Genetic Testing and choice

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Genetic Testing and choice
49
Sat, 01-26-2008 - 9:51pm

With genetic testing and posible engineering seeming more and more the reality of our near future, many believe that screening/engineering for disease, sexual orientation and gender will become common place.

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 11:58am

<>

Was explained in same sentence.

<>

Legal, under the woman's right to privacy, up to 24 weeks. Acceptable? T whom? I think many people are HAVING children under entirely unacceptable circumstances. We don't get to impose our "Acceptability" standards on others whjen it comes to health issues and their own bodies. DO I "personally" find it acceptable? No- I think it would be abhorrent to abort for non- medical gender reasons, or sexual orientation. And some think it's abhorrent to abort for fetal defect. And rape. And so on it goes.

<>

No grounds for legal restrictions until 24 weeks. I can think of a zillion reasons Woman A should NEVER be allowed to procreate: stupidity, arrogance, meanness, promiscuity, etc.- I don't get to decide her reproductive rights in those cases, nor do I for the reasons she may ever choose abortion. Its' Nunyia. Meaning mine as well as everyone else.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 12:20pm
You claim that denying abortion is punishing women for sex in PL's view - but you do not see aborting because of <<

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 12:37pm

<> as aborting to punish the child instead of the mother? >>

No- becaase I do not see abortion as a punishment at all. And in all honesty, if I looked at it in those terms I'd say that being born to utter idiots may very well be much worse, LOL.
However, you miss my point. The reasons are not my business. Her rights remain the same no matter what her reasons may be.

<>

Nope. But I do not give z/e/f's any rights over the woman and her course of action in a pregnancy, until limited rights may become granted at 24 weeks.

<< Do you also beleive in debter's prison and children paying their parents debt by being indentured to such prison? Abortion due to << stupidity, arrogance, meanness, promiscuity, etc >> is no different.>>

Your reasoning- not mine. I happen to not want to make mine law, nor impose it on every woman- BIG difference in my PERSONAL points of view as opposed to the rights I support for each woman. For example, I may think a woman['s a total idiot- but I will fight for her right to NOT have ANY medical procedures (including abortion, sterilization, etc.) imposed on her by law against her will.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2005
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 3:58pm



Why? Elective abortions are legal. Some tests can determine the sex of the fetus as early as six weeks.


Should a physician be able to deny a woman an abortion because he/she doesn't agree with the reason why the woman is choosing to terminate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 4:43pm

<< Some tests can determine the sex of the fetus as early as six weeks.>>

Really? I hadn't heard of anything earlier than CVS? What are those?


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 4:49pm

Oooh, good questions.

I hadn't heard that that internet test was reliable. Not that that would matter, because the woman could test at home and not share the results or reasons with the provider. So this will remain a purely theoretical discussion.

But in that theory, I would consider that to be an immoral reason to abort. Along with eye color, orientation, etc. However, my morals oughtn't necessarily be legislated, and furthermore a woman intent on abortion will find a way and it might be ugly.

I have heard tell of physicians turning away prolifers on the basis that they won't provide medical care to people that think they are murderers. I think that's a good reason to refuse care.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 7:15pm

"I have heard tell of physicians turning away prolifers on the basis that they won't provide medical care to people that think they are murderers. I think that's a good reason to refuse care."


Why should PL women not have the same rights as PC women or undecideded women?

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 7:20pm
So then you have no problem with a pharmasist denying to fill

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2005
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 8:32pm

I have no problem with that sort of testing, if a woman would abort for something like sexual orientation, eye colour, gender etc then she most likely wouldn't be the best parent she could be for that "child" and it would be the child that suffered.

In that case it would be better to abort than (IMO) needlessly birthing yet more children into an already heavily over-subscribed adoption system.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 9:27pm
However, it is not newborns awaiting adoption - plenty of people are waiting for newborn babies hence the 3-5 year wait on a newborn.

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.