View Full Version : The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome
ICantSpellDawg
09-11-2008, 01:44
I have always been disgusted by this increasing eugenic trend. What do you think? If upwards of 90% of individuals who think that their child will be born with Downs Syndrome kill that child, that means a number of pro-lifers are hypocrites or just utterly confused. On the flip side, how can those who believe that society must protect those who are born different encourage such a trend through the use of amniocentesis and eugenic eradication of a legitimate minority of exceptionally interesting people?
What is your opinion?
The Importance of Trig Being
By Michael Gerson (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/michael_gerson/)
Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_importance_of_trig_being.html)
WASHINGTON -- In addition to Barack Obama making history as the first African-American to be nominated for president and Sarah Palin taking her shotgun to the glass ceiling, there was a third civil rights barrier broken at the political conventions this year.
Trig Paxson Van Palin -- pronounced by his mother "beautiful" and "perfect" and applauded at center stage of the Republican convention -- smashed the chromosomal barrier. And it was all the more moving for the innocence and indifference of this 4-month-old civil rights leader
It was not always this way. When John F. Kennedy's younger sister Rosemary was born mentally disabled in 1918, it was treated as a family secret. For decades Rosemary was hidden as a "childhood victim of spinal meningitis." Joseph Kennedy subjected his daughter to a destructive lobotomy at age 23. It was the remarkable Eunice Kennedy Shriver who talked openly of her sister's condition in 1962 and went on to found the Special Olympics as a summer camp in her backyard -- part of a great social movement of compassion and inclusion.
Trig's moment in the spotlight is a milestone of that movement. But it comes at a paradoxical time. Unlike African-Americans and women, civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the last few decades. Of the cases of Down syndrome diagnosed by pre-natal testing each year, about 90 percent are eliminated by abortion. Last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended universal, early testing for Down syndrome -- not just for older pregnant women. Some expect this increased screening to reduce the number of Down syndrome births far lower than the 5,500 we see today, perhaps to less than 1,000.
The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome -- who learn slowly but love deeply -- are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a disabled child and urge abortion.
This is properly called eugenic abortion -- the ending of "imperfect" lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of the disabled. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption -- "Didn't you get an amnio?" -- and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependant are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled.
The protest against these trends has come in interesting forms. Last year pro-choice Sen. Edward Kennedy joined with pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback to propose a bill that would have required medical professionals to tell expectant parents that genetic tests are sometimes inaccurate and to give them up-to-date information on the quality of life that people with Down syndrome can enjoy. The bill did not pass, but it was a principled gesture from Rosemary's brother.
Yet the pro-choice radicalism held by Kennedy and many others -- the absolute elevation of individual autonomy over the rights of the weak -- has enabled the new eugenics. It has also created a moral conflict at the heart of the Democratic Party. If traditional Democratic ideology means anything, it is the assertion that America is a single moral community that includes everyone. How can this vision possibly be reconciled with the elimination of Down syndrome children from American society? Are pro-choice Democrats really comfortable with this choice?
The family struggles of political leaders can be morally instructive. Contrast the attitude of Joseph Kennedy with that of Charles de Gaulle, who treated his daughter Anne, born with Down syndrome in 1928, with great affection. The image of this arrogant officer rocking Anne in his arms at night speaks across the years. After her death and burial at the age of 20, de Gaulle turned to his wife and said, "Come. Now she is like the others."
And now we have met Trig, who is just like the others, in every way that matters.
michaelgerson@cfr.org (%20michaelgerson@cfr.org)
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
TevashSzat
09-11-2008, 02:04
Well, you must think about how difficult it would be for parents to have a child with downs syndrome.
I am ambivalent towards eugenics. I see what it must be used at one point in the future, but I see no reason why it should be practiced now.
Basically, humans have stopped or at least hindered natural selection from occuring to the human species. As a result, the human gene pool will continually worsen as the centuries (more likely millenias) progress. While it would be inhumane now to euthanize those with severe genetically inherited diseases, think about this: Would you want at some very very distant point in the future to have a human population where maybe 50% of the people born have some sever condition that greatly hinders their ability to contribute to society.
I have always been disgusted by this increasing eugenic trend. What do you think? If upwards of 90% of individuals who think that their child will be born with Downs Syndrome kill that child, that means a number of pro-lifers are hypocrites or just utterly confused. On the flip side, how can those who believe that society must protect those who are born different encourage such a trend through the use of amniocentesis and eugenic eradication of a legitimate minority of exceptionally interesting people?
What is your opinion?
Lets suppose for a minute that those same 90% have the ability to alter the DNA profile of the child to eliminate the chance of downs syndrome or some other disease. Would you be so cavalier in your proclomation of eugenics then?
This smells like a veiled insinuation on abortion and to be honest thats an argument that just isnt going to be won.
Why? Because morals and ethics are normally self created conditions based on personal experiences. Even the ones commonly shared are opened to interpretation by the individual with there own ability to produce logic. Attempting to codify it with an appeal to someones sense of morals, from your own moralistic point of view is insincere at best, cleverly worded hyperbloe at the worst.
It's very very wrong, people should'nt have a say in what deserves to live.
TevashSzat
09-11-2008, 03:03
It's very very wrong, people should'nt have a say in what deserves to live.
Well, then what is probably not the correct term to refer to a person heh? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It's very very wrong, people should'nt have a say in what deserves to live.
That isn't a realistic position to take, unless you want to become a pro-life absolutist. Death penalty? That's people having a say in who lives and who dies. Decisions on end-of-life medical care? Same. Battlefield triage? Same. I know a couple who's opted for in vitro fertilization. They pick which fertilized eggs get slapped in the womb. They're deciding which blastocysts get a chance to be embryos. Should we stop them?
If you think we're experiencing a eugenicide of Downs Syndrome children, just wait until you can identify if your embryo is likely gay. Then we're going to see a whole new slice of the population cease to exist.
Well, then what is probably not the correct term to refer to a person heh? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hehe that is just mean and I like it, you will just have to forgive a linguistical screwup from us non-anglo-saxons. But really, abortion absolutily disgusts me in certain grades, when it's just a matter of convenience it is simply disgusting, when it is about disqualifying a life it's an absolute atrocity. I worked as a volunteer with people with down-syndrome and I can tell you thay they prefer to be alive. It's so very very wrong I simply can't believe that some consider it to be progress.
@ze lemur
Death penalty is different, the people that get it have proved they don't deserve to be alive, when you are man enough to take a life you have to give back exactly that. I am a fond supporter of euthanesia and death penalty, but abortion is completily denying someone a chance.
I know a couple who's opted for in vitro fertilization.Just to chime in here- I think in vitro fertilization is morally wrong for more or less the reasons you give. They fertilize a bunch of eggs, use a few and discard the rest.
'Abortion' is just a polite euphemism for killing a child. It's always wrong. It's not 'more wrong' than 'normal' abortions when it's based on a trait. 'Normal abortions' are not less wrong.:wall: They are all diabolically wrong and should be illegal and punishable with severe penalties.
I know a couple who's opted for in vitro fertilization. They pick which fertilized eggs get slapped in the womb. They're deciding which blastocysts get a chance to be embryos. Should we stop them?
Yes! We should stop them. This too should be every bit as illegal and punishable with severe penalties.
'Abortion' is just a polite euphemism for killing a child. It's always wrong. It's not 'more wrong' than 'normal' abortions when it's based on a trait.
There is a difference between murder and genocide, one is taking a life the other is simply disqualifying it, there certainly is a difference, I agree that it is always wrong but there are so many ways of being wrong and up to so many degrees.
ICantSpellDawg
09-11-2008, 04:38
Why? Because morals and ethics are normally self created conditions based on personal experiences. Even the ones commonly shared are opened to interpretation by the individual with there own ability to produce logic. Attempting to codify it with an appeal to someones sense of morals, from your own moralistic point of view is insincere at best, cleverly worded hyperbloe at the worst.
And yet that side lost the argument about slavery, even though we live in some sort of Sartrean mishmash of arbitrary ethics. The way forward is inclusion and sanctity of life. Your way has been tried and has failed due to its inherent moral repugnance. Lives should be safeguarded, especially those lives that cannot provide their own protection from people with such a confused abhorrance of basic ethical principles.
If people were executing unborn homosexuals or children with autism I would be saying the same thing that I am now.
And yet that side lost the argument about slavery, even though we live in some sort of Sartrean mishmash of arbitrary ethics. The way forward is inclusion and sanctity of life. Your way has been tried and has failed due to its inherent moral repugnance. Lives should be safeguarded, especially those lives that cannot provide their own protection from people with such a confused abhorrance of basic ethical principles.
If people were executing unborn homosexuals or children with autism I would be saying the same thing that I am now.
Damn straight, isn't being alive the utmost human right? Your legitimacy to actually be it starts from day one. Nobody should have the right to decide for someone else what is a worthy life and what is not that is just projection.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-11-2008, 04:57
TSM:
While I agree with the moral stance you advance here, I fear that you are trying to command the tide.
Eugenics has been practiced, formally or informally, by most if not all human cultures. Several cultures currently use ultrasound tests to determine a child's sex -- and fate. Genetic mapping will ensure that many people have the tools to note the presence of abnormal physical/mental conditions and they will act on it.
Navaros:
Making abortion illegal and severely punished can only reduce the number of deaths not truly stop abortion. Preventing all abortion will only occur if people change their minds about the nature of life and what has value -- and that can never be legislated or coerced, only persuasion can make such a change (and prayer).
Eugenics is just the old school first step. Tradition you see. Have a defective/unwanted child? Disgard it, you can always have another. Abortion is just the high tech industiralized way of going about the disgarding part. Saves you the emotional trauma of actually seeing the baby as you heave her/him into the dump/river/woods.
The way forward is inclusion and sanctity of life.
Inclusion is a joke. And a bad one at that. As is sanctity of life. Ultimately human life is disposible. Unless our race went though a BSG like reduction in numbers.
Big_John
09-11-2008, 05:47
What is your opinion?choice should be the parent's (final say being the mother's). i have no problem with abortion.
ICantSpellDawg
09-11-2008, 05:51
What about sex-selected abortions?
Big_John
09-11-2008, 05:51
What about sex-selected abortions?
philosophically, i have no problem with abortions on any grounds.
seireikhaan
09-11-2008, 05:51
Eugenics is horrible. We should stop people from deciding to not have children; after all, when they decide to stop having sex, they are deliberately denying a child the right to live. Thus, I propose that every married couple reproduce as fast as possible, and if they don't, throw them in jail for being anti-life.:smash:
Big_John
09-11-2008, 05:54
Eugenics is horrible. We should stop people from deciding to not have children; after all, when they decide to stop having sex, they are deliberately denying a child the right to live. Thus, I propose that every married couple reproduce as fast as possible, and if they don't, throw them in jail for being anti-life.:smash:
but... shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
:hide:
Strike For The South
09-11-2008, 05:54
What about sex-selected abortions?
