Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
6. You said it yourself.
Mon Sep 1, 2014, 09:55 AM
Sep 2014

"how it decides who is valuable and who is not."

At the stage in development where this is an actionable issue, there is no 'who'.

"The argument is being made about the value of the individual once born, not while in the uterus."

Again, if the issue is corrected in utero, there is no individual to value or not value. No who, no person.
That line of argumentation, and the 'value once born' argument is the same as this common trope:

"Pro life thinkers believe that often times the decision to abort is made by inexperienced teens who do not know what they are doing, and are not capable of making an educated choice. They think that it's possible to take away societal contributions that could potentially be made by the unborn baby. For all the woman knows her child could cure cancer or be the next Einstein."

If-then. If it is born, congrats, personhood achieved. That's the legal/ethical bar we have today in the united states and in many other nations around the world. Discussing rights or value prior to that plays directly into the hands of the anti-abortion crowd who seek to limit a woman's right to choose, by among other things, leaning on some artificial potential future value the fetus might have when it attains personhood.

Surely you've heard the 'might find the cure for cancer' trope before? (And the common pro-choice rejection of that potential by pointing out it could easily be the next XYZ horrible genocidal dictator)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If we could all just be more like him, the world would be perfect. cbayer Aug 2014 #1
He does leave a lot to be desired. hrmjustin Aug 2014 #2
Interesting. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #3
So you agree with Dawkins that it is "immoral" not to abort a fetus with Downs? Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #4
I don't know that suggesting a burden on a potential mother is helpful in this discussion/issue. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #7
My problem with Dawkins' pronouncement Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #11
Eugenics is about changing (improving) the genetics of a population cbayer Sep 2014 #5
You said it yourself. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #6
That is just twisting words. cbayer Sep 2014 #8
I didn't twist anything. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #9
I think you are reading something in to this that is not there. cbayer Sep 2014 #10
Well, we agree on abortion. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #14
Again, carrying a down's child to term is entirely up to the person cbayer Sep 2014 #15
If a fetus is not a potential person Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #12
The key is; potential. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #13
You seem to be raising the question as to whether it is moral for a woman cbayer Sep 2014 #16
I am stating that it is morally fine. 100%. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #17
What if a woman was being paid to do it cbayer Sep 2014 #18
Sure, i accept the revised hypothetical. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #19
Yes, but it doesn't have to do with abortion. cbayer Sep 2014 #20
Well, what I was trying to drive at is: AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #21
I would insist on a psychiatric evaluation of anyone that wanted to do that, frankly. cbayer Sep 2014 #22
Woah, that may have carried a negative connotation. Let me clarify. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #23
Most women who encounter this have one single risk factor - age. cbayer Sep 2014 #24
kicking. hrmjustin Sep 2014 #25
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Interfaith Group»Nobody is better at being...»Reply #6