The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome

[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.

[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?

[yesdachi]

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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