scribblet Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 It becomes our business at least at the point where the fetus would be viable outside the womb, then it is a life and would be murder. I don't have a problem with abortion in the early stages, and don't have a real problem with aborting for Down's Syndrome or worse, but some people with Downs are able to work and be part of society, many places give them work opportunities. Can the test determine to what degree they are affected, and where would we decide to draw the line. I do agree it is a slippery slope, where do we stop, abort all female babies if we want a male, or vice versa, would we abort all babies who had say, an IQ below 'average', where would it end. Then we can get into euthanasia and maybe go Dutch: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/616jszlg.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I can't understand why anyone would think that reducing the number of down syndrome kids is a bad thing. I have worked professionally with Down's Syndrome indivuals for 15 years and I find your statement reprehensible. A woman's right to choose is one thing, but your suggestion that Down's kids are unworthy of life runs close to hate mongering. These are valued people who do contribute to society. Thank God you are not in any position to dictate social policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 My son had two downs syndrome people living with his family, they lived for years only having to leave when his wife developed severe back problems. They were great people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 You're correct, self determination, for whatever the reason is no one else's business but the woman's. Privacy and self-determination rights make it no one else's business. Ugh, here we go again. A woman can do anything because she's a woman. Does that include making consistantly irrational arguments devoid of any explaination of your logic? Having never made consistently irrational arguements devoid of any explanations I would not know about what you refer to. The logic is contained in the very same statemnt you quoted of mine. It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all. Men feel they can do anything because they are a man, so indeed, why do you oppose the same state of equality for women? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all. Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all. Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law. Did you hear/read me say abortion laws? NO. Did you hear/read me says Rights laws? Yes, and the Rights law are primarily and overall other things. Again, please try to keep personal commentary out of the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Furthermore, mister 'i hate social programs', what business do you have telling other people that they should bear the huge cost of raising a disabled child in a society where there would be no support from the gov't (at least in the society that you would like to see). Riverwind, it's good to agree with you on something! Read my quote in my profile. I think this is a deeply sensitive and personal issue for him. I'm taking all that he says with a grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Read my quote in my profile. I think this is a deeply sensitive and personal issue for him. I'm taking all that he says with a grain of salt. Not really. Making it a personal attack on the other hand is just about your level. My quotation of your comments was your entire statement on the issue, and fairly reflects your view on the matter, does it not? Good day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all. Logic and facts should never be confused with rights and laws. A right just means someone can get enough support for a position to have it made into law. Logic and facts may have little or nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 My quotation of your comments was your entire statement on the issue, and fairly reflects your view on the matter, does it not? No, actually, it was out of context because it was in response to your slippery-slope argument of "first babies with down's syndrome, next all brown-eyed babies or anything thing we may not like" and it was intended to make a distinction between your inane argument and reality. Personally, I don't know if I would even ask for such a test, yet alone go through with it if I didn't like the results. But I do respect other people's decision to do what they want with their fetuses. Either that or else you caught me! I secretly do think we could do without brown-eyed babies..... well, unless they look like Justin Trudeau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Because a fetus is dependant on the mother to live, how does that infer ownership of said fetus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Wait until the perfect baby comes along, I see.You see, I was supposed to have serious mental issues when I was born, but to the doctor's suprise, I turned out above average in that regard. So really, this screening stuff is BS and will result in many terminations that are unneccessary and plain and simply quite Brave New Worldish. There are a lot of severe disorders that could be screened out. Given the right wing's tendency to say medical areas should be privatized, I don't see how they can say this should be a decision a parent can't make. I don't think that ultrasounds should be used to screen for male or females just for abortion purposes but then again, abortion is a choice a parent makes for a variety of reasons. As far as Down's Syndrome goes, we've had it in our family and were it not government support, my family would have been bankrupted. Even with help, it is a huge task and while we loved this family member with all our hearts, it was a full-time job caring for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Wait until the perfect baby comes along, I see. You see, I was supposed to have serious mental issues when I was born, but to the doctor's suprise, I turned out above average in that regard. So really, this screening stuff is BS and will result in many terminations that are unneccessary and plain and simply quite Brave New Worldish. There are a lot of severe disorders that could be screened out. Given the right wing's tendency to say medical areas should be privatized, I don't see how they can say this should be a decision a parent can't make. I don't think that ultrasounds should be used to screen for male or females just for abortion purposes but then again, abortion is a choice a parent makes for a variety of reasons. As I recall, addicts are "degenerates" according to him. