Heating up General. (Abortion)

[Stygian]

Two people have a child, not one.

[Amber Williams]

Personally, I feel that it's the (potential) mother's choice, and should stay that way. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, I feel it's morally wrong to try to force her to. Nobody can decide whether it's right for her to have the child better than she can. It's her body, and she should be in control of it.

Normally I agree with that...except sometimes you get those off-wild scenarios that always creep into things.  I guess sometimes it really does fall into motive.  The only reason I mention this is because I was unfortunate to know of a situation where someone later-termed aborted just to ultimately get back at an ex.  That...well...lets just say it still burns me a bit since it is not only immature and childish, but a gross abuse of a process that should be used (IMO) only for emergencies and dire situations.

It's ultimately one of the reasons I feel that the guy (if he is a valid part of the mother's life) should get some say...especially in situations like that.  Yeah, if its some dude who just wham-bam'd one night or has no actual input into the childs life other than gene-contribution, screw em.  But if there is a relationship or the guy actually wants to take responsibility(possibly even sole responsibility), it is unfair for the girl to just be like "piss off"...triply so if her motives are very petty.

Seriously. I got no loves for the girls who use their potential babies as bargaining chips.

[Alondro]

It's my body and I can do what I want with it... the exact same excuse people use who are drug abusers or wish to commit suicide.  Yet we stop those people... for some odd reason.  It's hypocrisy to allow people to do one thing for that reason, then disallow the other things they wish to do to themselves.

Think more logically.

Pure logic says that if people cause all the world's problems, then the solution is to get rid of all the people.  For if there are no people, there will be no problems.   

[superluser]

Me, I broke off a friendship with a girl, since she got pregnant underage, and then refused to have an abortion despite the protests of her family and boyfriend. I actually pitied them for being burdened with her too. And I don't care who calls me an ass for that. I don't want to be associated with someone who acts that way.

While I am pro-life, I do recognize the values that the pro-choice people are trying to promote, and I understand their point of view.  I think that an independent human life should be valued more than a convenience, but I do recognize that the pro-choice people are doing what they feel is right, and I understand why they feel that way.

But when people start taking the position that not only is the fetus not independent of the woman but also a part of the woman that other people can control, I begin to get a bit sick to my stomach.

I don't know what sort of experience you guys have with forced sterilization over in Sweden, but in the US (as well as much of Europe), we have had a very sordid history with that wretched thing.  Anything like forced abortion starts to have more than a whiff of eugenics, and that makes me unhappy.

What is more, I'm very concerned about what this sort of practice will have on the genetic complexion of the human race as a whole.  Are we evolving ourselves into less genetic diversity, to the point where a single plague might be able to level the entire human species?

[Stygian]

Psh. You should be more worried about cultural changes if that's what you're really aiming for. Of course we are polluting the human DNA. Everything's pointing to it. Nobody minds it either, it seems. Not in a way that is the least constructive.

And thinking that the mother is the only one to make the choice is plain idiocy. That guy who made my "friend" pregnant thought he was safe and protected. Now, I don't know how the affair ended, since she moved and I haven't exactly felt like keeping in touch. But last I saw that guy he was practically torn apart. Now, I am very, very disinclined to believe that it was a good choice for a studying, underage, asthmatic and jobless girl to set her mind to keep the baby.

[superluser]

Of course we are polluting the human DNA.

OK.  That's completely *opposite* of what I was saying.  Genetic diversity necessarily involves allowing (and even helping) the weak survive.  What is a deficiency one millennium may very well be the thing that saves the human race the next.

You call it pollution; I call it an essential part of the human condition.

[Amber Williams]

I'd advise caution if only because there is a bit of similar sentiments that were once spoken back when inter-racial marraige was first stepping onto the scene. Obviously not for same reasons and exactly same situation...but there likely was a general "if this is allowed, we'll all breed into one race" mentality.

Personally speaking and thinking, considering the sheer amount of people on the planet, it would likely be hard pressed and hard time coming to a point where genetic diversity is so scarce that a super-bug would take us out. We're not potatoes, though we share a few traits now and then. 

