5 ms·

Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unbor

Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit. But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of "normality" and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well. And yet the courage and the serenity with which so many of our brothers and sisters suffering from serious disabilities lead their lives when they are shown acceptance and love bears eloquent witness to what gives authentic value to life, and makes it, even in difficult conditions, something precious for them and for others. — John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 63 http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/do...

alangibson 6y ago
I hope I'm not following the argument, because it sounds like he thinks we should have other people around 'suffering with serious disabilities' so we can be reminded how precious life is. If so, that's cruel to the point of perversity.
- xupybd 6y ago
  It's saying that if we terminate base on a disability we are preventing that person from a chance a life based on the assumption that it would be better not to exist rather than have the disability in question. Those born with these disabilities might disagree and they might see such an action as a judgement against their own existence. This further adds to their suffering.
  - Fumtumi 6y ago
    Only if you assume its relevant. Its not relevant when your society defines abortion before 3 month okay, which plenty do and i agree with. If we would see it different, than it would be murder.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    This other comment throws up an interesting twist on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25140048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25140048 Once we are talking about counterfactuals, that is things like "would haves" about people who don't exist but could have, it opens the door to considering other people who don't exist but could have. Under the assumption that a family who proceeds with the Downs foetus to birth has fewer children afterwards, ought we not to consider the later children who might not exist as part of this moral equation too? What if a family who proceeds with the Downs foetus to birth is likely to have multiple fewer children after than they would have had? Some people born with disabilities might disagree - and have every right to disagree - and see the action of abortion as a judgement against their own existence. But in doing so, are they not identifying themselves more with the counterfactual Downs foetus than with the counterfactual non-Downs foetus? If so, does that not suggest people who think that way identify themselves with the disability to some degree ("In that world I would have been aborted"), rather than identifying themselves as people independent of a physical characteristic ("In that world I would have been guaranteed my body would not have this disability")?
- gowld 6y ago
  He thinks that we should treasure all life as precious, not only the healthiest and strongest.
gambiting 6y ago
Ah yes, the pope that as now comes to light has protected pedophiles in the church for decades. Really the authority we should all look up to.
- scop 6y ago
  (1) JPII was one of the great moral thinkers of the 20th century and I highly recommend that you read some of his work. Not only a thinker, he may be the single man most responsible for the fall of the USSR. (2) The human institution of the Church, especially where wealthy, is highly corrupt and I say that as a devout Catholic who believes Christ established the Catholic Church as His church (tldr the human & divine Church are separate things). (3) One of the likely reasons that Benedict abdicated was that he did not want to be "taken advantage of" as he saw various Vatican higher-ups do with the aging and frail JPII. (4) JPII sadly dismissed cases of allegations. One thing to keep in mind though is when he was growing up in Nazi and then Soviet occupied Poland he would see the occupying forces falsely accuse "resistance" figures of abuse in order to hobble their reputation. (5) While JPII did make mistakes, it is also my belief that many Vatican figures still-living use him as a scapegoat to hide their own errors. They are doing their best to hide any and all investigation and purely say "this is the fault of people who are now dead." They do not want any oversight. For example, why did they choose to finally release the long-awaited report on Cardinal McCarrick, the most prominent US abuser, the week of the presidential election in the US? Aiming to have it buried!
  - gambiting 6y ago
    I'm Polish, for the entirety of my childhood and teenage years the man was revered more than Jesus himself. In Poland he's beyond Saint, you can't speak ill of him. And yes, I'm aware of his contribution to the fall of communism and fall of communism in Poland in particular - his election as a Pole was specifically designed to achieve that goal after all, communist government really didn't know what to do about it and it strengthened the Polish church to such an incredible force they became completely untouchable and yes, could be seen as the leading reason for the eventual fall of communism. However. Despite the early life reverence, I feel that as a grown adult I do now see him in a completely different light - as a man put into a certain role which he has played correctly, and ultimately he has protected an institution that sheltered abusers, corruption, wealth and which ultimately is a cancer spreading over Poland right now, destroying the society from within. Also not everything is about US - look what's happening in Poland with cardinal Dziwisz, the closest confidant of the pope - I always suspected he was a piece of shit after disobeying the direct testament of JP2 and making money off of it, but now it's been confirmed he's much much worse than just profiteering off a dead pope.
bdamm 6y ago
Yet this attitude rarely comes with systemic care for those born with handicaps, so actually it is a form of classist cruelty. There is no shortage of suffering, we don't need to choose to create more.
