Aborting disabled babies: is it right?
Seto's and Ser's views on abortion clashed with Teo's as an infinitely controversial debate about whether we should be pro-life or pro-choice. Having a 'right' view on such a sensitive issue is indeed tricky but my opinion is that we should be pro-life to some extent only. I think the law should probably stay as it is but render leeway on a case by case basis.Seto and Ser argues for the right of a foetus as a human to come forth and face the obstacles laid for him/her in life however the difficulty. Ser even calls it "[a] gross injustice if we deny babies with disabilities the opportunity to live beyond the womb." He makes a good point that disabilities is a subjective term and depends on how the environment deals with it. Seto, similarly, argues that we cannot judge someone by his/her usefulness. They make good points that someone disabled cannot be terminated for the convenience of anyone else: a pro-life argument. The question however, lies in whether allowing a disabled to come to this world is being pro-life, completely. We may have only been pro-life in giving the foetus a chance to live but we assume that the life given will be appreciated. Failure to consider how the live we give may end up making him/her hate life or worse, think of death as a better solution makes anti-abortion hardly pro-life.
Teo's view of a disabled child brought to this world as a burden cannot be entirely ignored. All three authors agree that the disabled does burden the society if they are seriously unable to function without extensive reliance on others. How sure can we be that the foetus really wants to come to this world and burden others? This is a question on the basis of how a human really wants to live. I do agree that foetuses are lives and not "lumps of flesh" as Seto puts it but they do not yet have the ability to decide whether or not they want to live. We can give the foetus a chance to live but what if it ends up as a curse? With laws banning euthanasia, the only time a human being can decide to end his/her dreaded life is before when him/her is judged as a "life". This, ironically, is when he/she does not have the ability to choose. Thus, we can only trust a mother's judgement and discretion in deciding for the child; after all, our parents make decisions for us all the way until adulthood. Opponents may challenge that life-and-death decisions are out of our parent's authority but so are indemnity agreements that our parents sign in school that our injuries/deaths will not be accounted for by the school.
We also need to consider the fact that the parents of a child are the ones directly affected if the child has a disability. All of us otherwise are not in the position to argue if they should be burdened. The choice should be theirs to make. If we do not give parents any ability to decide whether or not they can abort a disabled child, who would dare to even get pregnant? Then, we may very well be risking a low birth rate such that our very existence is challenged. That is certainly not pro-life at all.
If we agree fully to the pro-life notion, then Seto's argument that the baby should not be aborted even before 24 weeks unless the mother's life is endangered is questionable. It cannot be decided easily whether the mother's life is more valued or whether the baby's one is. Both lives are now at stake and if Seto rated the mother's life as more important such that the baby can be aborted based on usefulness, then he contradicts his own argument since that carries the implication that we can abort a life we deem as less useful.
On the other hand, parents cannot shirk from the responsibility of taking care of a disabled child. There is a difference if they do it out of convenience or circumstances. A poor family cannot afford for treatment/management of certain diseases a rich family might be able to. The possibility of a child being helped by his/her environment in a rich family is more evident while the poor would suffer much more due to a particular disability. Yet, again, we cannot come out with a yardstick for measuring how the child can survive and apply it for judging the abortion. Hence, we have to depend on the parent's judgement of whether they can help a child, not whether they want to help.
In conclusion, I believe that pro-life measures of giving the foetus human rights and eliminating any possibility of choices is too rigid. Parents should have some extent of control since they are the ones directly involved in how the foetus develops beyong the womb.
posted by synthesis @ 12:17 AM
1 Comments:
I agree that we should value all, no matter handicap or not. However, abortion is indeed a controversal subject that pinches the skins of many. Yet, there are certain points i would like to dicuss.
First and foremost, the religious restrictions set on believers and devotees has seemed to disallow, not only the use of contraceptives, but the act of abortion. Take for instance financially disabled catholics, what choice should they make when it comes to deciding between sticking to their faith and pragmatism? Should they be swayed by their faith or succumb to the facts that their baby is going to be handicapped? If so, wouldn't they be trapped in a vicious cycle that they will never get out from? Indeed, it is contradictory to the beliefs and what is expected of them.
Next, would you agree with me that this is a slippery slope argument? When acknowledgment is awarded to the act of abortion, a floodgate is breached, allowing more serious acts to be promoted and enouraged, and in the case of having handicapped babies, would this mean an additional burden to the parents?
Therefore, I personally feel that abortion should be marginalized for the good of the society, and future generations to come. If the parents are unhappy with the baby or financially challenged, especially in raising disabled children, they should have the right to make the choice of whether to abort or not, no matter how morally wrong it might seem. This is life.
Post a Comment
<< Home