That and...correct me if I'm wrong...most major plagues and epidemics usually can wipe out people regardless of particular genetic strains.  I remember reading cases where particular genders and ethnic groups are more likely to get heart desiese or cancers, but I've never heard of a lot of cases where a group survived a particular epidemic due to genetic diversity.

Then again, I might be getting confused and still thinking in terms of random abortion versus enforced sterilization.  If we're talking mass sterlization then yeah, I could see a case about genetic issues.  Then again genetics aren't the only key factor in ones life.  I dont' think obesity is running rampant in the US simply because people are being born with the chunky gene.

[RJ]

I don't get some people and religion... I'm a Christian and all, but I'm at least a respectful one. If people want to go do something, it's their choice. I shouldn't push my religion onto them if they don't want it.

But then you have to ask yourself: What is religion and what is common sense? Killing is prohibited by the bible and thus a religious law. At the same time it's a very common law that many people follow regardless of religion.

When it comes to abortion, I think the real question is what you consider to be human life and if it is right to kill someone in order to prevent that person from suffering for a life time. The later links back a bit to the first when you consider how we handle termination of nonhuman life.

I've always perceived that my common sense goes hand in hand with my religious beliefs so then I don't make an ass out of myself and end up a bad example.

And really, I have to admit I don't know enough about pregnancy and babies so I have no idea what to think, let alone try to make some uninformed judgement on what is right there.

[superluser]

I'd advise caution if only because there is a bit of similar sentiments that were once spoken back when inter-racial marraige was first stepping onto the scene. Obviously not for same reasons and exactly same situation...but there likely was a general "if this is allowed, we'll all breed into one race" mentality.

I'm having a hard time figuring out who this is addressed to, because I think I'm agreeing with you.

My point is that we shouldn't condemn anybody for their genes, and we should let everybody have sex with whomever they want (well, so long as the other person agrees).  Telling people that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce or that people with certain `deficiencies' (or so we call them today) should be aborted results in a less rich gene pool.

Hand in hand with that, however, is the fact that we cannot isolate these genetic traits.  It's hard to explain, but if you know a bit about information entropy and punctuated equilibrium, it starts to make sense. 

The famous case is that of sickle cell anemia.  If you have two recessive sickle cell genes, you have the disease (or are likely to have it activate.  I'm not 100% sure).  This results in some serious problems.

So we should get rid of that gene, right?  Not so fast.  The sickle cell gene also confers a resistance to malaria.  So if in another 1000 years, we have a worldwide malaria epidemic (well, we already do in most tropical and third world regions), those people who have even one copy of the gene are suddenly going to become fitter than those without.

If you found out that your kid was going to have Huntington's Chorea, you might think that your kid is going to have a miserable life.  But what if, in 1000 years, it turns out that the mHtt protein will provide us with some resistance to some other disease?

And then, if we confine our populations to reproducing with their own kind, we're effectively committing genocide on all those other populations if such a disease ever comes.

And really, I have to admit I don't know enough about pregnancy and babies so I have no idea what to think

There are so many responses to this.  But I think I'll stick to this one.

[RJ]

And really, I have to admit I don't know enough about pregnancy and babies so I have no idea what to think

There are so many responses to this.  But I think I'll stick to this one.

...I can't pick a single response, so I'll do both!

[Stygian]

In a stable system of development, changes that are as rapid and as extreme as the changes that we've seen in human lifestyle, in human diseases, in human genes etc., are generally detrimental. Same thing with climate change, same thing with basically any mainly chaotic system. Evolution isn't perfect; it's a system, and any system has leeways. And if evolution is dependant on natural selection, then...
   I won't take it as far as going fascist, since I believe in sympathy, in intelligence and in there actually being a possibility for humane thought. But people who refuse to see that it's still something that happens, and that it's detrimental...
   Odd chemicals that we spread all around us, that get in our bodies, that affect us... The occurrence of more and more genetically related diseases and deformities in humans... People becoming unhealthier and weaker... These are facts. They're not some silly idea or some pessimistic fiction. They're facts. And you can read about them in health reports worldwide. Now, I won't take this to a point, and I won't try and hammer some idea or so into your head, but I am saying that all things, regardless of where you look, together point to show that the overwhelmingly greatest possibility is that the human genome is deteriorating in its quality. It is not a question about genetic diversity anymore, not now. It is about quality.