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  Yeah, because the Catholic Church never did anything to help folks that are handicapped, sick, or poor.... > Next to the federal government, Catholic Charities is the largest US social-safety-net provider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA
  - bdamm 6y ago
    Do you really want to do tennis with how much good/bad the catholic church has done? Good that they provide some hospitals, but not a replacement for good government policy.
    - jlkuester7 6y ago
      Lol wut? Nobody is trying to go all John Stewart Mill here. Just observing that there are reasons to question the assertion that people who agree with JPII don't care about the sick, poor, and handicapped.... SMH
andrepd 6y ago
It's a valid perspective, so I think the downvotes aren't in order. However I strongly disagree. Having Down syndrome isn't just being "outside the conventional parameters of of normality", it's a serious disease with life-altering implications. You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child, you will have impaired vision and hearing, if you ever manage to speak at all, you will probably lose that ability at around 30 years of age. You will have a myriad other chronic and painful health problems, and then you will finally die at around age 40 (maybe more with enough high-quality support). This is not a life worth living, if I ever were in such a situation I would pray to be euthanised.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  That sounds like a pretty severe expression of it, I don't know the distribution but I know people who don't have these limits.
- GordonS 6y ago
  I'm afraid a lot of what you've said here is simply not true - it's either wofully outdated, or pure disinformation. Attitudes to Down's have changed a lot in recent decades, and children now get access to education and assistance, instead of being stuck in an institution to rot. As such, life outcomes are vastly different to what they used to be. I have a daughter with Down's, so I probably know more about it that most. > You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child This is just completely untrue. > you will have impaired vision and hearing There is certainly a higher incidence of vision and hearing problems in people with Down's, but it's far from guaranteed. Further more, glasses and hearing aids are a thing. > if you ever manage to speak at all I'm struggling to take you seriously now - this is utterly absurd. > You will have a myriad other chronic and painful health problems There is a higher incidence of some physical and mental illnesses in people with Down's, but again, it's far from guaranteed, and again need not have a large impact. For example, a lot of those born with Down's have a small hole in their heart, but nowadays it's fairly easily rectified. Not sure what "painful" health problems you could be referring to.
- highland586 6y ago
  While it is a serious condition, most of your statements are simply not true. Life expectancy for Down syndrome is around 55 - 60 years old. I have a family member with Down's who is around 60 years old at the moment and despite his health issues, he is one of the happiest individuals I know. Not saying this goes for all afflicted people, but a blanket statement like 'not a life worth living' is just plain BS.
Tronno 6y ago
This may be controversial, but I don't believe an unborn fetus has any inherent value outside of whatever feelings of hope and excitement it elicits in the parents. If those feelings are instead of dread and anguish, it should be terminated for the benefit of all. The quote seems to imply there is value in the suffering of a disabled child and its parents - suffering for its own sake - which is absolutely horrific.
- drno123 6y ago
  And yet, people with Down’s syndrome are more happy than average person, so we cannot say that they suffer, and aborting baby with Down’s syndrome does not prevent baby suffering. I know that people with Down’s are more susceptible to certain illnesses but even with that they are happy. Source: my sister worked with peoplw with Downs.
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  > The quote seems to imply there is value in the suffering of a disabled child and its parents - suffering for its own sake - which is absolutely horrific. I think it would be more accurate to say that the quote is asserting that human life has great value _regardless_ of the amount of suffering involved. (Or put another way, the total value of someone's life is not a function of the amount of suffering they experience.) Certainly this is a challenging worldview since naturally everyone wants to avoid suffering (or at least avoid suffering that does not help them achieve some goal). But at the same time it is hard to make the general assertion that people who have suffered greatly would have been better of not existing. I am reminded of the story about Johannes Steinhoff [1], a German fighter pilot in WWII. Apparently after witnessing another pilot die horribly in a fire, he asked his friend to just kill him quickly if he ever ended up in a similar situation. As it turns out, Johannes was later a victim of a terrible explosion (even his eyelids were burned off). His friend literally drove to the hospital to shoot him and put him out of his misery, but was prevented from doing so by the medical staff. Johannes ended up recovering and went on to become a key player in the post-war German Air Force and the German Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee. I don't quite know what to think of this story because on one hand I would not wish his ordeal on my worst enemy. But, on the other hand, it is hard to say that anyone would have been "better off" if his friend had killed him. Life is often what we choose to make of it and it is impossible to avoid all suffering. It seems like the best we can do is play the hand that we are dealt and try to regard all things outside of our control with equanimity. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff

alangibson 6y ago

I hope I'm not following the argument, because it sounds like he thinks we should have other people around 'suffering with serious disabilities' so we can be reminded how precious life is. If so, that's cruel to the point of perversity.

