Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Morality of advances in science relating to pregnancy.

Options
  • 30-10-2020 3:36pm
    #1
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,464 ✭✭✭


    Regarding tests that determine whether a foetus has a disability, thus influencing some women into having abortions because they don't want to bring up children that have disabilities (e.g. Down syndrome), how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

    On another pregnancy-related matter, some transmen who retained their wombs (having been born as biological females, obviously) have been pregnant and given birth. Did those medical specialists who made pregnancy possible in those circumstances not think of the effect this would have on the mental health of children who are conceived in that way?

    Surely, doctors and scientists cannot just throw morality away.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    political analyst wrote: »
    Surely, doctors and scientists cannot just throw morality away.


    I think you mean ethics, rather than morality, but ethics are a huge area of science and medicine, precisely because circumstances aren’t so black and white as they are often portrayed by simplistic narratives meant to favour one outcome over another.


  • Options
    #3
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    political analyst wrote: »
    Regarding tests that determine whether a foetus has a disability, thus influencing some women into having abortions because they don't want to bring up children that have disabilities (e.g. Down syndrome), how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

    On another pregnancy-related matter, some transmen who retained their wombs (having been born as biological females, obviously) have been pregnant and given birth. Did those medical specialists who made pregnancy possible in those circumstances not think of the effect this would have on the mental health of children who are conceived in that way?

    Surely, doctors and scientists cannot just throw morality away.

    I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

    I would see these tests as a good thing. People can be prepared for what might be in their future rather than be shocked by it.

    If some choose not to go ahead that’s their choice. Not sure you can lay responsibility on those who developed the science.


  • Options
    #4
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,302 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Putting the abortion thing aside, it is much more important to be able to access the health of a foetus/baby before it's born than not, as in some cases the baby may actually be dead or a threat to the mothers life in some way, so it's not like you can just test for those things and not test for less serious things. If you went for a health checkup yourself OP you get a 'full' checkup wouldn't you. If they saw something minor they'd tell you wouldn't they, rather than withholding it.

    As for your second point I have no idea what the problem is there as I don't understand why anyone would have mental health issues as a result of being born in that context.

    Anyway it's not for practitioners themselves to decide these things is it? Aren't these issues decided by some governing body run by the state. So if you want to dispute the way things are done you'd have to get political and haven't all these abortion related things been trashed out and decided already.


  • Options
    #5
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Handy to know if the child will have some illness that might cause them a few short months of misery before dying or if the parent won't be able to cope, (financially/mentally/physically) due to the needs of the child. Sadly we don't have medical/pharmaceutical CEO/boards with the same idea of morals as those who oppose abortion.


  • Options
    #6
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    political analyst wrote: »
    how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?
    When someone invents a tool they don't always foresee what it can be used for.
    An axe can be used to chop down trees, or people. When it's used as a weapon, is it the inventor's fault? Of course not.

    The people that invented the tests bears zero responsibility for a woman's decision to abort her fetus. The decision is all hers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The existence of information in itself cannot be considered immoral. Facts are facts and are not subject to value judgements.

    The process for gathering that data, can be subject to value judgements, but if the process itself results in no harm or loss of agency, then it can't be considered immoral.

    Thus, the early foetal screening tests themselves are not immoral. They do no harm and they are not performed on unwilling participants.

    The morality of what is done with that information, is a seperate matter.

    On the other hand, explicitly refusing to give someone information about themselves because you wish to prevent them from using that information, is immoral. It is taking away their agency and their right to make decisions for themselves.


  • Options
    #8
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,674 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    seamus wrote: »
    The existence of information in itself cannot be considered immoral. Facts are facts and are not subject to value judgements.

    The process for gathering that data, can be subject to value judgements, but if the process itself results in no harm or loss of agency, then it can't be considered immoral.

    Thus, the early foetal screening tests themselves are not immoral. They do no harm and they are not performed on unwilling participants.

    The morality of what is done with that information, is a seperate matter.

