The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome

[Big_John]

Don't get pregnant if you're not prepared to raise the child. Don't have sex if you're not willing to accept the risk. It's not like sex is an accident or anything - you have the choice on whether you want to do it or not (except in the case of rape, in which case I reluctantly support abortion).

cool, but that has nothing to do with my original statement. allow me to rephrase your words into something similar to my original statement that started this odd sequence...

"Don't get pregnant if you're not prepared to have an abortion. Don't have sex if you're not willing to have an abortion. It's not like sex is an accident or anything - you have the choice on whether you want to do it or not (except in the case of rape, in which case I reluctantly support pregnancy)."

Life or government intrusion which does not exist?

um.. neither does not exist. what do i win?

[m52nickerson]

So if you went back 4 generations there would have been more people who thought abortion should be legal ?
Somehow I think you got your numbers wrong .

Not to mention that in nature how many species are known to eat their young?

[Tribesman]

are you denying that abortion is an inherited trait??? madness.

[yesdachi]

So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother?

Why not encourage people to what you think is right rather than stripping them of their freedom to choose? Don’t hate freedom.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why not encourage people to what you think is right rather than stripping them of their freedom to choose? Don’t hate freedom.

Check my political spectrum. I don't have a problem limiting freedom in some cases. As it happens, I believe that the right of the woman to choose is trumped by the right of the fetus to live in the majority of cases.

[Meneldil]

Check my political spectrum. I don't have a problem limiting freedom in some cases. As it happens, I believe that the right of the woman to choose is trumped by the right of the fetus to live in the majority of cases.

The foetus is not a person and as such, has no right whatsoever.

You do have the right to defend foetus and to fight abortion on the basis that it's a potential person, but that's about it really.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The foetus is not a person and as such, has no right whatsoever.

It depends how you define person. A human fetus is a member of the human species. It is therefore a human being (albiet at a different developmental stage), and therefore a person.

[Ironside]

It depends how you define person. A human fetus is a member of the human species. It is therefore a human being (albiet at a different developmental stage), and therefore a person.

So when does something belonging to the human species loose it's right to be a person? To take an extreme example, cutting off someone's head but keeping the body alive doesn't make it anything less than murder = the rest of the body is no longer considered a person.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So when does something belonging to the human species loose it's right to be a person?

A member of the human species never loses the right to be a person, as even somebody on death row is considered a person (with certain rights suspended) until the day they die. The difference between the two, before you point that out, is that the person on death row has forfeited his rights (by the logic that pro-capital punishment individuals use) - the unborn child is free of sin.

[m52nickerson]

A member of the human species never loses the right to be a person, as even somebody on death row is considered a person (with certain rights suspended) until the day they die. The difference between the two, before you point that out, is that the person on death row has forfeited his rights (by the logic that pro-capital punishment individuals use) - the unborn child is free of sin.

A lot of people would still say that a fetus is not a person until it is born. Until birth a fetus is actual closer to a parasite then it is an individual.

Think about it, a parasite is a organism that gains nourishment from the host, as a fetus does from the mother.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A lot of people would still say that a fetus is not a person until it is born. Until birth a fetus is actual closer to a parasite then it is an individual.

Parasites are still individuals, as I am sure you are aware. My only requirement to label someone as a person is that they are a member of the human species - and I don't think anyone denies that a fetus is a human.

Think about it, a parasite is a organism that gains nourishment from the host, as a fetus does from the mother.

So does an infant - by the definition of parasitism among humans (a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others), an infant is also a parasite, and so are the elderly. Should we be able to kill infants and seniors as well?

[m52nickerson]

Parasites are still individuals, as I am sure you are aware. My only requirement to label someone as a person is that they are a member of the human species - and I don't think anyone denies that a fetus is a human.

Well by your definition yes they would be members of the human species. The problem is we as a society don't list fetuses as members of the population. We don't celebrate our conception day, no it is our birth day. Until birth, or at least until the fetus could survive out side the womb it is not an individual human being.

So does an infant - by the definition of parasitism among humans (a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others), an infant is also a parasite, and so are the elderly. Should we be able to kill infants and seniors as well?

The problem with this is the fact that infant and the elderly can be taken care of by any number of different people. A fetus is bound to a single specific individual.

[Koga No Goshi]

My two cents, as somoene with two friends who work in private caregiving for special needs (retarded, autistic) people. One used to work in an institution, and another used to work in public subsidized group homes.

People quick to defend that abortions of the mentally retarded should be considered totally immoral probably don't see the price tag involved with a lifetime of care for retarded people, not to mention the fact that the parents have basically a full time, non-paying job for the rest of their life. It doesn't stop when the kid is 18. Retirees will still have to be taking care of them until they can't anymore, at which point the kid winds up dumped in an institution or group home on the taxpayer dime. Some parents put them in there much sooner.

The medical care for many retarded people is very significant. Many have severe medical issues for life. The budgets in group homes for many patients range between a quarter and three quarter million per year in weekly or even more frequent doctor visits, hospitalizations and procedures. This is well beyond the capacity of the overwhelming majority of families who wind up with a retarded child with special medical needs and virtually all of it will wind up being paid by the taxpayers.

I understand the "good intentions" of being against aborting a child "Just because it's retarded", but I think that people who feel that way would not be so quick to step up and adopt one and assume responsibility for their medical bills. And wouldn't like big tax hikes to support all non-aborted retarded children.

I think you will also find, that among the families of people with retarded children, many would be understanding of another parent's decision not to keep a retarded child. Few of them have any delusions about how huge an overwhelming a personal and financial job lifelong care for a retarded child is.

[Tristuskhan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan Gorgeous isn't it?

My girlfriend carries it: 50% chances of transmission to the offspring. If we can't afford embryo selection (a widely accepted act for Marfan), then we'll have to practice abortion. I don't think we deserve a punishment (until now at least...). If we can avoid having to grow up a child who's likely to become blind at the age of twelve, we'll do it an long life eugenics. Fullpoint.

PS: my girl is 6ft4, for information