What I would like to tell is that in time they will meet their maker and he will judge them but since my government had the wonderful foresight to separate my church and my state. I think its sick and immoral but legal let the sods do as they wish
ICantSpellDawg
09-11-2008, 06:14
What I would like to tell is that in time they will meet their maker and he will judge them but since my government had the wonderful foresight to separate my church and my state. I think its sick and immoral but legal let the sods do as they wish
How are you saying that these things are solely religious issues? I really don't understand how the moral question of abortion is any more religious than the moral question of stealing, murder or slavery.
They say that the pro-life side uses faith and philosophy in it's arguments, but I see philosophical mumbo-jumbo on the side that is questioning "personhood" and what it means to be an individual.
The anti-abortion arguement insists that life begins when it scientifically begins and deserves protection; the right to life. The pro-abortion arguement insists that a person isn't an individual or guaranteed rights based on location, size, arbitrary timing, necessity of help, genetic defect and physical proximity to the mother; preserving physical sovereignty over the right to life of the defenseless.
This is a legitimate debate and neither side is religiously based, unless you are talking about equality and the right to life and personal choice as religiously based as well. It is a false arguement.
Contraception bans are are based primarily on religious tenents - the protection of life is not.
Strike For The South
09-11-2008, 06:17
I'm not sure what to think.
The anti-abortion arguement insists that life begins when it scientifically begins and deserves protection; the right to life. The pro-abortion arguement insists that a person isn't an individual or guaranteed rights based on location, size, arbitrary timing, necessity of help, genetic defect and physical proximity to the mother; preserving physical sovereignty over the right to life of the defenseless.
Those do matter though. For those first 6 months when we are little more than a parasite in our mother's lower torso. And we can not survie without her life support apparatus. Why should we be given the consideration of being though of as an individual? When really for all intents we aren't. Why shouldn't the actual individual in the equation wants, needs, and feelings be though of above the proto-human? And sanctity of life is an invalid argument. As it comes from very biased view point. IE from the living, who have a very strong moivation to keep living (yes I'm stealing from George Carlin, but he was right).
Papewaio
09-11-2008, 07:34
Basically, humans have stopped or at least hindered natural selection from occuring to the human species. As a result, the human gene pool will continually worsen as the centuries (more likely millenias) progress.
Untrue. Not every guy and gal who is born gets to breed. We might be able to change our environment, but that does not mean we all survive the changed environment.
Those who can drink, drive and survive will breed children with a higher propensity to be functional alcoholics. While those who can't drink, drive and survive get a bronze medallion in the Darwin Awards.
Other ways our modern environment eliminates those not 'suitable':
Those who can binge on drugs, survive and breed vs those who take a single E and die. Think about some of those old rockers who have done heaps of drugs, survived and went on to bred. Then think about the many youngsters who die from drugs. Yes the deaths are tragic, but the overall effect is that you have a race that is more likely to survive hard core drugs.
Gaming. At least in Korea it is eliminating some of those who play so long and ignore basics like food, sleep and toilet breaks to the point that their internal organs breakdown and they die at the keyboard. A simple AFK to prolong life. Again individuals eliminated from the gene pool because they can't survive the modern environment.
Now from the rest who do survive, not all of them have the opportunity to mate let alone reproduce. Look at the Trumps, Bransons and others... multiple wives and children for them means somewhere someone else missed out.
Women are still very selective about who they will have children with. And as long as at least one half of the species is then we will still have sexual selection shaping our future.
Tribesman
09-11-2008, 08:16
'Abortion' is just a polite euphemism for killing a child. It's always wrong.
Why do you hate God Nav ?
Incongruous
09-11-2008, 08:29
Why do you hate God Nav ?
Hahaha!
I wondered when someone would pick him up on that.
Anyway, I know that this is an awful thing to say but wouldn't the world be better without parents struggling to bring up children who lack the ability to live in this world?
Yes I know that we then may leave ourselves open to all sorts of disturbing questions, why not just get rid of all ugly kids? Or something, but Down's syndrome is an awful defect for everyone involved.
Big_John
09-11-2008, 08:35
Anyway, I know that this is an awful thing to say but wouldn't the world be better without parents struggling to bring up children who lack the ability to live in this world?why do you feel that is an "awful thing to say"? it's a perfectly sensible question.
Anyway, I know that this is an awful thing to say but wouldn't the world be better without parents struggling to bring up children who lack the ability to live in this world?
Hey...I´m for whatever that gets the highway moving faster....
Yes I know that we then may leave ourselves open to all sorts of disturbing questions, why not just get rid of all ugly kids? Or something, but Down's syndrome is an awful defect for everyone involved.
I don´t see the slippery slope there....Down's syndrome is a disease, a easily identifiable genetic flaw at that....who´s to say a kid is ugly?...that´s a personal interpretation issue.
Your way has been tried and has failed due to its inherent moral repugnance.
God that was beautiful I almost cried. Since were making the whole argument circular Tuff lets put the "life argument" this way.
Lets suppose for a minute I am employed by our government (by extension you) and they send me somewhere to spy on these people called militants, I fnd them and call my HQ they send in an airstrike and the lot go up in flames.
Was my action unethical because someone died? Or ethical because I was commanded to do a job on what is technically your behalf?
:logic:
What I would like to tell is that in time they will meet their maker and he will judge them but since my government had the wonderful foresight to separate my church and my state. I think its sick and immoral but legal let the sods do as they wish
I think you are correct in your approach to the problem. Just because you don't like something or don't agree with the morality of something - doesn't mean you have to make it law.
I think abortion of any sort should be an option. It's up to people to make their own moral (or immoral) decisions.
The Downs Syndrome thing isn't really eugenics - as it isn't a trait that only some people pass on, just a chromasomal abnormality that all humans can reproduce in certain circumstances. Also there is the point that people with downs syndrome may well have an advantage if environment changed. Evolution doesn't have a goal - it merely plods onward.
yesdachi
09-11-2008, 14:17
Hahaha!
Anyway, I know that this is an awful thing to say but wouldn't the world be better without parents struggling to bring up children who lack the ability to live in this world?
I agree with Big John, this IS a sensible question and probably the question the parents ask themselves before making a choice. :bow:
I do not know how I would choose if I were to find out my unborn child were to have a serious defect. But I do know that I would not make it illegal for someone else to make a choice. I consider the ability to control a family’s direction one of the greatest freedoms and taking that away with law is a blatant raping of the idea of freedom.
If someone feels so passionately about “life” then they should encourage people struggling with the decision by supporting them and offering to be there for them. It is too easy to arm-chair quarterback the decision while not taking any responsibility for the decision you have forced someone to make.
If YOU want someone to have their defect baby then YOU should offer to be there to help them raise that baby, if YOU are not going to be there then YOU don’t have any say in the decision.
Well, you must think about how difficult it would be for parents to have a child with downs syndrome.
I am ambivalent towards eugenics. I see what it must be used at one point in the future, but I see no reason why it should be practiced now.
Basically, humans have stopped or at least hindered natural selection from occuring to the human species. As a result, the human gene pool will continually worsen as the centuries (more likely millenias) progress. While it would be inhumane now to euthanize those with severe genetically inherited diseases, think about this: Would you want at some very very distant point in the future to have a human population where maybe 50% of the people born have some sever condition that greatly hinders their ability to contribute to society.
You don't understand evolution. Whatever lives and breeds, lives and breeds.
Louis VI the Fat
09-11-2008, 14:55
Eugenics is just a politically loaded term, used to make abortion look like a nazi practise. Creating a healthy master race is not foremost in the thought of parents who are faced with the difficult decision of what to do once Down's syndrome has been diagnosed.
Here's a thought experiment:
Few people with Down's syndrome are capable of independently engaging in pretty much anything. They are certainly not capable of independently engaging in sexual affairs.
Are you in favour of actively enabling them to engage in sexual acts and in helping them procreate? If not, why are you engaging in eugenitic practices in this way? Are they lesser people, who should be discouraged from procreating?
*The controversial stuff to aid disagreement:*
Of course, in the West, it are in fact Christians who engage in horrific eugenic practises by stripping the mentally ill from their right to sex. Easy victims for their perennial anti-sex crusade. Especially the many, many mentally ill who have been put in the care of Christian institutions over the centuries, and who have been, and are, brutally, often physically, prevented from ever in their lives engaging in even the most innocent of physical sexual activity. This is one of the many crimes of Christianity.
:smash:
ICantSpellDawg
09-11-2008, 15:39
Genocide is just a loaded term...
Downs syndrome is not as disabling as people are making it seem. I really want to hear what you would say if people aborted their children who they believed would be gay. It's their choice? What about sex selected abortions in other countries? Is that their choice as well? Nobody has answered those distinct questions, unless they wanted their generically callous response to be the standard.
Some say that their may be a God gene. Should parents select out those who have it? Those who do not? The question can apply to everything.
In fact, why are their limits on abortion at all? Why can't we just do it until the day the child is born? Why not after? Humans used to leave babies to die on mountain tops - bash their heads against trees. Maybe personhood isn't even important to consider in the act of killing another.
Few people with Down's syndrome are capable of independently engaging in pretty much anything. They are certainly not capable of independently engaging in sexual affairs.
Hmmm I thought we all agreed that a boat with people with down-syndrome on the gay parade was the greatest thing ever.
rory_20_uk
09-11-2008, 15:59
Any couple might get a child with Down's. there are determining factors, but most are either statistical odds (nuchal scan, mother's age etc etc), or getting the data is a risk (chorionic villi sampling / amniocentesis) and can lead to a miscarriage.
Any child with me as a father has enough problems without adding a known genetic disease to the mix. I'm only going to get 2 and maximally 4 chances at this, so there's no room for known mishaps.
~:smoking:
Genocide is just a loaded term...
Downs syndrome is not as disabling as people are making it seem. I really want to hear what you would say if people aborted their children who they believed would be gay. It's their choice?
yes it´s their choice, and btw if a gay gene were to be found it would mean that being gay would officially be recognized as a genetic defect right?....at least I think it should be under those circumstances.
What about sex selected abortions in other countries? Is that their choice as well? Nobody has answered those distinct questions, unless they wanted their generically callous response to be the standard.