    On the other hand, explicitly refusing to give someone information about themselves because you wish to prevent them from using that information, is immoral. It is taking away their agency and their right to make decisions for themselves.

    I note with interest the dehumanising language that is employed when speaking of the unborn which has preceded apace once the right to life for them was stripped away, which if any one is interested in pursuing is explored in more depht in the book "Law and Ethics in Medicine" by Keown. It is also ironic the marking of boundaries about what is or not moral given the shifting sands of responsibly and agency, given the lack thereof in the unborn.


  • Options
    #9
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Aborting babies with a genetic problem:

    It's still up to the woman to decide if she wants to keep the baby.

    The entire thing is sad. I guess in an ideal world the babies would be born and we'd have a system in place to ensure they got the best care possible. But right now the parents are left with so much responsibility and cost I can kind of understand why they would consider having the abortion. I feel bad for all involved, and especially bad for the little baby.

    Transmen having kids:

    I don't know if the kid will have issues because of this. I guess they probably will. But not because their mom is dressed as a man but because their mom probably has a lot of issues.


  • Options
    #10
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,724 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    seamus wrote: »

    On the other hand, explicitly refusing to give someone information about themselves because you wish to prevent them from using that information, is immoral. It is taking away their agency and their right to make decisions for themselves.

    So even if you believe a baby will be aborted if it is female and not aborted if it is male (irrespective of abnormalities), then it's immoral to not provide information about the baby's sex?


  • Options
    #11
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,484 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    So even if you believe a baby will be aborted if it is female and not aborted if it is male (irrespective of abnormalities), then it's immoral to not provide information about the baby's sex?

    Where abortion is concerned all such issues are grey areas with widely varying, frequently aggressive opinions. Advances in science will only complicate these matters even further. Eventually there may be tests for athletic potential and intelligence for instance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    AllForIt wrote: »
    As for your second point I have no idea what the problem is there as I don't understand why anyone would have mental health issues as a result of being born in that context.


    I think it may relate to the idea of the child having to cope with the idea that their biological mother considers themselves to be the child’s father. It certainly raises ethical questions from a legal point of view where the biological mother is recognised in law as male, but they are not recognised in law as the child’s father. The case of Freddie McConnell is an interesting one -


    Freddy McConnell: Transgender man's bid to be named father fails


    One of the most ethically dubious examples of modern medicine and science in recent years (and there have been many), is what became known as the Ashley Treatment -

    Pillow Angel Ethics, Part 1

    Pillow Angel Ethics, Part 2


  • Options
    #13
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    political analyst wrote: »
    Regarding tests that determine whether a foetus has a disability, thus influencing some women into having abortions

    I would be cautious with conflating providing people with accurate information with "influencing" their decisions. Because then giving anyone accurate information in any situation could be misconstrued under that. For example is giving a politician accurate information "influencing them to go to war"?

    Peoples moral and ethical choices are based on many things. Their world view and emotions and human frailties being some of them. But the one thing that I feel they SHOULD be basing it on alongside everything else? Up to date and accurate information. And if our scientific progress can facilitate that, then that is a good thing.
    political analyst wrote: »
    how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

    Not sharing YOUR sense of morality does not mean they have NO sense of morality. To think like that, I would have to have an unwarranted and unjustifiable and over inflated sense of my own moral superiority. So I personally move away from any sense that people operating under a different moral world view than me are therefore amoral. Perhaps you might consider the same.

    Most, if not all, scientists I have met are driven by discovery and truth. What OTHER people do with their discoveries is on them. They need not feel their own morality indicted by the actions of people that
    Manach wrote: »
    I note with interest the dehumanising language that is employed when speaking of the unborn

    I note with interest the pre-humanising language that is employed when speaking of the unborn too.

    People who have issues related to fetuses tend to gravitate towards language that humanises the fetus before it's due. Because lacking any moral or ethical arguments on the subject they know that language can appeal to unwarranted emotions and influence people through their hearts rather than failing to through their intellect.

    The language we use does not "de" humanise anything. Rather it puts up a barrier to attempts to emotively humanse something on a whim and before it's due in order to score political influence. are not them.


