What would YOU do if your child was retarded?

[NESgamer]

I think i would take the decision after talking with my partner, because i believe that is the mother's right to choose as well (if not 60%); my position?, i honestly would like to keep the child, is just the fear of him/her suffering or myself not being able to take care of him/her that would make me think about abortion.But all this is mere speculation.

My fiance so far doesn't believe at all in abortion,of course i'm not pointing my answer towards her, since we are not under the situation, not even of pregnancy or close to it.

 

[The.Lost.Hylian]

I'm with chaos on this one, though for a different reason.

If, let's say, a monkey is born with a detrimental handicap, it would most likely die in the wild. I'm one for "survival of the fittest" and I would want a healthy baby. And, I may sound inhuman for saying this, but severely handicapped people serve no purpose. We spend our time nurturing them for their entire lives, and for what? If I'm going to have children, I'm going to have children who can do something with their lives, not require the help of others just to live.

 

[akuchi]

dragontamer; the argument from potentiality is utter nonsense.

 

[Tarot Sport]

The idea of aborting disabled children and trying again for a heathly one reminds me of this scene from 300.

:)

But seriously, i think it depends on the severity of the disability. i personally wouldn't want to abort a down syndrome child, but i'd probably feel differently if the child was so disabled that it would spend the rest of its life with the mental age of a baby.

 

[majesty]

Oh well, so its up to opinion.

This is why I hate abortion debates >_>

I don't really remember how this became an abortion debate!

If you had a handicapped child, what would you do? Is essentially the question. I am curious beyond my original "I'd treat them like I do all my other kids" then make them mix drywall or some crap what people might do in the RAISING and SPECIAL NEEDS of said handicapped child.

Sorry to come in like this guys and try to redirect your rigorous debate...but honestly I am curious what you would do assuming the child is already born and you are 'stuck' with raising it (assuming nobody heads south to Mexico on this one).

 

[chaos]

I just wanna throw in these few points, since it seems appropriate.

I wish you wouldn't

-Stephen Hawking is physically handicapped beyond belief. He's also the smartest man (IIRC) alive today. Abortion?

The same Stephen Hawking who was born a healthy child, does not suffer from a mental retardation and first started showing symptoms of Lou Gehrig's disease when he was in college? Yes, that would have fallen under what I'm talking about for sure...................

 

[DM]

I don't really remember how this became an abortion debate!

Yeah, it's not really supposed to be. You can probably thank Deck Knight for that.

DM, I find your reaction to SkarmBlissCounter to be absurd. How is being handicapped scientific? Having a specific disease is one thing, but the word handicap itself is a slur. Just because a slur is mild and not extreme, or because it is not used in a way intending malice, does not keep it from being a slur! It has nothing to do with being sensitive or not, and I think I can lend that at least some credibility, because I am not a very sensitive person at all, but I think slurs are entirely immoral. If the intent of a word is to denigrate a specific group of people, then that is unacceptable, whether or not it is no longer has the same meaning behind it to most people!

Considering there are "handicapped" parking spaces and "handicapped accessible" elevators and vans and entryways, the basic widespread use of the word by the people who write the medical books is reason enough to accept the term.

Hell, I went to school with one kid with Down's Syndome since 3rd grade (obviously not anymore since I am in college and he works).

Obviously. Just one more thing he'll never be able to experience.

Do you all honestly believe you're doing a favor to the kid by killing the kid?

I'm not "killing" a kid, I'm "killing" a few-week-old embryo.

 

[sbc]

I'm with chaos on this one, though for a different reason.

If, let's say, a monkey is born with a detrimental handicap, it would most likely die in the wild. I'm one for "survival of the fittest" and I would want a healthy baby. And, I may sound inhuman for saying this, but severely handicapped people serve no purpose. We spend our time nurturing them for their entire lives, and for what? If I'm going to have children, I'm going to have children who can do something with their lives, not require the help of others just to live.

We aren't monkeys and the "wild" has no relation to modern civilisation. And if you don't want to nuture disabled people, what do you suppose you do? Just give up on them because they aren't like other people?

 

[chaos]

Why wouldn't you nurture disabled people? I see no problem in that. However, I don't see anything wrong with trying our best to reduce the number of them being born if we can.

