Rights of unborn children - serious question

[Andy5566]

I recently got some very good news, my partner is pregnant. My partner suffers from high blood pressure and although this is being treated and controlled well at the moment, we have been given a prognosis that she only has a 30% chance of carrying past 28 weeks. There are a couple of other factors that are making this pregnancy more dangerous for my partner and baby.

 

For anyone who isn't aware, giving birth to a child before 28 weeks leaves it open to very serious, permanent complications. After 28 weeks it is still dangerous but considered a lot safer for the baby.

 

I have done a lot of research and also been in a lot of paedeatric wards and seen children who are severely disabled. Just today I saw a child who could do little more than lie on their wheelchair. If a baby is born at 22-23 weeks there is an extremely high chance that it will die, and if it survives be severely braindamaged - perhaps unable to do anything for themselves or even communicate.

 

The hospital we are at now is in the top level of university hospitals in the country (Japan), so the care we are getting is as good as we could hope for. 

 

If the choice was between abortion or a life of disability without any communication, comprehension, movement, then I think abortion is the kind choice. Before we realised the gravity of our current situation we went for a screening scan and had decided that if our child had been found to have trisomy 13, trisomy 18 or even down syndrome, we would not have hesitated to have an abortion. 

 

Hypothetically, if the baby were capable of making a rational decision, I think it would consider the odds and make a decision based on likelihood of various positive and negative outcomes. I think it would be rational to choose abortion if the negative outcomes were extremely likely. It is not a simple decision for us. We really would love to have a child and bring it up peacefully. This decision is tearing our hearts in two and I am not really expecting an answer but if a skilled philosopher could shed some light on this it might help us through the process.

 

Thanks for reading

 

 

[Tweak]

Well I have to say that I understand your dilemma and even tough a post I made some time ago doesnt answer your question I wish that you read it for your own sake and maybe you have some help in the manner. 

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43842-the-rational-behind-having-children-and-pets/#entry400480

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I'm not sure it's a moral decision either way. If you knew your partner was at risk of giving birth to such a child, then I think it would be your responsibility not to get your partner pregnant. So the moral issue is over and dealt with, now your choices are no longer free because either way you should technically not have impregnated her. I would say my preference would be to abort the child, but I don't think giving birth to the sick child is any better or worse from a moral standpoint. 

[dsayers]

OMG, what a heartbreaking story. I find it truly tragic that people in love, who want to raise a child peacefully wouldn't be able to for any reason. I cannot express how sympathetic I feel towards your situation.

 

I want to address your title and your topic separately, since they appear to not be the same to me. As for the topic, I would agree that an abortion sounds like the kind way to go. But that's not a decision anybody else can make for you.

 

As for the title, there's a couple things to take into consideration. The only one I'm comfortable going into here is that "reasonable expectation" is a valid part of overriding another person's agency. For example, if you were to find somebody passed out in the middle of the road, it is reasonable to expect that they would consent to being moved out of harm's way by you if they could.

 

I don't have to imagine that one of the worst tortures a person could endure is feeling like a prisoner in their own body/life.

[csekavec]

OP, I'm very moved by your plight and the weight of what you are facing.  It is the kind of thing I haven't faced and hope to never have to. 

 

 In the abortion conversation often it is couched as simply that upon conception the zygote inevitably forms into a functioning member of the species therefore interruption of that process is akin to interrupting any other process necessary for life post utero. However birth defects, still births, complications like placental abruption et cet are more common than many realize.

 

A human body with no mind isn't a person. Aborting a mindless body isn't a violation of rights. No rights can exist without personhood.  In this so far I think we agree. 

 

However your statement "I think it would be rational to choose abortion if the negative outcomes were extremely likely" isn't valid. 

 

Consider this please. If you just now learned that next week you will be interned interminably in a concentration camp possibly to die of gas, exposure, or malnutrition and even if you were to live your life being so full of suffering as to be nearly incomprehensible would it then be rational for you to commit suicide?  Or to put it more directly would it be rational for you to kill your children in order to spare them such expected suffering?

