should parents be allowed to terminate the baby if heavily disabled?

[BlondewithaBrain]

I think its incredible hard to raise a disabled child. It financially cripples you and the rest of the children within the family are often neglected. Alot of pregnancies can go wrong and doctors can now discover pretty early on if something is wrong but there are some conditions that arent noticed until the third trimesters or even after the 2 years of the childs life.

So should parents have the right to terminate their child if heavily disabled either in late pregancies or in the childs life?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Currently there's nothing preventing a woman from aborting just because the baby will be born with a disability, so I'm not sure why that's being phrased as a hypothetical.

Killing infants for being disabled would be a sick throwback to a particular kind of barbarism of two thousand years ago, and I don't believe it's  morally right (though a legal right, rightly or wrongly, has been held to exist) to terminate a pregnancy for that reason, so I'm voting no.

[k-onmmunist]

I support abortion on request, so its up to them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So you want to ease the burden parents face in raising a child with disabilities by killing the child? How compassionate of you.

[Insula Dei]

It's highly unethical, to say the least, to terminate a pregnancy just because the child is disabled, but there may be some cases where it could be legitimately argued that a certain disability would leave a child with (almost) no quality of life and that abortion could perhaps be considered as an option that is excusable.

[Beet]

I voted strong No. There's nothing in the OP that says this is about abortion. It clearly says "late pregnancies or in the childs life". Obviously parents should not have the right to kill their child, even if it is disabled. If you can't afford children, don't raise them.

[republicanism]

I'm not a friend of the 'Unwertes Leben'-concept, so nope.

There's nothing in the OP that says this is about abortion. It clearly says "late pregnancies or in the childs life". Obviously parents should not have the right to kill their child, even if it is disabled.

Well, from some point late in pregnancy, it doesn't make much of a difference for the child.
It's just more comfortable for doctors and parents if the child is unable to scream, before you kill it.

[Free Palestine]

What Windis said.

However, I have qualms about abortion in the case of, say, high-functioning forms of autism, or anything that crosses the line from being a heavy disability to just being a bit of an abnormality.

But, it's not my f-cking decision, so whatever.

[afleitch]

I think the emphasis here is on heavily disabled. There are pregnancies detected where the childs disability is to such an extent that no quality of life can ever be had, if indeed the child survives beyond the first few weeks. Existance can only be secured through the administration of drugs upon birth. There is no sense in carrying it to term and an abortion can be justified.

[Platypus]

I´m really not a fan of abortion at all.

I´m even less a fan of forcing my own view on women when my opinion would fundamentally change their reality.

I hope never to be in a situation where I would need to make this kind of decision, and I´m not going to criticise those who have to make the choice.

[© tweed]

migrendel supported a 48-hour infanticide window.

[Person Man]

What Windis said.

However, I have qualms about abortion in the case of, say, high-functioning forms of autism, or anything that crosses the line from being a heavy disability to just being a bit of an abnormality.

But, it's not my f-cking decision, so whatever.

But in terms of a third trimester abortion, I guess it would be ethical if it couldn't have been figured out earlier and the fetus was dying and could cause maternal death, paralysis, suicidal, nonverbal or otherwise non-functional (can't work or have a family again)  insanity or a hysterectomy if allowed to go any further....or in the second trimester for any reason that is, in fact, a serious disability.... not ADHD, bipolarism (which might not develop until the child hits maturity), mild autistic tendencies that isn't really autism (where there's IQ >90 and speech, but atypical thinking patterns, misintegrated communication or sensory/movement issues), color blindness, albinism or any other thing where the kid will probably have a f ucked up life (might get arrested and flunk out a couple of times, have at least reasonable probability of dying a virgin or getting laid when they are like 11, or get made fun of in Junior High) but could still make it or even go far.

I think you call post-birth abortion "murder". I guess I should have said "No", instead of "Yes" in this poll.

[Username MechaRFK]

Only if the baby is disabled in the sense he's got severe disability. If the baby was lot like Temple Grandin, then no I see no reason to give an abortion. Btw, this is coming from someone who is disabled but not the way you see down syndrome kids, I function like Temple Grandin.

[stegosaurus]

Should one be allowed to "terminate" a severely disabled 5 year old either out of convenience or "compassion"? Obviously not. I'll never understand why an unborn child is a socially acceptable candidate for murder.

