Don’t shoot the messenger on this one, BUT abortions are on the rise in America of this type of child and another disease called Spina bifida.
__________
This kind of abortion is OK with me but should be done ASAP. Not when the fetus is older and viable. In sterner traditional societies these kind of “births” were left to die. This kind of abandonment of non viables has gone on forever especially when a tribe or family has limited resources
Why would an abortion be better, for argument sake, say at 6 weeks than at 20 weeks. in your opinion?
Interesting details: I hadn't realized that the following people had spina bifida:
People like that give us hope and make us proud of the human race. Somehow, abortion only manages to accomplish the opposite.
Oh yes, sterner traditional societies had lots of infanticide. They also practiced marriage by bride-abduction, trial by ordeal, and civic building projects via mass slavery. They lacked such concepts as "human rights" and "human dignity."
But this is not true of Judaism --- not even "stern traditional" Bronze-age tribal Judaism --- nor of Christianity.
BTW, why do you put the word "births" in quotes? Are babies born with medical problems not human? And are they not "born"?
A dismissive attitude toward handicapped babies calls into question, not their humanity, but our own.
The test done for Spina Bifida is called a triple check. It is done at 13 weeks.
A positive for a neuro-tubal disease can indicate something as simple as a curvature of the spine, that does not debilitate at all to anencephaly, a child with an undeveloped brain.
At the time of a triple check, one is already over a first trimester abortion. Taking your reasoning, a positive for a neuro-tubal means abortion. Lots of perfectly healthy babies would be aborted. How soon is soon enough for you?
And have you noticed? America is far from having limited resources.
Dennisw said “Not when the fetus is older and viable. In sterner traditional societies these kind of “births” were left to die. This kind of abandonment of non viables has gone on forever especially when a tribe or family has limited resources.”
Your use of the word ‘viable’ is misguided at best. You do not know what would have happened with any of those births had the lives not been snuffed out too early. The best way to judge that is to look at people who have these afflictions who did live, many of which are more than ‘viable’ human beings.
You reference to the concept of harsher societies that have abandoned sickly infants is really no better. We are not such a society and we would not be improved by becoming one. And even saying that much is giving in to your first mistake rather than pointing out that many innocents who have been murdered because of the lie of ‘viability’ may very well have done far better than was predicted by a the humanist element of our society.
This reminds me of an ongoing frustration I’ve had with reading on freerepublic that many people here like to make a huge disticntion between being socially conservative vs. being economically conservative. I cannot agree with those ‘social conservatives’ who are willing to mess up with liberal economics nor with those ‘economic conservatives’ who are willing to go the Marxist route with things like abortion/euthanisia arguments.
We all share a common enemy. And that enemy is Marxism. What we need to do is realize that Marxism can win on either front and then just take over on the other. If you give them one, you might as well just give up all together.