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem aborting the "degenerate" gene babies. Hypocrisy at its finest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Because a fetus is dependant on the mother to live, how does that infer ownership of said fetus? There is MORE ownership to the mother than you, me or anyone else. That's the point, whether or not you agree that it's "ownership." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewL Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Anybody who can experience physical or mental pain has the right to life. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Anybody who can experience physical or mental pain has the right to life. Who is responsible for that life once it is born? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all. Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law. You are correct, Canada does not have an abortion law, therefore there are no rights enshrined law. Can't be, there isn't one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardcohen Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Genetic testing is in itself,a neutral entity. We ascribe all sorts of horrible possibilites of what might happen if we misuse any sort of technological or medical advances. The truth I see is that we will have people who will see it in an opportunity to make it easier to make choices whether to have a baby,based on medical evidence and that can only be a good thing,no? Abortion,already a difficult dilemna for many women,can be made a little easier if they have a basis for their decision that they can live with. How many women base their decision to abort on the possibilty of genetic abnormalities?. The earlier the testing can be done the better,to sidestep arguements about when life begins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Logic and facts should never be confused with rights and laws. A right just means someone can get enough support for a position to have it made into law. Logic and facts may have little or nothing to do with it. I've tried to draw the distinction between logically derived ethics and law to her before, but she seems to think that all law is inherently right. Even trying to get her to admit that there is an ethical situation there is impossible. The law says a woman can do whatever (actually, there is no law...) so that's it, no argument is allowed. Hmmmm... I secretly do think we could do without brown-eyed babies..... well, unless they look like Justin Trudeau. I have to wonder where he got the brown eyes from. Mommy and daddy had bright blue eyes. According to a thread that August commented on, blue eyes are a requirement for political success... I'm trying to find the thread, I'll edit when I do. Maybe this is why Justin won't be succesful in politics? As I recall, addicts are "degenerates" according to him. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem aborting the "degenerate" gene babies. The babies don't choose that path, drug addicts do choose to use drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 IMO life doesn't begin at conception, so it's the parents' choice if they decide to abort the fetus. Do you also think that the Earth is 6000 years old? How could you be so dumb as to think that LIFE does not begin at conception? You think that the fetus is dead yet still growing and developing? Do you write for the national enquirer? Find me ONE scientist that agrees that life does not begin at conception? Thanks for putting so much 'thought' into this.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Because a fetus is dependant on the mother to live, how does that infer ownership of said fetus? There is MORE ownership to the mother than you, me or anyone else. That's the point, whether or not you agree that it's "ownership." That's NOT the point. The Point is that fetus is alive. Why does the mother have the right to kill it? just asking? Where does this 'right' to kill come from? How do men get this 'right' to kill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Once men start carrying the fetus then they will have the right to abort or not. As it stands today, women (ergo, the female gender in 99% of species) carries the offspring. So it remains the female's decision - and, in our wonderful western society, women have dominion over their own bodies. ('cept for in some backward states where abortion has recently become illegal) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Once men start carrying the fetus then they will have the right to abort or not.As it stands today, women (ergo, the female gender in 99% of species) carries the offspring. So it remains the female's decision - and, in our wonderful western society, women have dominion over their own bodies. ('cept for in some backward states where abortion has recently become illegal) But the fetus isn't part of a woman's body. It is only dependant upon it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Exactly White. For six to eight months the feus is entirely dependant on the woman's body for sustenance. When and if someone invents a way of aborting the fetus and keeping it alive artifically until it can live on it's own, then others can have a say in what happens to it. As it stands today the female MUST carry the fetus or abort the fetus. These are the only two choices currently available. What about that 1 hour old baby that was found on a doorstep at 29 below? Apparently the 18 yo girl hid her pregnancy under baggy clothes and obviously didn't get any counselling or assistance whatsoever. She gave birth by herself. I'd be interested to know her parents' reaction to the whole mess. At 18 one is old enough to have sex if they so choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 What about that 1 hour old baby that was found on a doorstep at 29 below? Apparently the 18 yo girl hid her pregnancy under baggy clothes and obviously didn't get any counselling or assistance whatsoever.Counselling for what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.