Is it ableist to abort a disabled fetus? Anonymous 83269
What do you guys think of aborting a child if you know it will be greatly disabled? Most feminist circles I’ve been in have been against it because it’s ableist. However, I’m watching a documentary on disability and a lot of these moms have to dedicate their entire lives to caring for their kids well past adulthood. They all look like they’ve had their souls sucked out of them.
Regardless of what is believed to the be the 'moral' stance, if it is allowed it will happen. I believe Sweden and Iceland have almost eliminated new generations of Down's Syndrome because the prospective mothers simply choose not to have the child.
It's very difficult for me to think about. I don't think anyone should be obligated to pour such a huge amount of time and resources into caring for their child, but the conclusion of that seems to be that people simply don't have disabled children. So we have chosen not to allow life with disability, and that probably comes with a commensurate reduction in services/greater stigma for the children still born unexpectedly with a disability. Neither of these seems good.
It'd be better if the child could simply be fixed with a little genetic alteration, but until that technology is safe and available, abortion is really the only choice available to spare both parents and child from a life of constant indignity, pain and toil.
Isn't this a slippery slope?
Ableism is such a joke. I honestly think you should be able to put down babies/people with certain disabilities after they're born. The kind where they are basically just a lifeless husk that will never meaningfully participate in life.
I say after because some things aren't detectable before birth. We also shouldn't force people with equivalently severe brain damage to stay alive either.
This. The morality piece with abortion makes me feel a bit gross about being pro-choice but it’s honestly the best option until designer babies become the norm. Let it die
Do it. My aunt has a kid with Down Syndrome and the fallout immeasurably reduced her quality of life. She looks after her well, but the kid (now adult) is constantly sick (in and out of hospitals) and depressed.
Without going into too much into logical fallacies and stressing the importance that everyone has free will to do with what they what I will state the following:
It does concern me that it is a type of eugenics by weeding out the “undesirables”. Like what >>83272
said about Iceland and Sweden.
Before I go on let me make it very clear that Iceland and Sweden do not practice forced abortions or actual eugenics. This is all happening by choice and the population is freely choosing eugenics.
Also, it can potentially create a Gattaca-like future. If you were to poor to get the fetus aborted, then you suffer even more.
There are some bioethics here that is beyond just a women’s right to choose.
Now is this Darwin’s survival of the fittest?
All I can personally say is I know what I would do for myself which wouldn’t be the same as for some other women
. To that I would also say it’s just best to mind you’re own business.
Stupid auto correct it’s *too.
Eugenics is woman's business
Until society creates enough resources for the needs of greatly disabled people to be met (without expecting the mother to devote all of her remaining life to looking after them), it's not inhumane to abort them.
There's already enough resources, the issue is distribution
It is still possible for many disabilities for those with them to live a fulfilling life.
>Most feminist circles I’ve been in have been against it because it’s ableist.
Then they aren’t feminist. No woman should be forced to carry a fetus they don’t want. That’s psychological torture.
Using feminist as just thing good instead of using it to refer to a specific family of thought is dumb
>>83290>Before I go on let me make it very clear that Iceland and Sweden do not practice forced abortions or actual eugenics. This is all happening by choice and the population is freely choosing eugenics.
In this regard there is no difference between the two. Iceland is de facto practicing eugenics even if it isn't de jure.
But eugenics is literally a good thing, if it's done by women.
“Feminism” isn’t an identical set of beliefs. There are core values, among which one is bodily autonomy. Someone who doesn’t believe a woman should control her own body will not be accepted as a feminist by most people who identify as feminist.
There are plenty of self identified feminists who would say it's ableist to abort disabled children (they're wrong and dumb but that doesn't mean they're not feminists) and they're coming at the issue from an ideological perspective similar enough to other forms of feminism. Like you wouldn't call lib fems who support troons not feminists just because they're idiots but suddenly someone has a bad take about abortion and now they're not feminist. You're using feminist as a value judgment instead of as a way to categorize ideologies. I'm not saying it's bad to abort disabled fetuses, I'm saying it's disingenuous to deny that some of the people who do this re still technically feminist unless your definition of feminist requires them to have consistently correct takes about the relevant issues
Troons also self-identify as feminists. There are certain issues where having certain takes is in direct opposition to women’s rights. I do not believe that any woman who supports a defective fetus over a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is a feminist. What they choose to call themselves is a different matter.
