90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]
Kamui- I hope you realize that the reason people agree with you in here is because you stand by their religious beliefs[/quote]

i do not stand by their religious beliefs. I stand by my own argument.

something that directly contradict the golden rule should not become a law.
Something that doesn’t respect the principle of reciprocity can not become universal, and, therefore, can not become a general rule.
there is nothing religious (or even moral) here. Only formal logic.

You could probably make some very contrived and very cynical arguments for the depenalization of abortion, but arguing for its legalization is just absurd.

Et alors ?
People have devised countless methods of supposedly ending lives. It doesn’t make murder ok.
What “is” doesn’t decide what “ought” be.

122

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

Doublduce- just go take the classes. I have nothing more to say to you that wouldn’t take a year to get across and result in zero thanks. You’ve already changed some of your arguments to align with the information I’ve provided in the course of our conversation, but are still pretending like you haven’t and also just not understanding entirely what’s up with evolution.
[/quote]

What arguments did I change? You just claiming so doesn’t make it true. At least point out what I changed on.

I have systematically gone through and responded to every one of your points. Even the ones where you were trying to contradict me and repeating things very similar to statements I had made and the other points where you put up quotes that supported exactly what I was saying.

I have raised numerous issues with your statements and you have failed to respond to most of them. If your education is so vastly superior you should be able to easily and directly address points. Instead on this last post you hurl insults without any actual argument.

The truth is that you are leaving because you’re acting like a kid who’s mad he’s losing so he’s taking his ball and going home.[/quote]

I have learned her debate tactic is to form a point under a given premise, start a conversation on said point in it’s premise, switch the premise but maintain the point giving whatever she said a totally different meaning and then use semantic acrobatics to try to illustrate how you are now agreeing with her.

I don’t know the actual term for the logical fallacy, maybe a Red Herring?

You just have to boil her stuff down to a “main point” early.

IC, your biological knowledge is nice and makes for interesting conversation but if you want to be taken seriously follow a line of logic. Your arguments look like fluffy bullshit in this thread.

Cut them down, get your “main point” coherently organized and stand behind your argument rather than shift it around. Or admit it’s false.

123

[quote]
I have learned her debate tactic is to form a point under a given premise, start a conversation on said point in it’s premise, switch the premise but maintain the point giving whatever she said a totally different meaning and then use semantic acrobatics to try to illustrate how you are now agreeing with her.

I don’t know the actual term for the logical fallacy, maybe a Red Herring?[/quote]

in french we call this rhetorical strategy “noyer le poisson”. ie “to drown the fish”.

Also,
the “we tried these and it failed” argument is a classic case of Nirvana fallacy.
the whole ‘evolutionnary drive’ argument is a classic case of retrospective determinism. This fallacy is incredibly common on the subject of evolution. It present a quasi-finalist interpretation of what is only a serie of contingent events.

124

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I have learned her debate tactic is to form a point under a given premise, start a conversation on said point in it’s premise, switch the premise but maintain the point giving whatever she said a totally different meaning and then use semantic acrobatics to try to illustrate how you are now agreeing with her.

I don’t know the actual term for the logical fallacy, maybe a Red Herring?[/quote]

in french we call this rhetorical strategy “noyer le poisson”. ie “to drown the fish”.

Also,
the “we tried these and it failed” argument is a classic case of Nirvana fallacy.
the whole ‘evolutionnary drive’ argument is a classic case of retrospective determinism. This fallacy is incredibly common on the subject of evolution. It present a quasi-finalist interpretation of what is only a serie of contingent events.[/quote]
/thread

125

[quote]JEATON wrote:
I would love to be able to enter the fray with a vast knowledge of genetics. However, it seems to me that the whole debate has been hijacked and genetics should not even be considered in the original discussion.

We were simply discussing downs syndrome and how approximately 90% of children with this disorder are aborted. Survival and strengthening of the species were posited as reasons to condone such action. But I ask you, “How many downs syndrome sufferers do you know of that have ever been allowed to breed?” The obvious answer is that for all intents and purposes, none. It is not expected and never intended, nor would it be allowed. I am not going to argue the possibility as

MEN WITH DOWNS SYNDROME, WITH RARE EXCEPTION, ARE NOT ABLE TO FATHER A CHILD.