 

How one rationally answers this question is a affirmation of ones values. 

 

If one holds that to live life in a concentration camp is fundamentally incompatible to life qua man then suicide is rational as an expression of those values.  On the other hand if one holds that those conditions aren't sufficient to overcome ones solidarity and so the mind remains safe from destruction it is not rational to suicide.   But in no case may ones own values be rationally enforced upon another person.

 

I ache for the turmoil you and your partner must be going through. Use your best judgement and if you look back upon this later you will have no regrets.

[Andy5566]

Thank you for your kind and compassionate replies. 

 

csekavec, your reply struck me as I have recently read mans search for meaning by Victor Frankl and there were times when I was brought to tears by the inhumanity, but his ability to rationalise impressed on me what a great mind and great man he must have been. No I would not choose suicide, but I think I would make that choice in the vain hope that I would be the lucky one who somehow got out of the scenario. Imagining that hypothetical scenario and in my current situation, I feel like an ostrich with his head in the sand. 

 

I have no clear way to think about this and make a choice, whereas my partner is thinking deeply and rationalising each possible choice and outcome.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

If more people agreed with Peter Singer's position on infanticide, this wouldn't be as difficult to decide because euthanasia could be an option in the case of disability after birth.

 

From my perspective, you seem to be stressing more over the potential gamble/loss than any philosophical dilemma, so I don't think I can help much.

 

But in no case may ones own values be rationally enforced upon another person.

Forcing your values on another person is what parenting is all about. If the child is born, this won't be the only decision he makes for the kid. I would commit suicide under many conditions, including probably the one you described, and I would see no problem making that decision for a fetus/baby I made. In general, our aversion to death is evolutionary and I have a hard time rationalizing the merits of life over death beyond instinctual reactions.

[csekavec]

Forcing your values on another person is what parenting is all about. 

 

This says volumes about your character.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

This says volumes about your character.

Please, tell me the purpose of parenting if not that. You first force your value of life, health, well-being (to varying degrees), then education, language, fashion, and everything under the sun. Most parents don't permit their child to assert their own values for the entire first few years of their life. And only after that do they force their value of independence, to whatever degree. Even if you neglect your child, you're forcing some value on them. If nobody forced these things on children, they would die. That's why parenting is a necessary violation of the NAP.

[dsayers]

Please, tell me what parenting achieves if not that. You first force your value of life, health, well-being (to varying degrees), then education, language, fashion, and everything under the sun. Most parents don't permit their child to assert their own values for the entire first few years of their life. And only after that do they force their value of independence, to whatever degree. Even if you neglect your child, you're forcing some value on them.

I see no curiosity in your words.

 

Life finds a way. Biological imperative #1 across all species is to survive. The idea that this must be imparted by force is absurd.

 

Likewise, language? How can you force somebody to learn language? You need language to teach... everything. The only way you can teach such things is by example, which isn't force at all.

[Susana]

What if this was your only chance to have a child? Would the benefits outweigh the risks?

 

How many times are you prepared to or willing to abort a potential child of yours to increase the odds of raising a healthier child? 

 

Personally I feel as scary as it would be to have a raise a child with a disability since I could not afford it and seems very hard but I would rather try to have the healthy child and only give the baby for adoption if I failed to be able to do it. 

 

Finally it seems your partner is and will be a high risk pregnancy ("30% chance of passing 28 weeks, barely entering the 3rd trimester") taking medication for her high blood pressure. Have you gotten to the root issue? Our ancestors had healthy pregnancies and children and there is something modern causing increased child disabilities and high risk pregnancies. Global Healing center has articles with excellent references to scientific journals so its a good starting place. I typed in "blood pressure" and there are over 200 articles to get your started http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/search.php?cof=FORID%3A11%3BNB%3A1&ie=UTF-8&q=blood+pressure&sa=Search

[ThomasTheIdealist]

The idea that this must be imparted by force is absurd.

