Should fetuses with lethal anomalies be aborted?

Is it ethical to abort a fetus just because it has a lethal anomaly?


  • Total voters
    16

chica

v2.0
I had a conversation with a religious person, and he claims that anencephalic fetuses shouldn't be aborted because we don't kill handicapped adults or adults who will die very soon so why should we kill handicapped fetuses who will die a couple of hours or days after birth. How do you actually counter that argument? For me it goes without saying that if you discover 20 weeks into pregnancy that the fetus lacks a big part of its brain and skull, you won't decide to carry it for 20 more weeks, give birth to it and then watch it die (they don't feel pain, though, because they don't have forebrain so it's not a painful death). I don't even know how to verbalize why you shouldn't do it, it looks so obvious to me. Any ideas?
 
I'm very anti abortion.Except in the case where no quality of life can be had.For example i don't think downs babies,or spina bifda,or blind or death etc should be aborted.If a baby was blind/deaf/dumb/likely to be incontinent and never have any quality oflife then yes it is right.

Also i think if the child was likely to have a life filled with pain then yes again.

To abort a healthy foetus because its inconvenient is a very different matter.
 
For me it goes without saying that if you discover 20 weeks into pregnancy that the fetus lacks a big part of its brain and skull, you won't decide to carry it for 20 more weeks, give birth to it and then watch it die

That's exactly what I think.
 
Maybe only a religious person can have or understand that point of view, I certainly don't.
 
Many religious people consider a fetus a human being, and that killing it is just like killing a full-grown person. So maybe their rational is if you wouldn't kill a disabled adult you shouldn't kill a fetus who would grow up disabled.

Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either.
 
Maybe only a religious person can have or understand that point of view, I certainly don't.

If the baby has no chance of living more than a few hours after birth, I can't fully understand why someone would not have an abortion. I think that to let such a foetus die horribly and slowly, even if it's not painful, is more cruel to all involved than to terminate the pregnancy at 20 weeks. I'd imagine that a woman would find an abortion less traumatic than to give birth to a baby that will die within a couple of hours. But then I am not religious, and a religious person would probably argue that all human life is sacred even if it is not fulfilling to the person in any way.
 
If the mother and father want to, then yes. It shouldn't be standard practice or anything though. They should be able to have the baby if they want as well. I don't think that the abortion is the most ethical thing to do, it's the fact that they have the option to have the abortion that is ethical.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, I know families who have chosen each of those options. It should entirely be up to the parents. When a fetus dies, or will die, it's up to the parents how that life, that potential life, should be honored. The medical staff should be prepared to offer the full range of choices to the parents. The cost difference is probably negligible. It's about dignity.
 
Sadly, I know families who have chosen each of those options. It should entirely be up to the parents. When a fetus dies, or will die, it's up to the parents how that life, that potential life, should be honored. The medical staff should be prepared to offer the full range of choices to the parents. The cost difference is probably negligible. It's about dignity.

Exactly. Abortion should always been an option.
 
Maybe only a religious person can have or understand that point of view, I certainly don't.

Being religious shouldn't have anything to do with it. Treating a fetus like a boil or wart is horrendous.
 
I remember the mayhem I created the last time I posted this...:rolleyes:


morrissey_cartoon_blog.jpg
 
Sadly, I know families who have chosen each of those options. It should entirely be up to the parents. When a fetus dies, or will die, it's up to the parents how that life, that potential life, should be honored. The medical staff should be prepared to offer the full range of choices to the parents. The cost difference is probably negligible. It's about dignity.

I see, and I agree, obviously no one should have the right to poke and probe in women's uteri without their consent :eek:

But my problem with this is that I don't see abortion in this case as the wrong, unethical choice, and to me it's so obvious that it's not unethical like it's obvious that the grass is green. And when confronted with a pro-life argument like that I described in my opening post, which states that it is unethical, I simply cannot explain why they're wrong and why it's not unethical. Can you explain it? Actually first I have to ask do you personally, intimately believe it's ethical, or not?
 
I am a religious person and based on that that point of view I don't think fetuses should be aborted nor do I think it's ethically just. Whether one decided or not to enter into a pregnancy, it isn't guaranteed that the unborn baby will be be physically/mentally perfect. There have been cases where people with lethal/terminal diseases have defied doctor's expectations of quality of live. Isn't it better to give a baby a chance rather than just simply aborting it before it has the chance? Doctors aren't always correct.
 
I am a religious person and based on that that point of view I don't think fetuses should be aborted nor do I think it's ethically just. Whether one decided or not to enter into a pregnancy, it isn't guaranteed that the unborn baby will be be physically/mentally perfect. There have been cases where people with lethal/terminal diseases have defied doctor's expectations of quality of live. Isn't it better to give a baby a chance rather than just simply aborting it before it has the chance? Doctors aren't always correct.

You've got a point there. I agree with those who say it's up to the parents, I personally would opt for abortion, without hesitation. I don't understand why the parents should be put through all the physical and emotional pain of giving birth and watching the baby die.
 
I'd take a utilitarian approach. The pain of the abortion versus the pain of a woman waiting to give birth to a baby without a brain/head/heart/whatever that is doomed to die, not to mention any suffering the offspring might possibly feel. It's pretty clear what the humane option is. Also, the comparison to a disabled adult is incorrect. First, because they already ARE a person, a fetus/embryo/zygote
is the makings of a person. Second, because, at least in my opinion, euthanasia isn't always wrong. I think people with terminal or incredibly painful conditions should be allowed, or how about someone who's brain dead on life support. If you weigh it out, without the mythology, the course is clear.
 
I'd take a utilitarian approach. The pain of the abortion versus the pain of a woman waiting to give birth to a baby without a brain/head/heart/whatever that is doomed to die, not to mention any suffering the offspring might possibly feel. It's pretty clear what the humane option is. Also, the comparison to a disabled adult is incorrect. First, because they already ARE a person, a fetus/embryo/zygote
is the makings of a person. Second, because, at least in my opinion, euthanasia isn't always wrong. I think people with terminal or incredibly painful conditions should be allowed, or how about someone who's brain dead on life support. If you weigh it out, without the mythology, the course is clear.

Very reasonable, I like it. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom