Seto and Ser oppose the views that Teo has regarding the abortion of babies with disabilities. What are your views regarding this issue?
I am with Teo, with regard to his view that the authorities should review the abortion policy. As he had explained, there were three possible ways to account for why there was this fact that two babies are born with a major handicap daily. The first was that the defect had slipped past screenings, but this is virtually impossible, as it is a very rare thing for any defects to be missed out. The second explanation is due to the parents, even after bring informed of a potential birth defect continuing the pregnancy. This may be on moral or religious grounds, or if not, the pure love that parents give, that is no matter what they become, as long as it is their flesh and blood, they would fight for their survival the same way most parents do after their normal children are born. However, I feel that this would not boost our national birth rate in the future, as many of them would be unable to procreate. This would be from a very public societal point of view.
However, such parents should still be allowed to proceed with their pregnancy even after the defect is detected. All this, in spite of the potential 'burden' to society which Teo implies. This 'burden' must be defined carefully, and the use of this term is controversial too. As Ser points out, such groups of people may not be dependents of society after all. For example, people with severe physical disabilities may be of good intellect and because of this will excel in the knowledge-based economies of today. A child with Down's syndrome may still be able to contribute in terms of physical labour. Hence, though 'they' can never be as all-rounded as 'the others', there is no reason why they should be frowned upon as abnormalities in our society.
The third reason offered by Teo is that parents would only continue with the pregnancy just because they are under the pressure from the law which no one can escape from. By law, any foetus above the age of 24 months can not be aborted. However, has anyone ever known why this time of 24 months? This value seems too absolute. Would not this mean that 1 day after reaching 24 weeks, the foetus can no longer be aborted? If it is indeed true that parents continue with the pregnancy only because they are bound by law to do so, then it is a sad fact. Either that they did not take enough time to think about the issue or that they could not make a decision at all, just because it was too tough a decision. Hence my view is that this period of 24 weeks should be extended, which is in opposition to Seto's view that it should be contracted instead. It is my view that any foetus, as long as it is aborted, would feel the pain one goes through in death. Therefore his view is irrelevant and he is just speaking from a weak moral base.
-9:21 AM-
IDIOT.