 

[Glen]

i dunno, as my first post actually on-topic here, i have to say that logically speaking, chaos is completely right. the only issues i can find with his viewpoint are those stemming from religion, or, much more interestingly, where to draw the line.

i mean really, its logical to stop the mentally challenged from being born, but when you think about it, isnt it also logical to stop people with ADD from being born? fat people? ugly people? i know im being extreme here but seriously, if we're taking into account both the happiness of the child and the happiness of the parent, it makes sense. its cruel and its evil, but it makes about as much sense as aborting a retarded embryo (assuming technology comes about to find out the looks of your baby in the future ?_?).

 

[DM]

i dunno, as my first post actually on-topic here, i have to say that logically speaking, chaos is completely right. the only issues i can find with his viewpoint are those stemming from religion, or, much more interestingly, where to draw the line.

i mean really, its logical to stop the mentally challenged from being born, but when you think about it, isnt it also logical to stop people with ADD from being born? fat people? ugly people? i know im being extreme here but seriously, if we're taking into account both the happiness of the child and the happiness of the parent, it makes sense. its cruel and its evil, but it makes about as much sense as aborting a retarded embryo (assuming technology comes about to find out the looks of your baby in the future ?_?).

Being fat and being mentally retarded aren't in the same ballpark, or even in the same zip code. While obesity has been shown to be genetic, there are still medical procedures that can be performed and drugs that can be taken to assist in the loss of weight. Once there's an operation to give a person with Down Syndrome full brain functionality a la Flowers for Algernon, then and only then can your argument be made.

 

[Mekkah]

Also, I really doubt fat or ugly people are as troubled to find good education/job/friends etc as retarded kids. It's much less of a, well, handicap. I know you are saying it's hard to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure I would draw it somewhere in between them!

 

[Catamaran]

I personally wouldn't be able to abort the baby. Growing up my grandparents both worked in a hospital for the mentally retarted and none of the patients were these miserable lonely people. In fact as far as I could tell they all seemed to be loving life.

Every argument that you guys gave against keeping the baby is true, they do require more attention and they do struggle through a lot of life, but I do think that they deserve the chance. Not everyone is capable of taking care of somebody with a mental disabilty, but as long as I had the resources to take care of a child like that I would.

 

[The.Lost.Hylian]

I don't think there is ever any way to tell that your child will be obese or have some form of disorder that isn't extreme, like Down Syndrome or retardation. I'm bipolar, and from what I can surmise about my mother (I haven't seen or spoken to her in almost 17 years), she has the same disorder. It isn't until puberty that the symptoms really flesh out. I'm still functional, and I can still live a normal life taking care of myself (for the most part, outside of all my finances, obviously).

Point is, if I know just weeks into a pregnancy that my child will have a severe disorder, then I would like to have the choice to abort. I may carry a good chance of passing bipolar on to my own children, but that's a disorder that still allows people to function (more or less). I plan on adopting anyway, so I probably won't have to run into this "what if my baby..." problem.

I spoke about other species because when you really think about it, we're just any other species on the planet. Sure we're far more advanced than other organisms, but that doesn't mean the same laws of nature don't apply to us. Business is run on the "only the strong survive". We run businesses, so in a sense, our lives are run by "only the strong survive." Maybe not literally survive in all senses of the phrase, but people who are not successful are not financially well off. People who get illnesses like malaria and die, well, they weren't strong enough to fight it off. The main reason I spoke about other species though is that we spend so many resources taking care of people who can't care for themselves, and that's wasting resources we could use for people who can get better and/or serve a purpose in the world. Those with severe mental disorders, like Down Syndrome, are infertile for a reason: so they can't pass on their flawed genes. That would be a perfect example of "only the strong survive."

 

[NESgamer]

I

I spoke about other species because when you really think about it, we're just any other species on the planet. Sure we're far more advanced than other organisms, but that doesn't mean the same laws of nature don't apply to us. Business is run on the "only the strong survive". We run businesses, so in a sense, our lives are run by "only the strong survive." Maybe not literally survive in all senses of the phrase, but people who are not successful are not financially well off.

But unlike other species we can function on morality and philosophy.

I understand the example of who is successful in life compared to "the stronger", but i believe is not the same thing, we are not naturally born like that, is the society which demands these things.