Therefore, the whole genetic argument is basically moot. Parents choosing to abort such pregnancies are not doing the species a service. They are simply rationalizing the worth of another life in comparison to the effect it will have on the comfort of their own. [/quote]

Females with Down’s do occasionally give birth, but it’s rare so the impact on the gene pool is minimal.

I’d like to comment on the last sentence of your post. Wouldn’t the reverse be true aswell? If a couple wants to have a child it’s because it’s believed that the child will have a positive impact on their own lives.

I find that selfish aswell.

And why is it wrong to want a healthy child instead of a special-needs child? If I had any paternal instincts, being who I am, I wouldn’t want a special-needs child.

I would not force my partner to abort the pregnancy though.

126

[quote]kamui wrote:

Word up! Awesome post! And I am not saying that because you don’t detest my faith…

127

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
I would love to be able to enter the fray with a vast knowledge of genetics. However, it seems to me that the whole debate has been hijacked and genetics should not even be considered in the original discussion.

We were simply discussing downs syndrome and how approximately 90% of children with this disorder are aborted. Survival and strengthening of the species were posited as reasons to condone such action. But I ask you, “How many downs syndrome sufferers do you know of that have ever been allowed to breed?” The obvious answer is that for all intents and purposes, none. It is not expected and never intended, nor would it be allowed. I am not going to argue the possibility as

MEN WITH DOWNS SYNDROME, WITH RARE EXCEPTION, ARE NOT ABLE TO FATHER A CHILD.

Therefore, the whole genetic argument is basically moot. Parents choosing to abort such pregnancies are not doing the species a service. They are simply rationalizing the worth of another life in comparison to the effect it will have on the comfort of their own. [/quote]

Females with Down’s do occasionally give birth, but it’s rare so the impact on the gene pool is minimal.

I’d like to comment on the last sentence of your post. Wouldn’t the reverse be true aswell? If a couple wants to have a child it’s because it’s believed that the child will have a positive impact on their own lives.

I find that selfish aswell.

And why is it wrong to want a healthy child instead of a special-needs child? If I had any paternal instincts, being who I am, I wouldn’t want a special-needs child.

I would not force my partner to abort the pregnancy though.
[/quote]

Everybody wants a healthy child, but that isn’t always the case. Picking and choosing who gets to live based on the judgement of whether they have good or bad genes smacks sickeningly close to the stance of the 3rd Riech. That’s engineering the species. There is nothing natual about our species, modern medicine has provided the weak the ability to live. Many of us, myself included, would not be here today were it not for the intervention of modern medicine. There is nothing natural about our evolution. We have given the physically weak the ability to survive, procreate and thrive. So we can fucking forget propagating for the good of the species. That ship sailed long ago.

Wanting a child for your own happiness is for really stupid, and selfish people. Healthy children are a pain in the ass much less special needs. Wanting a child is no where near as selfish as killing one because they don’t meet your standards.

Here’s a trick question, would you rather have a healthy child that grows up and murders and rapes, or a down’s child who grows up happy and healthy?

I know several families who have a down’s person in it and I can tell you that for those families, those down’s kids are a constant source of joy. They may be mentally retarded, but they love unconditionally, are always happy and much easier to make happy and they don’t worry about the same menial bullshit we concern ourselves with.

128

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Females with Down’s do occasionally give birth, but it’s rare so the impact on the gene pool is minimal.

I’d like to comment on the last sentence of your post. Wouldn’t the reverse be true aswell? If a couple wants to have a child it’s because it’s believed that the child will have a positive impact on their own lives.

I find that selfish aswell.

And why is it wrong to want a healthy child instead of a special-needs child? If I had any paternal instincts, being who I am, I wouldn’t want a special-needs child.