[Amber Williams]

Don't worry, just a general cautionary advisory. Not targeted at anyone in particular.  If the topic was going to go from abortion to genetics, I wanted to shift the civilness rule to help cover.  I guess its inevitable that sometimes one topic like abortion might shift to topics like racial diversity.

That and it's partially reflexes from my old sociology and debate class.  When you take lectures where you read some articles and data that contains information implying that some genders and races might actually be racially better/worse at certain things...it is good to cover ones bum.

Other than that, and this one will be targeted to ya superluser, you are kind of confusing me about if we are just talking your average abortion or if this is going into the train of thought of people aborting purely for genetic/gender reasons.  Or if you are still referring to mass sterilization.

Cause Wikipedia cited chart in abortion tends to put genetic reasons on the low-scale. (though this is a 1998 chart and also on Wikipedia so caution regarding source given) (actual article where chart is from here.)

Personally speaking, I can understand if some people opt abortion if the illness of the child was something majorly serious that would require dependent care from the parents and what might be considered a low-quality of life.  It's a rough choice, and I doubt it's an easy one to make regardless. And as Brun's post indicated, there are always exceptions to the rule.

I'm not saying we should condemn people for their genes or start targeting particular groups,  that's like saying blind people shouldn't have kids...and that's stupid.(Though I would bet some groups would say that it would be a good idea. Bleh)  But I don't necessarily forsee in anytime people going to the doctor, finding out their kid has asthma(which I admit I don't know if its hereditary or genetic at all so apologies), and deciding to abort.   

Then again I might be relying on the hope that medical science and technology will come up with breakthroughs and cures to help make the genetic/health reason for aborting unnecessary. 

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Yeah.  Get out box!  We don't like your kind here!

Yes, massa. Sorry, massa.

[superluser]

Other than that, and this one will be targeted to ya superluser, you are kind of confusing me about if we are just talking your average abortion or if this is going into the train of thought of people aborting purely for genetic/gender reasons.  Or if you are still referring to mass sterilization.

Cause Wikipedia cited chart in abortion tends to put genetic reasons on the low-scale. (though this is a 1998 chart and also on Wikipedia so caution regarding source given) (actual article where chart is from here.)

I'm not specifically excluding either, but I was referring to ``your average abortion.''

I haven't taken the time to verify that the article actually comes from International Family Planning Perspectives, but it probably does, and I think that that publication is fairly credible.

Which makes it interesting, because most of the literature that I read play up the questions of ``What if there's something wrong with the baby?''  It's interesting that it seems that that is the main reason in only 3% of US abortions.  Looking at it a bit more, it looks to be a major factor in 13% of all US abortions.

And a lot of that you can understand.  What if you knew that your kid had Down Syndrome?  That's genetic.

Actually, Down children tend to be sterile, so they're already out of the gene pool.  But some other genetic diseases can be just as serious.  The point remains that people do have abortions because of genetic `defects,' and the issue is that eliminating these `defects' is limiting the resilience of the human race.

I'm not arguing against designer children here, because that's not what's being argued here.  I'm just arguing that it's probably for the best to allow natural selection to work its magic.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

... it is. Those who have lots of abortions tend not to have lots of kids.

Over time, that sorts itself out. We're just in a stage where it hasn't. Yet.

[Gabi]

So far all the people I know who have opted for abortion did so because they considered themselves too young to raise children. That is illegal here, but if you have enough money you can always find someone who's willing to do it (contrary to what someone said earlier about abortion being more popular among the lower classes in his/her country).

As for the "it's my body" philosophy, I don't agree with it. A baby is much more than a physical condition. We're not talking about a haircut, a tattoo or a diet. It's someone else's (potential?) life, even in the regrettably many cases in which the father disappears as soon as he hears he's becoming one.