Wasting resources?, probably you're right. But is the right thing to do in the moral side.If i had a familiar with these illness i wouldn't feel like a waste to try to help him.

 

[Dragontamer]

dragontamer; the argument from potentiality is utter nonsense.

If I were perhaps arguing about potentiality, then maybe you'd have a point.

Obi already crushed (and actually understood) my argument anyway, I don't see why you're still responding.

I don't really remember how this became an abortion debate!

Well... if I knew the child would become handicapped, then it becomes an abortion debate assuming the child will be handicapped. It really is key to this issue.

If you had a handicapped child, what would you do? Is essentially the question. I am curious beyond my original "I'd treat them like I do all my other kids" then make them mix drywall or some crap what people might do in the RAISING and SPECIAL NEEDS of said handicapped child.

Sorry to come in like this guys and try to redirect your rigorous debate...but honestly I am curious what you would do assuming the child is already born and you are 'stuck' with raising it (assuming nobody heads south to Mexico on this one).

Heh, well, I would personally keep the child. I also am against abortion, so I would keep the child in the case we somehow discover the condition in the womb.

 

[aamto]

Obviously. Just one more thing he'll never be able to experience.

I fail to see how that means anything. Are you saying just because this child will never experience college, he shouldn't live? That his life is miserable? Maybe from your perspective. But I guess you missed the part where I mentioned him being one of the happiest people I've ever met. He may not be able to experience things we all consider a staple of normal life (hell not everyone goes to college anyway. Some people work...hey that's what he's doing!), but he sure as hell enjoys being alive.

You can't pass judgment on his life based on your perspective! You may think it's miserable that he can't drive or go for higher education, but he doesn't. And in the end, I think that's what matters. You keep talking about what's best for the kid, but in this particular case, nothing sad or terrible came from his life. No one is being burdened, forced to love. There is no pity for him. He's treated fairly, he works (which is more than I can say for myself right now), and he's a pleasure to be around.

As for the "weeks old embryo" comment, that's a whole other issue.

 

[Age of Kings]

I have no plans to have children when I get older, but I'd abort it if it were serious as Down's. There's no point in letting a child into the world just to let it die at an early age, instead of having the potential of a long, happy life. Yes, people die, and people die young, but those are either by accidents, serious disease, or suicide, not unavoidable circumstances. Any parent (sans abusive ones, of course) would want the best for their child, and it is their decision to end its suffering as painlessly as possible, much like any dog owner does to their dog if there is no hope of recovery. I am not comparing a person's own flesh and blood to a pet---I am merely providing an example. How do you break the news to a Down's child by saying they're dying at 40 no matter what?

However, if it is something that can be managed through medication or counseling (or at least is not as severe, such as paraplegic people), I'd go ahead and save it. On this hand, there's no point in killing a child just because it is not 100% healthy--I'm only talking about severe ones like Down's.
I myself have a high risk of stroke, and every member of my mom's side of family has suffered debilitating fits of them. This is one of the reasons I have no plans to have children of my own (the rest are on the personal decision side).

 

[Glen]

Being fat and being mentally retarded aren't in the same ballpark, or even in the same zip code. While obesity has been shown to be genetic, there are still medical procedures that can be performed and drugs that can be taken to assist in the loss of weight. Once there's an operation to give a person with Down Syndrome full brain functionality a la Flowers for Algernon, then and only then can your argument be made.

while i was being a bit too ridiculous there, i think my point still stands. if your child was fat or ugly, he or she would deal with a LOT of shit growing up. but anyways, to be more reasonable, let's use something like depression or really mild shit on the autism spectrum.

while hindrances, they aren't THAT bad, but they still affect the happiness and the quality of life of both parent and child. seeing how the reasoning for aborting a retarded child is due to the quality of life of parent and child, i'm just wondering where exactly one draws the line.

 

[Brain]

Abortion does not necessarily deprive a child of any "experience". Imagine that, as you do the abortion, you save a few cells. Then, from the fetus's DNA, a few years from now, when the mother is ready, you recreate it and install it in her womb. Since a person is defined by his or her DNA and life experiences, the latter of which a fetus lacks (don't even try), it ensues that the chance for a person to experience life is only irremediably lost if his or her DNA cannot be retrieved and/or he or she is old enough to have experiences that cannot be reproduced.

