Abortion and Unknown Siblings

| | Comments (1)

In a Michelle Malkin post on Ann Richards (the Planned Parenthood board member or whatever she is who callously defended her convenience abortion of two of her three triplets), there's a little tidbit that I hadn't picked up on before. She's working under a surprising ethical principle, in addition to somehow thinking it's worse to be alive and have your mother shopping at Costco than it is to be dead:

Also, I personally believe that the long term physological impact on my child would be more negative if he knew that he had "siblings" out there whom he didn't know.

This is incredibly strange. Which would have a more negative impact (I'm not sure if she meant physiological or psychological) -- knowing that your mother decided to sacrifice for the sake of her children, knowing that they have biological siblings (that they shared the womb with!) out there, or knowing that your mother killed them? Besides the physiological results of sharing a womb and the psychological impact that might come with that (about which I know very little), the psychological impact of knowing your mother killed your siblings seems to me to be much more obviously harmful than the knowledge that she put them up for adoption just to make her life slightly easier and to make you feel richer than if you were lower middle class rather than solidly middle class, and knowing that she made the choice to sacrifice for them seems obviously less psychologically harmful than either of the above.

1 Comments

This reminds me of the frequent defense I get of certain cases of abortion in cases of maternal poverty, when I'm teaching on the issue in ethics class. When they consider the case of a poor mother giving birth, they say that the poor life would be too hard on the child, so, out of concern for the child, it is better off dead, or never existing. [and, if we're working on the assumption that the fetus is a person, which we do sometimes, it would follow that it would be ok to kill your three year old if she's eating too many sloppy joe's and has a future in a working-class job].
Also, when I suggest adoption as an option in this case, they say it would be too hard on the child to know that its mother rejected it. So, out of care for the child, we ought to kill it.
Also, another response here is that, well, who knows where the child will end up? What if the adoptive family is awful? What if it never gets adopted and ends up in a terrible orphanage? So, I better kill it.
I'm actually in favor of allowing abortion in quite a few cases, but I've never understood these types of defenses that are supposedly made out of concern for the fetus/future child etc.
-There would be cases perhaps where these kinds of concerns might be efficacious, e.g., as in cases of extreme birth defects, situations like a child born into guaranteed lifelong slavery and torture, etc.

Leave a comment

Contact

    The Parablemen are: , , and .

Archives

Archives

Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff

    jolly_good_blogger

    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible


    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)





  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04