Should fetuses with lethal anomalies be aborted?

[Sally Cinnamon]

And then if aborted, the fetus would be more likely to feel pain.

Pain is not an issue, because they can administrate fetal anesthesia.

 

[IDon'tOweYouAnything23]

Pain is not an issue, because they can administrate fetal anesthesia.

Yes, but what if it didn't work in all circumstanceS? I just think it's playing god and unethical IMO

 

[Sally Cinnamon]

Yes, but what if it didn't work in all circumstanceS? I just think it's playing god and unethical IMO

I don't know, but I think if it's unethical, the last reason why it's unethical is because anesthesia might not work. Then we can say it's unethical for doctors to perform elective surgeries because anesthesia might not work, and the surgery is not necessary anyway.

 

[IDon'tOweYouAnything23]

I don't know, but I think if it's unethical, the last reason why it's unethical is because anesthesia might not work. Then we can say it's unethical for doctors to perform elective surgeries because anesthesia might not work, and the surgery is not necessary anyway.

Suppose I meant I personally find the whole issue of abortion unethical. I do though, think it's immoral to purposely put a fetus/baby through pain, but then I accept your point about unnecessary surgery where the anesthesia may not work.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

But every abortion can be justified if you put it that way.

First of all, as you said, you've put yourself in the position of justifying it, implying a woman does NOT have the right over her own body. Think of the organ donor scenario.

If giving birth would be inconvenient for the mother,

Well, now we're kind of branching out. In the stated situation where the zygote/embryo/fetus cannot possibly survive for a very short period if time and most likely in agony, it's a hell of a lot more than "inconvenient", for either party.

and she chooses to abort before the fetuses brain is formed so it doesn't feel pain, then there's no pain, just gain, which makes that decision ethical. However, if you respect human life more that convenience then it's obviously not ethical.

You frame the statement as if the mother is always doing this wholly out of selfishness. The zygote/embryo/fetus clearly cannot self-advocate, so the mother must weigh the costs for both. Sometimes, abortion, especially in the aforementioned scenario, IS the most humane decision for both parties. It's immoral to subject a child to a short life of great suffering, or a long one of great suffering. If anything, deciding to have a child should involve just as much moral wrangling as abortion, maybe more.

I think in this case it's more or less the same for the baby, it doesn't feel pain or have any cognitive abilities, so it clearly wouldn't mind either abortion or being born and dying then. Which means that actively taking its life through abortion is done for the convenience of the mother.

No, this is not so. Theres' no reason why the mother could not extrapolate what would be best for her offspring, we know what other people feel when we see them crying or upset, part of the fascination of war stories, or survival stories or whatever is our emotional understanding of what the other person has experienced, or could experience.

Now I have come to understand why religious people think it's unethical, but I still don't understand why I think it's ethical

I hope I've been at least remotely helpful.

 

[chica]

Well, now we're kind of branching out. In the stated situation where the zygote/embryo/fetus cannot possibly survive for a very short period if time and most likely in agony, it's a hell of a lot more than "inconvenient", for either party.



You frame the statement as if the mother is always doing this wholly out of selfishness. The zygote/embryo/fetus clearly cannot self-advocate, so the mother must weigh the costs for both. Sometimes, abortion, especially in the aforementioned scenario, IS the most humane decision for both parties. It's immoral to subject a child to a short life of great suffering, or a long one of great suffering. If anything, deciding to have a child should involve just as much moral wrangling as abortion, maybe more.

No, what I wrote there was an example of abortion on demand, when it's inconvenient for mother to give birth so she aborts early in the pregnancy.

No, this is not so. Theres' no reason why the mother could not extrapolate what would be best for her offspring, we know what other people feel when we see them crying or upset, part of the fascination of war stories, or survival stories or whatever is our emotional understanding of what the other person has experienced, or could experience.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It's sort of similar to brain dead patients, it's all the same for them whether they live or not, we kill them because it's impractical to keep them alive, it's a waste of resources. Just like it's a waste of resources to stay pregnant when you know your baby is going to die.

I hope I've been at least remotely helpful.

Undoubtedly!

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

No, what I wrote there was an example of abortion on demand, when it's inconvenient for mother to give birth so she aborts early in the pregnancy.

I think I missed the example, but if anything I think early abortions are the most humane and defensible. But why is it so hard to construe, say a young mother who's very poor who couldn't possibly support the child, especially if she lives in an impoverished place, say a violent inner city neighborhood, or, more extreme, a war zone, as a moral act? Seeking to spare unnecessary suffering, not for herself, but FOR the potential child.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It's sort of similar to brain dead patients, it's all the same for them whether they live or not, we kill them because it's impractical to keep them alive, it's a waste of resources.

This is only a small part of the issue. In these individuals the brain stem is still relaying messages, they can feel pain even if they have no consciousness, thus, pain is probably all they feel. Theres' also the consideration of the person, do you think someone, someone perhaps you love, would want to "live" as a shell kept going by machines? Sometimes the MOST moral option is to end it.

Just like it's a waste of resources to stay pregnant when you know your baby is going to die.

See the former.

Undoubtedly!

Well, I'm glad for that at least.

 

[chica]

I think I missed the example, but if anything I think early abortions are the most humane and defensible. But why is it so hard to construe, say a young mother who's very poor who couldn't possibly support the child, especially if she lives in an impoverished place, say a violent inner city neighborhood, or, more extreme, a war zone, as a moral act? Seeking to spare unnecessary suffering, not for herself, but FOR the potential child.

But so few abortions actually match those criteria! It's usually because people have sex with people they don't want to start a family with or at a time when they don't want to start a family.

This is only a small part of the issue. In these individuals the brain stem is still relaying messages, they can feel pain even if they have no consciousness, thus, pain is probably all they feel. Theres' also the consideration of the person, do you think someone, someone perhaps you love, would want to "live" as a shell kept going by machines? Sometimes the MOST moral option is to end it.

I can imagine that, but in this case you have to put yourself in the shoes of the baby. It doesn't understand a concept of dignified life. It just wants to be cared for by its parents. (That is, not having a conscious wish, but enjoying it without thinking about it.)