ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: In this scenario what would you do as a parent?
Get the abortion? 7 20.00%
Try to carry the baby to term? 21 60.00%
If yes on 1, Get it at week 12 before confirmation 4 11.43%
If yes on 1, Get it at week 16 amnio only confirmation 4 11.43%
If yes on 1, Get it week 17 to 22 with 100% confirmation 3 8.57%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll
Page 4 of 15
< 1234 567814 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Real Talk: Abortion For or Against
Nirvana58 09:38 AM 07-08-2020
You just went to the doctor and found out you and your wife are 12 weeks along with a baby boy. However, they ran an NIPT blood test and say that you are 84% likely that the baby you are having has Edwards Syndrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome

If you don't know what that is I linked the wiki page. Summary is this is basically the worst disease imaginable that I can think of. The average life span of children born with this is 3 to 14 days. Most babies are born still born if they even make it that far. It is even worst for male children who it seems to effect even more severely. Basically this is every parents worst nightmare.

The doctors can't 100% confirm until you receive an amnio and ultra sounds. This can be around 17 to 20 weeks along in your pregnancy. Even for a rush screening with amnio only you won't be able to get the results and make a decision on the abortion till 16 weeks if your lucky.

You can get a CVS earlier but doctors pretty much retired that for the NIPT test that you already received.

No matter your stance on abortion what do you do in this scenario? I am asking you to put yourself in the parents shoes and state your answer. This is not some hypothetical. People have to make this choice every year.

I have 2 questions for you. I will try to link the poll but never done one so we will see what happens.

Do you get an abortion or take it to delivery which most likely will be a still born or have an average life span of 3 to 14 days?

If you do decide to get an abortion when do you do it? The longer you wait the less humane it is but can you abort a child without 100% certainty it has this disease?

You can explain your reasoning or any questions in the replies.
[Reply]
Nirvana58 01:29 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
You were slanting a question by making false statements about the underlying facts. I'm not saying you were doing that on purpose, and the supplied information may have been news to you, but now you're trying to skim over that, minimize the survivability, and attack quality of life, rather than just acknowledging an obvious and significant error.


Don't be that guy.
I'm definitely not meaning to slant the question. 3 to 15 days is the average life span of children that are born alive. Most will never leave the hospital. This is even lower for males.

The quality of life for the kids that do leave is not what I would call ideal for the baby or parents. I tried to keep the question short and precise. I could go on for days on case studies and different scenarios. I guess 3 days was best scenario for in my mind but I can understand why it might not be for others.

I also linked the wiki article for people to get more info on the disease before they answered.

If this was a research question for a case study you would have a point. The question definitely had some bias and could be misleading. However, on a message board where people can research and state their own answers. I wouldn't put to much emphasis on my personal best case.

I changed the wording to make it more accurate. Because you are correct best case could be different for a lot of people.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 01:38 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
I'm definitely not meaning to slant the question. 3 to 15 days is the average life span of children that are born alive. Most will never leave the hospital. This is even lower for males.

The quality of life for the kids that do leave is not what I would call ideal for the baby or parents. I tried to keep the question short and precise. I could go on for days on case studies and different scenarios. I guess 3 days was best scenario for in my mind but I can understand why it might not be for others.

I also linked the wiki article for people to get more info on the disease before they answered.

If this was a research question for a case study you would have a point. The question definitely had some bias and could be misleading. However, on a message board where people can research and state their own answers. I wouldn't put to much emphasis on my personal best case.
But your personal best case was an important part of the "why make them live?" part of the argument. After all, if the very best case is a 3 day life, that's a world of difference from a best case being a life that's decades long.

The entire "after all..." argument is effectively destroyed by those so-called outliers.
[Reply]
Nirvana58 01:44 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
But your personal best case was an important part of the "why make them live?" part of the argument. After all, if the very best case is a 3 day life, that's a world of difference from a best case being a life that's decades long.

The entire "after all..." argument is effectively destroyed by those so-called outliers.
You caught me before my edit. I did change the wording in the original question because you are right. The wording did show bias.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 01:47 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
I'm definitely not meaning to slant the question. 3 to 15 days is the average life span of children that are born alive. Most will never leave the hospital. This is even lower for males.

The quality of life for the kids that do leave is not what I would call ideal for the baby or parents. I tried to keep the question short and precise. I could go on for days on case studies and different scenarios. I guess 3 days was best scenario for in my mind but I can understand why it might not be for others.

I also linked the wiki article for people to get more info on the disease before they answered.

