It is Immoral to not abort a Downs Syndrome Foetus?

[Hal 9000]

Worried ab out all 6 of them that may occur this year?

And of those 6 , all 6 will have prefectly valid reasons.

Every abortion is valid according to some people here.

[overthere]

Every abortion is valid according to some people here.

What is valid is this statement:

A womans choice to abort or not abort is none of my business.

Here is another: It's none of your business either.

[guyser]

What is valid is this statement:

A womans choice to abort or not abort is none of my business.

Here is another: It's none of your business either.

Touche

[Hal 9000]

What is valid is this statement:

A womans choice to abort or not abort is none of my business.

Here is another: It's none of your business either.

Where have I disagreed with any of that?

Guyser said they're valid, I said they're all valid - what the fuck aren't you getting?

[On Guard for Thee]

Once again, you are within your rights to conduct your life based on your beliefs. As are people who happen to disagree.

[Mighty AC]

Don't presume that I have any desire to press my beliefs on you and force you to do anything. Don't pretend that I wish to force my opinion on any woman for any reason in this difficult choice. If you wish to raise a child with Downs Syndrome, go ahead.

The prolife campaign suffers greatly because they refuse to acknowledge that having the right to choose means that women automatically choose abortion. It ain't so.

Well said.

Too often people aren't content to live by their choices and beliefs, they feel compelled to force them on others. People of all political stripes are guilty of this from time to time, but the religious right is a league leader in this category. I don't even think they would try to deny it. Why can't it be enough for them to simply choose for themselves not to abort a fetus or marry a person of the same sex or watch a loved one slowly die in agony from a terminal disease? How arrogant does one have to be to force their religious social ideas on others through legislation?

If guys like Hal believe in choice but just want to discuss why they wouldn't abort a fetus or help a terminally ill family member take their own life that's fine. However, we have to defend the choice we have tooth and nail and continue to fight for the choice to die with dignity. That's why I applaud Trudeau's defense of choice on this issue and hope he will continue to move us forward on social issues.

[Hal 9000]

Well said.

Too often people aren't content to live by their choices and beliefs, they feel compelled to force them on others. People of all political stripes are guilty of this from time to time, but the religious right is a league leader in this category. I don't even think they would try to deny it. Why can't it be enough for them to simply choose for themselves not to abort a fetus or marry a person of the same sex or watch a loved one slowly die in agony from a terminal disease? How arrogant does one have to be to force their religious social ideas on others through legislation?

If guys like Hal believe in choice but just want to discuss why they wouldn't abort a fetus or help a terminally ill family member take their own life that's fine. However, we have to defend the choice we have tooth and nail and continue to fight for the choice to die with dignity. That's why I applaud Trudeau's defense of choice on this issue and hope he will continue to move us forward on social issues.

I believe you and I share similar euthanasia stories.

As far as forcing beliefs on others go, you should know that most censorship laws have come from the left. Conservatism is more about keeping things the same, it's the liberals who are continually forcing change.

BTW - I'm not religious.

[Mighty AC]

I believe you and I share similar euthanasia stories.

As far as forcing beliefs on others go, you should know that most censorship laws have come from the left. Conservatism is more about keeping things the same, it's the liberals who are continually forcing change.

BTW - I'm not religious.

I'm not saying you are religious...just that the religious right has cornered the market on attacking social choice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear that you are against choice on abortion either, just personally opposed. I take issue with some of the misogynistic statements you've made, but I'm fine with you being personally opposed to abortion. That's your choice.

It may be possible that more censorship laws have come from the left, I would doubt it, but I don't really know. I do know that the Harper government has chosen to get involved in the censorship of motion pictures receiving government grants. A move made to appeal to their socially conservative base. They also opposed equal marriage at one point and are firmly against assisted suicide. Maybe once Harper is gone we will see a more appealing progressive conservative style leader.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Mighty AC

[overthere]

I said they're all valid - what the fuck aren't you getting?

Your opinion on validity or lack of validity of abortions is the problem- your problem. Your opinion is without value, as is mine. The only one that matters is the person carrying the fetus.