Personally I don't believe in abortions with conditions, I'm autistic and having a child with any kind of disability/medical condition is always going to be harder especially because of money, if someone doesn't have the means to provide that child with the resources they'd need and are considering it then yeah an abortion is always an option
I agree. I've watched videos of very disabled kids that suffer daily and I don't see the point.
I'd say aborting ADHD and HFA/Asperger's kids, or other not life-ruining stuff is dumb if you wanted to have children anyway, but in general i think that children with down syndrome, LFA, and retardation in general should be aborted.
>>83269>>83269>Most feminist circles I’ve been in have been against it because it’s ableist.
You're baiting right? There is no way anyone thinks this…How can you support the right to choose except in the cases of disabled fetuses, lmao
Anyway you're right. Having a kid with a great disability (I assume you mean some kind of severe mental handicap or something else requiring lifelong care) is basically forfeiting your life. And for what? The goal of any parent should be to have their child spread their wings and live a happy independent life, that is the culmination of a parent's years of work. Well, that and passing on your genes…nuff said.
I believe that not aborting a disabled child is a bad thing, if it prevents you from having another healthy child. I only care about the total wellbeing, not about the wellbeing of individuals.
Total wellbeing of what, all of humanity?
If you prioritize the wellbeing of every level except the individual, what makes the individual suddenly not matter? Individuals are the building blocks of all of these.
As I've said, the wellbeing of the individual matters as long as it doesn't restrict other people, like a disabled child would.
Fetuses aren't people, just because something has the potential to become a person doesn't mean that it is one, otherwise condoms are mass murder
I don't think the severely mentally disabled are people either tbh
I'd feel pretty bad about killing a chimp eve if it's basically mentally equivalent to a retard though
A chimp isn't a retard. A chimp has everything it needs to be self sufficient in the proper habitat and live it's own full chimp life. Full retards and other severely disabled, like the kind that can't even communicate or care for themselves on any level aren't like animals. The animal equivalent of them would die in the wild immediately. They're disturbing, like blobs of confusion and suffering that shouldn't be alive, but we force them to keep breathing.
Sperm do not contains embryos tho. Contraception and abortion, on moral terms, are completely different matters.
To stay on topic, I don't understand the stigma against eugenics, especially when they're not enforced by any means. Is it because "le evil natzees" practiced a specific kind of forced eugenics, that as a consequence, all form of eugenics become monstruous ? If it comes to this, this is just dumb.
Eugenics are a way to weed out debilitating disabilites, that cause a lot of suffering, and that are also costly for society as a whole. Care and health workers that look after disabled people, as well as their families (mothers 99% of the time), can't work on other stuff, that is possibly more productive. And let' not forget that suffering as a cost for society, usually building even more suffering. For instance, the assigned helper mother will get her dreams shattered, which will result in her being depressed, probably caring less for her healthy kids. They will be more likely have worse grades, nasty teenage behaviour, etc. The mother will probably need antidepressants, which causes other problems, and so on.
It's obviously a bit caricatural, but from a collectivist perspective, you see that such issues take a toll on a community, no matter at what scale. Freedom of choice is really effective when you take into account what impact your choices will have on others, may it be nature, society, your community. The individual and community are always connected, the ethics of your indivudal choices are then always related to their impact on the community.
Chosing to suffer to make things worse for everyone, doesn't make you a hero, but these mothers still deserve respect.
I think that eugenics are on women's side.
There are a lot of traditional cultures that eat chimp. In the end they're just another animal. I don't think we should treat them any different than pigs or cows.
I don't get how you could object to it if you're already cool with abortion in general.
Aborting because the fetus will have a disability is no worse than aborting because you don't want to be poor and or don't think you'd be a good parent.
We're focusing too much on the kid and not enough on the would be mother if she doesn't want to be chained to a child that would never be capable of taking care of themselves or her eventually then that's her choice
Is it ableist I'd argue not since no 'person' is being discriminated against lol just some fetus
Let them live, they are their own people, disabilities or not
>>83496>drooling borderline vegetable on life support is "their own person"
I'm gonna say nah
It is ableist, all abortion is murder. That being said, would definitely abort a braindead or mentally retarded fetus.
It is but just do it, don't conceive what you don't want to. Simple as.
Yes you are ableist, yes you are discriminating, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just as you are sexist for not sleeping with women, transphobic for not sleeping with trannies, and probably racist if you have a racial preferences.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
It is not discrimination or insulting to any real
disabled person. Thus, "ableism" does not apply. Abortion as a form of eugenics does not hurt anyone.