If this was a research question for a case study you would have a point. The question definitely had some bias and could be misleading. However, on a message board where people can research and state their own answers. I wouldn't put to much emphasis on my personal best case.
I don't think it matters if the prognosis you give to human beings with Edward's syndrome isn't accurate. The question you posed by creating this thread is reasonable and a valid one to ponder. You could make up a hypothetical syndrome, call it Nirvana58's syndrome, whose victims have the prognosis you describe to frame your question and the question is still valid.

My answers or reasoning shouldn't change because my morality isn't based on a prognosis. The axioms I live by guide my actions. Sometimes they prescribe a course of action I do not want. Living forthright and righteously isn't always a picnic which is why I personally suck at it. There is a part of me that says abort that kid, but I know that is wrong.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 01:52 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
It seems to me you are trying to argue that the set of human beings who deserve moral protection should be limited to the set of human beings who are also persons. Why do we need to narrow the set? If the reason we narrow the set is just so that we can have abortions what is the point in even pretending we have some sort or morality? How would that be any different than just deciding that the set of human beings that deserves moral protection doesn't include the jews?

Also consider this: When you are under general anesthesia you are just a piece of meat. Person-hood or sentience is a transitory state. If it is okay to kill non-sentient beings for convenience then it is okay to kill you for convenience when you are non-sentient...like under general anesthesia.
Not to play the semantics game, but I'm fairly certain a sleeping adult is still considered sentient. Once you become sentient, you remain so until death, barring injury or disease.

Opinions on morality vary so wildly, that it's impossible to to say there's one right answer to the abortion debate.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 01:58 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Not to play the semantics game, but I'm fairly certain a sleeping adult is still considered sentient. Once you become sentient, you remain so until death, barring injury or disease.
"Considered sentient" is just a useful fiction. It isn't actually true in certain stages of sleep or while under general anesthesia. One's moral code should stand on its own and not require useful fictions to prop it up. The moral axiom, 'Don't kill another human being unless you have too" protects you even in your sleep or on the operating table without having to employ fictions.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:03 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
"Considered sentient" is just a useful fiction. It isn't actually true in certain stages of sleep or while under general anesthesia. One's moral code should stand on its own and not require useful fictions to prop it up.
I agree, but moral codes vary. For instance, I don't care if a fetus is sentient or not. I'm still in favor of abortion rights for others.
[Reply]
RunKC 02:04 PM 07-08-2020
I would do the best that I could and move forward. You never know what could happen.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 02:08 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
You caught me before my edit. I did change the wording in the original question because you are right. The wording did show bias.

:-)


Overall, it's a nice, extreme kind of question* which can really test the edges of moral beliefs and force people to question their own positions.







*And I mean that in a good way
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 02:10 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
I agree, but moral codes vary. For instance, I don't care if a fetus is sentient or not. I'm still in favor of abortion rights for others.
Some people's moral codes are arbitrary and capricious.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:15 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
Some people's moral codes are arbitrary and capricious.
A case could be made that all moral codes are simply matters of opinion.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 02:25 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
A case could be made that all moral codes are simply matters of opinion.
I wouldn't say opinions, but I think a case could be made that all moral codes rely on a set of assertions. But that is true of physics too. Einstein's theory of General Relativity asserts the existence of space/time....he didn't derive its existence. Seth Loyd is working on deriving the existence of space/time by asserting the existence of qubits and quantum gates. Its assertions all the way down.

Just as some physical models of the world are better than others, some moral codes are better than others. Arbitrary and capricious moral codes break down and fail. Just ask the Jews...or the Kulaks...or the American Indians...or countless others who were slaughtered largely for reasons of convenience.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:35 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
I wouldn't say opinions, but I think a case could be made that all moral codes rely on a set of assertions. But that is true of physics too. Einstein's theory of General Relativity asserts the existence of space/time....he didn't derive its existence. Seth Loyd is working on deriving the existence of space/time by asserting the existence of qubits and quantum gates. Its assertions all the way down.

Just as some physical models of the world are better than others, some moral codes are better than others. Arbitrary and capricious moral codes break down and fail. Just ask the Jews...or the Kulaks...or the American Indians...or countless others who were slaughtered largely for reasons of convenience.
From the point of view of the slaughterers, their moral codes worked just fine. The USA owes its existence to such a code.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 02:40 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
From the point of view of the slaughterers, their moral codes worked just fine. The USA owes its existence to such a code.
A lot of murders work out just fine for the murderers. Just ask the Clintons!
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:58 PM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
A lot of murders work out just fine for the murderers. Just ask the Clintons!
And off the rails we go.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 15
< 1234 567814 > Last »
Up