Abortion: Is It Offensive to People with Disabilities?
Some ethicists dislike the argument that abortion should be allowed where the baby, if born, would suffer from physical or mental handicaps.
They say that allowing this as a reason for abortion is offensive to disabled people; because it implies that they, and their lives, are less worthwhile than the lives of 'normal' people.
And some people with disabilities that could be put forward as grounds for abortion argue that they would much rather be alive than have been killed in the womb.
It is easy for people, ethicists, to find fault and pick on almost any legislation. Abortion is not as simple and straightforward as the murder of a foetus; it involves the emotions of the parents. Whether or not the basis of abortion is the disabilities of the foetus or any personal reasons, I m certain to say that most parents have to undergo rounds and endless rounds of contemplation and frustration just to decide. It is unwise to consider such issues logically and systemically, like how some argued abortion of the disabled is demeaning them as inferior. It is definitely not anyone’s intention to imply that. Parents may have likely considered the future of their children with mutated genes, and for some the agony and pain in witnessing the throbbing and difficult growth of most disabled kids. The probability of undermining the disabled is secondary and certainly unintentional, and ethics should not be given a role in decision making. Most parents are capable of deciding the fate of their children and should be given the right to do so, not the government or ethicists.
For societies, usually in backward regions, where patriarchy still prevails and ‘female foeticide’ plagues, parents are evidently ‘controlled’ by societal and cultural influences. They may appear to be unable to make wise decision with regard to the welfare or survival of their child, especially girls. Selective abortion for gender preference is illegal in India, but the low proportion of female births
They say that allowing this as a reason for abortion is offensive to disabled people; because it implies that they, and their lives, are less worthwhile than the lives of 'normal' people.
And some people with disabilities that could be put forward as grounds for abortion argue that they would much rather be alive than have been killed in the womb.
It is easy for people, ethicists, to find fault and pick on almost any legislation. Abortion is not as simple and straightforward as the murder of a foetus; it involves the emotions of the parents. Whether or not the basis of abortion is the disabilities of the foetus or any personal reasons, I m certain to say that most parents have to undergo rounds and endless rounds of contemplation and frustration just to decide. It is unwise to consider such issues logically and systemically, like how some argued abortion of the disabled is demeaning them as inferior. It is definitely not anyone’s intention to imply that. Parents may have likely considered the future of their children with mutated genes, and for some the agony and pain in witnessing the throbbing and difficult growth of most disabled kids. The probability of undermining the disabled is secondary and certainly unintentional, and ethics should not be given a role in decision making. Most parents are capable of deciding the fate of their children and should be given the right to do so, not the government or ethicists.
For societies, usually in backward regions, where patriarchy still prevails and ‘female foeticide’ plagues, parents are evidently ‘controlled’ by societal and cultural influences. They may appear to be unable to make wise decision with regard to the welfare or survival of their child, especially girls. Selective abortion for gender preference is illegal in India, but the low proportion of female births