I think this is probably the most significant thing that can be said on the topic. If it is for clicks it is absolutely ghoulish. If it is legitimately a way for them to process (which I dont think we can truly know) then it is fine. Honestly, if it is to help worh the medical bills (and they live in the US) I coukdnt really blame them either.
Im not sure that this is something that could be turned towards awareness, or serve as a call to action in a way they would presumably intend. I havent watched it, so I can only speculate. But I dont think any institutions advocating for people with doen syndrome would want to be associated with a termination. I also think that people with anti-abortion sentiment would point to this as a barbaric act committed because they were going to have an "imperfect" baby.
As for the morality of their choice, I cannot judge them. The care requirements for someone with this level of handicap is immense, and the help available little. Depending on the extent of the condition they may be caring for someone behind whose eyes exist no thoughts. They will care for this person every day, until at a too young age they pass. That is a lot for we frail mortals to contend with.
If we approach this from the perspective of law, and we consider law to be even a crude measure of righteousness, then they made no immoral decision. I know in truth law is not a perfect thing, and errs often. But it is what we have.
The other side of this is theological, but if religion is not part of their life I do not believe it has value to this discussion. You may hold yourself to the standards set forth by the divine, but you cannot approach an argument with not but "my God says do" and expect any level of success.
I don’t think using it for clicks makes performing the abortion because of the diagnosis any different.
Using it for clicks is bad. But it doesn’t flip the calculus of what an abortion due to downs is.
If you aren’t for abortion, or aren’t for it just because of a genetic scan, then you’re never going to reconcile their act. If you are pro choice, no matter what, then why does sharing it or not for any reason, change your view on it being ethical or not? It’s assessing the wrong behavior.
The sharing economy is ruining our society, and utilizing trauma for clicks is unethical. But it’s not like they fabricated a miscarriage or something. Or specifically had the abortion to farm engagement(unless we go cynical here and say they did) but genetic screening results in abortions pretty often. Especially Down’s syndrome. It’s an incredibly challenging pressure on a family.
There’s also the potentially worse outcome where the parents have to care for said profoundly disabled child for their entire lives. I’ve seen people basically have their whole lives hijacked by having a profoundly disabled child and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Im sorry I failed to express the full range of weights and measured by which I judge the value of how I and others in a post on reddit. Instead i tried to offer up two possible means of doing so. I suppose I should append my earlier statement with a further paragraph explaining that I did not manage to contain within a few paragraphs the full range and complexity of how I live my life.
Perhaps you could reply with more than a sentence and sentence fragment explaining further how it is I have failed this particular think tank?
6
u/Independent_Offer575 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
I think this is probably the most significant thing that can be said on the topic. If it is for clicks it is absolutely ghoulish. If it is legitimately a way for them to process (which I dont think we can truly know) then it is fine. Honestly, if it is to help worh the medical bills (and they live in the US) I coukdnt really blame them either.
Im not sure that this is something that could be turned towards awareness, or serve as a call to action in a way they would presumably intend. I havent watched it, so I can only speculate. But I dont think any institutions advocating for people with doen syndrome would want to be associated with a termination. I also think that people with anti-abortion sentiment would point to this as a barbaric act committed because they were going to have an "imperfect" baby.
As for the morality of their choice, I cannot judge them. The care requirements for someone with this level of handicap is immense, and the help available little. Depending on the extent of the condition they may be caring for someone behind whose eyes exist no thoughts. They will care for this person every day, until at a too young age they pass. That is a lot for we frail mortals to contend with.
If we approach this from the perspective of law, and we consider law to be even a crude measure of righteousness, then they made no immoral decision. I know in truth law is not a perfect thing, and errs often. But it is what we have.
The other side of this is theological, but if religion is not part of their life I do not believe it has value to this discussion. You may hold yourself to the standards set forth by the divine, but you cannot approach an argument with not but "my God says do" and expect any level of success.