I would not force my partner to abort the pregnancy though.
[/quote]

Everybody wants a healthy child, but that isn’t always the case. Picking and choosing who gets to live based on the judgement of whether they have good or bad genes smacks sickeningly close to the stance of the 3rd Riech. That’s engineering the species. There is nothing natual about our species, modern medicine has provided the weak the ability to live. Many of us, myself included, would not be here today were it not for the intervention of modern medicine. There is nothing natural about our evolution. We have given the physically weak the ability to survive, procreate and thrive. So we can fucking forget propagating for the good of the species. That ship sailed long ago.

Wanting a child for your own happiness is for really stupid, and selfish people. Healthy children are a pain in the ass much less special needs. Wanting a child is no where near as selfish as killing one because they don’t meet your standards.

Here’s a trick question, would you rather have a healthy child that grows up and murders and rapes, or a down’s child who grows up happy and healthy?

I know several families who have a down’s person in it and I can tell you that for those families, those down’s kids are a constant source of joy. They may be mentally retarded, but they love unconditionally, are always happy and much easier to make happy and they don’t worry about the same menial bullshit we concern ourselves with. [/quote]

Why have children if you don’t think it’ll make you happy[r]?

If we are already playing god by “allowing” people with weak genes to live and procreate, why is it suddenly reprehensible to look for strong genes?

To answer your question; I’d rather not have children, healthy or otherwise.

Now I don’t doubt that many people with Down’s syndrome are happy and are a source of joy for those involved. I don’t think that’s the issue though.

If I had the technological ability to screen my genes and my partner’s genes carried by my sperm and her eggs and sort the best ones, brings them together and have a child that way, knowing it will have my best genes and my partner’s best genes, I’d be all for it.

It’s a crap shoot anyway so why not make the best of it?

129

[quote]pat wrote:
Gotta make a mental note of who the nazi-eugenics-black-people-are-genetically-stupid folks are next time a good morality thread comes up. This will be remembered and it will be brought up and thrown in your faces… Just sayin’. Don’t bother, because if you really believe this shit, moral you are not.[/quote]

facepalm.jpg

130

[quote]jre67t wrote:
niksamaras sounds to me that you need alot of growing up to do. Your willing to have sex but not man up to your responsibilities reeks of a coward. Your the one bitching about you being too good for your soccer team as goalie?
What if your child was born and you found out afterwards would you kill him or her? By Rhonyn and ur logic anyone useless to society should be sent to the gas chambers correct? Who gets to decide that ever thought about that. You sorry bastards.
And like Pat said please do not try to walk the high moral road especially when you just stated that you are willing to kill a baby just because you do not have patience. [/quote]

If I found that later, which I really doubt but in any case, I would do my best for ti to be raised correctly. But, if I can avoid a pretty nasty situation, why shouldn’t I? And if my wife would like to keep it, fine, her problem. I am just that “immature”, to take responsibilities of my actions. Keeping the baby is her action, I ain’t got to do shit. Still I will send money and stuff, but I am not in for babysitting…And no, people with special need are not useless. Many of them can do repetitive things, that computers cannot. Things, taht could drive a normal person crazy.

131

[quote]niksamaras wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
niksamaras sounds to me that you need alot of growing up to do. Your willing to have sex but not man up to your responsibilities reeks of a coward. Your the one bitching about you being too good for your soccer team as goalie?
What if your child was born and you found out afterwards would you kill him or her? By Rhonyn and ur logic anyone useless to society should be sent to the gas chambers correct? Who gets to decide that ever thought about that. You sorry bastards.
And like Pat said please do not try to walk the high moral road especially when you just stated that you are willing to kill a baby just because you do not have patience. [/quote]

If I found that later, which I really doubt but in any case, I would do my best to raise it correctly. But, if I can avoid a pretty nasty situation, why shouldn’t I? And if my wife would like to keep it, fine, her problem. I am just that “immature”, to take responsibilities of my actions. Keeping the baby is her action, I ain’t got to do shit. Still I will send money and stuff, but I am not in for babysitting…And no, people with special need are not useless. Many of them can do repetitive things, that computers cannot. Things, taht could drive a normal person crazy.[/quote]

No child is perfect. Next step is killing them for not being smart or athletic enough.

