Huh?

Anyhow, this reminds me of a birth control technique. The drunken dwarf. Thats right, drunken dwarf. If at any time you decide that you want children, go out and hire an alcoholic dwarf to live with you for a month. You get to pick up his trash, mop vomit out of the carpet, suffer sleep deprivation while you listen to him yell and shout at 2 AM, clean his bowel and bladder stained clothes, and trip over his tiny, passed out body for thirty days. And every day, remind yourself that you will be going through this process for years if you have a kid. The kid will quit soiling itself after a year or so, but the rest will happen for at least the next 18 years. And if when the month is up, you still want kids, I am sure that a psychiatrist will be able to help you with your severe masochism.  Heck, you might even let the dwarf stay in your house while you are committed to the nearest psych ward!

That is very odd. I for instance, have bad feelings about parents choosing gender of the child for many reasons (firstly because it sets up psychological expectations of the child that could lead to dangerous circumstances, such as parents putting time and money into choosing a girl that turns out to be a transsexual...and you know the rest)

In a way, it can be cruel to the child if the parent picks them out a disability, so to speak, just so the parent doesn't feel isolated from their kid. I don't see why deaf parents can't teach their kids sign language...? Yes, it's a deaf culture thing, but it strikes me as a little over the top.

That being said, I think it should be legal.

If it weren't for the horrific and disgusting states of both sex education and social nets for unwanted children, as well as a seeming inability to create a flawless and safe form of protection, I'd be completely against any abortion that wasn't a medical necessity for the child, the mother, or both. You chose not to have protected sex, now a life has resulted. You don't have the right to end that life anymore than you have the right to kill someone on the street for looking at you funny.

Unfortunately we have pregnant 12 year olds and putrid caring for children who aren't wanted by their parent(s), which create such massive problems on their own that it renders abortion to a lesser category in my mind. We also have failures in every form of protection I know about. Regardless of how small the percentage is, there is a percentage. Even surgery isn't 100%. And it can kill you. So I have no moral standing with which to hold my moral standing. I won't until all of these are fixed, if they ever are.

For the record I think that any man who is willing to put the cost of an abortion and the procedure is declined by the woman should be absolved of all support payments. The playing field should be level. The disruption of both lives should be equally considered.

All of that said and agreed, please tell me why parents who have never known themselves to have been deprived in life should agree with you -- or me. What you have never experienced you cannot know. People may tell you about it but you cannot know. So why should parents want children who cannot share their lives?

Parents have an absolute right over their children. If the state becomes involved then it opens another can of worms. It took 50 years after Dr. Spock wrote against spanking for prosecutions for spanking to start in a few places. If the state can become involved in limiting abortion then there is no limit on the reasons for being involved.

If the state becomes involved there is no end to state involvement.

Abortions are legal, and I'm fine with that. So, much like Lokibro, I think it's your right to choose to have an abortion as long as it is within the law.'

However, I find it somewhat repugnant the idea of willfully conseiving a child, because you want one, and then, when you find out that child isn't to your liking, you have an abortion.

I don't like the idea of "normal" parents choosing to abort a dwarf-child or a deaf child, because I think it is a spoiled attitude to think you can "choose" what your baby turns out to be.

And so, I find it equally reprehensible if a dwarf/or deaf parent couple chooses the reverse. Equally reprehensible, mind. Not more reprehensible. Any child unique, and I don't want to be the jugde of what is a "normal" child and what is not. Dwarves are normal people too. Deaf people are normal people too.

I don't have any inclination to want the matter legislated upon, but I do find it rather repugnant to want to "choose" your child.

If you conseive on purpose, because you actually want a child, I think you should leave it at that, and not define what kind of child you want.

I think it's wrong to intentionally pass on undesirable traits. In my mind intentionally aborting normal fetuses so that you can have dwarf kids would be the same as aborting normal fetuses so you can have children with muscular dystrophy. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying dwarfs don't have the right to breed or that they should be aborted.

I never did understand that. If you abort all the females, who are all those men going to have sex with?

 I have often wondered about that. aren't we weakening the gene pool and helping bad mutations survive by all this take care off the handicaped etc. (im talking about genetic disabilities that get passed on) Im not saying we shouldn't do it infact I think we should, they desverve a normal life aswel but the point still stands aren't we helping these mutations survive?

I wonder what the next stage in human evolution is.  Maybe some day we will all be completely reliant on taking medication in order to survive, or maybe some day we will live in a Gattaca type future were parents will choose which genes to pass on to their children.  Maybe someday dwarfism will be considered a race not a disease.  It would be interest to be able to see what human beings will be like in one million years.  Assuming we survive that is.  

I'm kind of surprised noone lambasted me for my position. But keeping an eye on this topic has become a drag, so unless someone responds to my post within the next day or two, I won't guarantee there will be a response to the response.

This

can become this

Any questions

She gave up that right for the responsibility of raising a new life the moment she started having unprotected sex.

There's no such thing as evil. Abortion is wrong.

Couldn't of said it better. That being said it's not somthing to take lightly

That position does not take into account reality.  Accidents happen.  People make bad choices.  Neither of those situations give the state or another person the right to take over the body of a person. 

I generally like your comments, but this is an issue where we are absolutely not going to agree. 

I'm not sure exactly what you are envisioning with this question.  If a fetus can be grown in an artificial womb then it is up to whoever created the artificial womb to take responsibility for the lifeform that results. 

As to the rest of what you wrote, you can see my posts here http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16652.  I'm not really interested in getting into a fruitless debate on this subject again just yet. 

This example shows a good reason to reject abortion

(Which means not this: the embryo is a full human being - or - God is against it nonsense)

And that abortion opens the gates wide for the selection of liveworthy and non-lifeworthy people. This is usually known as eugenics. Eugenics as such means that by using the knowledge acquired through genetics to strive to improve the human race. This would be seen as means to accelerate human evolution and to create a greater public good.

The reasons against this are:

1. This kind of evolutionary engineering is dangerous. What is perceived beneficial by the generation that conducts the engineering might in the best case prove to have been just a fashion of this generation in the worst case prove to be detrimental to the human race.
   Lets look into the past to see what kind of humans were tried to be engineered: Tall, blue-eyed and blond haired people. Now imagine that with the hole in the ozone layer. It would clearly be that the artificial selection by creating an artificial selection pressure (against dark skin) would in the end be of negative effect.
   
   Natural Evolution on its own already constantly searches for the best adapted lifeforms - there is no great need to improve this.
    
2. The second argument against it is an ethical one: Eugenic Selection infringes on Human Dignity whether you do it directly on human beings or just on their blueprints. It's what is called commodification of human life. If your child becomes like a good you order from a catalogue it will later also be that to you and ever more to society. If you lets say selected or believed to select for patience you would always expect your child to be patient in all its approaches. Later in this process children might be born to become athletes, scientists or engineers - in this case they wouldn't be expected to pursue their happiness anymore but to pursue the expectations that were laid into them before they were born.
   
   Eugenics is a great infringement on the central virtue of Human Dignity.
    

Selecting for drawfs and deafs now is clearly not eugenics. It's quite obviously the exact opposite: dysgenics. Nevertheless don't one need other arguments against dysgenics then he or she would need against eugenics.

Hence my first post in this topic, which has turned into a disclaimer.