Then explain how you can voluntarily impart something on a party incapable of voluntarily accepting it. It's one-sided, it's coercion.

 

Likewise, language? How can you force somebody to learn language? You need language to teach... everything. The only way you can teach such things is by example, which isn't force at all.

You force a child to learn things by teaching them. They are not capable of understanding the consequences enough to decide for themselves if they want to learn/do something. They are also a captive audience to their parents, they hardly have an option to not be taught things.

 

Using your logic, if I teach a child by example to perform sexual favors for people, I have not forced them to do anything. So by logical extension, you accept a child's ability to give sexual consent. If not, please explain why this is coercion and it's not coercion to teach them any other previously mentioned thing.

[shirgall]

Then explain how you can voluntarily impart something on a party incapable of voluntarily accepting it. It's one-sided, it's coercion.

 

You force a child to learn things by teaching them. They are not capable of understanding the consequences enough to decide for themselves if they want to learn/do something. They are also a captive audience to their parents, they hardly have an option to not be taught things.

 

Using your logic, if I teach a child by example to perform sexual favors for people, I have not forced them to do anything. So by logical extension, you accept a child's ability to give sexual consent. If not, please explain why this is coercion and it's not coercion to teach them any other previously mentioned thing.

 

I teach my children primarily when they ask me questions and I answer them. Sometimes I ask them questions so they can find the answers for themselves.

 

I am confused about how these activities can be interpreted as force. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding in what the definition of force is. What is your definition?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

I am confused about how these activities can be interpreted as force. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding in what the definition of force is. What is your definition?

Coercion is doing something that influences someone else without their consent. Children cannot consent and therefore parenting is coercive.

 

Of course, "children" is a bit vague. When you mention children asking you questions, it's clear that they're capable of consenting to some things, but they're ultimately very captive and restricted.

 

Where would you say my definition of coercion differs from yours?

[shirgall]

Coercion is doing something that influences someone else without their consent. Children cannot consent and therefore parenting is coercive.

 

Of course, "children" is a bit vague. When you mention children asking you questions, it's clear that they're capable of consenting to some things, but they're ultimately very captive and restricted.

 

Where would you say my definition of coercion differs from yours?

 

Parenting is coercive compared to what? Abandoning them in the jungle?

 

Since, by your own definition, children are unable to consent and therefore their care falls to a guardian, I think your definition breaks down. A child has no choice over being born, is completely beholden to its parents for its care and feeding for years, and is not even able to learn what consent is or how to express it without being, apparently, forced to.

 

Do you at least accept that peaceful parenting is closer to non-coercive than your impossible ideal?

 

If giving birth becomes original sin, who is selling indulgences in your moral system?

[csekavec]

Coercion is doing something that influences someone else without their consent. Children cannot consent and therefore parenting is coercive.

 

Coercion, n, The action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

 

Consent has no relevance. 

 

Even if consent had relevance, children are perfectly able to consent to the extent of their understanding. 

[dsayers]

Children cannot consent and therefore parenting is coercive.

 

it's clear that they're capable of consenting to some things

Your first line here inspired me to point out the second line here. But it's something you already agree with, so I'm not sure where the first line comes from.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Do you at least accept that peaceful parenting is closer to non-coercive than your impossible ideal?

 

If giving birth becomes original sin, who is selling indulgences in your moral system?

I'm not really expressing an ideal. All I have said has been description, not normative. But I can agree that I think it's preferable to not coerce when possible, i.e. when a child is capable of consenting to something.

 

But as it relates to my "moral system" so to speak, I don't exactly use coercion as any objective moral barometer, I'm more concerned with consequences. However, permitting coercion rarely has good consequences imo. Child rearing is among the exceptions to that, along with being caretaker of mentally disabled or comatose, and even raising/harvesting animals and their products (non-human animals also being among those whom cannot consent).