[Free Palestine]

Should one be allowed to "terminate" a severely disabled 5 year old either out of convenience or "compassion"? Obviously not. I'll never understand why an unborn child is a socially acceptable candidate for murder.

Because a fetus isn't a person.  And it's in the mother's body, so it's her decision whether or not to get rid of it.

[morgieb]

Depends when.

I wouldn't like to be terminated though, though I suppose my disability isn't 'heavy'.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'd like to think we moved past that sort of thing fifteen centuries ago.

[Link]

I think its incredible hard to raise a disabled child. It financially cripples you and the rest of the children within the family are often neglected. Alot of pregnancies can go wrong and doctors can now discover pretty early on if something is wrong but there are some conditions that arent noticed until the third trimesters or even after the 2 years of the childs life.

So should parents have the right to terminate their child if heavily disabled either in late pregancies or in the childs life?

I didn't see this part of your original post.  No dude.  That is sick.  If the child happens to get sick as many of them do then it can be put on comfort measures only.  No need to give the kid a push off a cliff.  Plus here in America if you have a disabled child and you can't take care of it there are state agencies that will care for it at no cost.  Despite a high prevalence of Republicans we are not animals.

I would actually withhold the multiple open heart operations that a number of these children go through to stay alive.  We have a very scewy health care system in America.  We will pour public money into taking care of a stroked out demented octogenarian and an ancephalic crippled toddler but if you are an educated healthy productive tax paying 30 year old you're screwed.  It makes no sense.  Hopefully if a businessman like Romney wins he will make the system more efficient and divert resources from the two former groups to the more productive citizens.  Think that will happen?

[TJ in Oregon]

This poll has come out as the Atlas being more in favor of restricting abortion than usual. Are we assuming this is referring to infanticide or thrid-term abortions only, or are many people out there only in favor of outlawing abortion if the baby is disabled but not under normal circumstances?

[Associate Justice PiT]

This poll has come out as the Atlas being more in favor of restricting abortion than usual. Are we assuming this is referring to infanticide or thrid-term abortions only, or are many people out there only in favor of outlawing abortion if the baby is disabled but not under normal circumstances?

     The final sentence of the OP validates that assumption, as quoted in the post immediately above yours. I voted "Yes" by mistake since I did not realize that before I voted. Permitting postnatal abortion is a seriously bad idea, if you ask me.

[Yelnoc]

Guys, the OP isn't about abortion.  He clearly states he thinks it's ok to kill a disabled two year old child.  WTF

[Person Man]

This poll has come out as the Atlas being more in favor of restricting abortion than usual. Are we assuming this is referring to infanticide or thrid-term abortions only, or are many people out there only in favor of outlawing abortion if the baby is disabled but not under normal circumstances?

     The final sentence of the OP validates that assumption, as quoted in the post immediately above yours. I voted "Yes" by mistake since I did not realize that before I voted. Permitting postnatal abortion is a seriously bad idea, if you ask me.

[nclib]

after the baby is born: of course not, just like for any other reason (aside from self-defense in situations that would apply regardless)

abortion: I support a woman's right to choose abortion, so she should be allowed to, just as she would have been otherwise.

I think it is hypocritical for a pro-life woman to terminate a baby for say Down Syndrome (90% of all women in that situation do so, so some of them are clearly hypocrites here). The only exception I would give would be like if the baby would be in constant pain/suffering and would die before their second birthday.

As for my moral views on a pro-choice woman aborting a fetus she otherwise would have wanted, I wouldn't approve, with the exception being like I described above (no autism, down syndrome, paralysis, would not count).

[The Mikado]

Has anyone ever seen that poll that showed that "Do you favor allowing abortion under any circumstance" was more popular than "Do you favor allowing gender-specific abortion?"  I always thought that was one of the most hilarious examples of people not thinking through what "Under any circumstance" meant.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think its incredible hard to raise a disabled child. It financially cripples you and the rest of the children within the family are often neglected. Alot of pregnancies can go wrong and doctors can now discover pretty early on if something is wrong but there are some conditions that arent noticed until the third trimesters or even after the 2 years of the childs life.

So should parents have the right to terminate their child if heavily disabled either in late pregancies or in the childs life?

As someone who has SEVERELY disabled children in their family, and adores them utterly, but has seem them struggle and in one case, die and am expecting the other two at some point to die also... I completely support the rights of parents to terminate... as soon as it practicable to detect such disorders.

However, Downs Syndrome is a different kettle of fish.

As to post-natal terminations... not a chance.