You seem to have trouble viewing this subject with any rationality or objectivity. Try this: it is not about you.

[On Guard for Thee]

I believe you and I share similar euthanasia stories.

As far as forcing beliefs on others go, you should know that most censorship laws have come from the left. Conservatism is more about keeping things the same, it's the liberals who are continually forcing change.

BTW - I'm not religious.

I think you've got the cencorship thing back asswards. For instance, think back to who it was that began the process to give control of their bodies to women on thie very issue this thread is about. Give you a hint: it wasn't the Conservatives.

[guyser]

I think you've got the cencorship thing back asswards. For instance, think back to who it was that began the process to give control of their bodies to women on thie very issue this thread is about. Give you a hint: it wasn't the Conservatives.

Add in....pornography , Womens Temperance Union and Prohibition.....

[Hal 9000]

The women's issues are more of a rights thing. I'll give you pornography though.

I was thinking about censorship in the way of movies, music and video games that plagued the 90's with Al Gore at the helm, that 70% of US politicians that want to censor the internet are Democrat, the broadening of what we call "hate speech", and the changing, dropping or marginaliziing of certain books and literature from the public eye or schools.

[guyser]

The women's issues are more of a rights thing. I'll give you pornography though.

The WTU and prohibition go hand in hand

I was thinking about censorship in the way of movies, music and video games that plagued the 90's with Al Gore at the helm,

You were thinking wrong then. Al Gore was never at the helm. It was Tipper Gore and the PMRC, all women made up the group.

that 70% of US politicians that want to censor the internet are Democrat, the broadening of what we call "hate speech", and the changing, dropping or marginaliziing of certain books and literature from the public eye or schools.

The internet censor vote was 7.5 Rep and 11.5 Dem. Oren Hatch flipped flopped 3 times changing parties but voted as a Dem on the internet thing, and just like all the others, spoke the opposite outside the borders of the country. Nothing ever came of it and they all knew it.

[Hal 9000]

You were thinking wrong then. Al Gore was never at the helm. It was Tipper Gore and the PMRC, all women made up the group.

Democrats Gore and Lieberman threaten state censorship of US entertainment industry By David Walsh

20 September 2000

"US Vice President Al Gore and his running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, have threatened to impose forms of state censorship on the film, music and video games industries should they win the November election. Gore and Lieberman, in an interview conducted by the New York Times September 11, declared that they would use “truth in advertising” laws to prosecute studios and record companies responsible for promoting supposedly violent entertainment among minors, if the industry did not “clean up their act” within six months of the inauguration of a Gore-Lieberman administration. This threat goes beyond anything proposed by most right-wing Republicans in Congress. The campaign of Republican candidate George W. Bush has not advocated taking such steps, and in the wake of the Gore-Lieberman comments, still declined to do so."

[guyser]

Democrats Gore and Lieberman threaten state censorship of US entertainment industry By David Walsh

20 September 2000

Ok, but that was talk, Tipper was the boss years prior along w James Baker's wife at the PMRC. Al was never the head.

[Hal 9000]

Ok, but that was talk, Tipper was the boss years prior along w James Baker's wife at the PMRC. Al was never the head.

Look, censorship was Gore campaign platform in 2000, he was gonna save us by censoring ALL media. I could also get into the Fairness doctrine - censoring talk radio, Hillary's (and the other Dems) involvement in FEPA (since you brought up porn), Wikileaks, Congress trying to pass legislation on Rush Limbaugh, even the Redskins scandal.

Some of these things you may agree with - fair enough, but they're all censorship and all brought forth by democrats. I could find many more.

P.S - You may say Rush Limbaugh should shut-up (and i'd probably agree), but congress going after a private citizen because of his political views is censorship in the worst kind.