  • Options
    #14
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    So even if you believe a baby will be aborted if it is female and not aborted if it is male (irrespective of abnormalities), then it's immoral to not provide information about the baby's sex?
    My belief is irrelevant, it's not my place to make decisions on someone else's behalf.

    The inverse of this argument: If you knew that the child will be hated or devalued because of their sex, will be beaten, tortured, raped, sold into bondage or killed in infancy, would you still withhold that information from their parents and force that child to be born?


  • Options
    #15
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    seamus wrote: »
    My belief is irrelevant, it's not my place to make decisions on someone else's behalf.

    Ah stop with that, it sounds like pro-abortion propaganda.

    Of course you can have beliefs.

    If people want to take heroin do you have no opinion (belief) on that because it's not your place?

    You can apply this logic to everything, so everything is OK and you're not allowed have an opinion on it.

    Of course aborting a child because it's female is horribly wrong.


  • Options
    #16
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The user did not once say they could not have a belief or an opinion though, now did they?

    You are responding to something no one actually said. What the user said was that in the context of someone else's decision on when or why to have an abortion, their own opinion is not relevant.

    Saying "my opinion/belief is not relevant" is massively different to saying "I am not permitted an opinion/belief".

    Your OPINION is that it is morally wrong to use the gender of a fetus as a basis for aborting it. But since no one appears to be able to come up with a single moral or ethical argument against abortion.... then your opinion on another person's reasons for choosing it.... is irrelevant.

    Eating sugar and fattening food is not morally wrong either. If I choose to eat so much of it that I intentionally I become disabled and unable to work and have to claim disability allowance.... then you might be of the opinion that it was morally wrong for me to do so. Your opinion would be worth squat though.

    This is why the heroin analogy fails. You are conflating the morality of X, and the morality of the reasons used to opt for X. They are not the same thing. We should not permit pretense that they are.


  • Options
    #17
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Of course you can have beliefs.
    I didn't say you couldn't. I said my belief was irrelevant.
    Of course aborting a child because it's female is horribly wrong.
    I didn't say it was or wasn't. One is perfectly entitled to judge the decisions that another person makes.

    One is not entitled to make those decisions for another person jus because they don't trust them to make the one they believe to be right.*

    *It goes without saying that I mean an adult who is capable of making decisions and in full control of their faculties.


  • Options
    #18
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    I'm sorry Seamus, I don't buy that at all, it sounds like you've fallen for the propaganda that your belief is irrelevant because you're a man.

    Abortion has reached its currently state of insanity (e.g. abortions at 9 months) because most people won't speak up and tell these sick freaks that they've gone way too far.


  • Options
    #19
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    I'm sorry Seamus, I don't buy that at all, it sounds like you've fallen for the propaganda that your belief is irrelevant because you're a man.
    Lol.
    The same would apply if I was a woman. No woman is entitled to make decisions for another either. Whether they believe it's wrong or right is irrelevant.
    Abortion has reached its currently state of insanity (e.g. abortions at 9 months) because most people won't speak up and tell these sick freaks that they've gone way too far.
    Every human being who has ever lived has been the result of an aborted pregnancy. The vast majority of them at 9 months.


  • Options
    #20
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    I'm sorry Seamus, I don't buy that at all, it sounds like you've fallen for the propaganda that your belief is irrelevant because you're a man.

    Ah the old "Since I can not rebut what you think, I will tell you what I want to believe you think instead" move :)
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Abortion has reached its currently state of insanity (e.g. abortions at 9 months)

    Could you be clear (maybe with citations) as to what you are referring to here? What exactly is an "abortion at 9 months", who has been performing them, and where?


  • Options
    #21
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    seamus wrote: »
    Lol.
    The same would apply if I was a woman. No woman is entitled to make decisions for another either. Whether they believe it's wrong or right is irrelevant.

    Better get rid of all laws so.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote:
    What exactly is an "abortion at 9 months", who has been performing them, and where?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/new-york-and-virginia-push-expand-abortion-rights/581959/

    "In New York and Virginia, Democratic state governments are working to loosen restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy, far past the stages at which fetuses can survive after birth."