[Stygian]

Well, the whole deal is that it's not the genes themselves that trigger these diseases (e.g. cancer, blindness, asthma, heart conditions, blood conditions, faulty fats around glial cells...), but external conditions in combination with the genes. However, as these conditions are triggered, something that most probably happens at a young age, they are basically fixed into the genome of a person, and they are allowed to pass on. This affects the next generation. And then, when they, with their probability to develop these kinds of disorders, have kids, then what about them?
   Progressive accumulation of hereditary genetic flaws. Even recessive traits may mutate, or simply become very common to the general genepool due to overexposure. And that is a contributing reason to why we have more of these diseases and disorders today than, say, fifty or sixty years ago. It's not the biggest factor, not by far, but it's the one that threatens to become exponential...

[Gabi]

I don't think we have more diseases and disorders now than 50 years ago. At most many that used to be unknown have a name now. And in any case, it's in-breeding that perpetuates those diseases the most. Inter-breeding helps them dissolve away. Not to mention that carrying a disease doesn't reduce someone's value as a person, let alone justify killing them. But we're derailing the topic again.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

If you want see genetics and the environment and others horrors of urbanization and pollution go see the movie    "The Children of Men"

Now, back on topic.

Yes, woman should get to choose, but there needs to be a time limit on her choice.  And a limit to how many times, she uses the abortion option.  Okay the first time can be a mistake and the second maybe so, but when you get to ten times, someone should start thinking about birth control and/or sterilization. The girl needs her head examined, I am sorry.   If you have a habit of picking losers, than get on the pill.  Why do people always think that "Oh if we only had a baby he would stop drinking and love me."

The mental health of the woman is always the major factor in if she can seperate the rapist father from the child. it is double trouble, when it is a family member.  Oh, I have read that just because a child has the potential to be a full sentient life, that they should have rights to be protected.   Well, No one has talked about one's rights to have your genes spread around or not or be mix with that guy or these guys.This is the difference between being rape or being slutting....Still, If a woman wants to control over her body, then take control and take steps not to be pregnant in the first place.  And yes, you must be mature and accept the risks, because birth control is not foolproof.   

Still, we were talking about statical numbers:  What is the percent of abortion for personal, medical, and criminal (rape/incest) reason?  and maybe then we can make a more informed opinion then?

PBH

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I know someone who says she's had kids on every form of birth control there is - including having her tubes tied, -and- his.

I figured she probably knew what she was talking about, since she had had four kids by the time she was 26 (cute kids, too) and was bright enough that she was using linux some 8-10 years ago, and, last I heard, had a job as a network engineer for one of the larger ISP's around in NZ.

Sure, that's small biscuits to the US, but even so, they don't give those jobs to morons...

[superluser]

Well, the whole deal is that it's not the genes themselves that trigger these diseases (e.g. cancer, blindness, asthma, heart conditions, blood conditions, faulty fats around glial cells...), but external conditions in combination with the genes.

Actually not.  Sickle cell anemia is congenital (I just checked).  So is hemophilia.  And Huntingdon's Chorea.  And Down Syndrome.  Environment cannot stop these diseases.

However, as these conditions are triggered, something that most probably happens at a young age, they are basically fixed into the genome of a person.  This affects the next generation.

This is not right.  This is Lamarckian inheritance--the theory that giraffes got longer necks because they strrrrretched them up and so they got longer.  That was pre-Darwin (in fact, pre-Mendel).  Darwin came along and said that what really happened was that those giraffes born with shorter necks died out before they could reproduce.

Still, we were talking about statical numbers:  What is the percent of abortion for personal, medical, and criminal (rape/incest) reason?  and maybe then we can make a more informed opinion then?

Aargh!  More research!  Actually, Amber's information (which I've just double checked, and it is an accurate reproduction of the article) gives most of that info.

I've found a more recent version of those statistics(1), which had gaps in the 1987-88 data.

Here are the rates for which women report the most important reason for having an abortion: Personal - 86-88%, Health - 7%,  Rape - <0.5, Other - 6%

Secondary reasons are not going to work, since people can choose more
than one reason, and the numbers are going to add up to well over 100%.  But there are 9 personal reasons ranging from 6% to 74% adding up to 332%.  Health and rape/incest each had two responses 13% (health of fetus), 12% (mother's health), 1% (rape), <0.5% (incest).

This necessarily means that (assuming perfect reporting) the maximum percentage of people who have abortions due to health reasons or rape/incest is 27%.  Which means that 73% do not involve those factors at all.