Here's another good one;

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved legislation that would give the attorney general a virtual blank check to shut down any Internet site that he claims “has no demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use” other than copyright infringement. Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, introduced the bill handing the Obama administration the power to pull the plug on websites that contain no actual illegal material. It is sufficient that a site be declared guilty of “provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites” for a compliant judge to issue a take-down order.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/22/democratic-internet-censorship/#ixzz3CMyw1UHb

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Edited September 4, 2014 by Hal 9000

[jbg]

Immoral? This is a difficult suggestion, but not untenable depending on how severely disabled the foetus is. If it's known it will reqire enormous state support throghout its life then it could be argued it's selfish to have the child. I suppose it would also depend on how severely disabled it is, as to whether it could ever lead a truly enjoyable life. Some children are born so severaly brain damaged they are barely aware of te world around them. Pesonally, I see no purpose in bringing such disabled children into existence.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

Over most of the years of my life I would have argued that it was better to abort defective babies. Now the question is cloudier for me.

I have a 17 year old son who is on the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum. There is a probability, hovering around 50% that he we will be able to live totally independently. If not, he will live in some sort of group home with hopefully moderate support. The outlook is far better than when he was months old.

I used to think it was an easy question. Now, not so much.

[-1=e^ipi]

Over most of the years of my life I would have argued that it was better to abort defective babies. Now the question is cloudier for me.

I have a 17 year old son who is on the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum. There is a probability, hovering around 50% that he we will be able to live totally independently. If not, he will live in some sort of group home with hopefully moderate support. The outlook is far better than when he was months old.

I used to think it was an easy question. Now, not so much.

Not everyone views high functioning autistic individuals to be 'defective'. So your son isn't really a good counter example.

[Hal 9000]

Over most of the years of my life I would have argued that it was better to abort defective babies. Now the question is cloudier for me.

I have a 17 year old son who is on the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum. There is a probability, hovering around 50% that he we will be able to live totally independently. If not, he will live in some sort of group home with hopefully moderate support. The outlook is far better than when he was months old.

I used to think it was an easy question. Now, not so much.

Group or assisted support works quite well. I don't know about the US, but here in Canada the programs are pretty good. I have a young person live in my suite and we help him with certain issues and just make sure that he's getting his meds, brushing his teeth, eating properly, getting to his job, doctor appointments, money issues, or just talking about things. etc. But, in the end, he lives his life and makes his own decisions.

It works for him and he really likes the set-up.

[jbg]

Not everyone views high functioning autistic individuals to be 'defective'. So your son isn't really a good counter example.

To the extent that he requires specialized educational assistance, occupational therapy and other supports he falls in that category.

[-1=e^ipi]

To the extent that he requires specialized educational assistance, occupational therapy and other supports he falls in that category.

I can't comment on the specifics of your son as I do not know your, but 'autism' is simply a name for a variety of neurological conditions that may not necessarily be related. It's more a name for current ignorance about human neurology (it's nowhere near as clearly defined as downs syndrome).

Since there is such a large diversity of types of individuals with autism, I would not agree that autistic individuals are necessarily defective.

[jbg]

I can't comment on the specifics of your son as I do not know your, but 'autism' is simply a name for a variety of neurological conditions that may not necessarily be related. It's more a name for current ignorance about human neurology (it's nowhere near as clearly defined as downs syndrome).

Since there is such a large diversity of types of individuals with autism, I would not agree that autistic individuals are necessarily defective.

Long story short, he has some speech impairment but it's minor. Once he gets going on a task he does well. He is educated primarily in mainstream classes but often with an aide to keep him focused. The problem is getting him going on any given task.

Motivating him is the key and that can be problematic with having a normal existence.

[Moonlight Graham]

People with Down Syndrome don't usually live with much more pain/suffering (other than social isolation) than the average person so why abort them? A pain in the ass for the parents but is having a major inconvenience a good excuse to deny someone the right to live?

[-1=e^ipi]

Long story short, he has some speech impairment but it's minor. Once he gets going on a task he does well. He is educated primarily in mainstream classes but often with an aide to keep him focused. The problem is getting him going on any given task.

Motivating him is the key and that can be problematic with having a normal existence.

1. Why does one need to have a 'normal existence' in the first place?

2. So really the only issue is motivation?

[jbg]

1. Why does one need to have a 'normal existence' in the first place?

At some point my wife and I will either be too old, or too dead, to respond to our sons' needs.

2. So really the only issue is motivation?

That's the biggie.