It it´s the mother's choice...it´s her choice....if you mean state mandated sex selection like the Chinese case I don´t think that´s right for the simple reason that the state is infringing on the rights of the individual.
Some say that their may be a God gene. Should parents select out those who have it? Those who do not? The question can apply to everything.
never heard about this? what is this? a made-up gene?
In fact, why are their limits on abortion at all? Why can't we just do it until the day the child is born? Why not after? Humans used to leave babies to die on mountain tops - bash their heads against trees. Maybe personhood isn't even important to consider in the act of killing another.
I take the consideration that from the point where the fetus can survive on the outside world without being biologically connected to the mother it has personal rights.....
before that it only exists because the mother is sustaining it so she has the right to terminate that life....no matter if we find that choice agreeable or not...it´s no business of ours anyway.
rory_20_uk
09-11-2008, 16:13
But from probably 30 weeks a foetus can survive outside the mother with no more input than a child born at 40 weeks.
There are loads of defects, from poor eyesight to pattern baldness. Odds are that there is a set of genes that can be linked to being gay. I am sure there will be some that choose to abort based upon the information.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
09-11-2008, 16:14
As always, I side with the humans. And since I don't consider a fetus a human in any way or form, this is a non-issue for me.
Tribesman
09-11-2008, 16:19
Hmmm I thought we all agreed that a boat with people with down-syndrome on the gay parade was the greatest thing ever.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No Frag its just that people didn't share your view that disabled poofs being in a parade was disgraceful anymore than they shared your view that allowing the children of poofs to participate in the parade was equal to promoting child sex abuse .
Here's a thought experiment:
Few people with Down's syndrome are capable of independently engaging in pretty much anything. They are certainly not capable of independently engaging in sexual affairs.
Are you in favour of actively enabling them to engage in sexual acts and in helping them procreate? If not, why are you engaging in eugenitic practices in this way? Are they lesser people, who should be discouraged from procreating?
Here's a little problem. I read up on Down's syndrome last night. Infertility among them is like 90% for men and 70%-80% for women. And if they are the ones who have high enough functioning they can engage in sexual affairs on their own.
Downs syndrome is not as disabling as people are making it seem. I really want to hear what you would say if people aborted their children who they believed would be gay. It's their choice? What about sex selected abortions in other countries? Is that their choice as well? Nobody has answered those distinct questions, unless they wanted their generically callous response to be the standard.
Actually it can very well be. The only Down's persons we tend to see are the high function ones who can be trotted out for people "ou'n'aw" over. You know be a greeter at Wally-world, clean toilets, or dig ditches. How many persons with Down's have you met? I've met two I can clearly recall. Of that stupidly small sample 50% were completely and totally incapable of caring for themselfs. And would have been better off aborted.
Genocide is just a loaded term...
Downs syndrome is not as disabling as people are making it seem. I really want to hear what you would say if people aborted their children who they believed would be gay. It's their choice? What about sex selected abortions in other countries? Is that their choice as well? Nobody has answered those distinct questions, unless they wanted their generically callous response to be the standard.
Some say that their may be a God gene. Should parents select out those who have it? Those who do not? The question can apply to everything.
In fact, why are their limits on abortion at all? Why can't we just do it until the day the child is born? Why not after? Humans used to leave babies to die on mountain tops - bash their heads against trees. Maybe personhood isn't even important to consider in the act of killing another.
Abortion is abortion.
Hosakawa Tito
09-11-2008, 18:16
I agree with Big John, this IS a sensible question and probably the question the parents ask themselves before making a choice. :bow:
I do not know how I would choose if I were to find out my unborn child were to have a serious defect. But I do know that I would not make it illegal for someone else to make a choice. I consider the ability to control a family’s direction one of the greatest freedoms and taking that away with law is a blatant raping of the idea of freedom.
If someone feels so passionately about “life” then they should encourage people struggling with the decision by supporting them and offering to be there for them. It is too easy to arm-chair quarterback the decision while not taking any responsibility for the decision you have forced someone to make.
If YOU want someone to have their defect baby then YOU should offer to be there to help them raise that baby, if YOU are not going to be there then YOU don’t have any say in the decision.
And this is where the "rubber" of ideology meets the "reality" of the road. Raising normal & healthy children is difficult enough. Raising those with such a handicap as DS can be beyond some parents capabilities and desires. It's a private and personal matter, and I would not/ could not judge any parent for making that choice.
Well said yesdachi.
Ironside
09-11-2008, 18:42
Just to chime in here- I think in vitro fertilization is morally wrong for more or less the reasons you give. They fertilize a bunch of eggs, use a few and discard the rest.
I'm pretty certain that those born through in vitro fertilization prefer to be alive. :book:
Downs syndrome is not as disabling as people are making it seem. I really want to hear what you would say if people aborted their children who they believed would be gay. It's their choice? What about sex selected abortions in other countries? Is that their choice as well? Nobody has answered those distinct questions, unless they wanted their generically callous response to be the standard.
Some say that their may be a God gene. Should parents select out those who have it? Those who do not? The question can apply to everything.
Personally I wouldn't like it and would like to see a societal pressure against it, but I wouldn't forbid it, as the law would be useless and still too dominant in practice.
Now it's your turn, if the parents could avoid it before it even came to the fertilised egg, would your opinion change on any of the matters? Would you still maintain "life is sacred" if the child would be born in constant terrible pain and die after a few years?
Would any of your oppinions change if the embryo could be genetically "fixed"?
Tribesman
09-11-2008, 19:13
Actually it can very well be. The only Down's persons we tend to see are the high function ones who can be trotted out for people "ou'n'aw" over. You know be a greeter at Wally-world, clean toilets, or dig ditches. How many persons with Down's have you met? I've met two I can clearly recall. Of that stupidly small sample 50% were completely and totally incapable of caring for themselfs. And would have been better off aborted.
Actually it is people with views like that who form their opinions from meeting two people who might be better off aborted .
Would any of your oppinions change if the embryo could be genetically "fixed"?
It's not fixing it is eleminating. And if a child is born terminalliy ill it should be possible to skip the hard parts like we do here but that is something different, this isn't about pro-life it's about what deserves a chance, when we judge it by our standards it's projection and that is simply not fair.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-11-2008, 19:52
First Off, Don't Have Sex. If it is figured out that your kid might geneticly get Down Sysndome, then don't have Sex, plain and simple. If you go ahead with it and your kid turns up with it, Then Why Abort? If you want to take care of it, great! But If Not, then put it up for adoption. Let them worry about the kid. No Sense of killing it.
Actually it is people with views like that who form their opinions from meeting two people who might be better off aborted .
I went to a high school where they shipped many of the special needs students in the county. I've been around special needs persons. Some can function, with some assitance, on their own. Some can't. And won't ever be more than a 3 yearold. They should have been aborted.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-11-2008, 22:49
Some can function, with some assitance, on their own. Some can't. And won't ever be more than a 3 yearold. They should have been aborted.
A three year old can still enjoy life.
Not on their own and that's the problem.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 00:08
Not on their own and that's the problem.
So? There are people to take care of them. They can live, so let them live. Abortion for the sake of eugenics, especially, is a long and dirty path.
Rhyfelwyr
09-12-2008, 00:12
If you go ahead with it and your kid turns up with it, Then Why Abort? If you want to take care of it, great! But If Not, then put it up for adoption. Let them worry about the kid. No Sense of killing it.
How dare you be so reasonable! For all the talk of Christian's and indeed any pro-lifers having only an idiological basis in their belief, it appears this is the case with just as many pro-choice supporters.
If someone does not see an unborn baby as a human being, then I will strongly disagree with them but I can understand their views.
But I cannot understand the whole "baby infringing on the mother's rights" line. So legal technicalities regarding human rights must overcome any sort of sense or compromise? In the end, the mother has to be pregnant for nine months. And for that, the baby (which didn't ask to be inside her in the first place) can live a happy, full life. I'm pretty sure it would prefer living in a foster home to dying before ever seeing the light of day.
I've seen a few people with Down's Syndrome, including one I used to see at the place I work a bit. I can't honestly say I know how much it affects people on average and the extent of variation between cases, but it seems to me that they are nonetheless pretty glad to be alive, and contribute a lot more to society that many more 'healthy' people do.
Tribesman
09-12-2008, 01:08
I went to a high school where they shipped many of the special needs students in the county. I've been around special needs persons. Some can function, with some assitance, on their own. Some can't. And won't ever be more than a 3 yearold. They should have been aborted.
A simple question for you then Lars .
These "some" that you refer to , at what stage of the pregnancy is it possible to accurately determine the full effects of any defects or disorders that may have been detected ?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 01:21
I take the consideration that from the point where the fetus can survive on the outside world without being biologically connected to the mother it has personal rights.....
before that it only exists because the mother is sustaining it so she has the right to terminate that life....no matter if we find that choice agreeable or not...it´s no business of ours anyway.
In that case, I doubt a child can survive without help from adults or older children until it is at least three or four. By your logic, since a human is sustaining a two year old child, it should be their right to kill it. Sorry, but that argument doesn't ring with me.
Devastatin Dave
09-12-2008, 01:51
I think you are correct in your approach to the problem. Just because you don't like something or don't agree with the morality of something - doesn't mean you have to make it law.
I think abortion of any sort should be an option. It's up to people to make their own moral (or immoral) decisions.
The Downs Syndrome thing isn't really eugenics - as it isn't a trait that only some people pass on, just a chromasomal abnormality that all humans can reproduce in certain circumstances. Also there is the point that people with downs syndrome may well have an advantage if environment changed. Evolution doesn't have a goal - it merely plods onward.
Strangely enough, I'm in the camp with Idaho and Strike it seems. My wife would never have an abortion and I wouldn't want her to. Its our choice as a family not to practice this, in our opinion, killing of a human being. I don't like abortion and am against it personally, but that's it; its personal. I use to be all for abortion to be overturned in my country, but honestly, I could care less anymore. The more I look around at today's "parents" or "parent" in many cases, a quick little chop and chop and suck doesn't get me all riled up anymore. We should be responsible for our lives and hope that the day won't come that abortions are not choice but FORCE.
Samurai Waki
09-12-2008, 02:24
Huh... somehow I'm on the same page too... Idaho by god you could unite the world.
m52nickerson
09-12-2008, 02:56
The anti-abortion arguement insists that life begins when it scientifically begins and deserves protection; the right to life. The pro-abortion arguement insists that a person isn't an individual or guaranteed rights based on location, size, arbitrary timing, necessity of help, genetic defect and physical proximity to the mother; preserving physical sovereignty over the right to life of the defenseless.
Scientifically life does not begin at conception, but continues. Sperm cells are alive, as are Ovum.
Since a young fetus is total dependent on its mother it is not an individual.
In that case, I doubt a child can survive without help from adults or older children until it is at least three or four. By your logic, since a human is sustaining a two year old child, it should be their right to kill it. Sorry, but that argument doesn't ring with me.
In my post I specifically said "biologically connected" despite the fact that you ignored it to try and make a point........anyone can raise a child after it´s born...only the mother can bring it to term....on the final aspect if she decides she doesn´t want her body to be part of the process you can´t force her.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 03:09
In my post I specifically said "biologically connected" despite the fact that you ignored it to try and make a point........anyone can raise a child after it´s born...only the mother can bring it to term....on the final aspect if she decides she doesn´t want her body to be part of the process you can´t force her.
If she doesn't want her body to become part of the process, she shouldn't get pregnant. Abortion is not birth control.
If she doesn't want her body to become part of the process, she shouldn't get pregnant. Abortion is not birth control.
I didn´t say it was...
and it´s not for me to say who should be getting pregnant or not...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 03:17
and it´s not for me to say who should be getting pregnant or not...
No, but it's for someone to say. If you're going to have an abortion for any other reason than that baby is going to cause serious bodily harm, don't get pregnant. If the woman is raped, then I suppose I can understand. Otherwise, don't get pregnant if you don't want to have the kid.
Devastatin Dave
09-12-2008, 05:27
Since a young fetus is total dependent on its mother it is not an individual.
Isn't that the case for infants outside the womb as well?
A simple question for you then Lars .
These "some" that you refer to , at what stage of the pregnancy is it possible to accurately determine the full effects of any defects or disorders that may have been detected ?
Unfortunately accept for the DS guy in wheelchair who had to put on the toilet by his EPA, and the autisitc guy. I never had a laundry list of disorders, so I can't answer that.
So? There are people to take care of them. They can live, so let them live. Abortion for the sake of eugenics, especially, is a long and dirty path.
Always seems like waste to me. And yes eugenic abortions does lead to a not so great place. But we need to go there.
How dare you be so reasonable! For all the talk of Christian's and indeed any pro-lifers having only an idiological basis in their belief, it appears this is the case with just as many pro-choice supporters.
If someone does not see an unborn baby as a human being, then I will strongly disagree with them but I can understand their views.
But I cannot understand the whole "baby infringing on the mother's rights" line. So legal technicalities regarding human rights must overcome any sort of sense or compromise? In the end, the mother has to be pregnant for nine months. And for that, the baby (which didn't ask to be inside her in the first place) can live a happy, full life. I'm pretty sure it would prefer living in a foster home to dying before ever seeing the light of day.
I've seen a few people with Down's Syndrome, including one I used to see at the place I work a bit. I can't honestly say I know how much it affects people on average and the extent of variation between cases, but it seems to me that they are nonetheless pretty glad to be alive, and contribute a lot more to society that many more 'healthy' people do.
Nowhere does it state that being a biological 'parasite' on another human being is a right.
If you're going to have an abortion for any other reason than that baby is going to cause serious bodily harm, don't get pregnant.
Yes, they should be able to get an abortion whenever they like to. :clown:
Always seems like waste to me. And yes eugenic abortions does lead to a not so great place. But we need to go there.
Humanity does not need to go anywhere.
Papewaio
09-12-2008, 08:44
I think the eugenics argument should be dropped. Don't just look at what eugenic means (selectively breeding a better race :wall:) look at what the end result is... a change in the frequency of the individuals... evolution by man not the environment.
Either choice abort or not will lead to a difference in the frequency of the individuals. Both choices are eugenic in the more general sense that we are choosing the gene frequency.
Let people choose. End of the day it is their genes they remove from the gene pool.
Tribesman
09-12-2008, 09:38
Unfortunately accept for the DS guy in wheelchair who had to put on the toilet by his EPA, and the autisitc guy. I never had a laundry list of disorders, so I can't answer that.
You can't answer that ?????
Yet you said that people should have been aborted based on what you had seen of them and in the same post said that you had read up on the disorder.....but you can't answer .:no:
It was a simple question Lars , very simple .
But OK lets make it easier for you , or harder as the case may be when it comes to trying to defend your stated view .
If you saw someone that was paraplegic or tetraplegic and they had to be put onto the toilet should they have been aborted ?
No, but it's for someone to say. If you're going to have an abortion for any other reason than that baby is going to cause serious bodily harm, don't get pregnant. If the woman is raped, then I suppose I can understand. Otherwise, don't get pregnant if you don't want to have the kid.
As to the bold part -> I don´t see why that should be.
I am not saying that I think abortion is a good idea, and I will agree that in some cases it can be done for base, selfish reasons.....I simply do not agree that we can push those views on someone and force a woman to go through a pregnancy if she doesn´t want to.
Isn't that the case for infants outside the womb as well?
It´s not the same thing.....yes once an infant is out of the womb it needs someone to cloth and feed him/her...but this is very different from the situation in the womb where the fetus life is biologically linked to it´s mother, basically the fetus is only alive because the mother is providing life support, it can´t breath by itself, it can´t digest food by itself, etc.
If the woman does not want to function as life support for this fetus it´s in her right to decide so, I´m not saying that this is a good decision or a bad one.....just that it´s her decision.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 13:20
As to the bold part -> I don´t see why that should be.
I am not saying that I think abortion is a good idea, and I will agree that in some cases it can be done for base, selfish reasons.....I simply do not agree that we can push those views on someone and force a woman to go through a pregnancy if she doesn´t want to.
If she doesn't want to, she shouldn't get pregnant. If it was a rape, then that's another matter entirely, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to terminate a life of an innocent member of the human species before it has even had a chance. In this case, the right to live trumps the right of convenience. If you still don't want the baby after all of this time, give it up for adoption. But pregnancy doesn't spontaneously occur - if you've had sex, you've accepted the risk.
Huh... somehow I'm on the same page too... Idaho by god you could unite the world.
Oh yes... and by then it'll be too late! Mwahahahahahahahahaopps... did I say that out loud? :inquisitive:
yesdachi
09-12-2008, 13:39
The “don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant” stance is a lame one EMFM. It’s like saying if you don’t want to get in a car accident then don’t drive a car. Accidents happen.
You don’t like abortions; I get it, but don’t back it up with that piece of straw. :bow:
Isn't that the case for infants outside the womb as well?
Quite so. I am fully in favour of abortion being available. But don't create bs justifications for it. If you make a tough decision - have the balls to make it honestly. I/We killed a unborn child because for whatever reason I/we couldn't/didn't want to keep it.
Tribesman
09-12-2008, 13:50
If it was a rape, then that's another matter entirely
Is it ?
What is rape Mars ?
Does it cover underage sex like statuatory rape ?
Does it cover non consensual sex where the woman was in a state where legaly any consideration of consent is null and void ?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-12-2008, 15:58
The “don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant” stance is a lame one EMFM. It’s like saying if you don’t want to get in a car accident then don’t drive a car. Accidents happen.
You don’t like abortions; I get it, but don’t back it up with that piece of straw. :bow:
Um, Car accidents happens, sometimes there nothing you can do about it. But Sex, usally there is. Don't Have Sex Dachi. If you a man, which a lot of us here are, I don't think we need to worry about being raped by a women :laugh4:.
Just don't have Sex. Just Keep it in your Pants, or if you a women, cut the thing off if he trys to stick it in, plan and simple. :yes:
If you a man, which a lot of us here are, I don't think we need to worry about being raped by a women :laugh4:.
uhm....completely disparate from the discussion at hand...but I would say this is unlikely maybe but not impossible.
Abortion is an ugly topic, I'm generally not in favour of it, especially not when it's just for the convenience of some spoiled western brat but I can see how it might make sense now and then.
You know when I point a gun at a friend and pull the trigger just for fun and I happen to hit and kill her that's an accident as well.
The point of sex is to get kids(basically, I know it's also fun but biologically speaking that's not the whole point of it) so if you actually become pregnant from sex I wouldn't call that an accident, the point of cars however, is not to crash them into one another...
Abortion is an ugly topic, I'm generally not in favour of it,
I don't think anyone is in favour of abortion. Never come across someone handing out leaflets encouraging people to abort pregnancies.
You know when I point a gun at a friend and pull the trigger just for fun and I happen to hit and kill her that's an accident as well.
The point of sex is to get kids(basically, I know it's also fun but biologically speaking that's not the whole point of it) so if you actually become pregnant from sex I wouldn't call that an accident, the point of cars however, is not to crash them into one another...
A simplistic and mixed up bunch of metaphors that isn't really moving the debate in any particular direction :laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
09-12-2008, 16:55
Idaho... abortion moderator.:laugh4:
yesdachi
09-12-2008, 16:59
Um, Car accidents happens, sometimes there nothing you can do about it. But Sex, usally there is. Don't Have Sex Dachi. If you a man, which a lot of us here are, I don't think we need to worry about being raped by a women :laugh4:.
Just don't have Sex. Just Keep it in your Pants, or if you a women, cut the thing off if he trys to stick it in, plan and simple. :yes:
No sex is not an option. I have a husbandly duty to fulfill. ~D
If I had to go the rest of my days without sex just because I don’t want anymore kids I would seriously consider euthanizing myself. :thumbsdown:
ICantSpellDawg
09-12-2008, 17:07
I'm happy with the way that this discussion is going. People are beginning to view abortion as homicide - the killing of a human being - more often than they would in the past. More disturbingly, many of those same people are advocating that the specific type of homicide as just and acceptable.
case in point - the article that I've posted by Camille Paglia says this:
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index2.html
I believe that this is part of a more reasonable argument for people who defend abortion to have. She is using murder interchangeably with homicide, which is legally wrong to do, but I get the point. This is the discussion that I believe we can win as pro-lifers even though it is enticing to those who are more callous to the question of life. I see the abortion issue as very similar to the issue of slavery and there was a right side in that argument, even though the issue was heavily split. There were tough and convincing arguments in favor of slavery and against the governments intrusion into the rights of legally recognized people to own slaves, beings with few if any recognized rights.
Anyway, we need to have this discussion until people get it that abortion is homicide. To not understand this is akin to not understanding that a person dies when the state uses the death penalty. How absurd would it be if people started to argue that criminals are no longer human because of location and circumstance, therefore their termination was just that, not in fact state sanctioned homicide. We can continue arguing about whether it is ethical (as we do with the death penalty), but we need to understand when a human life is being taken and view the situation clearly.
No sex is not an option. I have a husbandly duty to fulfill.
If I had to go the rest of my days without sex just because I don’t want anymore kids I would seriously consider euthanizing myself.
Sex is alright, but wildly overrated to me. Sometimes I would welcome never thinking about it again and focusing on more interesting things, like video games and global affairs.
Sex is alright, but wildly overrated to me. Sometimes I would welcome never thinking about it again and focusing on more interesting things, like video games and global affairs.
if you think sex is just 'alright' I would suggest the idea that you might be doing it wrong :laugh4:
ICantSpellDawg
09-12-2008, 17:23
if you think sex is just 'alright' I would suggest the idea that you might be doing it wrong :laugh4:
Bah - it's a waste of time. Wildly overrated. It's fun occasionally, but lately I just do it to stay close to my girlfriend. I have a schedule - no less than once a week, otherwise I feel distant. Even "late night with laura palmer" has been a waste of time lately. I immediately regret spending the time afterward.
Maybe it is because I'm sick and on tons of medications, but either way I would rather play video games or read geopolitical articles. Case in point- It isn't that bad to never want to do it again, just a bit frustrating because you will feel like something is wrong or that your relationship is in jeopardy. If everybody felt this way the world would be 10 times better.
Since this is the same old abortion topic making the rounds again (albeit in disguise) I will simply restate my same old views.
It is my view that the pro-lifers have only themselves to blame for the bizarre state of abortion law in America. Their unwillingness to compromise on their perverse insistence that a week-old embryo is somehow morally equivalent to a newborn infant is the only reason I can perceive for why the US has not arrived at a sensible compromise similar to what we have in Europe.
The question of abortion is to me a matter of balancing the rights of the mother against those of the unborn foetus. A one-week old embryo is not a human and does not have rights, any more so than an individual sperm or egg cell. A newborn infant clearly is a human complete with all the rights that brings. At some point we have to draw a dividing line; I personally feel the current limit of 24 weeks is about right although I have heard some convincing arguments that this might be slightly too high. But quibbling about exactly where to draw the line does not for me undermine the underlying principles:
That the mother does have a right to decide what happens to her own body (all too often this seems to be denied completely).
That at some point that right is superseded by the right to life of the unborn child.
My view is that before the cut off, the woman should be entitled to an abortion for whatever reason she wants, including if the child is found to be carrying a birth defect. After the cutoff abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. I realise that like all compromises and arbitrary divides, it is not a very satisfactory solution. However, I simply cannot accept the position that taking the life of a 1-week old foetus is murder, nor the position that taking the life of a baby close to term is not, and as such I cannot think of nor have I heard of a better answer.
Incidentally, yesdachi made an interesting point that I have yet to see adequately answered:
If someone feels so passionately about “life” then they should encourage people struggling with the decision by supporting them and offering to be there for them. It is too easy to arm-chair quarterback the decision while not taking any responsibility for the decision you have forced someone to make.
If YOU want someone to have their defect baby then YOU should offer to be there to help them raise that baby, if YOU are not going to be there then YOU don’t have any say in the decision.
If you are going to force a decision on someone it seems only fair to accept responsibility for that decision. Would people be so keen to outlaw abortion if the corollary to such a ban was a huge tax increase to make cash handouts to teenage mothers, or to pay carers to help those parents struggling to raise a child with Down's syndrome?
Rhyfelwyr
09-12-2008, 18:12
It is my view that the pro-lifers have only themselves to blame for the bizarre state of abortion law in America. Their unwillingness to compromise on their perverse insistence that a week-old embryo is somehow morally equivalent to a newborn infant is the only reason I can perceive for why the US has not arrived at a sensible compromise similar to what we have in Europe.
So killing a 5 year old isn't that bad then? After all, they won't be able to surive very well by themselves. They can't contribute to society like an adult would, they aren't really very useful at all. So why shouldn't parents be able to kill them if they get fed up with them?
How did you come up with the calculation that an unborn baby is not the moral equivallent to a born baby?
Sorry, I should clarify.
It is not the birth that is important, it is the physical differences between a newborn (or an unborn child close to term) and a newly fertilised embryo.
I apologise for my confusing choice of phrasing.
Ironside
09-12-2008, 18:37
It's not fixing it is eleminating. And if a child is born terminalliy ill it should be possible to skip the hard parts like we do here but that is something different, this isn't about pro-life it's about what deserves a chance, when we judge it by our standards it's projection and that is simply not fair.
Yes, it's elimination, but of what? Induviduals? Yes... and no.
Genes? Yes... but that's evolution in a nutshell and by the time we can change the genes on this level, we're already creating new evolutionary conditions.
Anyway, we need to have this discussion until people get it that abortion is homicide.
That's easy, homocide is the killing of an induvidual. Of course, then the following question is; What's an induvidual?
Ok, ok, legally it's the killing of a body, but that's also bizzare in the grey zones
I'm still waiting for an answer for the questions BTW...
But if you really can't answer it, then you can wait until we're old and gray and it's reality and not some forum speculation. But on the other hand you won't have thought through your own opinion on abortion until you atleast tried to answer them.
yesdachi
09-12-2008, 18:48
...abortion is homicide...
I think there are plenty of justifiable homicides that should be as legal as abortion.
Sex is alright, but wildly overrated to me. Sometimes I would welcome never thinking about it again and focusing on more interesting things, like video games and global affairs.
Different strokes for different folks. :beam:
Yes, it's elimination, but of what? Induviduals? Yes... and no.
Genes? Yes... but that's evolution in a nutshell and by the time we can change the genes on this level, we're already creating new evolutionary conditions.
We can afford to have a little inconsistancy here and there, we got so many, why not make an exception here and there just to not be able to kill someone for having down-syndrome. This isnt like normal abortion for whatever reason, the people that do this have already decided they want a child, it's disgusting.
Never had a problem with people aborting foetii with down's syndrome. The condition is irreversible and incurable. The diagnosis is absolute (extra chromosome is something you just don't miss). Then again, I'm pro-choice in general.
Tribesman
09-12-2008, 20:18
The diagnosis is absolute (extra chromosome is something you just don't miss).
Bollox
The detection and diagnosis is not absolute .
However since Lars is unable (or unwilling) to answer the question I put I may has well say that the level to which the presense of the disorder will affect the individual is not determinable until after the birth , often several years afer the birth .
Never had a problem with people aborting foetii with down's syndrome. The condition is irreversible and incurable.
Funny, that is how I think about the muslims in europe.
Strike For The South
09-12-2008, 20:33
Funny, that is how I think about the muslims in europe.
Can somebody educate me on that suituation? There such a small % of the POP. I dont get it!
Big_John
09-12-2008, 20:38
Can somebody educate me on that suituation? There such a small % of the POP. I dont get it!link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)
Strike For The South
09-12-2008, 20:41
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)
thank you
My only point is in my sig really.
hmmm I can see how this didn't quite work seemed like a good idea at the time. Scuzi for muslim remark was meant comical. We are doing just fine by the way, other countries can learn from us the debate is extremily harsh compared to our neighbours politically correct wishthinking, we are going to be just fine.
Bollox
The detection and diagnosis is not absolute .
However since Lars is unable (or unwilling) to answer the question I put I may has well say that the level to which the presense of the disorder will affect the individual is not determinable until after the birth , often several years afer the birth .
Bull. The condition is known right around 5th month of pregnancy. The diagnosis is absolute, and there are no degrees of down's syndrome. You either have it, or you don't.
Big_John
09-13-2008, 00:03
there are no degrees of down's syndrome. You either have it, or you don't.i believe his point is that the level of function of people with down syndrome is highly variable.
Tribesman
09-13-2008, 02:31
Bull. The condition is known right around 5th month of pregnancy. The diagnosis is absolute, and there are no degrees of down's syndrome. You either have it, or you don't.
Really , then you won't mind naming the pre-natal process that gives your imaginary 100% accurate diagnosis then will you :yes:
As for the second part of that post John said enough already , and what was written was perfectly clear
m52nickerson
09-13-2008, 03:11
Yes, it's elimination, but of what? Induviduals? Yes... and no.
Genes? Yes... but that's evolution in a nutshell and by the time we can change the genes on this level, we're already creating new evolutionary conditions.
That's easy, homocide is the killing of an induvidual. Of course, then the following question is; What's an induvidual?
Ok, ok, legally it's the killing of a body, but that's also bizzare in the grey zones
I'm still waiting for an answer for the questions BTW...
But if you really can't answer it, then you can wait until we're old and gray and it's reality and not some forum speculation. But on the other hand you won't have thought through your own opinion on abortion until you atleast tried to answer them.
The best definition of an individual would be - existing as a distinct entity. Since a fetus is dependent on its mother, and only its for life, it would not be an individual. In other word until the fetus can survive out side of the womb it is not an individual.
Really , then you won't mind naming the pre-natal process that gives your imaginary 100% accurate diagnosis then will you :yes:
As for the second part of that post John said enough already , and what was written was perfectly clear
Much to learn you still have, padawan... get a clue you must.
"Amniocentesis
This procedure is used to collect amniotic fluid, the liquid that is in the womb. It's performed in the doctor's office or in the hospital on an "out-patient" basis. A needle is inserted through the mother's abdominal wall into the uterus, using ultrasound to guide the needle. Approximately one ounce of fluid is taken for testing. This fluid contains fetal cells that can be examined for chromosome tests. It takes about 2 weeks to determine if the fetus has Down syndrome or not.
Amniocentesis is usually carried out between the 14th and 18th week of pregnancy; some doctors may do them as early as the 13th week. Side effects to the mother include cramping, bleeding, infection and leaking of amniotic fluid afterwards. There is a slight increase in the risk of miscarriage: the normal rate of miscarriage at this time of pregnancy is 2 to 3%, and amniocentesis increases that risk by an additional 1/2 to 1%. Amniocentesis is not recommended before the 14th week of pregnancy due to a higher risk of complications and loss of pregnancy.
Which mothers should have an amniocentesis? The current recommendations by professional obstetric groups is that women with a risk of having a child with Down syndrome of 1 in 250 or greater should be offered amniocentesis. There is controversy over whether to use the risk at the time of screening or the predicted risk at the time of birth. (The risk at the time of screening is higher since many fetuses with Down syndrome abort spontaneously around the time of screening or afterwards."
rory_20_uk
09-13-2008, 10:34
"Slight increase in risk of miscarriage"
Hardly something for all is it?
A risk of 1 in 500 would be considered minor, but if the odds of having the down's in the first place is only 1:250 it's not that different.
Going the other way and testing all, you'll cause thousands of miscarriages a year to ensure that there are no down's babies.
So, first off you're saying it's absolutely known, then if the odds ratio are worse than 1:250 they test you?
~:smoking:
AlexanderSextus
09-13-2008, 10:44
I dont know if this was posted before in this thread, but how is abortion bad if the foetus is aborted before there is any actual brain activity in the foetus??? I.e. How can you kill something if it's not alive??? Simply put, the bible says Life begins at conception, scientists have already scanned a Foetus and figured out that the brain is not active, until a certain point in time, so ergo life DOES NOT begin at the moment of conception. The bible is wrong, (YEAH I SAID IT! WHAT!!!) and abortion is okay. If you abort a foetus that has brain activity, that is murder.
oh, and i dont agree with "eugenic abortion" I was born with Cerebral Palsy, myself. I have a cousin with Downs Syndrome. Hes pretty cool. He even has a SMOKIN girlfriend.
Tribesman
09-13-2008, 11:01
Much to learn you still have, padawan... get a clue you must.
It is you who are without a clue as that process does not have a 100% detection rate .
It is you who are without a clue as that process does not have a 100% detection rate .
Get a clue you must...
"The syndrome is caused by the duplication of one member of chromosome pair 21, a condition called trisomy 21. It can be verified with 100% accuracy by two prenatal tests: chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Both procedures require removing cells from the fetus for testing and entail a small risk of producing a spontaneous abortion. Screening tests are used to identify high-risk pregnancies, minimizing the number who undergo the more invasive tests."
woad&fangs
09-13-2008, 15:46
Simply put, the bible says Life begins at conception, scientists have already scanned a Foetus and figured out that the brain is not active, until a certain point in time, so ergo life DOES NOT begin at the moment of conception. The bible is wrong, (YEAH I SAID IT! WHAT!!!)
Actually, the bible never mentions abortion and too my knowledge it never states when "life" begins in the womb.
Also, I fully support abortion for any reason whatsoever up through the 11th week. By the 12th week of gestation measurable brain activity appears.
Tribesman
09-13-2008, 16:09
"The syndrome is caused by the duplication of one member of chromosome pair 21, a condition called trisomy 21. It can be verified with 100% accuracy by two prenatal tests
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Thats rather lazy Rvg .
The result is not 100% accurate it is 99.4% accurate for the test you named and 97.4% using the Chorionic villus test , not counting Chorionic villus tests that did not give unambigous results which had to be followed with amniocentisis tests (which is curious since your claim of The diagnosis is absolutedoesn't quite fit with the words not unambigous does it).
Now it is possible to find papers of studies that give a higher accuracy in their research for the amniocentis method , as high as 98.8 even , but not the magic elusive 100% you claim . And it is also possible to find studies that give much lower accuracy for both tests .
You really need to get a clue before you try and come up with the 100% nonsense:yes:
BTW with that CV test what are the test results of normal healthy fetus being terminated due to the actual proceedure ? Does it vary from 3% if it is done right first time to over 10 % if repeated attempts are required ?
If someone feels so passionately about “life” then they should encourage people struggling with the decision by supporting them and offering to be there for them. It is too easy to arm-chair quarterback the decision while not taking any responsibility for the decision you have forced someone to make.
If YOU want someone to have their defect baby then YOU should offer to be there to help them raise that baby, if YOU are not going to be there then YOU don’t have any say in the decision.
Well said yesdachi :bow:
But, I have a question.
If abortion is allowed, do you think the taxpayers should support the parents of a disabled child and offer to be there for them?
After all, the parents had the "free choice" of keeping or not keeping the child, so if they chose to keep the child, should they have to face the consequences of their "free choice" and take care of the disabled child themselves, without any support from the state/the taxpayers?
I'm not trying to put words in yesdachi's mouth, but this is just a question that came up in my mind when reading his post :bow:
As always, I side with the humans. And since I don't consider a fetus a human in any way or form, this is a non-issue for me.
So therefore, it is not the bible that is wrong, but the people who think a brainless clump of cells with a 25% miscarrage rate is a "human life" who are wrong.
Also, I fully support abortion for any reason whatsoever up through the 11th week. By the 12th week of gestation measurable brain activity appears. At this point I consider the fetus to be human.
To determine whether a "clump of cells" is human life or not, is not exact science.
Imagine going to the gynecologist with your pregnant wife for an echography after 8 weeks of pregnance, only to see a dead little thingy where there should have been a heartbeat visible or, even better, watch the heartbeat of your child after six weeks of pregnancy, come back two weeks later and see that the heartbeat has disappeared...
Millions of people have to go through the experience of a miscarriage in an early state of pregnancy and I can tell you that losing "a brainless clump of cells" is devastating. You won't find many of those people agreeing with your statements about "clump of cells" or "non-issues".
I certainly don't.
Calling a fetus "non human" or a "clump of cells" is very distasteful and disrespectful imho.
Zeg je nu, niet bij jou hoop ik?
Banquo's Ghost
09-13-2008, 18:58
Zeg je nu, niet bij jou hoop ik?
English only in the Backroom please. When I ban your sorry :daisy: for a thousand generations, it looks better to the boss when I know what for.
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Anges_et_d%E9mons/0020.gif
rory_20_uk
09-13-2008, 19:05
Re: ultrasound scans where the heartbeat is not there...
A scan is done on a woman. No heart beat is seen patient opts to have products of conception removed. Post procedure she has a followup scan to see if they got it all... At this point a heartbeat is seen.
The second ultrasound was done by a midwife who kicked it up the chain of seniority as fast as she could (collared the first doctor she found - me). I did the same and took it to the first consultant I found. He sat there in silence looking at one report, then the other. Surely similar names or something else has happened??!?
Finally he goes to talk to the relatives. They go away smiling. Neither I nor the midwife wanted to know what had been said. Probably something like the logic: baby was dead, we did a procedure, and now it's alive! Modern medicine is great, eh?
Taxpayers fork out for known disabled? I'd say no.
I would also say that at risk women would be less likely to want to know in case they then get lumbered with a bill for the rest of their life.
~:smoking:
Louis VI the Fat
09-13-2008, 19:33
English only in the Backroom please.
sorry BG :bow:Imperialism, I cry!!
This is a Dutch-based site. What gives the Anglosaxons the right to proclaim their language the sole mode of communication? :whip:
It's fine with me that milk-drinking surrender monkeys like Fragony give in, but I demand equal recognition of French or I am out!
Clearly, the Backroom does not work if we all post in different languages. I understand the practical impossibilities of that. Hence, I suggest as a compromise that we limit as official languages of the Backroom English and French.
:drama2:
Big_John
09-13-2008, 19:57
To determine whether a "clump of cells" is human life or not, is not exact science.few things are.
abortion is a philosophical question for most people, not a solely scientific judgment. the philosophical question of import is:
when does the fetus become a person deserving of personal rights that supersede the mother's rights of personal determination over her own life and body? science can be used to help you come to an answer to that question, but it can never be an 'exact science'.
Imilk-drinking surrender monkeys like Fragony give in
Someone is just begging for a post-natal :beam:
AlexanderSextus
09-14-2008, 00:08
few things are.
abortion is a philosophical question for most people, not a solely scientific judgment. the philosophical question of import is:
when does the fetus become a person deserving of personal rights that supersede the mother's rights of personal determination over her own life and body? science can be used to help you come to an answer to that question, but it can never be an 'exact science'.
The fetus becomes a person with individual rights as soon as we see that the fetus' brain is active and it is therefore, alive.
Oh, and W&F, i didnt say that the bible mentions abortion, but the Pro-Lifers say that life begins at conception and they use the bible as their justification for that statement. We have scientifically proven that false.
Rhyfelwyr
09-14-2008, 00:27
Oh, and W&F, i didnt say that the bible mentions abortion, but the Pro-Lifers say that life begins at conception and they use the bible as their justification for that statement. We have scientifically proven that false.
You have scientifically proven that unborn foetuses have no soul? Wow...
Also where was a human soul ever scientifically proven to exist in an adult?
rory_20_uk
09-14-2008, 10:24
Imperialism, I cry!!
This is a Dutch-based site. What gives the Anglosaxons the right to proclaim their language the sole mode of communication? :whip:
It's fine with me that milk-drinking surrender monkeys like Fragony give in, but I demand equal recognition of French or I am out!
Clearly, the Backroom does not work if we all post in different languages. I understand the practical impossibilities of that. Hence, I suggest as a compromise that we limit as official languages of the Backroom English and French.
Thinking such as this landed us with the EU and the 20+ languages that can be spoken. Again, oddly instead of decreasing the number with time to aid efficiency, they're increasing.
Life and soul is not necessarily the same thing.
~:smoking:
m52nickerson
09-14-2008, 20:41
The fetus becomes a person with individual rights as soon as we see that the fetus' brain is active and it is therefore, alive.
Oh, and W&F, i didnt say that the bible mentions abortion, but the Pro-Lifers say that life begins at conception and they use the bible as their justification for that statement. We have scientifically proven that false.
Does that mean someone who has not brain activity not alive?
Again, if you are speaking in scientific terms life "continues" at conception.
Now life is all around in different forms. We kill animals for food every day and they mean very little to anyone. Now if one of those animals is someones pet, that animals life now means something more. Same goes for a fetus. If it is not wanted is does not have the same value as a fetus that is wanted.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-14-2008, 21:19
If it is not wanted is does not have the same value as a fetus that is wanted.
I beg to differ. That fetus still has the opportunity of growing up and living a full life, and therefore has value. If the parents don't want it, give it to an adoption agency, where there are many foster parents who will love and cherish an adopted child as their own.
Craterus
09-14-2008, 22:25
You have scientifically proven that unborn foetuses have no soul? Wow...
Also where was a human soul ever scientifically proven to exist in an adult?
If the issue is with souls then abortion isn't the issue. A soul lives on, does it not?
I have absolutely no problem with abortion to begin with, even less so if the child will (probably) be born with a defect.
Divinus Arma
09-14-2008, 22:34
Just to chime in here- I think in vitro fertilization is morally wrong for more or less the reasons you give. They fertilize a bunch of eggs, use a few and discard the rest.
Agreed.
Rhyfelwyr
09-14-2008, 22:35
Yes it just has to have its head split open with a pair of scissors and its brain sucked out before it can...
m52nickerson
09-15-2008, 03:14
I beg to differ. That fetus still has the opportunity of growing up and living a full life, and therefore has value. If the parents don't want it, give it to an adoption agency, where there are many foster parents who will love and cherish an adopted child as their own.
Any living thing will have a different value to different people. You value all fetuses equally because of there potential. Now if your girlfriend/wife is pregnant you would value that fetus more then others.
My point is, since a universal value cannot be placed on "Life" decisions on what happens to it should be left up to the one(s) it directly affects.