 

Coercion, n, The action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

That definition is contextually insufficient as it uses "force" ambiguously, while that was the word in contention. Now go look up "force" in any dictionary of your choice, it will include something along the lines of doing something "against someone's will" (i.e. without consent).

 

Your first line here inspired me to point out the second line here. But it's something you already agree with, so I'm not sure where the first line comes from.

I oversimplified the first statement. For simplicity, I was talking about infants initially, until it was commented that children ask questions. The capacity for consent is gradual, but my point is that parenting fills in the holes, doing for the child what they cannot do, without consent.

[csekavec]

force, n, coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence

 

I wasn't able to find a single definition of force requiring the idea of consent. It is a ancillary concept as I'll illustrate presently.

 

An individual who is forced may be coerced into acting against their values or coerced into acting in congruence with those values. 

 

A to B:  "Eat your favorite food or you get the knife."   That B is under coercion is evident, but also evident is that they may likely have eaten the food anyway thus are consenting to eating their favorite food.  

 

The operative precept is the violence. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I'm not sure it's a moral decision either way. If you knew your partner was at risk of giving birth to such a child, then I think it would be your responsibility not to get your partner pregnant. So the moral issue is over and dealt with, now your choices are no longer free because either way you should technically not have impregnated her. I would say my preference would be to abort the child, but I don't think giving birth to the sick child is any better or worse from a moral standpoint. 

 

 

Edited this into my first post

[ThomasTheIdealist]

force, n, coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence

 

I wasn't able to find a single definition of force requiring the idea of consent.

It's on the page you linked. You'll want to look at the verb definitions and not the nouns: Make (someone) do something against their will

 

Or you can google "define:force" and the same thing is right there.

 

If you make someone do something against their will (this inherently means a lack of consent) then you are "forcing" them. Violence isn't necessary to force people to do things. I can be a business that offers extremely competitive prices and force other stores to close.

 

A to B:  "Eat your favorite food or you get the knife."   That B is under coercion is evident, but also evident is that they may likely have eaten the food anyway thus are consenting to eating their favorite food.  

 

The operative precept is the violence.

How is it evident that they're being coerced? You just admitted that "they may likely eaten the food anyways." So it's not evident at all that coercion was used. Beings compelled to do something by means of a threat could be considered coercion, but not simply a coincidental threat. If I tell my mom "bye, I'm off to the dentist" and she replies with "you better go to the dentist or I'll kill you," I have not become coerced into going to the dentist. My decision was wholly unaffected by the threat as it coincided with a choice I already made.

[csekavec]

I agree that in your example there isn't coercion (just threat). But your example and mine are different. In mine the coercion initiates the action. In yours the action is declared prior to the threat. 

 

This distinction is why I wrote "requiring" not "including" consent. 

 

Definitions done with, maybe we can find an area we agree on. 

 

In my farming experience when a calf is born 99% drink milk within minutes. The few that do not eat within the first day will die. To avoid this they must be made to drink. One must physically constrain the calf, bring it to the udder and if met with continuing lack of success a drench tube is used. This causes distress to the calf and the mother that persists. However with the combination of the energy and taste of the food the calf will feed itself thereafter. 

 

I argue that a healthy infant calf or human can consent. They initially do so by demonstrating via action their values. The values are expressed top down and the first and highest value is life. I assert that second only to life is the value of self autonomy.

 

As the infant matures more preferences aka values are expressed each in descending order of strength. But no value may contradict any other value else the result be death (or if the value is of weak strength:  psychosis). 

 

Now if there is a value that is congruent with the highest value and yet must be taught by force I do not know what it is. For any value that is congruent with the others is integrated easily and naturally because we have evolved to think so. 

 

Sometimes force must be used. But it is at a cost. If one violates autonomy by using force it can only be justified if it is to guarantee a higher value. Those who use force to affirm a lower value communicate to their victim that that lower value is on par with the highest: life.  The psychosis of a person who was beat because as a child they wet the bed and then has a lifetime of poor sleep is the wholly rational consequence of the irrational values they accepted as a child and then never re-examined.