90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If you define a 15-week old zygote as equal to a 39 week old unborn baby you’d have trouble understanding my position.

To me they are not equal, and yes we’ve been over this countless times.[/quote]

I have trouble with the concept of neuro-physiological development as the definition of humanness. That part cannot happen with out all the parts before it. I don’t see how that’s the magical turning point. It simply resembling more closely to what you think a human should be, isn’t the definition of a person. All the properties of that person are already their and simply awaiting development; but then again, so is a new born.[/quote]

No brain, no person. Obviously I don’t believe in souls and I don’t believe that a person’s properties are in there prior to birth. That’s, if you meant by properties the character traits of a person.

202

Reducing the number of abortions doesn’t start by outlawing abortion but with a change in culture:

203

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Reducing the number of abortions doesn’t start by outlawing abortion but with a change in culture:

reducing the number of abortions start by admitting there’s a problem and that an high number of abortions is a bad thing.

and that’s not going to happen since in our current paradigm, abortion is a right (and a women’s right, at that).
ie : a good thing in itself.

the required “change in culture” is currently officially unneeded.

204

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If you define a 15-week old zygote as equal to a 39 week old unborn baby you’d have trouble understanding my position.

To me they are not equal, and yes we’ve been over this countless times.[/quote]

I have trouble with the concept of neuro-physiological development as the definition of humanness. That part cannot happen with out all the parts before it. I don’t see how that’s the magical turning point. It simply resembling more closely to what you think a human should be, isn’t the definition of a person. All the properties of that person are already their and simply awaiting development; but then again, so is a new born.[/quote]

No brain, no person. Obviously I don’t believe in souls and I don’t believe that a person’s properties are in there prior to birth. That’s, if you meant by properties the character traits of a person.
[/quote]

What kind of creature is it prior to ‘brainhood’?

205

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Reducing the number of abortions doesn’t start by outlawing abortion but with a change in culture:

reducing the number of abortions start by admitting there’s a problem and that an high number of abortions is a bad thing.

and that’s not going to happen since in our current paradigm, abortion is a right (and a women’s right, at that).
ie : a good thing in itself.

the required “change in culture” is currently officially unneeded.

[/quote]

Word!

206

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Reducing the number of abortions doesn’t start by outlawing abortion but with a change in culture:

reducing the number of abortions start by admitting there’s a problem and that an high number of abortions is a bad thing.

and that’s not going to happen since in our current paradigm, abortion is a right (and a women’s right, at that).
ie : a good thing in itself.

the required “change in culture” is currently officially unneeded.

[/quote]

If denying 50% of the population the choice and a say in the matter is better to you… I don’t know what to say.

207

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If you define a 15-week old zygote as equal to a 39 week old unborn baby you’d have trouble understanding my position.

To me they are not equal, and yes we’ve been over this countless times.[/quote]

I have trouble with the concept of neuro-physiological development as the definition of humanness. That part cannot happen with out all the parts before it. I don’t see how that’s the magical turning point. It simply resembling more closely to what you think a human should be, isn’t the definition of a person. All the properties of that person are already their and simply awaiting development; but then again, so is a new born.[/quote]

No brain, no person. Obviously I don’t believe in souls and I don’t believe that a person’s properties are in there prior to birth. That’s, if you meant by properties the character traits of a person.
[/quote]

What kind of creature is it prior to ‘brainhood’?[/quote]

A zygote.

208

It’s a false alternative.

But even if it was a true one, i would still prefer having my choice denied rather than my life ended.

209

[quote]kamui wrote:

It’s a false alternative.

But even if it was a true one, i would still prefer having my choice denied rather than my life ended.

[/quote]

Why is it a false alternative, and why would abortion end your life?

211

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

It’s a false alternative.

But even if it was a true one, i would still prefer having my choice denied rather than my life ended.

[/quote]

Why is it a false alternative, and why would abortion end your life?
[/quote]

Abortion would not end my life. It ends the life of the baby.
Remember there’s two human beings involved in an abortion.