>>83443> You're baiting right?
Sadly, I’m not. For a while on TikTok I kept getting videos of young women explaining why you shouldn’t abort disabled fetuses because that would be ableist and eugenics. I wish I had saved a few. It’s from the same crowd who have a weird thing against mothers of autistic children. There are quite a few people who identify as feminists who hold this position.
>>83523> It’s from the same crowd who have a weird thing against mothers of autistic children.
This phrase activated my almonds holy shit I know exactly the ones you’re talking about. Autism mommies can seem entitled but they’re literally just trying to help their child. Autism isn't some quirky personality trait.
yes and that’s fine
the female socialisation really jumps out whenever this topic is brought up
remember that it’s WOMEN who will be expected to care for these children at the expense of their own sanity meanwhile scrotes do nothing
and then those same scrotes concern troll about evil women committing eugenics while still not doing shit to care for the retards they guilt tripped women into birthing
fucking disgusting, toothless spineless “feminists” are making a joke of the movement
Yes. A woman should be able to abort and even disown children. Nobody should maintain a loonie.
To be fair, the image you posted was funded by a far-right group who were against abortion in all cases (even in cases of sexual assault, unplanned teen pregnancies, incest etc), not a feminist group.
I think to answer this, you have to weigh out all the possibilities and pick the lesser of two evils. If a mother doesn't have the money or facilities to be able to take care of a disabled child (which could potentially be a life-long commitment), she shouldn't have to.
Most abortions are performed before the foetus can feel pain and so I think mercifully aborting it is a better option that giving it a life of suffering and forever changing the mother's life (it's always women who stay at home to care for disabled children, it's always them who are expected to give up their careers, hobbies and social life).
If someone has the money, lives in a country that has a lot of supports for disabled children AND they want to keep their child, I have great respect for them but not everyone is in that position.
infuriating how they always pull the disingenuous SAVE THE BABBIES!!!1 shit when what they really want is to control women. again if they gave a fuck you’d expect them to actually care for the children they forced to be born but nope, instead they move their hounding on to the mother for her supposed selfishness at not wanting to have her whole life absorbed by the kid she didn’t want
imho females are eugenicists by nature. female animals reject mates and young all the fucking time. of course this is enraging to scrotes who will stop at nothing to spread their precious seed hence patriarchy
This. Anytime I brought up teen pregnancies and incest with pro-lifers they exploded. They've always promoted this idea that women who get abortions are unmarried, selfish and sexually promiscuous. They've never imagined women going through tough times and therefore can't imagine how they'd actually put some good into the world by helping them/their children.
because they think women belong in the home raising kids. that’s literally it. forced pregnancy is the easiest way to ensure it. they don’t want us having control over our own lives.
No, under no circumstances should a child be killed. Killing an unborn baby so you can potentially enjoy a more carefree life is just disgusting. Life is difficult and sometimes you need to toughen up and take the hit. As someone with a brother with Down Syndrome I can say despite being a little shit and being a pyromaniac I'd never want for him to have been killed even if it made my life better.
Yeah because you know him and he is your brother. If he was aborted you wouldn't have known the difference and wouldn't have cared. There's way worse disablities than Down Syndrome too. There's some where the kid is basically not even sentient.
Came here to type basically this. Every time I see a mentally disabled person out in the wild the poor woman it's leashed to for the rest of her life is not far behind.
Also after sharing a wall with a woman with two non-verbal autistic boys I think it's 10000% okay for a woman to be the judge, jury, and executioner of her offspring and would not flinch if I heard two bullets fire over there.
I think it's inhumane to force women to go through pregnancies they don't want in general.
>about to kill a baby
>omfg i hope people won't think i'm ableist
To be clear, I fully support your right to choose, but your priorities seem a little fucked.
The decision to abort should really be based on its consequences. If the pregnancy will have negative consequences in your life, you should abort. Life is too short and too difficult for you to make it worse. An unborn child feels nothing, hopes nothing, dreams nothing, etc.
This. Women still die from giving birth, and even if you survive, it messes up your body. No one should have to do that if they don't want.
I refuse to believe someone who will condemn themselves to a life of taking care of a tard because of some ideological reason is anything but disabled themselves.
You should get out of those circles.
Is this supposed to be some sort of a dunk? Everyone has an ideology (at least if you use the broad meaning of the word). The point is that if you let your ideology make your life miserable youre an idiot.