Now imagine that scans have shown with near certainty that your child will be severely disabled. The best solution, from everybody's point of view, would be to save its DNA and abort it. Then, once it is possible to cure the disability and that cloning is a mature science, you remake the exact same child, allowing him to experience a better life.

Or you could just abort the child and make a new, different one, who has no major disabilities. It's good (though mostly irrational) to value life to some extent, but let's not get ridiculous. After a few weeks of pregnancy, there is nothing about the fetus that could possibly justify considering it human. Whether it will turn into a human later on is wholly irrelevant, especially if you make another one to replace it. As long as the fetus doesn't have distinctive human characteristics, the decision to terminate it has nothing to do with morals. It's just a medical procedure.

kholdstaire: there are no "laws of nature". What you call laws of nature is just how most animal species work, not how they should work. Evolution/natural selection can't really do much for us anymore, since we're progressively inventing technology that makes the process obsolete.

Glen: there is no line. It's like when you have a small pile of sand versus a big pile of sand. You can definitely tell that some piles are small and some piles are big, but in between it's a big mess of "eh, I don't know, it's kinda big but not big", etc. Same here. There are cases where the handicap is obviously big enough, others where it's obvious there's no handicap. But there's no line in between. It's just completely subjective. You might want to err on the side of caution, though. Also, if you want to know where _I_ draw the line, well, if there was a way to calculate the odds to have a much better child if I made a new one, and they were high (like 95%) I would totally push for it. Ultimately, though, it's the mother's choice and I don't think she'd be very fond of doing abort/retry unless the situation is really bad.

 

[Glen]

Glen: there is no line. It's like when you have a small pile of sand versus a big pile of sand. You can definitely tell that some piles are small and some piles are big, but in between it's a big mess of "eh, I don't know, it's kinda big but not big", etc. Same here. There are cases where the handicap is obviously big enough, others where it's obvious there's no handicap. But there's no line in between. It's just completely subjective. You might want to err on the side of caution, though. Also, if you want to know where _I_ draw the line, well, if there was a way to calculate the odds to have a much better child if I made a new one, and they were high (like 95%) I would totally push for it. Ultimately, though, it's the mother's choice and I don't think she'd be very fond of doing abort/retry unless the situation is really bad.

define 'better'. do you only mean in terms of disabilities or are you agreeing with my extreme case of obesity or ugliness?

 

[Altmer]

I'm on the fence with this one. For a first, I am pro-choice, so I believe that what anyone decides to do with their own children, regardless of whether I agree morally and rationally, is a non-issue.

For a second, I think that any child I bring onto the earth deserves my love, whether that child be handicapped or not. I can understand abortion in a severe case, such as a stillborn baby, or something that would kill the baby far too early in its lifespan, but otherwise, I will be keeping the child. Having a child is something special to me and I am not letting any handicap we can work around ruin that. If I deserved love as a child even though I am by no means perfect (and by no means fit in socially), then so does my child.

Of course, this is not factoring in the mother's opinion.

 

[venom_prince91]

I think I'd have to abort it. I know for a fact that the financial strife experienced keeping this child alive and functioning to a reasonable standard would be crushing.

Not only that, but the emotional heartache of knowing your child will never truly be able to do all things a "normal" child would.

All too much trouble for something that can easily be prevented.

And if you say it's murder or taking a life, so is wearing a condom and throwing your spoof in the bin, just in different stages.

 

[chaos]

For a second, I think that any child I bring onto the earth deserves my love, whether that child be handicapped or not.

So why not have a child that isn't handicapped, and give it your love? Is there any reason to favor a child with a mental defect because "it came first?"

 

[Bologo]

Honestly, my opinion on this is really mixed.

First off, if I was in this sort of situation where I have to decide whether my baby was aborted or not, I'd most likely let my future wife have the dominant opinion, since I'm not exactly the one that's pregnant.

I really don't think I could keep a Down-Syndrome baby. I just don't think I could basically take the rest of my life to take care of it.

If it's a mental disease that's not as serious as Downs Syndrome, then I'd definitely keep it, because at least I can then raise someone who won't die extremely early, or just be a complete burden to my life. I'd definitely raise it with care, or at least try my best.

In my opinion, it would be my future wife that makes the final decision though.