And it’s a false alternative because outlawing abortion doesn’t deny the mother’s choice. It only makes the mother legally responsible for said choice.

responsible = having to respond to. (society, represented by the law)
having to answer, explain.

if it’s a right, there’s no responsibility, and the only answer is “none of your business”.

and btw, responsible =/= having to go to jail.

We could have depenalized abortion (in some or all cases) without legalizing it. And if we had, it would be much easier to think about “reducing the number of abortions” and the “change in culture” required to do it.

212

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Why is it a false alternative, and why would abortion end your life?
[/quote]

Abortion would not end my life. It ends the life of the baby.
Remember there’s two human beings involved in an abortion.

And it’s a false alternative because outlawing abortion doesn’t deny the mother’s choice. It only makes the mother legally responsible for said choice.

responsible = having to respond to. (society, represented by the law)
having to answer, explain.

if it’s a right, there’s no responsibility, and the only answer is “none of your business”.

and btw, responsible =/= having to go to jail.

We could have depenalized abortion (in some or all cases) without legalizing it. And if we had, it would be much easier to think about “reducing the number of abortions” and the “change in culture” required to do it.

[/quote]

Your words are disingenuous kamui. By all means, vote to abolish abortion but don’t fool yourself by thinking that you’re right to do so. Your opinion does not outweigh the right to selfdetermination.

214

how ?

First, i’m french. Here, no candidate propose to abolish abortion. Not even the Far right. And even if they wanted to abolish abortion, i would still have a ton of reasons to NOT vote for them.

I posted in more than a few “abortion thread” since 2008, but i never advocated the (re)penalization of abortion on this board. Not once.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because i’m actually not in favor of the (re)penalization of abortion…

215

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Why would she do this? Unlikely scenarios like these don’t make your point Cortes.
[/quote]

Is that so?

Also keep in mind my point at present is 100% related to the original post and the slippery slope argument that arose from it.

First, we sanction the termination of unborn children who are genetically “flawed.”

Next, we arrive at the “uncomfortable” situation above.

After that? No, certainly it will never go any farther than it already has? Well, what if it does? At what point would you start to care? After your 15 or 21 or 24 week line has been crossed? Later? Around the point that genetically engineering your “perfect” child becomes a viable option and “imperfect” children are regarded as somewhat less than human, to be treated like dogs and slaves and jews?

Of course you don’t care. Like I said, you got no skin in the game. Yet.
[/quote]

What if it doesn’t? What if when the majority of people keep a level head about it and won’t abuse technology? Are you really willing to deny half the world’s population a choice and say in the matter on the off-chance a stupid person makes a stupid choice?

Think about it. Would you really rather make a woman a secondclass citizen?[/quote]

Ignoring the minefield of loaded verbiage you laid there…

You tell me, eph. Why we should not hold her responsible for the life of the child she voluntarily decided to bring into the world? We convict and jail parents in the case of neglect.

Why is “a woman’s right to choose” (wretch) suddenly sacrosanct in this particular situation?

If you are going to fall back on the “well it isn’t actually (human/life/sentient/thetan)” you are going to have to do a better job explaining why developmental stage is the deal breaker.

216

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If you define a 15-week old zygote as equal to a 39 week old unborn baby you’d have trouble understanding my position.

To me they are not equal, and yes we’ve been over this countless times.[/quote]

I have trouble with the concept of neuro-physiological development as the definition of humanness. That part cannot happen with out all the parts before it. I don’t see how that’s the magical turning point. It simply resembling more closely to what you think a human should be, isn’t the definition of a person. All the properties of that person are already their and simply awaiting development; but then again, so is a new born.[/quote]

No brain, no person. Obviously I don’t believe in souls and I don’t believe that a person’s properties are in there prior to birth. That’s, if you meant by properties the character traits of a person.
[/quote]

What kind of creature is it prior to ‘brainhood’?[/quote]

A zygote.
[/quote]

That is then presuming that zygote is something other than a human and really could be anything until ‘something’ bestows it a nervous system that then makes it human?

The genetic material that renders it what it is, doesn’t ever change.

217

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Why would she do this? Unlikely scenarios like these don’t make your point Cortes.
[/quote]

Is that so?

