The Eugenic Annihilation of Children with Down's Syndrome

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Big_John]

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

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

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

Life or government intrusion which does not exist?

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

[yesdachi]

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

[Meneldil]

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

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

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