132

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Females with Down’s do occasionally give birth, but it’s rare so the impact on the gene pool is minimal.

I’d like to comment on the last sentence of your post. Wouldn’t the reverse be true aswell? If a couple wants to have a child it’s because it’s believed that the child will have a positive impact on their own lives.

I find that selfish aswell.

And why is it wrong to want a healthy child instead of a special-needs child? If I had any paternal instincts, being who I am, I wouldn’t want a special-needs child.

I would not force my partner to abort the pregnancy though.
[/quote]

Everybody wants a healthy child, but that isn’t always the case. Picking and choosing who gets to live based on the judgement of whether they have good or bad genes smacks sickeningly close to the stance of the 3rd Riech. That’s engineering the species. There is nothing natual about our species, modern medicine has provided the weak the ability to live. Many of us, myself included, would not be here today were it not for the intervention of modern medicine. There is nothing natural about our evolution. We have given the physically weak the ability to survive, procreate and thrive. So we can fucking forget propagating for the good of the species. That ship sailed long ago.

Wanting a child for your own happiness is for really stupid, and selfish people. Healthy children are a pain in the ass much less special needs. Wanting a child is no where near as selfish as killing one because they don’t meet your standards.

Here’s a trick question, would you rather have a healthy child that grows up and murders and rapes, or a down’s child who grows up happy and healthy?

I know several families who have a down’s person in it and I can tell you that for those families, those down’s kids are a constant source of joy. They may be mentally retarded, but they love unconditionally, are always happy and much easier to make happy and they don’t worry about the same menial bullshit we concern ourselves with. [/quote]

Why have children if you don’t think it’ll make you happy[r]?
[/quote]
They do actually make you happy, but they are a royal pain in the ass daily. I always describe it to people as the biggest pain in the ass you will ever love. If your having kids for the specific purpose of thinking you will be happier, you won’t be. That line of thinking indicates you have issues and having a child will compound them, not alleviate them.
Having children is an intrinsic human need. The obvious reason is that that wiring is what causes us to propagate the species. Though an individual level, it’s difficult to understand why. I can tell you that the experience of parenthood is unique and impossible to describe. It’s something you have to live to understand.

We’re not playing God by ‘allowing’ people with weak genes to procreate. We are saving lives with medicine and those lives happen to go on living and procreating. It’s a side effect of modern medicine. I don’t suppose your going to let you mother or sister die when she could be helped for the good of the gene pool?

[quote]

To answer your question; I’d rather not have children, healthy or otherwise.

Now I don’t doubt that many people with Down’s syndrome are happy and are a source of joy for those involved. I don’t think that’s the issue though.

If I had the technological ability to screen my genes and my partner’s genes carried by my sperm and her eggs and sort the best ones, brings them together and have a child that way, knowing it will have my best genes and my partner’s best genes, I’d be all for it.

It’s a crap shoot anyway so why not make the best of it?[/quote]

Correct it’s a crap shoot in which direct meddling seldom yields a good result much less the desired result. Most genes aren’t ‘good’ or ‘bad’ they are just something or something else. And there is no way to tell what fucking with them will ultimately yield. However, if I could prevent or cure a genetic defect in utero I would, but I wouldn’t kill the kid if I couldn’t. That’s just horrible.

The hypothetical didn’t really have the third option, but you didn’t want to answer it, so whatever.

133

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Gotta make a mental note of who the nazi-eugenics-black-people-are-genetically-stupid folks are next time a good morality thread comes up. This will be remembered and it will be brought up and thrown in your faces… Just sayin’. Don’t bother, because if you really believe this shit, moral you are not.[/quote]

facepalm.jpg[/quote]

Yeah, you ought to be ashamed…Don’t tell me that choosing who gets to live or die based on good vs. bad genetic make up isn’t exactly a nazi tenet. It is exactly that and you are for it. The shoe fits.