    In Virginia the abortion can happen all the way to birth if the baby could "impair the mental or physical health of the woman".

    So yeah, a woman who suddenly gets really depressed at the thought of having a baby can have an abortion at 9 months.

    This is what happens when you stay silent and let extremists take over.

    They are using the exact same tactic with transgenderism - it's not your place to comment on it, and now look, if you don't agree a transgender woman is 100% a real woman, you are a bigot. Even if that transgender woman was a man 20 minutes ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    As always, the weight of ethics lies with the decision maker, not with the scientist whose goal was to understand the world a little better or even the product maker who created a commercial use of the science. At some point the consumer makes the decision of their own free will.


  • Options
    #23
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    joseywhales wrote: »
    As always, the weight of ethics lies with the decision maker, not with the scientist whose goal was to understand the world a little better or even the product maker who created a commercial use of the science. At some point the consumer makes the decision of their own free will.

    At what point should the baby have a right to live?

    Surely you can admit at 9 months that's a real life and should not be killed?


  • Options
    #24
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,202 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    At what point should the baby have a right to live?

    Surely you can admit at 9 months that's a real life and should not be killed?

    who is conducting abortions at 9 months?


  • Options
    #25
    Princess Calla
    Registered Users Posts: 5,811 ✭✭✭Princess Calla


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    who is conducting abortions at 9 months?

    Well I think it originally started on the back of Seamus' comment that everyone who has ever lived is the result of an abortion.....as in the natural abortion of pregnancy , birth!

    Though seemingly the states of new York/ Virginia might allow abortions up to 9 months if mother is at risk.


  • Options
    #26
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    "In New York and Virginia, Democratic state governments are working to loosen restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy, far past the stages at which fetuses can survive after birth."

    So the first inaccuracy in your claim is that you wrote "has reached its currently state of insanity" but your link is about some people who are CURRENTLY working to affect a change you disagree with. So it has not actually happened yet at all according to your article.

    Second, the article is about a year and a half old. What has happened since it's publication? Did it move forward? Did it stall? What decisions were made? You wrote "has reached its currently state of insanity". But what you just linked is not at all current? What IS the current state exactly? Last I heard was that the proposals in New York and Virginia were tabled with no intention to review them or consider them again. Has there been developments since then? Or have they actually been abandoned?

    "It is unsurprising that abortions this late in pregnancy are vastly unpopular with the American public. Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions “generally” legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position. Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed."

    What you might also ignore is later clarifications following the article you cited. For example your link has the ominous sounding sentence "the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother" but this was later clarified by the same person who went on to say "the “discussion” would be regarding medical prognosis and treatment, not ending the life of the newborn". Clarified because Pence and many others RUSHED to straw man what was actually said.

    No I do not see any "insanity" in your link, or extremism. The only extremism I see is YOUR response to the story. What I DO see is that many US states are currently reviewing their abortion laws. Proposals have been made. And some proposals, like the one you cite, were considered and pretty much rejected by the process/system. Where is the insanity therefore? This is how politics and law making SHOULD work. Proposals of all sorts should be made, considered, rejected or accepted. This is proper process. The extremism that such things should NOT happen is yours, and yours alone.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    They are using the exact same tactic with transgenderism - it's not your place to comment on it

    Speak for yourself. I have never once in my life even had it SUGGESTED to me that I have no right to comment on it. And if you know anything about me at all from my years on this forum.... or any other forum real or electronic.... you would likely already know what my response would be to anyone who even tried. During the abortion debate I did indeed get a small handful of hopefuls who thought they might silence me by telling me I am a man so it was nothing to do with me. I made short work of them. They did not try it with me again.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    At what point should the baby have a right to live?

    In my view, when there is any reason to think the fetus has become a sentient agents. This has not even remotely happened by 16 weeks when something like 96% of choice based abortion actually occurs.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Surely you can admit at 9 months that's a real life and should not be killed?