Also keep in mind my point at present is 100% related to the original post and the slippery slope argument that arose from it.

First, we sanction the termination of unborn children who are genetically “flawed.”

Next, we arrive at the “uncomfortable” situation above.

After that? No, certainly it will never go any farther than it already has? Well, what if it does? At what point would you start to care? After your 15 or 21 or 24 week line has been crossed? Later? Around the point that genetically engineering your “perfect” child becomes a viable option and “imperfect” children are regarded as somewhat less than human, to be treated like dogs and slaves and jews?

Of course you don’t care. Like I said, you got no skin in the game. Yet.
[/quote]

What if it doesn’t? What if when the majority of people keep a level head about it and won’t abuse technology? Are you really willing to deny half the world’s population a choice and say in the matter on the off-chance a stupid person makes a stupid choice?

Think about it. Would you really rather make a woman a secondclass citizen?[/quote]

Ignoring the minefield of loaded verbiage you laid there…

You tell me, eph. Why we should not hold her responsible for the life of the child she voluntarily decided to bring into the world? We convict and jail parents in the case of neglect.

Why is “a woman’s right to choose” (wretch) suddenly sacrosanct in this particular situation?

If you are going to fall back on the “well it isn’t actually (human/life/sentient/thetan)” you are going to have to do a better job explaining why developmental stage is the deal breaker.
[/quote]

Well, outside of the principled arguments regarding crime and punishment, the main thing I am for is the ending of the practice of abortion. If it comes by law, or social pressure or what ever the means, I want the practice to stop. I want people to recognize it for what it is and quit denying the truth for the sake of potential convenience.
I’d be happy not to punish anyone for the practice for the sake of ending the practice. The end is bigger than the principle to me…

218

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Why would she do this? Unlikely scenarios like these don’t make your point Cortes.
[/quote]

Is that so?

Also keep in mind my point at present is 100% related to the original post and the slippery slope argument that arose from it.

First, we sanction the termination of unborn children who are genetically “flawed.”

Next, we arrive at the “uncomfortable” situation above.

After that? No, certainly it will never go any farther than it already has? Well, what if it does? At what point would you start to care? After your 15 or 21 or 24 week line has been crossed? Later? Around the point that genetically engineering your “perfect” child becomes a viable option and “imperfect” children are regarded as somewhat less than human, to be treated like dogs and slaves and jews?

Of course you don’t care. Like I said, you got no skin in the game. Yet.
[/quote]

What if it doesn’t? What if when the majority of people keep a level head about it and won’t abuse technology? Are you really willing to deny half the world’s population a choice and say in the matter on the off-chance a stupid person makes a stupid choice?

Think about it. Would you really rather make a woman a secondclass citizen?[/quote]

Ignoring the minefield of loaded verbiage you laid there…

You tell me, eph. Why we should not hold her responsible for the life of the child she voluntarily decided to bring into the world? We convict and jail parents in the case of neglect.

Why is “a woman’s right to choose” (wretch) suddenly sacrosanct in this particular situation?

If you are going to fall back on the “well it isn’t actually (human/life/sentient/thetan)” you are going to have to do a better job explaining why developmental stage is the deal breaker.
[/quote]

‘thetan’! LOL! love the Scientology dig…

219

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Why is it a false alternative, and why would abortion end your life?
[/quote]

Abortion would not end my life. It ends the life of the baby.
Remember there’s two human beings involved in an abortion.

And it’s a false alternative because outlawing abortion doesn’t deny the mother’s choice. It only makes the mother legally responsible for said choice.

responsible = having to respond to. (society, represented by the law)
having to answer, explain.

if it’s a right, there’s no responsibility, and the only answer is “none of your business”.

and btw, responsible =/= having to go to jail.

We could have depenalized abortion (in some or all cases) without legalizing it. And if we had, it would be much easier to think about “reducing the number of abortions” and the “change in culture” required to do it.

[/quote]

Your words are disingenuous kamui. By all means, vote to abolish abortion but don’t fool yourself by thinking that you’re right to do so. Your opinion does not outweigh the right to selfdetermination.
[/quote]

Is that so?

Let me remind me of that when it is appropriate.