>>85679>The point is that if you let your ideology make your life miserable youre an idiot.
What if the ideology of not making your life miserable makes you miserable?
Trying not to make your life miserable is not an ideology.
It sounds like it is to me if it influences your decision making.
Do you people even know what the word means?
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Just because something influences your decisions making doesnt make it part of an ideology, otherwise feelings would be ideology too.
AND ideology is a polysemic word as the "1." in front of your definition indicates. There'z other meanings of this term and one is " every speech about reality( can be referred as ideologic) ". This definition is much more inclusive and is based on the fact that no one can perceive reality (we don't even know what are the components of physical matter,limited perceptions ect.. ) and that every (EVERY) concepts are based on nothing but void (agrippa's trilemma /doesn't mean that every concepts are equal tho). So there are economic ideologies, politic ideologies as well as normative ideologies.. (you should…,you need…, they have to, Ect)
Hope it helps someone
And even with the broadest definition possible (which I was obviously not using in the comment that started this small argument) you can't say that something is an ideology just because it influences your decision making.
Also if you want to get technical about it everyone can perceive reality, just not fully or perfectly accurate.
I agree with the last statement(it is what i insinuated by "limited perceptions" in my previous remark) .
And again, taking into consideration the broader definition, what you call "feelings" is a fookin ideology. Cause Every concept is ideological godamn. The sheer recognition of what influence your decision making is an ideological statement because it is a speech about reality. By your definition it isn't because the def that you choose imply that an ideology is a corpus of ideas, what i say is that you do not need a well thougth and recognizable system of ideas to label something as ideological. So you're right and you can try to connect yourself to what i said to see the coherence of my sayings too.
>>85871>taking into consideration the broader definition, what you call "feelings" is a fookin ideology
What I call feelings are the emotional reactions to stimuli. So feelings themselves are not ideology. You could say that my idea of what feelings are is part of an ideology. But that's not feelings, that's ideas. In the same way a tree is not an ideology, but my idea of what a tree is can be referred to as an ideology.
>The sheer recognition of what influence your decision making is an ideological statement
Yes. But is "the sheer recognition …" a feeling? Obviously not, it's an idea. You're making a conflation between things that exist in the real world and the perception of those objects by a subject. Yes, everything we know is perception, but in discussions like this we aren't talking about our perception of the objects, we talk about the objects themselves. Any discussion that doesn't presuppose an objective world in which to be rooted devolves in absurdity (I'm talking about things in my head to someone whos in my head).
Even a pro lifer would understand such an abortion
I almost hate expressing this but I have strong opinions and I have to.
No, if a baby is going to be born profoundly disabled, then aborting it is an act of mercy. Not a cruelty like ableism.
Picrel has severe hydrocephaly. She is blind, has seizures because of the pressure on her brain, is almost blind, severely brain damaged, and does not respond to stimuli.
This baby live every moment in agony. She was kept alive because "everyone should experience the gift of life". What gift? This is hell. Look at how miserable that baby looks compared to her mother, a woman who sustains herself off asspats exclusively. She looks like that in every picture.
That baby has NO quality of life. She has the opposite of quality. Actually, I'm pretty sure shes deaf too. Imagine spending your entire life hearing nothing, seeing nothing, and then just random seizures while your in the dark silent void.
If you loved your baby you wouldn't force this. There is no gift here. This is torture. That woman does not love her her baby. If you love your baby, you don't force this existence on them.
Abortion is an act of mercy
Aside from muh morals in whatever direction they may go its the right choice if the parents don't feel ready.
"Prolife" morals may prevent that from being spoken out loud because its not virtuos and these days everyone has to be a perfect human being and if you dont suffer you are bad (welcome back christian fundamentalism, we missed you) but in reality nine out of ten mentally disabled children end up in some foster institution or completely destroy their parents because caring for a child that stays a five year old forever is hell on earth. Meanwhile the children often have several severe conditions like underdeveloped hearts and lungs.
If the parents only keep them for good martyr points from society its better they abort because that wont make the childs life easier and if there is no shallow morals to be met most choose to do so. The ones who still GENUINELY love their child should keep it though. I'm working with all forms of disabled people and when they grow up in healthy families they can have a great time on earth.
Tldr: Most are not aborted because of moralistic shit and the parents will either hate them or put them away and never visit again so just end the suffering right away before the blob of cells gets self aware if this is the case.
