would you abort if you knew baby will be profoundly ret*d

Post Reply New Topic

Absolutely not, unless there was a big chance we would both die in child birth or if I was unable to care for the child in a happy, healthy environment. But I would abort the child if I was in those two situations regardless of the child's disability or lack thereof.

The only reason I'd abort is if I would die during childbirth, or the fetus would be stillborn. One problem with prenatal tests is that there are false positive results, so I would never abort if that happened. Now, if I had to get an abortion to save my life, I would also get my tubes tied.

Everyone deserves the chance to live.

I would get a vasectomy right now if I could. I plan to eventually. Personally, I am in no way breeding material.

I am pro-life, so I wouldn't.
If I couldn't take proper care of the child, I would make an institution or such take care of it.
We can't look into the future and can't know whether a person's life will be "good" or "bad".
With that kind of logic, we should also (and rather) kill people we knew for sure had a bad life.

I don't think "yes, but I'd abort anyway if the child was healthy" is quite what the question is getting at.

As much flak as I may face for this....IF I WAS A PREGNANT WOMAN WHO ACTUALLY WANTED CHILDREN, I would abort if I knew my baby would be profoundly ret*d.

I would abort for almost any significant physical and/or mental abnormality.


The way I see it....life is hard enough for people without any said abnormalities.


Does that mean that life is hard and miserable for everyone with said abnormalities?....of course not.

But sorry....I would want my child to have every conceivable physical/mental advantage and no disadvantages...even remotely potential disadvantages.


It some wish to view me as some sort of ghoul who is in favor of "Eugenic abortion"...so be it.


I would abort for countless other reasons as well.....I would abort if I were poor and could not afford to give my child the best education, healthcare, nutrition, etc......

Again....it would be a case of wanting every conceivable advantage for my offspring and no potential disadvantages.

Okay.... if you could somehow KNOW that your child would spend it's entire life in an institution....you would still "choose life"?

If so....why exactly is lifetime in an institution preferable to mere nonexistence?


With all due respect...I would prefer secular answers to this question as opposed to religious ones (just in case religious beliefs at least partially inform your prolife views) since i'm an atheist/materialist. Therefore, religiously-based arguments for any given position mean nothing to me. Those who use such arguments with me might as well offer them in Mandarin Chinese.

First off, it's impossible to know that a child will spend their lifetime in an institution, because changes happen all the time. So it's an impossible scenario -- such knowledge can never exist, so speculating about it is just an exercise in abstraction.

But the reason to me is that if you never exist you will have no chance of happiness. If you do exist there is always a chance of happiness, even if the scenario ("living in an institution") creates an image in people's heads of no chance of happiness. Institutions of all kinds (traditional and nontraditional) are terrible places, but people do carve out lives wherever they end up in life and the lives they carve out usually involve the chance of happiness.

As for giving a child every conceivable advantage, I assume that you would also abort then if the child was anything other than white, male, heterosexual, cisgender, etc? Because failure to be that uber-privileged person causes varying degrees of disadvantage in life, including disadvantage that can be far worse than that faced by disabled people in many circumstances. So in order to have "every advantage in life," that's the sort of child you would have to have. Of course then the trouble becomes where do you draw the line. Every advantage could be construed as having much higher than average physical fitness and (valued-by-the-majority) cognitive abilities. And since the line between able-bodied and disabled is incredibly arbitrary, you'd have to work that one out too.

And yes, that's eugenic. That's sort of the definition of eugenics.

I'll say no cause, even though I've had to deal with a wide range of issues some neurological,physical,social, I realise that all people have or will have adversity in life therefore, to take away the chance of another person existing regardless of possible difficulties would make me feel less human Truthfully!!

Absolutely NOT! Every child has the right to live, they all deserve a chance to make something of themselves.

Abort ret*d children today, next week we'll abort low functioning autistics, week after that HFA has to go.

If you don't exist you don't exist, so you won't need happiness.

I'd abort a child if i knew it was going to be a political or religious extremist.