That is nonsense. Just because someone's moral calculus differs from yours does not make it uncivilized.

To some, your insistence on continuing the gestation of a pre-sentient fetus, no matter the ensuing suffering, is the height of barbarity.

The imposition of their decision upon you, or yours upon them--don't fool yourself into thinking it is God's, since you have no idea what God thinks--is what is uncivilized.

To the contrary: Abandoning social norms for dealing with human life suggests anarchy clothed in the appearance of society. Either we have standards for how we deal with, and treat, human life, or we have no civilization of which to speak.

(See? I didn't bring God up once. Now that I think of it, neither did OJ.)

Anonymous:

I agree. Neither I nor the parent has any right to impose a decision on the child.

Anonymous --

Assume for a moment that we have reached a social consensus that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," as the saying goes. What then?

A young couple is told that their nascent baby has some defect, by which of course is meant that at least one of the ways in which their child will not be perfect is manifest before birth. Do we really believe, despite our (hypothetical) acceptance that abortion is one of their options, that they need no guidance. Are both ethics and our common human experience not to be used as a guide? What does "rare" mean, if it doesn't allow us to tell a couple that having a cleft palate should not be a death sentence?

My own observation has been that many people, heading towards morally questionable choices, are without the tools necessary to analyse their situation and are open to (often, waiting for) someone to tell them to stop.

Even if the power of decision rests with the mother, the government and -- more importantly -- society has both the right and the obligation to make clear that some choices are right and others wrong.

Towards the middle of this article is the tale of a doctor who aborted because the...ummm...baby was a girl. He felt awful, of course, but noted that there was nothing illegal about it. Like Anonymous above, he just had to respect her choice, so he killed her. Also, while many of the couples made the decision that was "right for them", they lied about it to friends and family,

Then there is the mother born with an extra finger that was surgically removed in childhood. She had two abortions when ultrasounds revealed the same condition. It is inevitable that these developments will raise the bar of what is "normal" and lower tolerance for having a child with any "deficiency" whatsoever. We can all try and comfort ourselves with tales of burdensome horrors nipped in the bud, but the era of designer babies is here.

Can you imagine the reaction of parents thirty years from now whose perfect kids have a disabled or chronically sick child in their class? Pure contempt and rage.

I'd like to make a slippery slope argument here, because that's what conservatives do. But there is no more slope. We're here. We can't go any lower, except as science is able to find the bottom and keep digging. Of course, as we delve further into genetics and human development, all we'll know is probabilities, not certainties.

Diagnose homosexuality in the womb -- it's gone.
Might the child be of less than average intelligence -- it's gone.
A daughter won't have Mommy's straight blond hair -- it's gone.
Deafness -- gone.
Susceptibility to cancer -- gone.
A big nose -- hey, abortion is cheaper and easier than having plastic surgery at 17 and think of the psychic pain the child is saved -- gone.

And if all we're talking about is a clump of cells, of no more moral moment than having a mole excised, who could say no.

David:

I understand what you mean about being on the edge of choice, and not knowing what to do. I agree that many people do not see where their choices will lead them. I look back on my own life, and see that place much more clearly now. However, I also believe Iris Murdoch's statement: "At the crucial moment of choosing, most of the business of choice is already done".

The modern crisis of following any impulse and/or feeling, and elevating them into a spiritual platform, is very difficult to counsel against. It is idolatry, and people will choose that road of insanity until they are bloody. Many will never go back.

I apologize for my anonymity. I have moved to a new job, and have yet to remember (during the few lunch minutes available to me) that the new computer doesn't have a clue about my personal info.

Chris:

No, OJ did not bring up God, but he often does.

For those of you who don't believe the parents have any choice whatsoever, no matter the suffering the fetus may endure if born, then don't make one.

As for those who disagree, it is best to leave it to them and their God.

(Who, BTW, is responsible for nearly as many abortions as people are. What a great example to set.)

Putting God in the dock is clever, but you cannot convict him - you don't have legal standing.

Humanity, on the other hand....

I just flashed to this image of Jeff, like Hannibal Lecter, clipping stories of church roof collapses to show that God hates men as much as he does.

Once that you decide that the difficult life is not worth living, you've pretty much thrown in the towel for all life. David's slippery slope is not far fetched. Even if you deliver the perfect physical specimen of a child, does anyone think that he/she will never suffer pain or hardship? For the parent, who would not suffer a defective child to live, how does he encourage his child that life is worthwhile in spite of his hardships? You can't equivocate about whether life is worth living or not.

ugh, the physician who performed an abortion because the fetus was female is worthy of such contempt, i'm embarrassed to know he is a colleague. physicians always have the choice to decline such practice, and it certainly points to the 'moral compass' of a man who performs a murder and then dismisses it as 'not illegal'.