No. A fetus is unborn. It's just like killing an overgrown cockroach.
Yeah, I guess it's more about the probability of that happening. It's also true that if the fetus is perfectly healthy, there's still a chance that they'll lead an unfulfilling life.
The problem with a fetus that has a disability or other life-long health condition is that now the probability of them leading an unhappy life seems to be higher. There could certainly still be a chance that they'll live a fulfilling life, but the probability of that happening seems lower.
I suppose the question to ask is: how high is too high when it comes to the probability of the child leading an unhappy life?
Personally, I lean towards thinking that the bar needs to be quite high to make giving birth to a person permissible. That's because I'm more pessimistic about the value of the average life– i.e. I suspect that most lives suck.
A problem I've had with this is that the statement only seems true up to a point– after which the fetus is more like an actual human infant than an "overgrown cockroach"– e.g. the day before an infant is born>tfw Judith Jarvis Thompson enters the chat and tells us all that it doesn't even matter if the fetus is a human person
I personally have a few problems with Thompson's argument tho
What are your problems with her argument?
I think her thought experiments are a bit too biasing. She makes an excellent argument, but I think there are a couple problems with the way her thought experiments are phrased.
For example, the fact that she makes explicit mention of you being kidnapped (so the situation is more like a rape than any arbitrary pregnancy, and almost no one besides patriarchal moids think a woman shouldn't abort after rape) and the fact that the man they've hooked you to is a violinist (would our weighing of the situation change if he were a doctor or a Nobel-prize winning scientist– why mention occupation at all?).
I think it would be more effective and accurate to consider a thought experiment without those aspects. E.g. imagine if suddenly you wake up one day with a person next to you, and you discover that you're physically attached to her/him. You have two choices: (1) detach from her/him, thus killing the other person or (2) stay attached and wait out the (let's say) 9 months.
Overgrown cockroaches aren't unborn, they're quite alive in fact.>>88631>A problem I've had with this is that the statement only seems true up to a point– after which the fetus is more like an actual human infant than an "overgrown cockroach"– e.g. the day before an infant is born
Ahm you're running into the problem of what happens when you determine the fetus status based of medical viability. The counter-argument should always be asking the individual if a fetus in the womb of someone in Kentucky vs someone in rural Africa if one fetus is more human in the other just because it was born a particular place and can thus survive outside the womb longer. All but the most die-hard "if it is inside you you can kill it" feminists can't really respond to that argument.
From my experience living with christians my whole life, her mentioning that it's a violinist is relevant because many pro-lifers like to use the "what if it were the person to cure cancer!1!1!1!" argument and she is demonstrating how even if the person were an important figure, that doesn't necessarily mean a person should have to permanently alter their body and live a certain way for 9 months. I agree with your point regarding the kidnapping aspect. Personally, I still think it's a very convincing argument, especially since it isn't really just a 9 month timesink in reality; it also alters a person forever not just bodily, but also in that birth tends to be a traumatic experience. However, it's quite possible in the future what I mentioned may be seriously mitigated , so my points are really just asides.
>>88640>From my experience living with christians my whole life, her mentioning that it's a violinist is relevant because many pro-lifers like to use the "what if it were the person to cure cancer!1!1!1!" argument and she is demonstrating how even if the person were an important figure, that doesn't necessarily mean a person should have to permanently alter their body and live a certain way for 9 months.
NTA, but that's exactly the issue. Recreate the thought experiment with a famous cardiac surgeon. Does that change the outcome? Why?
For me, the answer is intuitively "no". Occupation doesn't matter, what matters are the concepts of sacrifice, obligation, and choice. No one person should be forced to keep some great cardiac surgeon/scientist/etc. alive for 9 months in which a lengthy, painful, difficult life experience will transpire.
It would be nice if women would actually speak honestly about the trauma of childbirth and the myriad complications that come with it, many being lifelong and, imo, would severely affect quality of life. This is never discussed when speaking of abortion because everyone wants to act like childbirth doesn't affect our bodies at all, and I understand why, because misogynistic males want mothers to feel used and disgusting, but it's true that our physiology changes and we suffer greatly due to childbirth.
Technically, yes. But who gives a fuck. I’ll rather kms than waste my life raising a retard that‘ll never grow up to be intellegence.
There's already too many people and too much suffering in this world, I think it's better to prevent bringing a child into this world that you know beforehand is going to suffer from it's disability.