An Ethical Question

I, on the other hand, find great hope and excitement just being alive. On topic, I've given this more thought, and seriously feel as if it's a personal decision that either the mother of the baby or parents need to make on an individual basis. IF I were to become pregnant again and found out that the fetus was SERIOUSLY deformed, I would have to pray, speak at length with hubbie and other wise council, and make the ultimate decision FOR THE BABY.....*whew* I'm so glad I don't have to decide that tough, tough issue AT THIS MOMENT!!!

Yeah of course you can't really say for certain until you're in that situation, but in terms of ethics and philosophy I'm interested in hearing what different viewpoints there are regarding a life and death issue like this. This isn't really about the situation as such, more about the principles behind people's opinions.

I am "afraid" that to me with my bible based beliefs it is a choice between letting the child live or murdering it. Dramatic? Maybe but that is how I see the takning of a life at any age, and the principle was set in the Mosaic law. IOf a man struck a pregnant woman and she subsequently miscarried, at any point, the assailant was held guilty of manslaueghter, even if the mother were completely unharmed. That makes it very plain how God feels about the matter.

In biblical terms, the child is potentially fully formed from the moment of conception, since every building block is within the egg and sperm and the babies attirbutes are "set in stone" from that point on. OK I accept that the Israelites wouldn't have known that, but God did and He "wrote" the law.

That being the case God sees any form of removal of that life as either murder, if intentional, or manslaughter, if accidental.

There are more than one reason for that. Firstly the prospective child is being denied the cahnce to live, in however limited form, btu even more so, the prospective child is being deprived of his or her birthright, the chance to acheive a resurrection after spending however short a time on the earth.

To God it really is that important.

To those who say "but it's my body" it isn't it's the child's that is being disposed of, and if you don't want the child don't do what brings one. If you do insist on going ahead, have the courage to accept the responsibility for what your actions have led to.

There can be few exceptions to that rule, in God's eyes anyway.

I think all things are intertwined in ways we are unable to truly understand. I remember as a schoolboy - ah! distant days - and at Primary school we had a couple of "little people" (twins in fact) in our class. I still get a smile on my face when I call to mind their antics and humour. Plus, because of my early "exposure" to human beings who happen to be smaller than many others, I can actually sense within me a deeper recognition that all human beings are at heart the "same" (irrespective of individual uniqueness, another thing entirely) when I see or meet a little person......this in contrast to some other genetic mishap in those I might meet. So they have taught me much of value......my own propensity to judge another when they differ from myself, and how it can be overcome. A true blessing, and part of what I see as the grace of Reality-as-is.

I have also worked with Downs children and experienced them change from being - in my unredeemed eyes - those who were "different" and "strange"......"other".....into true friends, where the differences dissolved, and each became exactly what they are.....precious individuals like all of us.

My daughter also works with young adults with learning difficulties as a personal assistant, helping them to live as independently as possible. I only feel enriched by meeting them all, they have so much to give, and so much to teach.

And once my daughter taught me a wonderful message, when I asked her "what is wrong with that one?" and she just said....."you don't have to know what's wrong with them, you just treat them as the child that they are."

So we live, and we learn..............or not.

I don't want this to be a discussion about abortion or turn this into a religious discussion, hence why it's in the philosophy section.

I am sorry if I misunderstood.

So apart from abortion what alternative are you suggesting for those who find they are expecting a child who may suffer dwarfism? Or were you thinking of a pre-pregnancy decision? If so I can even comment on that from experience. The reason I was adopted was that my adoptive mother refused to risk having a child because there was haemophilia in her family. Her brother died of it. To her that was the only alternative to risking passing haemophilia, and even that was based on her belief in the sanctity of life. My father wanted a son to pass the business on to so adoption was the only other option.

As for religion, to me at least everything in life is about the principles my beliefs instill in me, You cannot, in my eyes, separate life from religion completely. Not my religion anyway. I was simply explaning why I feel the way I do.

This isn't about the practical aspects, it's about the philosophical considerations and morals regarding it. I don't care about the abortion side of it, I want to talk about the different viewpoints regarding the moral dilemma of deciding whether or not to have a child that is known to have a debilitating illness. I used dwarfism as an example but I also mean serious, possibly life threatening, conditions as well. The dwarfism side of it only gave me inspiration for the thread.

I'm also talking about the parents making the decision BEFORE conceiving the child, btw.

It is possible to talk philosophy without bringing religion into it every time. I've met plenty of Christian academics who manage to do so with ease.

If you want to talk religion then please do so elsewhere.

This is interesting however.

In a way, one could use the sanctity of life argument for either option really. In one sense having the child shows value for its life regardless of what difficulties it may face. On the other, by valuing life as something sacred and precious one could also argue that deciding not to have a child is placing a lot of stock in the sanctity of life, as it shows that you do not wish for the child to live a life that is anything other than the best.

To deny any person in modern society the right to reproduce is, as far as I know, never an option.
For example a female who is a carrier of a sex linked disease, that would be fatal for the male off spring, is allowed to have children.
Basically the can have a slowly degenrative disease and will at the very least make their female off spring carriers, this is because the fetous is not considered to have rights or considered to be human as such until after the first trimester.
Yet we don't allow germline gene therapy, stupid rules.

It's a double edged sword, you can't say all life is sacride then deny people the right to reproduce. Then comes the arguement who decides what genetic sequence is good enough to be passed on, it makes sense in a way.
I believe we learn more from studying actual diseases so the more sick people the better, and there is still the option of somatic gene therapy after birth.

This isn't about telling people what to do.

Short stature can be inherited without any coexisting disease. Short stature in the absence of a medical condition is not generally considered dwarfism. For example, a short man and a short woman with average health will tend to produce children who are also short and with average health. While short parents tend to produce short children, persons with dwarfism may produce children of average height, if the cause of their dwarfism is not genetically transmissible or if the individual does not pass on the genetic variation.

J.R.

That has nothing to do with what I was actually talking about.

Locked at OP request