The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes it just has to have its head split open with a pair of scissors and its brain sucked out before it can...

[m52nickerson]

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]

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]

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]

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

[m52nickerson]

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]

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

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]

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.

[m52nickerson]

The real mind-breaker is that being alive doesn't equal being a person, never has and never will...

Correct!

[ShaiHulud]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Spartan law, eh? Sounds disgusting, though if caught early enough can be just like any other abortion, which I'm fine with.

[Ironside]

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]

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 slipped into my daughter.

Accident:

[Big_John]

if you don't want an abortion, don't get pregnant.

i stand by that philosophy.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

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

[Viking]

That what I say, but that to logical for some people

Not really, I think you should read his reply once more.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Big_John]

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?

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]

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?