AlexanderSextus
09-15-2008, 06:33
You have scientifically proven that unborn foetuses have no soul? Wow...
Also where was a human soul ever scientifically proven to exist in an adult?
Unborn feti do not have a soul if they are NOT ALIVE. as far as i'm concerned until we see that there is brain activity in the fetus it does not have a soul. How can you kill something if it's already not living???
AlexanderSextus
09-15-2008, 06:35
Does that mean someone who has not brain activity not alive?
Again, if you are speaking in scientific terms life "continues" at conception.
Now life is all around in different forms. We kill animals for food every day and they mean very little to anyone. Now if one of those animals is someones pet, that animals life now means something more. Same goes for a fetus. If it is not wanted is does not have the same value as a fetus that is wanted.
If a Person who previously had brain activity ends up losing it, They may not be dead, but i'll sure as hell say they're getting preeeetty close.
yesdachi
09-15-2008, 15:26
Well said yesdachi :bow:
But, I have a question.
If abortion is allowed, do you think the taxpayers should support the parents of a disabled child and offer to be there for them?
After all, the parents had the "free choice" of keeping or not keeping the child, so if they chose to keep the child, should they have to face the consequences of their "free choice" and take care of the disabled child themselves, without any support from the state/the taxpayers?
I'm not trying to put words in yesdachi's mouth, but this is just a question that came up in my mind when reading his post :bow:
Thanks for the interesting angle Andres. :beam:
I must admit that I am not all that familiar with what is currently covered by the government but IMHO the gov shouldn’t have to provide anything over emergency care for anyone. A family’s insurance plan* and the support of organizations like the National Down's Syndrome Society and local chapter support groups would be the base support for anyone making this tough decision.
*If your family doesn’t have an insurance plan the chances are you didn’t have the option of checking to see if your baby was going to have Down's Syndrome.
Indecently this is a great argument for and against a national health care. I want to pay a little more to ease the burden for these families or on the flip side I don’t want to pay more to help someone that is going to die anyway. If I pay more I wouldn’t have to give charity to my local support group or if I didn’t have to pay more I could give more to my local support group, which I have some control over.
Personally I think local fundraisers and charitable events are much more satisfying than an extra $50 bucks taken blindly out of each of my pay checks. :bow:
Thanks for the interesting angle Andres. :beam:
I must admit that I am not all that familiar with what is currently covered by the government but IMHO the gov shouldn’t have to provide anything over emergency care for anyone. A family’s insurance plan* and the support of organizations like the National Down's Syndrome Society and local chapter support groups would be the base support for anyone making this tough decision.
*If your family doesn’t have an insurance plan the chances are you didn’t have the option of checking to see if your baby was going to have Down's Syndrome.
Indecently this is a great argument for and against a national health care. I want to pay a little more to ease the burden for these families or on the flip side I don’t want to pay more to help someone that is going to die anyway. If I pay more I wouldn’t have to give charity to my local support group or if I didn’t have to pay more I could give more to my local support group, which I have some control over.
Personally I think local fundraisers and charitable events are much more satisfying than an extra $50 bucks taken blindly out of each of my pay checks. :bow:
Ah, your answer explains the somewhat different perspective.
I live in Belgium where about everything is (at least partially) covered by our national health care system. We do have the possiblitiy of an additional private insurance to cover the expenses that are not coverd by the state, but that's not really a necessitiy, since most medical costs are already covered.
I don't know how much a decent "family insurance plan" (I assume this is something like a private health care system, a form of private insurance?) costs, but for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that if you want an insurance plan that covers the excessive expenses it takes to take care of a disabled child (and that will cover even if you knew "it" was going to be disabled and yet decided not to have "it" removed), is very expensive.
Not everybody is born rich or has the high paid job to afford such an expensive family insurance plan. Most of those people not having a high paid job, don't have themselves to blame. You can't blame somebody for not being clever or for not being healthy enough to work hard and long days.
So, if you say that you do not want tax money spent on (the parents of) disabled children, because the parents had the opportunity to abort "it", than "free choice" is an illusion.
Alot of people simply won't be able to afford taking care of a disabled child. Since in your opinion the state should not spend tax money on them, they do not have a choice. By not giving them the financial means to be able to deal with the consequences of the option of not having an abortion, you are forcing them to chose the abortion (or to fall into poverty and eventually have their lives end in a social drama, but that's not really an option now, is it?).
Obviously, my point of view is influenced by my European background where national health care is considered to be normal :shrug:
m52nickerson
09-15-2008, 18:01
If a Person who previously had brain activity ends up losing it, They may not be dead, but i'll sure as hell say they're getting preeeetty close.
May point is that brain activity does not equal alive.
Ironside
09-15-2008, 18:43
We can afford to have a little inconsistancy here and there, we got so many, why not make an exception here and there just to not be able to kill someone for having down-syndrome. This isnt like normal abortion for whatever reason, the people that do this have already decided they want a child, it's disgusting.
Late response, but anyway. "Fixing" in this case menas removing or changing a genetical trait while keeping the foetus alive, so in this case only downs-syndrome is removed. So they aren't really killed :book:
May point is that brain activity does not equal alive.
The real mind-breaker is that being alive doesn't equal being a person, never has and never will...
yesdachi
09-15-2008, 21:16
Ah, your answer explains the somewhat different perspective.
I live in Belgium where about everything is (at least partially) covered by our national health care system. We do have the possiblitiy of an additional private insurance to cover the expenses that are not coverd by the state, but that's not really a necessitiy, since most medical costs are already covered.
I don't know how much a decent "family insurance plan" (I assume this is something like a private health care system, a form of private insurance?) costs, but for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that if you want an insurance plan that covers the excessive expenses it takes to take care of a disabled child (and that will cover even if you knew "it" was going to be disabled and yet decided not to have "it" removed), is very expensive.
Not everybody is born rich or has the high paid job to afford such an expensive family insurance plan. Most of those people not having a high paid job, don't have themselves to blame. You can't blame somebody for not being clever or for not being healthy enough to work hard and long days.
So, if you say that you do not want tax money spent on (the parents of) disabled children, because the parents had the opportunity to abort "it", than "free choice" is an illusion.
Alot of people simply won't be able to afford taking care of a disabled child. Since in your opinion the state should not spend tax money on them, they do not have a choice. By not giving them the financial means to be able to deal with the consequences of the option of not having an abortion, you are forcing them to chose the abortion (or to fall into poverty and eventually have their lives end in a social drama, but that's not really an option now, is it?).
Obviously, my point of view is influenced by my European background where national health care is considered to be normal :shrug:
Nearly every full time employment position offers a form of health and life insurance, even fast food restaurants and temporary employment agencies like Manpower offer benefits. Additionally, there are a number of supplemental benefit packages you can purchase to better your coverage. The reality of the situation is that if you are an average to low average income family in the US you CAN have reasonably priced insurance.
I think it is a big thing to consider when you are picking a job. After 90 days on the job you are going to have access to heath insurance and the option of participating in a retirement plan like a 401k. The illusion that insurance in the states is only for the rich is a fallacy, my wife worked at a clothing store in a Mall and I worked at a restaurant while in school/college and we both had inexpensive coverage. As we “grew-up” we got better jobs and with the better jobs came better insurance plans.
When you have a child you know your expenses are going to grow, when you have a child with a disability they may grow more. In many cases a child with a disability doesn’t necessarily cost more but they require more attention, perhaps only allowing 1 parent to work while the other stays home as a care giver. Although not as common as it was in the “Leave it to Beaver” days it is still fairly normal to have only 1 working parent especially in a family with more than 2 kids, daycare is expensive!
I think most families, with careful budgeting, a little planning and holding down a steady job should be able to handle the fiscal burden of a special needs child. If they can do it by being more careful with their money then why should I be more frivolous with mine? I may want to spend some of the extra money I save each week by supporting a Down's Syndrome walkathon or a charitable event at my church for Down's Syndrome children in my area. :bow:
m52nickerson
09-15-2008, 23:02
The real mind-breaker is that being alive doesn't equal being a person, never has and never will...
Correct!
ShaiHulud
09-15-2008, 23:24
I hope that for most, or all of you in this thread, that this is just an intellectual exercise. My youngest son, 22, was born with Prader-Willi syndrome so, for me, the thoughts expressed by you, here, are meaningful.
I'd like to point out that, if you believe that strong social systems should exist to aid the unemployed, hungry, aged, etc., that to begrudge the same assistance to a disabled child, since it has not yet been delivered, is hypocrisy. That's just being picky about who receives it.
Beyond that, in the US, alone, there have been over 44 MILLION abortions. Even Hitler was never so proficient. That puts us about even with Stalin's kill and, somewhat, less than 50% of Mao's. Considering that our present population is 300 million, that's around 12%. Isn't that a staggering figure, tho? 44 MILLION....... So, the arguments here FOR are merely a effort to increase the scope of abortion. I don't want to be on that side of the argument.
Of course, the argument's been made that handicapped newborns will be very expensive. So, too, are non-handicapped welfare recipients. No one is advocating THEIR elimination. Rather arbitrary, isn't it?
Let's, at least, stop pretending about what abortion means. The 'Right to Choose' is really just the privilege of aborting the inconvenient, without having to bear the onus of murder.
Someone said that when brainwaves are nil, there is no life, thus, why the concern? I wish I had a dollar for every person who has been 'brought back from the dead' by medical science. Science has, apparently, moved beyond the 'rational' being. When the inconvenience of the disabled induces people to advocate their elimination, society demonstrates that it has REGRESSED. The Spartans, at least, could not claim 2,000 years of advanced thought when they exposed their weak to die.
Big_John
09-15-2008, 23:37
Let's, at least, stop pretending about what abortion means. The 'Right to Choose' is really just the privilege of aborting the inconvenient, without having to bear the onus of murder.no pretense is necessary. 'what abortion means' is not the simple black and white situation you propose. you equate it to murder, others equate it to excising a cyst. both are opinions.
ShaiHulud
09-15-2008, 23:54
no pretense is necessary. 'what abortion means' is not the simple black and white situation you propose. you equate it to murder, others equate it to excising a cyst. both are opinions.
Thus, do you make my point about pretense. Thank you. Way back when, feminists used to say that a embryo in a woman's womb was no more relevant than a hamburger in her stomach. And, it was then called 'Abortion Rights'. The simple crudity was found to be unconvincing and off-putting for many, so, it became the 'Right to Choose', without being at all specific about what was being chosen. More than that, if it WERE solely about 'Choice', feminists would not so fervidly despise those who disagree with them. After all, that should, too, be recognized as choosing.