Robert --

One of the things that annoys me is that this is all so futile. While we can attain great joy, just living our lives ensures that we will suffer and fail at something. The genetically "perfect" child -- within the limits of our testing -- is going to do something wrong, or have some disabling accident, or simply going to find life difficult. Look at the President, who has lived in many ways a charmed life. Still, the most important fact to know about him is that his happiness was threatened by his own weakness, and that he overcame it.

That's exactly how I feel David. I am increasingly of the opinion that it is the ability to endure suffering with grace that is the most crucial success factor for life. The ancients called this Stoicism, the Brits called it the "stiff upper lip".

Unfortunately, as one commentator noted (I think it was Derbyshire), Americans are not Stoics. We don't accept hardships or setbacks, we fight against them. This is our genius as well as our curse. The message that is transmitted via this culture is that to struggle is to be a failure. If you are suffering, you have done something wrong, or there is something wrong with you. Consumerism, with it's emphasis on a product or service to cure every ill or annoyance, no matter how small and trivial, has only exacerbated this tendency.

A parent who is contemplating the destruction of a deformed fetus is using the dilemma to pass judgement on himself, asking himself "what kind of parent would I be to bring a deformed child into the world?", or "what will my child think of me?". He should be asking himself "how can I help my child to overcome his hardships?". Imagine that the fetus is already born and old enough to feel the pain of his deformity. Would that child want to hold onto his life all the same? Would he think that his life was worth living? If he knew that he had the support of loving parents, and had family and friends and a purpose that made his life worth living in spite of the pain, I think he would. Who is the parent to overrule him? Who's suffering is the parent avoiding by his decision, the child's or his own?

Robert:

How about checking up on the joys of Trisomy-13.

I don't for a moment wish to argue the reasoning behind your outlook on this matter--clearly you have thought it out very well.

But others have likely gone through similarly rigorous reasoning, only to come to a different conclusion.

The government has no more business impeding their decision than yours. Since that means freedom of choice, then that freedom is going to involve some very bad personal decisions. Unfortunately, that comes with freedom's territory, no matter what freedom you are talking about.

My wife was in prime Down's age territory when we had our two kids. We had amniocentisis. While we discussed the prospect very thoroughly, I have no idea--since the actuality never occurred--what choice we would have made in the event.

But I think it very important that we had the ability to make a serious moral decision without the government making it for us.

Jeff:

So you behaved irresponsibly but were willing to kill others for your actions? That's monstrous.

Well Said, Orrin! Civilization is not to be confused with geegaws and better means to get one's way...

OJ:

I'm sorry, I must have missed the morality alert. Since when does a married couple planning to have children constitute irresponsible behavior?

It appears you should be advocating a constitutional amendment prohibiting women from having children past the age of 35. Which is about what I would expect from someone who hates freedom as much as you.

"My wife was in prime Down's age territory when we had our two kids. "

So, it is your considered decision that any woman electing to have a child after 35 is being irresponsible?

Perhaps you should check with the Catholic Church. Since, last I heard, they hadn't declared marital relations after 35 irresponsible, and is dead seat against birth control, then the Catholic Church is organizationally irresponsible.

Alternatively, of course, your accusation could just be a load of hooey.

Jeff:

That's fine so long as you choose to follow the Church's teachings. Your position was let's just go ahead and if the kid's defective we can always scrap him. That's evil.

OJ:

Thank you so very much for making my point for me.

I am not Catholic.

For a Catholic to choose marital relations over marital celibacy after 35, while simultaneously intending to terminate any resulting pregnancy due to profound defect is a serious conundrum

For that Catholic.

I am not a Catholic.

My position is that continuing a pregnancy in the face of a profound defect is evil, and fails to follow God's example.

After all, God aborts millions each year for precisely that same reason.

I don't expect you to agree with that in any way, shape, or form. But, for freedom to have any meaning, you have to allow others the ability to make that choice. Like it or not.

Jeff:

I don't know any Catholics who waited til they were in "prime Down's age territory" then increased the risk to the child by having amnio so that they could kill him if "defective". As usual, when you say freedom you mean freedom for you, not for anyone else, like your child.

OJ:

Humble apologies to reality. My wife got pregnant on our honeymoon. It was certainly not a case of "waiting."

As usual, when I say freedom, I mean the freedom to make decisions according to my religious beliefs, not yours.

Jeff:

Yes, that was the point of the post: "All About Me"

Wrong again.

Your religious beliefs have no primacy of place compared to mine.

Never mind your sanctimonious objections are particularly rich considering your willingness to burn witches to death.