a difference inacceptability to me. Please explain why you think it does?
Posted from TSR Mobile