Comments on: A Touchy Topic http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/ "it's funny how the history building is so modern when history is so old." Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:01:17 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: apricot http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4872 apricot Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:32:30 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4872 Chris, I do agree that at first go, there are some terrible conditions that seem not worth living through. But these are, I think, extremely rare. As for anencephaly, it is not an inherited disorder, so IVF is useless in that case. But I'm sure there are some other conditions that are as terrible and are heritable. Most, though, are not detected until partway through pregnancy, when abortion is the only option. I suppose my concern is that IVF could be used to choose some traits over others, thus creating or further exacerbating inequalities in our society. And some conditions that seem terrible--such as spina bifida, Marfan syndrome, Down's, or being born without certain limbs--are, to the people living with them, not bad at all. I took a class this year with someone who had Marfan, and he was one of the brightest and funniest students in the room. How do we label some conditions as so horrible that people who have them are better off not being born? It seems like an extremely difficult task. This is not exactly related to IVF, which might sidestep a few abortion-related issues, but I remember reading about C. Everett Koop's story of why he became antiabortion. He was working in a hospital to save premature infants and infants with congenital heart defects (If I recall correctly). He gradually realized that abortions were being performed in the same hospital, and wondered: why do doctors work so hard to save these troubled infants, while perfectly normal babies were being aborted a few floors away? Where's the justice in that? It comes down to the importance we place on individual/parental choice. If we decide that the parent's circumstances and wants outweigh whatever rights the fetus possesses, then we are pro-choice entirely. In that case Koop's conundrum is not a problem, since these "normal" fetuses do not fit into their parents' needs and wants and can be ethically aborted. Chris, I do agree that at first go, there are some terrible conditions that seem not worth living through. But these are, I think, extremely rare. As for anencephaly, it is not an inherited disorder, so IVF is useless in that case. But I’m sure there are some other conditions that are as terrible and are heritable. Most, though, are not detected until partway through pregnancy, when abortion is the only option.

I suppose my concern is that IVF could be used to choose some traits over others, thus creating or further exacerbating inequalities in our society. And some conditions that seem terrible–such as spina bifida, Marfan syndrome, Down’s, or being born without certain limbs–are, to the people living with them, not bad at all. I took a class this year with someone who had Marfan, and he was one of the brightest and funniest students in the room.

How do we label some conditions as so horrible that people who have them are better off not being born? It seems like an extremely difficult task.

This is not exactly related to IVF, which might sidestep a few abortion-related issues, but I remember reading about C. Everett Koop’s story of why he became antiabortion. He was working in a hospital to save premature infants and infants with congenital heart defects (If I recall correctly). He gradually realized that abortions were being performed in the same hospital, and wondered: why do doctors work so hard to save these troubled infants, while perfectly normal babies were being aborted a few floors away? Where’s the justice in that?

It comes down to the importance we place on individual/parental choice. If we decide that the parent’s circumstances and wants outweigh whatever rights the fetus possesses, then we are pro-choice entirely. In that case Koop’s conundrum is not a problem, since these “normal” fetuses do not fit into their parents’ needs and wants and can be ethically aborted.

]]> By: Chris http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4850 Chris Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:28:50 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4850 Those are definitely interesting thoughts, Lisa and Bright. I think those guidelines would definitely help eliminate many issues, but I am not sure I entirely agree (respectfully, not combatively!). If a woman/family COULD know that out of 10 possible embryos, 1 might have anencephaly, I think it should be possible to choose one of the healthy embryos. I'd even (controversially) consider going farther and saying it could be considered immoral to have the choice to spare a human being certain types of painful diseases which will never get better and not choose it. (I'm not sure I entirely believe that, I would have to think about it more.) To me, it seems to be boiling down to whether or not we think it is worse to take away the opportunity to make a potentially immoral decision or worse to give anyone outside the situation control of a decision which is likely to be painful and potentially heartbreaking either way. I guess right now I am mentally coming down on the latter for this debate, although I certainly see positives and negatives on either side. Perhaps my thoughts on this are slightly different because I do not necessarily believe that all life is sacred from the moment of conception as I know many do. I think Lisa's point about needing to make a distinction between what you think is right vs what you would want is really important, too! I've been having a hard time just thinking about abortion in general, lately. Once a baby is viable it feels wrong, period...but the time at which a fetus might be viable continues to go backwards (thank goodness for the parents and lives of preemie babies, including my own!) so I want a better distinction. But I can't personally agree that at the moment of conception that clump of cells is a person with a person's rights, either. It is all very difficult. I wish more debate could be like this...I think people are generally closer than it sounds at first blow, but the stakes are so high it's easy to get aggressive. Those are definitely interesting thoughts, Lisa and Bright. I think those guidelines would definitely help eliminate many issues, but I am not sure I entirely agree (respectfully, not combatively!). If a woman/family COULD know that out of 10 possible embryos, 1 might have anencephaly, I think it should be possible to choose one of the healthy embryos. I’d even (controversially) consider going farther and saying it could be considered immoral to have the choice to spare a human being certain types of painful diseases which will never get better and not choose it. (I’m not sure I entirely believe that, I would have to think about it more.)

