The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome

[Ronin]

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]

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.

[Ronin]

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]

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.

[Ronin]

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]

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.

[yesdachi]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[Andres]

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

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

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.

[Fragony]

Zeg je nu, niet bij jou hoop ik?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Zeg je nu, niet bij jou hoop ik?

English only in the Backroom please. When I ban your sorry for a thousand generations, it looks better to the boss when I know what for.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Fragony]

sorry BG

[Louis VI the Fat]

English only in the Backroom please.

sorry BG

Imperialism, I cry!!

This is a Dutch-based site. What gives the Anglosaxons the right to proclaim their language the sole mode of communication?


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.

[Big_John]

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'.

[AlexanderSextus]

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]

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?

[m52nickerson]

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.

[yesdachi]

Well said yesdachi

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

Thanks for the interesting angle Andres.

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.

[Andres]

Thanks for the interesting angle Andres.

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.

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

[yesdachi]

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

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.