Weekly Debate - Natural Selection or Human Intevention

[qwerty]

To promote a discussion I'd like to offer a weekly debate. To take place you must research and present your arguments in a nice way (keep it polite and if you want to use stats then provide references).

Choose sides and make your arguments. The side you choose does not reflect your opinion it is to allow you to hone and practice your debating skills.

This weeks topic: Natural Selection or Human Intervention
As the human population grows and disease becomes more prevalent we are faced with the dilemma of changing our future. Our scientific knowledge has increased to a point where we can see and diagnose abnormalities (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) before birth.

Presented with the role of a global policy maker what would you do, can you justify a case.

If after determining that a couple would have a baby with a fatal disease, would you advise the couple to have an abortion or allow them to let nature take its course and have the baby? If the baby happens to put the mother's life in danger, and you could only save one of them.. who would you save?

[Monte314]

1.) If after determining that a couple would have a baby with a fatal disease, would you advise the couple to have an abortion or allow them to let nature take its course and have the baby?

All humans are born with the fatal disease called "mortality", so the question is ill-posed. But getting to what you probably intended, which is, "the nascent human is predicted to have a shortened life-span", I would say:

1.) The government has no business making any such "suggestion" either way.
2.) I don't see how "a prediction of shortened life span" justifies further shortening of the life span. What end does this serve? More efficient occupancy of the uterus by allowing a shorter "turn-around" time?

If the baby happens to put the mother's life in danger, and you could only save one of them.. who would you save?

I've read that such a situation is quite rare in developed countries, but I don't have any references to cite, so I'll move on.

Here you are reducing the possibility of the mother's death by actively bringing about the actuality of the baby's death? What a completely unbalanced and irrational trade!

Anyway, assuming that we are in a situation where "making no choice is making a choice", then I believe the matter must be left to Dad and Mom, not the government. And, that's what prayer is for.

[void]

If after determining that a couple would have a baby with a fatal disease, would you advise the couple to have an abortion or allow them to let nature take its course and have the baby?

The key word here is "advise". I'm all for advising the couple of the consequences of birthing the child, but they must not be coerced into an action. They must neither by forced to abort the fetus, nor force the mother to give birth. Observe that "pro-life" laws contradict the latter.

If the baby happens to put the mother's life in danger, and you could only save one of them.. who would you save?

In this case, most definitely the mother's. The baby is legally and scientifically not a person (it is a fetus) until birth.

P.S: I'm afraid I don't understand your contention with the phrasing of the question, Monte314. Only one person can survive in this hypothetical scenario, and I presume survival is guaranteed (and so is death).





void added to this post, 10 minutes and 19 seconds later...

I now think I understand Monte314's point about the second question, and I still don't agree with it. It's fairly obvious that the mother will die sooner or later, except I'm supposing that "later" means 30-40 years later and of old age. However the baby will suffer from a fatal disease upon birth, and will die (soon?) thereafter. So why sacrifice the life of a healthy human being in order to give birth to an unhealthy human being who is certain to die of disease?

[thod]

If after determining that a couple would have a baby with a fatal disease, would you advise the couple to have an abortion or allow them to let nature take its course and have the baby?

We would all like to produce optimal offspring yet would still be happy for anything within the normal range. The problem comes when you are going to produce something with the intelligence of a vegetable. It will spend its short life quivering on a sheet, food in one end, shit out the other. Under these circumstances it would be better to not produce it at all.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". I have no problem with playing God and deciding who is to have life and who not.

I have known couples in this position that have aborted. She was quickly pregnant again and produced the desired offspring. Since they only want to produce a limited number of kids they are simply making sure they get good ones.

If the baby happens to put the mother's life in danger, and you could only save one of them.. who would you save?

The mother. My loyalty is to her, not to something that does not yet exist. What are you going to do with a baby? Its the same as if someone gave you a goat, you would say "What am i going to do with a goat?" and give it away. A woman is far more useful, not only that she contains a baby factory and can produce lots more.