    Agreed. At 7/8/9 months they should have the option to terminate the pregnancy, not the child.


  • Options
    #27
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Princess Calla wrote: »
    Though seemingly the states of new York/ Virginia might allow abortions up to 9 months if mother is at risk.

    The problem though (in Virginia) is they made the concept of "if mother is at risk" purposefully vague. As I stated above, it is just "impair the mental or physical health of the woman".

    impair = weaken or damage

    So this is very broad.


  • Options
    #28
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote:
    Loads of stuff

    The Virginia abortion changes were signed into law.

    Instead of writing that huge block of text, twice, you could gave just googled it, or taken my word for it.

    You are trying to claim I'm an extremist, and then you say you believe women should be allowed terminate their pregnancy at 7, 8, or 9 months. That is sick.


  • Options
    #29
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The problem though (in Virginia) is they made the concept of "if mother is at risk" purposefully vague.

    But they didn't did they? They made that PROPOSAL and it was rejected. So what's your actual problem?
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The Virginia abortion changes were signed into law.

    Not the ones you cited, no. Different ones were. What was LATER signed into law was quite different from the proposals made in the 18 month old link you cited.

    What was actually signed into law was a removal of the requirement to have an ultrasound before the abortion was performed. There was also something signed into law related to whether to call abortion providers "hospitals" or not. I believe they also removed a restriction suggesting only physicians be allowed perform first trimester abortions.

    This is how politics and law should work. Reform happens. Proposals are made. Many proposals are rejected. There is no "extremism" here except from you. It seems the only thing bothering you here is that people are allowed make PROPOSALS you personally do not like.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Instead of writing that huge block of text, twice, you could gave just googled it, or taken my word for it.

    Lucky I didn't given "your word for it" was incomplete, out of date, inaccurate and misleading.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    You are trying to claim I'm an extremist, and then you say you believe women should be allowed terminate their pregnancy at 7, 8, or 9 months. That is sick.

    What is sick about it? Do you even know the different between terminating a pregnancy and terminating a child? I am not convinced you do. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy. We do it all the time. Guess what? The child LIVES when you do that.


  • Options
    #30
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    What is sick about it? Do you even know the different between terminating a pregnancy and terminating a child? I am not convinced you do. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy. We do it all the time. Guess what? The child LIVES when you do that.

    Just so we're clear here.

    At 7 months you want women to be able to end their pregnancy.

    The child is taken out.

    The child will have a higher risk of certain long-term health problems, including autism, intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, lung problems, and vision and hearing loss.

    Does the woman's life need to be in danger, or she can make this decision regardless?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The child will have a higher risk

    Of course there are risks, though I am not sure they are the ones you list (without citation) but that is another conversation.

    There is hardly a medical procedure out there that does not have risks. You can die because of a tooth extraction you know. We are aware of the risks.

    What medical ethics requires is no black and white thinking. We have to balance the rights and well being of everyone involved, not just the child.

    In my view once the fetus is something we suspect has attained sentience.... it has a right to life. Absolute. But the rest of its rights are not absolute and HAVE to be made with the rights, well being, and freedoms of the mother too. Imagine for example conjoined twins who have reached a decent age. Suddenly one of them absolutely 100% says they want to be separated. Despite the risks. The other 100% says they do not want to be, refuses the procedure, and does not accept taking on the risks. What should be done there? This stuff is not easy you know. No one said it should be either.

    So if she wants another person out of her then, while this decision should not be taken lightly or just handed out like confetti, I think it has to be an option on the table.

    It would be easy if medical ethics were black and white, right and wrong, 1 or 0. But they are not. And thankfully many of the people working in that realm are not lazy 2 dimensional thinkers like the people screeching at them from the galleries. It is not an easy job, and I do not envy them it.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Does the woman's life need to be in danger, or she can make this decision regardless?

    That is indeed the discussion our society needs to have. A discussion that is not going to be helped by people shouting "extremism" and "insanity" and "disgusting" at any proposal they personally do not like.


Advertisement