xupybd 6y ago
It's saying that if we terminate base on a disability we are preventing that person from a chance a life based on the assumption that it would be better not to exist rather than have the disability in question. Those born with these disabilities might disagree and they might see such an action as a judgement against their own existence. This further adds to their suffering.
- Fumtumi 6y ago
  Only if you assume its relevant. Its not relevant when your society defines abortion before 3 month okay, which plenty do and i agree with. If we would see it different, than it would be murder.
- jlokier 6y ago
  This other comment throws up an interesting twist on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25140048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25140048 Once we are talking about counterfactuals, that is things like "would haves" about people who don't exist but could have, it opens the door to considering other people who don't exist but could have. Under the assumption that a family who proceeds with the Downs foetus to birth has fewer children afterwards, ought we not to consider the later children who might not exist as part of this moral equation too? What if a family who proceeds with the Downs foetus to birth is likely to have multiple fewer children after than they would have had? Some people born with disabilities might disagree - and have every right to disagree - and see the action of abortion as a judgement against their own existence. But in doing so, are they not identifying themselves more with the counterfactual Downs foetus than with the counterfactual non-Downs foetus? If so, does that not suggest people who think that way identify themselves with the disability to some degree ("In that world I would have been aborted"), rather than identifying themselves as people independent of a physical characteristic ("In that world I would have been guaranteed my body would not have this disability")?
gowld 6y ago
He thinks that we should treasure all life as precious, not only the healthiest and strongest.

gambiting 6y ago

Ah yes, the pope that as now comes to light has protected pedophiles in the church for decades. Really the authority we should all look up to.

scop 6y ago
(1) JPII was one of the great moral thinkers of the 20th century and I highly recommend that you read some of his work. Not only a thinker, he may be the single man most responsible for the fall of the USSR. (2) The human institution of the Church, especially where wealthy, is highly corrupt and I say that as a devout Catholic who believes Christ established the Catholic Church as His church (tldr the human & divine Church are separate things). (3) One of the likely reasons that Benedict abdicated was that he did not want to be "taken advantage of" as he saw various Vatican higher-ups do with the aging and frail JPII. (4) JPII sadly dismissed cases of allegations. One thing to keep in mind though is when he was growing up in Nazi and then Soviet occupied Poland he would see the occupying forces falsely accuse "resistance" figures of abuse in order to hobble their reputation. (5) While JPII did make mistakes, it is also my belief that many Vatican figures still-living use him as a scapegoat to hide their own errors. They are doing their best to hide any and all investigation and purely say "this is the fault of people who are now dead." They do not want any oversight. For example, why did they choose to finally release the long-awaited report on Cardinal McCarrick, the most prominent US abuser, the week of the presidential election in the US? Aiming to have it buried!
- gambiting 6y ago
  I'm Polish, for the entirety of my childhood and teenage years the man was revered more than Jesus himself. In Poland he's beyond Saint, you can't speak ill of him. And yes, I'm aware of his contribution to the fall of communism and fall of communism in Poland in particular - his election as a Pole was specifically designed to achieve that goal after all, communist government really didn't know what to do about it and it strengthened the Polish church to such an incredible force they became completely untouchable and yes, could be seen as the leading reason for the eventual fall of communism. However. Despite the early life reverence, I feel that as a grown adult I do now see him in a completely different light - as a man put into a certain role which he has played correctly, and ultimately he has protected an institution that sheltered abusers, corruption, wealth and which ultimately is a cancer spreading over Poland right now, destroying the society from within. Also not everything is about US - look what's happening in Poland with cardinal Dziwisz, the closest confidant of the pope - I always suspected he was a piece of shit after disobeying the direct testament of JP2 and making money off of it, but now it's been confirmed he's much much worse than just profiteering off a dead pope.

bdamm 6y ago

Yet this attitude rarely comes with systemic care for those born with handicaps, so actually it is a form of classist cruelty. There is no shortage of suffering, we don't need to choose to create more.