134

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Gotta make a mental note of who the nazi-eugenics-black-people-are-genetically-stupid folks are next time a good morality thread comes up. This will be remembered and it will be brought up and thrown in your faces… Just sayin’. Don’t bother, because if you really believe this shit, moral you are not.[/quote]

facepalm.jpg[/quote]

Yeah, you ought to be ashamed…Don’t tell me that choosing who gets to live or die based on good vs. bad genetic make up isn’t exactly a nazi tenet. It is exactly that and you are for it. The shoe fits.[/quote]

Oh Lord Jesus, whenever you feel like listening to the orion in your head, why not just shoot me a PM, so much easier and I would not have to deal with this shit.

Win-win?

135

[quote]ironcross wrote:<<< I’m just saying that all of these have been tried and failed because the drive to abort comes from a fear of not being able to survive in some way.[/quote] I couldn’t get past this statement which is possibly the most idiotic and utterly detached from reality I have ever read in these forums. Classroom crap collides head on with the street in loud cacophonous fashion. Bodies everywhere. I know plenty of people who have murdered their own unborn offspring (some close to me) and they would, if you said this to them, to a man and women simply stare at you wondering what alternate dimension you must have visited to have been afflicted with this sterile and sanitary academic asininity.

136

[quote]orion wrote:
Allright, how bad is it that my first reaction was that I doubt he wrote that all by himself?[/quote]

Little it late to the party, but this should of ended the thread.

137

Where do you draw the line? A lot of peoples genes will let them down at some point in their life.

What if hawkings parents had his genes screened and aborted due to a predisposition to develop MND.

Genetic variation is the biggest gift humanity has!

Gene therapy for genetic disorders is the way forward for the treatment. But that does not eliminate genetic variation.

You cannot have the sweet without the sour!

138

To all those that disagree with 90% of people: STOP DOING WHAT YOUR RELIGION IS TELLING YOU IS RIGHT TO DO!

There, I am being a dick and making a generalization because I am tired of trying to explain something that is TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS to 90% of people to other 10% that can’t understanding. I feel like I am trying to teach a monkey algebra.

139

That’s not entirely true, is it? Even among mammals often only the Alpha Male gets to mate and procreate. Perhaps his lieutenant sneaks-in a puppy or two, but that’s it. Ofcourse I can only speak from a male perspective but I’ve not met many men who had the same kind of wish to father children like most women do.

I have no children. I know four women in their forties without children [by choice], so the genetic drive to procreate isn’t as strong in everyone. You’ll have to take a different perspective on these matters into account even if you yourself experience a strong drive to procreate.

It’s a little late for that seeing they had children already. But you raise an interesting moral dilemma: my sister is crazy. She has a history of all kinds of abuse and found some kind of peace with the Jehova’s Witnesses. Anyway, she has a 18 year old daughter.

The poor thing didn’t stand a chance, tbh. The girl was placed, by child services, in a home, rebelled, and now she’s turned 18 has to face a judge for something I can’t care to find out. Do I think this kid would’ve been better off not being born?

Perhaps. If she isn’t able to find peace eventually she’ll live a life that her mother lived. One of misery and suffering. She won’t know what it means to be happy, what it means to be at peace with yourself, how it feels to be loved or how it feels to love. All she has to look forward to is to continue the vicious cycle started started a long, long time ago.

She’s still very young though so perhaps things work-out for her. But if I look within my larger family I wonder if she’ll find the strength.

If the defect is found early enough, and if the defect is large enough, I’d want to abort the pregnancy. Life is hard enough without the stress and worry of a special-needs child. I’d be sad and I’d mourn the loss of the child that never was but still abort it.

140

[quote]niksamaras wrote:
To all those that disagree with 90% of people: STOP DOING WHAT YOUR RELIGION IS TELLING YOU IS RIGHT TO DO!

There, I am being a dick and making a generalization because I am tired of trying to explain something that is TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS to 90% of people to other 10% that can’t understanding. I feel like I am trying to teach a monkey algebra.[/quote]

And take a chance at being a dick like you? No thanks.