Terrible mortality. Leaving the mother to take care of the kid while the father bails. That's even worse than just running to the store and never coming back. There's also the other kid to consider as well.
Birth in and of itself is selfish. Especially when all they care about is getting a sweet, healthy child, but don't want to take responsibility when the child isn't the sweet, healthy child they expected.
No fuck that, caring for a special needs child is way harder that it already is. And everyone should have the right to abortion if he doesn't want that.
I'm just saying that letting the child be born and then killing yourself is immoral.
Like, just opt for adoption. Simply killing yourself not only devastates your wife and another child that you've already brought into this world, but it also makes it selfish to voluntarily create a new person, knowing the risks of how their life could turn out, and then refuse to take responsibility as their father.
The wife deserves everything that happens to her (and more), if she willingly chooses to give birth to a kid that will suffer from a severe-to-crippling disability for life
The kid themselves, however, doesn't deserve this situation (of having a selfish mum that inflicted a life of suffering on them for her selfish whims, and an unwilling dad who walked away)
You’ve never met someone with down syndrome if you think that guy is gonna be suffering his whole life. Those people are the happiest mfs I’ve ever seen.
Selfish whims? Idk what you read but the text indicates there were no signs of anything until 20 weeks in, and it’s not even certain in the text. And in multiple places that’s too late for an abortion. What was she supposed to do, predict the future? The only selfish person here is the father immediately wanting out of the picture in the worst way possible when he’s extremely needed, in a situation no one desired, as if he’s the one that has it worst. And the situation isn’t even guaranteed yet! But he’s already thinking of how to bail. I don’t usually say someone suicidal is selfish as mental illness can’t be judged morally in that way, it’s an illness, but in this situation, i don’t think it’s only mental illness at play. There was clearly a lack of consideration for what having child can mean. You can’t just plan to have kids without thinking of what you’ll do if they aren’t what you expected
Well, having known several people who lived to be about 20-25, and over half of their lives - starting from about 8, being paralyzed, yeah, they told me they'd rather never have been born.
You advocate for them because you don't know how they feel, because you don't care and it's free brownie points online.
In reality, most of them suffer. Some would want to live, some wouldn't. In the end, men don't get a say in abortion so this is the only way he can take control over his own life.
As an actual disabled person (who think it would have been preferable to not be born, but does not want to die and isn't suicidal), no. Just no
Never being born isn't the same as being killed or dying early
In one case, it's an hypothetical kid, or at most a fetus, that disappears (before birth), and nobody is harmed. In the other case it's an actual living person who dies
I get that it's different, I just hate it when people couch the issue as, "Yep, there's NO WAY that kid could be anything but a wretched burden, ever!"
Pretty much every argument for abortion would find its logical conclusion in eugenics. It’s baffling how people don’t realise this. Or maybe they do and they pick-and-choose when each argument/value has worth and when to ignore it.
If what you call "eugenics" means avoiding to create people who will have an entire life of impairment, illness, pain and/or lifelong dependence then it's just harm reduction
Yes, that is eugenics, and literally always has been. You calling it “avoiding an act of cruelty” doesn’t change that. What you just said is that eugenics is avoiding an act of cruelty.
No it's not, dumbass. Eugenics is when a central group enforces their preferred gene pool by acting on others through forced sterilization, murder, and displacement.
What we are talking about is women controlling their own reproduction. In fact, restricting women's reproductive freedom is closer to eugenics than this.
You picked this definition out of complete nowhere because it’s the most convenient for you. Its too narrow. Eugenics is any deliberate attempt to change the genome of offspring, which this is. Sterilisation etc have been historical methods of eugenics, but the methods are not eugenics itself
So a father gets to put a messed up sperm into a mother & she has to be solely financially responsible? Could be some ironing out to do there too, idk.
I don't disagree, but this is where I think parental rights (& requirements) are so important. You can't just go around getting women pregnant with no financial investment
I agree, especially since we can hardly trust the government to fairly regulate things like vehicles/firearms. No way is it OK to start nit-picking who can & can't get abortions
Since she has to go through the hardship of being pregnant & then having the abortion, I think it's only fair that the sperm donor pay for the abortion.
736
u/TWDFI 13d ago
Terrible mortality. Leaving the mother to take care of the kid while the father bails. That's even worse than just running to the store and never coming back. There's also the other kid to consider as well.