voluntary abortion - an evolutionary development?

[billwald]

Is the process of voluntary abortion somehow productive in protecting the human specie? An instinctive elimination of inferior DNA?

 

[texastig]

Is the process of voluntary abortion somehow productive in protecting the human specie? An instinctive elimination of inferior DNA?

No.
Thanks,
TT

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Is the process of voluntary abortion somehow productive in protecting the human specie? An instinctive elimination of inferior DNA?

yes if the threat is overpopulation, anyway.

I don't think its instinctive any more than the avoiding the responsibility attached to any of the other life-changing issues.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, it is a product of sin and is murder.

 

[Tissue]

Perhaps you could define voluntary abortion for us? From your conclusion, it sounds as though it's not what some are assuming it to be.

 

[SolomonVII]

Is the process of voluntary abortion somehow productive in protecting the human species? An instinctive elimination of inferior DNA?

Many unborn are miscarried naturally and this does seem to be a process of the body understanding that something has gone horribly wrong in the early development.

I am not sure if I have seen much about this phenomena other than reading a line or two about it here and there. There very possibly is some physiological process at work in which the body chooses how best to expend its energy to produce the next generation maximally.

The term 'voluntary abortion' by the way is ambiguous. It seems to suggest a woman voluntarily choosing to abort her own genetic material as being somehow inferior. Counselling on self-esteem might be in order if this is the case.

 

[ClausJohn]

No, i don't think so. In most cases it would be impossible to say what an "inferior" gene is. Is having a 11th finger inferior? Or superior? We can't possibly know where every singular mutation or it's combinations lead to.
There is - imo - a reason do abort a baby that shows obvious genetic defects that would impair it's and it's parents quality of life severely. But still, abortion is not (i hope) a tool for eugenics.

 

[April Angel]

But still, abortion is not (i hope) a tool for eugenics.

Abortion has been used as a tool for eugenics, in the UK, for the past 15 years at least.

Very often women are coerced into having 12 week scans to check for Down's Syndrome. This is seen as routine and if a woman refuses the scan she is looked at as though she is a fool, by the doctors.

Then, if a handicap is detected on the 12 week or 20 week scan, it is expected that the woman will choose to "terminate". This is what the doctors "expect". The woman is encouraged, by the medical profession, to consider this option, seriously.

I know of some women with lower than average IQs who got the impression that they "had" to terminate the pregnancy, if a handicap was detected by the routine scan.

One doctor was so uncertain of her diagnosis that she was awaiting the histology result to check whether her sonographic diagnosis was correct. However, the parents, who were so traumatised by "having" to abort their 20 week baby, refused to permit a post mortem examination. When the doctor found out, her very words were:

"So, we'll never know."

Those words have haunted me ever since.

 

[ClausJohn]

Then, if a handicap is detected on the 12 week or 20 week scan, it is expected that the woman will choose to "terminate". This is what the doctors "expect". The woman is encouraged, by the medical profession, to consider this option, seriously.

@HyacinthBouquet: yes, so...? And what are the consequences if such a baby is born?

 

[April Angel]

[/color][/size]

@HyacinthBouquet: yes, so...? And what are the consequences if such a baby is born?

Well, if you look at my previous post, the consequences could be that the baby was not handicapped in the first place and that the doctor's sonographic diagnosis was wrong. Therefore, a baby would be born who was perfectly healthy.

Alternatively, the consequence could be that a baby is born with a mild handicap.

Or, a baby could be born with a severe handicap.

Instead, we have a blanket response where babies are aborted regardless of how severe their "handicap" is. Some are aborted for hare-lips or extra fingers.

If I were such a baby, I would not choose to be aborted, myself. So, why should we expect this for others?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The entire impact of medicine on human genetic fitness is a serious issue... dysgenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics

abortion and its impacts on human fitness are the least of our worries.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

it must be nice to see the world through such super simple black and white lenses

 

[ClausJohn]

Well, if you look at my previous post, the consequences could be that the embryo or fetus was not handicapped in the first place and that the doctor's sonographic diagnosis was wrong. Therefore, a baby would be born who was perfectly healthy.

(Misleading terminology fixed by me)
If a doctor assesses a fetus as defective in some way, that means that he has a good reason to do so. That's what he trained for. Not being 100% sure does not mean he just pulled his diagnosis out of his..."rectum"...or that there was a 50/50 chance the baby was handicapped. There are prenatal tests using amniotic fluid that are 99.8% sure.

If I were such a embryo or fetus, I would not choose to be aborted, myself. So, why should we expect this for others?

(Misleading terminology fixed by me)
You would not choose at all, since you either don't own a central nervous system or are not aware of the concept of death, non-existence, etc. anyway.