An interesting concept just came up, one I disagree with, but interesting none the less.
Late term abortions, are usually really euthanasia.
That is, the majority of time they're on non-viable fetuses, or at least, fetuses that are seen to have a less than ideal life. They are done, primarily, on the physically unfit.
Now of course, that line gets somewhat blury, for none of us can accurately see the future. Euthanasia should always be opposed for precisely that reason- because even a diagnosis can be wrong. And that's why late term abortions for something "medically wrong" with the fetus should also be opposed- because it's a final solution for a not very finite problem.
Still, it never occurred to me to look at these types of abortions-because-of-prenatal-diagnosis as Euthanasia before- and it does make for an interesting side discussion. Can even Kermit Gosnell's and Douglas Karpan's infanticide be considered a form of Euthanasia? I think so. Certainly in their minds it was- they were killing those infants accidentally born alive, they even treated lower class women badly, because they didn't see such people as having a viable future.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
6 comments:
Euthanasia applies particularly to relieving a person's suffering by death. I don't know why you would apply it to situations that are covered by entirely different terminology. I believe there is a time and a place for euthanasia and I don't think it should be looked at as always wrong. It is certainly the right thing to do in certain circumstances.
In what way is relieving a person's suffering by death before he is born not exactly the same as relieving a person's suffering by death after he is born?
After all, when used for birth control, abortion is usually done as quickly as possible- within a week or two of the woman finding out she is pregnant.
Late term abortions are *all about relieving the suffering*, sometimes of the mother, but usually of the child. The majority of late term abortions are due to genetic anomalies and pre-natal defects.
"In what way is relieving a person's suffering by death before he is born not exactly the same as relieving a person's suffering by death after he is born?"
Ted,
The former is called abortion and the latter is called euthanasia. I don't see why you would want to muddy the waters byixing them up. Names are given to things so we can all know what we are discussing. Your reasoning escapes me
I want to point out that they are *exactly* the same concept, born out of the same fear- a fear of dealing with disability and dealing with the disabled.
You see everything as a plot against the disabled. Most abortion and euthanasia have little or nothing to do with disabilities.
"Most abortion and euthanasia have little or nothing to do with disabilities."
Most abortion yes, most euthanasia NO.
Which is why I said LATE TERM abortions, where the ratio flips to overwhelmingly because of prenatal diagnosis.
What is your case for euthanasia in the absence of disability? I'd certainly call the pain of terminal illness a disability- one that can go on for years.
As for my focus; it's likely because I've been told all my life that I can't do things because of this birth defect or that way my brain works or the migraines- and overcoming that has become a way of life for me.
Post a Comment