Orwell wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
What about Asthma, Autism, Asperger's, Antidisestablishmentarianism, ADD, Homosexuality, Lower than 100 IQ, etc? Who decides what's disabled and what's not?
When it comes to abortion, it shouldn't matter, it must be acceptable and encouragable for ANY reason.
We would screw up the gene pool quite badly if that were the case. Routine aborting for (subjectively) undesirable traits would be disastrous for human biological diversity, which is already plenty low enough.
well, the 'encouragable' part wasn't serious, although in some aspects it may be a point to it to some degree, even though, I don't think everybody or most people are willing to abort for any of these reasons, I mean, there seem to be plenty of people who want to have their child despite knowing it would be born with a disability while others don't, and I doubt many people abort just for asthma, and being up to a point in which humanity gets screwed up, I'm not quite sure, the issue doesn't seem to indicate that the idea leads to mass abortions though, much less getting global, as pro-lifers would probably claim.
Something that I'm not quite certain is wether the law actually allows first trimester abortions for any reason or would that be a pro-lifer claim? I am generally of the idea that if a child is not desirable, for whatever reason the mother may think, then it should be better for it not to be born.
Anyway, the idea of controling births to reduce crime, seems appealing. I probably do that if I had a time machine.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?