Abortion

I agree completely with Con that better health care is needed to care for those with disabilities and ensure effective pregnancies. If a specific congenital anomaly has a very high percentage chance of death, where the infant once born is almost certain to die soon after, I would support abortion in such a case. However, I disagree with applying this logic to all congenital abnormalities. Con asks "Would you rather see your child live a life of agony and unbearable pain or would you rather take the decision to liberate him from predicted soreness? Only a heartless person would choose misery for his infant." However, I question whether we should make such a decision for children. Again, we cannot ask them if they wish to live or die, and given that, am not sure we should assume what their desire is. I question whether anyone should have the right to decide whether others live or die, so again, I feel this comes down to personhood and viability, and that defects alone are not enough to warrant abortion unless very likely to result in inevitable death. I think it would be a hasty decision to make in assuming the disabled do not want to live. I am unaware of any poll taken of the disabled as to their opinions on the matter, and lacking that, do not believe they should be killed before or after birth. The heart of the presumption is that the disabled would not want to live with mental defects, but again, I think that should be up to them, rather than blindly assumed. If we are to follow such reasoning, it should be only after conducting a poll of those with specific disabilities to see whether they are happy they were born or not. If those with a specific disability overwhelmingly state they would prefer not to have been born, that would be a strong evidence for allowing abortion in cases of said disability, but otherwise I do not feel we should jump to conclusions about what they want. Part of Con's argument is also that the financial burden on society and individuals from the disabled is too strenuous, but I do not believe finances are a good justification for ending another's life. Again, per Gallup, only 36% of Americans consider abortion justified when the mother or family cannot afford to raise the child, and recognize that finances alone are not justification for taking a life.[1] I support increased birth control and proper sex education courses (though I think current ones too explicit) to allow responsible creation of life by parents, so that those without sufficient finances do not need to have children if they do not want to. I also support increased funding for adoption if such cases arise. Again, I believe it sets dangerous precedent to allow the taking of human life for the cause of physical or mental defects, as the tendency of courts is to expand such a scope exponentially. Once abortion was legalized, it was simply legalized wholesale, and expanded to include even the killing of children after birth, which was why the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was required and consequently passed into law in 2003.[2] Likewise, I do not think it unreasonable that if abortion were allowed in the case of genetic defects, this reasoning would be expanded indefinitely as an excuse for abortion in all types of defects, potentially including depression, dwarfism, diabetes, etc. Those who want abortions would inevitably use such a loophole to try and claim they can abort for whatever defect their child has so that the law would be expanded. For that reason, I do not think we should assume those of specific defects would not want to live, and should allow abortion only in cases where the child is virtually guaranteed of death after birth. Sources: [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...