To me, it seems to be boiling down to whether or not we think it is worse to take away the opportunity to make a potentially immoral decision or worse to give anyone outside the situation control of a decision which is likely to be painful and potentially heartbreaking either way. I guess right now I am mentally coming down on the latter for this debate, although I certainly see positives and negatives on either side.

Perhaps my thoughts on this are slightly different because I do not necessarily believe that all life is sacred from the moment of conception as I know many do. I think Lisa’s point about needing to make a distinction between what you think is right vs what you would want is really important, too! I’ve been having a hard time just thinking about abortion in general, lately. Once a baby is viable it feels wrong, period…but the time at which a fetus might be viable continues to go backwards (thank goodness for the parents and lives of preemie babies, including my own!) so I want a better distinction. But I can’t personally agree that at the moment of conception that clump of cells is a person with a person’s rights, either. It is all very difficult. I wish more debate could be like this…I think people are generally closer than it sounds at first blow, but the stakes are so high it’s easy to get aggressive.

]]> By: apricot http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4826 apricot Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:20:33 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4826 Lisa, what do you mean by "better"? I think your guidelines are probably the best we can do as a society, but I'm curious to know how you'd define "better." :) Chris, I agree with you about the amazingly militant feminism in college. Not entirely a bad thing, I suspect, for people just being introduced to women's studies, but at some point we need to move beyond that intellectually. While still keeping our feminist club cards ;) As for IVF, I think it's early-stage selective abortion. I mean, there are embryos that we're not implanting, right? That don't have the chance to live? IVF offers less stress for prospective parents though, I suspect, who don't consider embryos "alive" until they're implanted. Which seems to be an arbitrary decision about when "life" begins. On another level. Increasingly it's difficult to define what is and isn't a disability. An interesting test case is that of deaf couples who select for an embryo with deafness. Is this an ethical decision on their part? Sorry for the rambling thoughts, all, but it's such a provocative topic! Lisa, what do you mean by “better”? I think your guidelines are probably the best we can do as a society, but I’m curious to know how you’d define “better.” :)

Chris, I agree with you about the amazingly militant feminism in college. Not entirely a bad thing, I suspect, for people just being introduced to women’s studies, but at some point we need to move beyond that intellectually. While still keeping our feminist club cards ;)

As for IVF, I think it’s early-stage selective abortion. I mean, there are embryos that we’re not implanting, right? That don’t have the chance to live? IVF offers less stress for prospective parents though, I suspect, who don’t consider embryos “alive” until they’re implanted. Which seems to be an arbitrary decision about when “life” begins.

On another level. Increasingly it’s difficult to define what is and isn’t a disability. An interesting test case is that of deaf couples who select for an embryo with deafness. Is this an ethical decision on their part?

Sorry for the rambling thoughts, all, but it’s such a provocative topic!

]]> By: lisa http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4811 lisa Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:17:27 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4811 I just hashed this out with Erik too, and this is what we came up with: 1. You can choose whether to have a baby; you can't choose whether to have a "better" baby. 2. The way to deal with this, legally, is to allow abortions but strictly regulate those tests that would show parents what traits their babies will/might have. This will work as long as those tests still need to be administered by qualified doctors, and aren't just things you can buy in a kit at the drugstore. I just hashed this out with Erik too, and this is what we came up with:
1. You can choose whether to have a baby; you can’t choose whether to have a “better” baby.
2. The way to deal with this, legally, is to allow abortions but strictly regulate those tests that would show parents what traits their babies will/might have. This will work as long as those tests still need to be administered by qualified doctors, and aren’t just things you can buy in a kit at the drugstore.

]]> By: lisa http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4810 lisa Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:46:02 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4810 One thing I've realized in thinking this over is that I have to be very careful to distinguish between what I think is right, and what I personally might want in the best of all possible worlds. I mean, I don't think it's being anti-disability to say I'd much rather have a baby without Down's Syndrome than one with, and I think most of us feel that way. But I can feel that way and still believe it's wrong to make that choice in a non-hypothetical situation. It's like giving everyone the right to free speech, even if I don't like what they say. Just because I don't want a disabled baby, doesn't give me the right to abort such a baby. Having decided this, I don't feel like it's quite such a slippery slope about what kind of traits to select for; I think the selection just should not be allowed us, period. Even if we might want it, it's not something we should be allowed to choose. Of course, this is where it gets hard to reconcile this with being pro-choice in general. If I don't believe I have the moral authority to choose between Baby A and Baby B, how can I believe I should be allowed the choice between Baby A and No Baby? I feel like there is a difference, but I can't figure out how to articulate it except to say I think it <i>is</i> a woman's choice whether to produce a child from her body, but it <i>isn't</i> her choice which child she can produce. Maybe that's good enough for me; I don't know. One thing I’ve realized in thinking this over is that I have to be very careful to distinguish between what I think is right, and what I personally might want in the best of all possible worlds. I mean, I don’t think it’s being anti-disability to say I’d much rather have a baby without Down’s Syndrome than one with, and I think most of us feel that way. But I can feel that way and still believe it’s wrong to make that choice in a non-hypothetical situation. It’s like giving everyone the right to free speech, even if I don’t like what they say. Just because I don’t want a disabled baby, doesn’t give me the right to abort such a baby. Having decided this, I don’t feel like it’s quite such a slippery slope about what kind of traits to select for; I think the selection just should not be allowed us, period. Even if we might want it, it’s not something we should be allowed to choose.