(1) Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
    Lawrence B. Finer; Lori F. Frohwirth; Lindsay A. Dauphinee; Susheela Singh; Ann M. Moore
    Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Sep., 2005), pp. 110-118.

[Amber Williams]

I tend to view personally the rape/incest scenario similar to the partial birth scenario.  Both exist, but in comparison to the big picture are actually in the smaller percentile to the rest...yet they are often the big banners waved by Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.  Probably because they are such heavy hitting concepts.  The concept of someone being raped and then getting slammed with the fact she's pregnant by it is a brutal one, yet so is the concept of someone having an abortion to an infant that had she waited one week, might have been born naturally if not a bit premie.

In terms of genetics and children born with desieses...I confess I am not familiar with most of them...but I'm going to assume (blindly) that some are worse than others.  And in some cases it does take a lot more effort and strength to be able to be there for them.  Especially if they are the type of illness that is going to require them to be the child's caretaker for their entire lives.  It's a hard task, and I salute anyone who has the resolution to do it...but I can see how not everyone is going to be able to handle it.  Either financially, physically, or mentally.  And while there are good people out there who do such things, I am not entirely sure how the adoption rate goes for children with disorders...so it is possible adoption isn't just a quick and easy solution.

This is me being curious, and hoping that someone who is better at sleuthing data can help...but what are the percentage of children with disorders in comparison to financial earnings?  Cause in all honesty...I have only come across special education children or disordered children in either middle-upward income families...or in foster homes.  And I hate to use that as a base of my opinions. X_x

[Stygian]

Allright, I'll admit, I screwed up bad and formulated myself in a faulty way. Even when you look at the context my previous post was off.

Still, I did not mention either hemophilia, Huntingdon's Chorea or Down Syndrome. I was talking about the diseases whose rate of occurrence has been proven to actually be affected by our general lifestyle.

And even if I were not, what if we reverse the whole thing? The gradual buildup of genetically induced diseases and disorders is still a threat due to the fact that the people who carry them do not "die off", unless you go all Nazi asswipe and institute breeding programs. You haven't really provided a solution.

Oh, and what with fortune, living conditions and chance being the way they are, I wouldn't think that you'd see a significant difference between rich and poor, unless you would go outside the perspective of a large community, and began doing a very widespread search. But that's a guess on my part.

[Yugo]

Aborting a child because it has genetic diseases or defects is essentially eugenics. On an extremely small scale, to be sure, but still eugenics. Something the human race has been able to pride itself on is the ability to adapt to new and changing conditions, and killing a child because it had disorders/defects is just wrong. I was born addicted to cocaine with an eating disorder. On top of that I had terrible eyes. I'm proud to say I no longer have that disorder nor am I addicted to cocaine. The eyes are still improving, but they've come a long way from the beginning. Would it have been right to end my possible life simply because I had defects at birth? I certainly hope not.

[Roureem Egas]

You were born with both an addiction and and eating disorder? That's pretty insane. O_o I'm gonna have to look that up to see if it's even possible because you have to admit, that's pretty unusual.

...I've nothing to really say about the topic at hand.

Edit: Just looked on Wikipedia (I'm fully aware it may be questionable). I've searched under eating disorders and congenital diseases and have not found anything that sounds similar to what you say. The vision thing I can believe, and I'm guessing your vision was improved with some sort of surgery.

Edit 2: Ok, I believe the addiction part.

[superluser]

This is me being curious, and hoping that someone who is better at sleuthing data can help...but what are the percentage of children with disorders in comparison to financial earnings?  Cause in all honesty...I have only come across special education children or disordered children in either middle-upward income families...or in foster homes.  And I hate to use that as a base of my opinions. X_x

Well, I guess that's me again.

One of the most interesting things about this discussion is seeing the types of arguments that various people use.  I'm obviously the analytic type, and in my arguments, you're more likely to see peer-reviewed journals (even if the data don't support my position).  I could go on characterizing other people, but (A) that's rude, and (B) I don't know if this debate is a fluke, and I don't want to influence other people's debating styles for future debates (if there ever are any).