So, clip your nails, excise that cyst, I really don't care. You see, I'm not against abortion. Nature and Darwin agree, and those who abort their young are nothing more than a biological cul-de-sac.
Big_John
09-15-2008, 23:57
Thus, do you make my point about pretense. Thank you.you can call a philosophical understanding 'pretense' if you want. makes no difference to me.
More than that, if it WERE solely about 'Choice', feminists would not so fervidly despise those who disagree with them. After all, that should, too, be recognized as choosing.denial of the ability to choose is not the same thing as choosing the negative.
So, clip your nails, excise that cyst, I really don't care. You see, I'm not against abortion. Nature and Darwin agree, and those who abort their young are nothing more than a biological cul-de-sac.you're not against abortion even after equating it to murder?
ShaiHulud
09-16-2008, 00:17
you can call a philosophical understanding 'pretense' if you want. makes no difference to me.
denial of the ability to choose is not the same thing as choosing the negative.
you're not against abortion even after equating it to murder?
Correct! I do not impose MY beliefs on another. I merely explain them. Frankly, anyone who'd abort their young should not anticipate the respect of those who do not. Yet, I would not prevent them from aborting. Their survival instinct is dysfunctional and I'm of no mind to undertake that responsibility for them. They are the biological cul-de-sacs to which I referred. Nature is already dealing with them efficiently with simple demographics. Those who favor aborting are fewer in every generation, logically so.
Regarding denial, perhaps you missed my point. Feminists disregard (demonstrably) those who do not accept their view, in total, on abortion. The 'choice' of being for or against is, for the feminists, anathema. They want no counter-informational campaigns, allow no protests, and suffer no abridgements. Hence, 'partial birth abortion', which is the drawing of a baby's head from the womb so the brain can be siphoned out, is fought tooth and nail. I ask you, if a doctor doesn't think the baby is alive, why go through the activity of sucking out the brain BEFORE removing the body from the womb?
Anyway, I'm not upset, though I am, perhaps, brusque. I hope you have not taken any offense. Regards, Shai
Big_John
09-16-2008, 00:27
Correct!then you are not truely equating abortion to murder.
Their survival instinct is dysfunctional and I'm of no mind to undertake that responsibility for them. They are the biological cul-de-sacs to which I referred. Nature is already dealing with them efficiently with simple demographics. Those who favor aborting are fewer in every generation, logically so.this is a narrow and incomplete view of fitness and reproduction.
Regarding denial, perhaps you missed my point. Feminists disregard (demonstrably) those who do not accept their view, in total, on abortion. The 'choice' of being for or against is, for the feminists, anathema. They want no counter-informational campaigns, allow no protests, and suffer no abridgements. Hence, 'partial birth abortion', which is the drawing of a baby's head from the womb so the brain can be siphoned out, is fought tooth and nail. I ask you, if a doctor doesn't think the baby is alive, why go through the activity of sucking out the brain BEFORE removing the body from the womb?i'm not a big fan of feminists either.. but they have little bearing on my opinion of abortion. and again, for the 1000th time, 'life' is not in question, personhood is.
btw, i essentially never get upset over forum chat. disgusted sometimes, but that's what the ignore button is for.
ShaiHulud
09-16-2008, 01:35
then you are not truely equating abortion to murder.
this is a narrow and incomplete view of fitness and reproduction.
i'm not a big fan of feminists either.. but they have little bearing on my opinion of abortion. and again, for the 1000th time, 'life' is not in question, personhood is.
btw, i essentially never get upset over forum chat. disgusted sometimes, but that's what the ignore button is for.
Killing? Murdering? Man kills, undeniable. The reasoning upon which he bases the act is what separates him from other animals. The difference between killing and murdering is based, solely, on whether a death is justifiable morally. The animal that kills for food is easily understood. The lion that kills cubs not his own is justified by the survival instinct to induce the lioness to breed again. The woman that kills her own child is not answering an instinctual imperative and it isn't for food. To abort to save the life of the mother is logical. I leave to others to explain their reasoning for abortion for other reasons.
Abortion is not about reproduction, but the opposite. Europe, for instance, is being re-colonized by a people who reproduce, replacing the indigenous peoples who do not. Narrow, perhaps, but Nature is very unforgiving that way.
'Personhood'? Defining what is human, what is a person, has provided the vehicle to some of history's most hideous slaughters, Sub-human Slavs, Jews, Romany, etc. Small wonder, then, that defining a child in the womb as a 'not-person' should lead to indiscriminate abortion of millions.
Big_John
09-16-2008, 02:04
Killing? Murdering? Man kills, undeniable. The reasoning upon which he bases the act is what separates him from other animals. The difference between killing and murdering is based, solely, on whether a death is justifiable morally. The animal that kills for food is easily understood. The lion that kills cubs not his own is justified by the survival instinct to induce the lioness to breed again. The woman that kills her own child is not answering an instinctual imperative and it isn't for food. To abort to save the life of the mother is logical. I leave to others to explain their reasoning for abortion for other reasons.
Abortion is not about reproduction, but the opposite. Europe, for instance, is being re-colonized by a people who reproduce, replacing the indigenous peoples who do not. Narrow, perhaps, but Nature is very unforgiving that way.choosing not to be burdened by raising a child early in life can easily be seen as a rational calculation in terms of fitness.
'Personhood'? Defining what is human, what is a person, has provided the vehicle to some of history's most hideous slaughters, Sub-human Slavs, Jews, Romany, etc. Small wonder, then, that defining a child in the womb as a 'not-person' should lead to indiscriminate abortion of millions.i was wondering when abortion would be compared to the holocaust. but your parallels do not work. a slav, gypsy, jew, etc is inarguably a person. we can observe that and it is demonstrable. nazi policies of the past do not affect that judgement, it is based on reason. a clump of cells is not inarguably a person. a fetus is not the functional equivalent of one of your holocaust victims.
Alexanderofmacedon
09-16-2008, 13:49
Spartan law, eh? Sounds disgusting, though if caught early enough can be just like any other abortion, which I'm fine with.
Ironside
09-16-2008, 17:34
Killing? Murdering? Man kills, undeniable. The reasoning upon which he bases the act is what separates him from other animals. The difference between killing and murdering is based, solely, on whether a death is justifiable morally. The animal that kills for food is easily understood. The lion that kills cubs not his own is justified by the survival instinct to induce the lioness to breed again. The woman that kills her own child is not answering an instinctual imperative and it isn't for food. To abort to save the life of the mother is logical. I leave to others to explain their reasoning for abortion for other reasons.
It's a side effect of not finding raising a child worth the resourses needed to do it at the time, something that isn't that unusual from an evolutionary viewpoint.
A simular matter would be to to rise a most likely infertile offspring because the parental instincts kicks in.
Vladimir
09-16-2008, 17:34
The “don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant” stance is a lame one EMFM. It’s like saying if you don’t want to get in a car accident then don’t drive a car. Accidents happen.
Ooh! Sorry, late on this one but it reminds me of an argument I heard a while back: Really your honor, I fell and my :daisy: slipped into my daughter.
Accident: :no:
Big_John
09-16-2008, 21:27
if you don't want an abortion, don't get pregnant.
i stand by that philosophy.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-16-2008, 21:33
if you don't want an abortion, don't get pregnant.
i stand by that philosophy.
That what I say, but that to logical for some people :juggle2:
That what I say, but that to logical for some people :juggle2:
Not really, I think you should read his reply once more. ~;)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-17-2008, 22:24
Not really, I think you should read his reply once more. ~;)
I'll rephrase it - if you're even considering maybe having an abortion, except out of extreme necessity, you should not have gotten pregnant.
Tribesman
09-17-2008, 23:53
Those who favor aborting are fewer in every generation, logically so.
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 .
Goofball
09-18-2008, 00:17
Thus, do you make my point about pretense. Thank you. Way back when, feminists used to say that a embryo in a woman's womb was no more relevant than a hamburger in her stomach. And, it was then called 'Abortion Rights'. The simple crudity was found to be unconvincing and off-putting for many, so, it became the 'Right to Choose', without being at all specific about what was being chosen. More than that, if it WERE solely about 'Choice', feminists would not so fervidly despise those who disagree with them. After all, that should, too, be recognized as choosing.
So, clip your nails, excise that cyst, I really don't care. You see, I'm not against abortion. Nature and Darwin agree, and those who abort their young are nothing more than a biological cul-de-sac.
"Pro-life is just another pretense for the Christian right using everything in its power to dictate to others at the expense of human rights, and to continue in their practice of the subjugation of women."
So, do you see how silly your argument is? You are simply trying to villify the the "other side" which can just as easily be done to you. You see 44 million abortions and believe that is more murders than Hitler ever committed, but a pro-choice advocate sees that as zero murders.
Neither side can ever prove exactly when a fetus becomes a human, or where life actually begins. It will always be a matter of opinion. Villifying one side or the other does no good.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-18-2008, 00:31
Neither side can ever prove exactly when a fetus becomes a human, or where life actually begins. It will always be a matter of opinion. Villifying one side or the other does no good.
So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother? :book:
Big_John
09-18-2008, 00:47
I'll rephrase it - if you're even considering maybe having an abortion, except out of extreme necessity, you should not have gotten pregnant.your need to put more skill points into your rephrasing attribute.
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 .are you denying that abortion is an inherited trait??? madness.
So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother? :book:why not err on the side of caution and ban governmental encroachment into the rights of women to determination over their own bodies?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-18-2008, 01:43
your need to put more skill points into your rephrasing attribute.
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).
why not err on the side of caution and ban governmental encroachment into the rights of women to determination over their own bodies?
Life or government intrusion which does not exist? :book:
Big_John
09-18-2008, 03:54
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? :book:um.. neither does not exist. what do i win?
m52nickerson
09-18-2008, 04:13
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
09-18-2008, 07:56
are you denying that abortion is an inherited trait??? madness.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
yesdachi
09-18-2008, 13:37
So why not err on the side of caution and ban abortion except when a direct threat to the life of the mother? :book:
Why not encourage people to what you think is right rather than stripping them of their freedom to choose? Don’t hate freedom. :wink:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-18-2008, 23:25
Why not encourage people to what you think is right rather than stripping them of their freedom to choose? Don’t hate freedom. :wink:
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
09-23-2008, 16:49
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
09-23-2008, 23:08
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
09-24-2008, 17:44
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
09-24-2008, 23:32
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
09-25-2008, 01:23
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
09-25-2008, 01:36
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
09-26-2008, 03:59
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
09-26-2008, 04:14
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
09-26-2008, 21:00
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:yes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.