Of course, this is where it gets hard to reconcile this with being pro-choice in general. If I don’t believe I have the moral authority to choose between Baby A and Baby B, how can I believe I should be allowed the choice between Baby A and No Baby? I feel like there is a difference, but I can’t figure out how to articulate it except to say I think it is a woman’s choice whether to produce a child from her body, but it isn’t her choice which child she can produce. Maybe that’s good enough for me; I don’t know.

]]> By: Chris http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4801 Chris Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:47:56 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4801 Interesting, Bright. I've been thinking about this a lot too--I feel like it was hard to have a women's studies class at Dartmouth that really even allowed for this debate. Although this isn't exactly pertinent, it sort of is...what about selection during IVF? I think that's the most likely "sorting" technique in the future. And if I was choosing and could easily prevent my child from being born with a disease or disability, I think I would do so, at least pre-implantation. I would be hard pressed to say someone was wrong for doing so. But if you're choosing that much, why not choose other things? It does seem like a slippery slope, though. Safe, legal, and rare is very difficult to define. Interesting, Bright. I’ve been thinking about this a lot too–I feel like it was hard to have a women’s studies class at Dartmouth that really even allowed for this debate. Although this isn’t exactly pertinent, it sort of is…what about selection during IVF? I think that’s the most likely “sorting” technique in the future. And if I was choosing and could easily prevent my child from being born with a disease or disability, I think I would do so, at least pre-implantation. I would be hard pressed to say someone was wrong for doing so. But if you’re choosing that much, why not choose other things? It does seem like a slippery slope, though.
Safe, legal, and rare is very difficult to define.

]]> By: apricot http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4779 apricot Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:20:18 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4779 Ditto. It seems like an all or nothing case to me; either all reasons for abortion are reasonable or none are. It's all very Gattaca. I agree with you that it's pretty much impossible to be pro-abortion and anti-selection and be able to reconcile the two stances. I have been trying to do it, and it's not working. I was pondering an example. Let's say that science conclusively finds (highly unlikely, I admit) a genetic basis for homosexuality. Is it ethically OK for a woman to abort a fetus with those genes because she thinks its life will be difficult in a society where homosexuals are marginalized? A pity kill, as it were. I and the majority of people would say no; such an abortion would be unethical. Yet if it was a Down's Syndrome baby, most people would waffle much more. But what makes homosexuals or straight people or Asian people or whatever more human than people with Down's, or people with disabilities? And less deserving of a chance at life? Profound confusion. Ditto. It seems like an all or nothing case to me; either all reasons for abortion are reasonable or none are.
It’s all very Gattaca.
I agree with you that it’s pretty much impossible to be pro-abortion and anti-selection and be able to reconcile the two stances. I have been trying to do it, and it’s not working.
I was pondering an example. Let’s say that science conclusively finds (highly unlikely, I admit) a genetic basis for homosexuality. Is it ethically OK for a woman to abort a fetus with those genes because she thinks its life will be difficult in a society where homosexuals are marginalized? A pity kill, as it were. I and the majority of people would say no; such an abortion would be unethical. Yet if it was a Down’s Syndrome baby, most people would waffle much more. But what makes homosexuals or straight people or Asian people or whatever more human than people with Down’s, or people with disabilities? And less deserving of a chance at life?
Profound confusion.

]]> By: lisa http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4773 lisa Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:56:44 +0000 http://apricot.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/a-touchy-topic/#comment-4773 Bright, I'm so glad you posted on this topic because I read that NYT article too and was wondering what to make of it all. I am also staunchly for abortion rights, women's right to choose etc etc, but I think the whole concept of being able to choose which babies one births is abhorrent. I can't envision any way to allow selective abortions that isn't a slippery slope. At the same time, though, I'm not able to defend my pro-abortion, anti-selective-abortion stance in a way that would stand up to argument. Bright, I’m so glad you posted on this topic because I read that NYT article too and was wondering what to make of it all. I am also staunchly for abortion rights, women’s right to choose etc etc, but I think the whole concept of being able to choose which babies one births is abhorrent. I can’t envision any way to allow selective abortions that isn’t a slippery slope. At the same time, though, I’m not able to defend my pro-abortion, anti-selective-abortion stance in a way that would stand up to argument.

]]>