On to your question.  I must confess, I'm not sure exactly what your question is.  Almost all children have disorders, from an allergic disorder to a viral disorder (common cold) to an autoimmune disorder to...you get the idea.  And financial earnings.  Is that the kid's or the parents'?  At what age are we measuring this?

You may accuse me of being pedantic, but when I first read that sentence, I was honestly confused.

Based on your subsequent comments, I'm going to assume that you mean something like, ``What is the correlation between parents' earnings at time of child's birth to the likelihood that that child will manifest a genetic disorder?''

Then let me start off by saying that I have some ideas about this.  I have a sneaking suspicion that upper class parents can procure abortions more easily and perhaps even covertly than middle and lower class parents, meaning that the data may be skewed showing a slightly lower incidence of genetic disorders for upper class families than for lower classes.

Furthermore, I suspect that while lower class families can more easily get assistance to pay for abortions and upper class families can more easily afford this out of pocket, middle class families probably get the short ends of both sticks, so they might have a lower abortion rate than both lower and upper classes.

But that's a digression, and I have no evidence to back that up.

Actually, I can't seem to find much of anything on that.  My instincts say that income and genetics shouldn't be strongly correlated, but that's not evidence.

Anywho, I'm supposed to be preparing a presentation on Edward Tufte, so those data will probably haev to wait until the weekend.

[Eibborn]

You were born with both an addiction and and eating disorder? That's pretty insane. O_o I'm gonna have to look that up to see if it's even possible because you have to admit, that's pretty unusual.

...I've nothing to really say about the topic at hand.

I likewise have nothing to say about abortion because I honestly don't feel I know enough at this point to form a valid opinion (although this discussion is helping! ).
However, in response to Roureem Egas: http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=3392
The main topic of the article isn't relevant, but it answers your question regarding addictions in newborns. I would assume eating disorders would work similarly, but I have no data to back it up.

[Amber Williams]

My question is more based on a hypothesis of my own...but one that has no backing and only has my own personal experiences as a guide.  I've grown up in a middle-income area so I'm not exposed to the highly rich or highly poor.  While I realize that certain illnesses and disorders are likely to happen regardless of income, my question was more geared towards the income as a means of how parents handle the situation.

My hypothosis was that middle-income families would likely have a higher percent of people who would be willing to be full-time caretakers if their children turned out to have a disability that required full-time assistance.  Where as higher-income families would be second highest...in theory because they have the resources available for such care. (the flipside being that they might have easier access to simply finding out and aborting) where as incredibly low income would have the highest case of abortion in part due to costs. (The cost of an abortion versus the cost of constant medical care)

But I grew up living in the country Bible Belt of Indiana so I am more than aware I have no knowledge of urban or high-class societies and how they handle things.  It's just that in what I have read and studied, it just dawned on me I have never heard of any real cases of low-income people and how they handle disabled children...well..except in those really ugly newstories about severe neglect/abuse. 

I am assuming genetic disorders don't exactly pay attention to how much their parents are making. I was more wondering if income has any influence in a parents choice to abort due to genetic disorders...and if so, which direction.

[Yugo]

Eating disorders usually come after birth. It was the result of not getting enough food, so I developed the habit to eat everything I could. I had a lot of things wrong with me as a kid, but I was simply making a point that just because somebody has something wrong with them doesn't mean it can't be corrected. The improvement of my eyes is actually the result of wearing glasses for nearly 14 years and learning how to keep my astagmus (Spelling?) in check.

[Amber Williams]

I should add a note that when I am talking disorder for the most part, I'm not talking about any and all.  I'm talking mainly about the ones where the person is handicapped to a point they will always need some form of caretaker.

In no way am I suggesting people born blind, missing a limb or partially paralyzed, or have a life-long need for diabetes control is a disorder where abortion is a good option.  There are dozens of disorders where despite them people can carry on with normal lives, and I fully support their right to pursue that. 

I guess what I'm saying is that the debate of abortion versus genetic disorders for me is usually a debate about quality of life.  For the both child and the caretakers.  And unfortunately for me, it's something I can't personally put down a solid opinion because it is such a case-by-case situation...moreso than regular abortion.(at least in my opinion)