jlkuester7 6y ago
Yeah, because the Catholic Church never did anything to help folks that are handicapped, sick, or poor.... > Next to the federal government, Catholic Charities is the largest US social-safety-net provider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA
- bdamm 6y ago
  Do you really want to do tennis with how much good/bad the catholic church has done? Good that they provide some hospitals, but not a replacement for good government policy.
  - jlkuester7 6y ago
    Lol wut? Nobody is trying to go all John Stewart Mill here. Just observing that there are reasons to question the assertion that people who agree with JPII don't care about the sick, poor, and handicapped.... SMH

andrepd 6y ago

It's a valid perspective, so I think the downvotes aren't in order. However I strongly disagree. Having Down syndrome isn't just being "outside the conventional parameters of of normality", it's a serious disease with life-altering implications. You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child, you will have impaired vision and hearing, if you ever manage to speak at all, you will probably lose that ability at around 30 years of age. You will have a myriad other chronic and painful health problems, and then you will finally die at around age 40 (maybe more with enough high-quality support). This is not a life worth living, if I ever were in such a situation I would pray to be euthanised.

lazyasciiart 6y ago
That sounds like a pretty severe expression of it, I don't know the distribution but I know people who don't have these limits.
GordonS 6y ago
I'm afraid a lot of what you've said here is simply not true - it's either wofully outdated, or pure disinformation. Attitudes to Down's have changed a lot in recent decades, and children now get access to education and assistance, instead of being stuck in an institution to rot. As such, life outcomes are vastly different to what they used to be. I have a daughter with Down's, so I probably know more about it that most. > You will never surpass the cognitive capacity of a young child This is just completely untrue. > you will have impaired vision and hearing There is certainly a higher incidence of vision and hearing problems in people with Down's, but it's far from guaranteed. Further more, glasses and hearing aids are a thing. > if you ever manage to speak at all I'm struggling to take you seriously now - this is utterly absurd. > You will have a myriad other chronic and painful health problems There is a higher incidence of some physical and mental illnesses in people with Down's, but again, it's far from guaranteed, and again need not have a large impact. For example, a lot of those born with Down's have a small hole in their heart, but nowadays it's fairly easily rectified. Not sure what "painful" health problems you could be referring to.
highland586 6y ago
While it is a serious condition, most of your statements are simply not true. Life expectancy for Down syndrome is around 55 - 60 years old. I have a family member with Down's who is around 60 years old at the moment and despite his health issues, he is one of the happiest individuals I know. Not saying this goes for all afflicted people, but a blanket statement like 'not a life worth living' is just plain BS.

Tronno 6y ago

This may be controversial, but I don't believe an unborn fetus has any inherent value outside of whatever feelings of hope and excitement it elicits in the parents. If those feelings are instead of dread and anguish, it should be terminated for the benefit of all. The quote seems to imply there is value in the suffering of a disabled child and its parents - suffering for its own sake - which is absolutely horrific.

drno123 6y ago
And yet, people with Down’s syndrome are more happy than average person, so we cannot say that they suffer, and aborting baby with Down’s syndrome does not prevent baby suffering. I know that people with Down’s are more susceptible to certain illnesses but even with that they are happy. Source: my sister worked with peoplw with Downs.
jlkuester7 6y ago
> The quote seems to imply there is value in the suffering of a disabled child and its parents - suffering for its own sake - which is absolutely horrific. I think it would be more accurate to say that the quote is asserting that human life has great value _regardless_ of the amount of suffering involved. (Or put another way, the total value of someone's life is not a function of the amount of suffering they experience.) Certainly this is a challenging worldview since naturally everyone wants to avoid suffering (or at least avoid suffering that does not help them achieve some goal). But at the same time it is hard to make the general assertion that people who have suffered greatly would have been better of not existing. I am reminded of the story about Johannes Steinhoff [1], a German fighter pilot in WWII. Apparently after witnessing another pilot die horribly in a fire, he asked his friend to just kill him quickly if he ever ended up in a similar situation. As it turns out, Johannes was later a victim of a terrible explosion (even his eyelids were burned off). His friend literally drove to the hospital to shoot him and put him out of his misery, but was prevented from doing so by the medical staff. Johannes ended up recovering and went on to become a key player in the post-war German Air Force and the German Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee. I don't quite know what to think of this story because on one hand I would not wish his ordeal on my worst enemy. But, on the other hand, it is hard to say that anyone would have been "better off" if his friend had killed him. Life is often what we choose to make of it and it is impossible to avoid all suffering. It seems like the best we can do is play the hand that we are dealt and try to regard all things outside of our control with equanimity. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff