Samantha Brick & Aborting Down's Syndrome babies...

Kooli

Zulu wrote: »

I'd suggest that people who support abortion really need to stop trying to silence those who oppose it.

Silencing dissent is never a good thing, and doesn't make for a progressive society.

I'm not sure what relation that has to my comment or is it just a 'Yeah well...' response?

And I'm also not sure if you are talking about this thread, or in society in general or what?

davet82

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I find some of the statements about ds people as convenient mis truth. They are people like most others. Some are nice some are not.
I remember one kid near me growing up and he was violent with a temper. He had ds. His behaviour was excused due to that.
He was not a nice person the same was some kids are just not nice.
Having ds doesn't make people any better in the personality department. It is not uncommon for them to be violent. Being sexually active can also pose problems.

Now I am older he still lives with his parents who are old and frail. He is drugged up so as not to be violent.

Friends with ds brothers and sisters paid heavy prices too. One was pretty much pushed out of their home. Sent to boarding school so the monther could take care of the ds child. Another lived in pretty much poverty due to costs of her brother.
They love their family but fully aware that they paid a big price and their parents still are.

Given the reality a tuff decision but yes abortion might be fairer to all concerned.

so on the off chance abort them in case they are a bad egg?

how many 'normal' people can you describe like you have done there, being violent, costing their parents money, bullying their family??

get a grip ffs :mad:

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

What the "abortion is murder" campaign wants to achieve, the spreading of the view that its morally reprehensible to do it to stop people doing it.

You cannot class it as murder without calling everyone who does it a murderer. And you cannot do that without inferring that they should feel guilt for their actions because they were wrong.

You cannot separate it.

funny...I just did, did you actually read my long post explaining why I think the act of abortion is technically "murder" as it destroys a human life but I do not consider the woman to be a murderer under the headings of sentencing, prison, the need for rehabilitation, the risk to society, the risk of "re-offending" - can you actually accept anyone else's views or do you just dismiss everything you dont like as bullsh1t? First you tell me that I have called women murderers when I have not. Then you essentially tell me that based on my argument I should. It's almost like you want me to call them murderers in order to substantiate your posts

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm not talking about you personally I'm using you in the general sense. Its a bad habit of mine. As is spelling. Meant a general "when you base it" not "when you based it".

Sorry. Had you said "when you base it" I would have assumed third person reference alright, but "when you based it" really just sounds like something I did in the past. Anyway, no point to split hairs over it.

Kooli

OldNotWIse wrote: »

funny...I just did, did you actually read my long post explaining why I think the act of abortion is technically "murder" as it destroys a human life but I do not consider the woman to be a murderer under the headings of sentencing, prison, the need for rehabilitation, the risk to society, the risk of "re-offending" - can you actually accept anyone else's views or do you just dismiss everything you dont like as bullsh1t? First you tell me that I have called women murderers when I have not. Then you essentially tell me that based on my argument I should. It's almost like you want me to call them murderers in order to substantiate your posts

I'm not sure this makes a whole lot of sense to me, here's why.
To me, the question 'is this act murder, and did this individual commit the act?' is one question.

The second question, which in this case I find a bit irrelevant, is 'what is the appropriate punishment for the individual who committed this act?'

If, with regards to a particular individual, your answer to the first question is 'Yes, that was murder and that person did the act', then I can't see how you can argue that you are not calling them a murderer?

You can try and bring in the second question, but if possible I'd ask you to leave it aside because it's not necessary in order to answer the first one.

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure what relation that has to my comment...

Your comment was a thinly veiled effort to silence those that oppose abortion. According to you, to voice dissent against abortion is to make women fell guilty, therefore if you do not wish to make women feel guilty, you shouldn't voice dissent.

Personally I find that particular logic counter-productive, and frankly flies in the face of your earlier claim to wish to discuss the topic genuinely.

Kooli

Zulu wrote: »

Your comment was a thinly veiled effort to silence those that oppose abortion. According to you, to voice dissent against abortion is to make women fell guilty, therefore if you do not wish to make women feel guilty, you shouldn't voice dissent.

Personally I find that particular logic counter-productive, and frankly flies in the face of your earlier claim to wish to discuss the topic genuinely.

I do believe that voicing dissent (in a certain way, let's call it the 'youth defence' way) makes women feel guilty. And if you don't want to make these women feel guilty, you would not speak about abortion in that way.

However that's everyone's choice in a free society. I suppose I wish to 'silence' these views in the same way I would want to 'silence' any other views I find hurtful and offensive, be they racist, homophobic or sexist. Like I might want the anti-gay-marriage people to shut the hell up because I think they are utterly wrong, harmful, cruel and bigoted.
Does that make sense?

Ray Palmer

davet82 wrote: »

so on the off chance abort them in case they are a bad egg?

how many 'normal' people can you describe like you have done there, being violent, costing their parents money, bullying their family??

get a grip ffs :mad:

go back and read my post. Notice it isn't about one badly behaved person.

I pointed out how have ds doesn't magically make somebody nice. Some people suggested it does.
Then pointed out the effect it has on other family members.
Sometimes a hard decision is the best thing for more people. Abortion not for your own interests but those of your family.

Get a grip yourself because you obviously just saw red and never considered what I said. Would you sacrifice the rest of your family for the well being of one child who isn't born? I wouldn't

OldNotWIse

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure this makes a whole lot of sense to me, here's why.
To me, the question 'is this act murder, and did this individual commit the act?' is one question.

The second question, which in this case I find a bit irrelevant, is 'what is the appropriate punishment for the individual who committed this act?'

If, with regards to a particular individual, your answer to the first question is 'Yes, that was murder and that person did the act', then I can't see how you can argue that you are not calling them a murderer?

You can try and bring in the second question, but if possible I'd ask you to leave it aside because it's not necessary in order to answer the first one.

If you're going to ask, "who committed this act" you wouldn't even be looking at the woman, you'd be looking at the medical practioner... If you want to go down the road of shutting your eyes to a point for the sake of upholding pedantics...

Kooli

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If you're going to ask, "who committed this act" you wouldn't even be looking at the woman, you'd be looking at the medical practioner... If you want to go down the road of shutting your eyes to a point for the sake of upholding pedantics...

OK so it's the doctor that is the murderer then. Understood.
I guess the mother then is just the person who orders the murder of her own child, not the person who carries it out. And that makes all the difference? You don't think she should feel guilty about that?

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

Does that make sense?

It makes sense.

However it doesn't make sense to assume all pro life are the same as youth defense, which I think you've been doing/have been dangerously close to doing in your previous posts.

OldNotWIse

Kooli wrote: »

I do believe that voicing dissent (in a certain way, let's call it the 'youth defence' way) makes women feel guilty. And if you don't want to make these women feel guilty, you would not speak about abortion in that way.

However that's everyone's choice in a free society. I suppose I wish to 'silence' these views in the same way I would want to 'silence' any other views I find hurtful and offensive, be they racist, homophobic or sexist. Like I might want the anti-gay-marriage people to shut the hell up because I think they are utterly wrong, harmful, cruel and bigoted.
Does that make sense?

Post 225 somewhat addresses this.

Kooli

Zulu wrote: »

It makes sense.

However it doesn't make sense to assume all pro life are the same as youth defense, which I think you've been doing/have been dangerously close to doing in your previous posts.

Possibly. But if there are more moderate pro-lifers out there who don't agree with YD, they should really try and publicly distance themselves from them or provide an alternative voice, because they are really the loudest voice shouting at the moment and they are getting a lot of airtime.
Does that bother pro-life people who disagree with YD? (are you one of them?)

davet82

Ray Palmer wrote: »

go back and read my post. Notice it isn't about one badly behaved person.

I pointed out how have ds doesn't magically make somebody nice. Some people suggested it does.
Then pointed out the effect it has on other family members.
Sometimes a hard decision is the best thing for more people. Abortion not for your own interests but those of your family.

Get a grip yourself because you obviously just saw red and never considered what I said. Would you sacrifice the rest of your family for the well being of one child who isn't born? I wouldn't

i read your post and it made no sense at all. People with DS are like 'normal' people, some have flaws, some bigger than others, your arguement to terminate a baby on that basis is stupid.

Lets not have children just in case they turn out to be all bad or you know one or two people that had a bad experince with one, would be the same reasoning

OldNotWIse

Kooli wrote: »

OK so it's the doctor that is the murderer then. Understood.
I guess the mother then is just the person who orders the murder of her own child, not the person who carries it out. And that makes all the difference? You don't think she should feel guilty about that?

I think you are deliberately badgering me because you want me to say, "Abortion is murder!!!Punish all the women who murder their babies!!!", then you can label me a fanantic and dismiss the points I am making.

Fact is, its not a black and white issue of its "murder" therefore we need to "punish" the woman - the fact that abortion is not legal here but women can travel to avail of it elsewhere and not face legal consequences is symptomatic of this greyness, however if you want to avail of verbal gymnastics and pendantics in order to point score then the conversation will simply stagnate - so whats the point?

Re your "guilt" point, I certainly think most do feel guilty, but that doesn't mean I think they should. What is this "should" doing here - does it mean they have an obligation to feel guilty? That they deserve to feel guilty? That they should try to feel guilty? What would any of this achive???

CruelCoin

I would abort.

As much as down syndrome parents say they do, affected children have no life. Its cruelty to the child to keep it, and selfish in the extreme.
Add to that the cost of full-time care, borne either by the parents or the state, for someone who will never be productive, or even a partially functioning member of the community.

Extreme selfishness and cruelty to keep the child.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

funny...I just did, did you actually read my long post explaining why I think the act of abortion is technically "murder" as it destroys a human life but I do not consider the woman to be a murderer under the headings of sentencing, prison, the need for rehabilitation, the risk to society, the risk of "re-offending" - can you actually accept anyone else's views or do you just dismiss everything you dont like as bullsh1t? First you tell me that I have called women murderers when I have not. Then you essentially tell me that based on my argument I should. It's almost like you want me to call them murderers in order to substantiate your posts

First of all calm down, I explained the other confusion so no need to get into a strop.

Secondly your not separating anything just saying "Its murder but it isnt murder". It doesnt make any sense. Your saying its murder, but its not really murder because there is no further risk to society, which there must be if you think abortion is murder and the person had an abortion. And what has sentencing got to do with something that isnt illegal ?? If it was illegal do you still think women shouldnt be punished for murdering their unborn child ?

Your doing nothing in the way of separating it from murder and the moral implications associated. All your doing is confusing your own position.

Question is how can you claim the same moral attachments do not apply to a woman post abortion as is being asserted pre abortion ? You cant because the term murder is a catch all and everything that applies to one instance applies to all instance. This is wilful termination of a life as far as your concerned. So why is it all fine after the fact but not before ??

OldNotWIse

CruelCoin wrote: »

I would abort.

As much as down syndrome parents say they do, affected children have no life. Its cruelty to the child to keep it, and selfish in the extreme.
Add to that the cost of full-time care, borne either by the parents or the state, for someone who will never be productive, or even a partially functioning member of the community.

Extreme selfishness and cruelty to keep the child.

I think you are somewhat confused about the definition of life. Au contraire, it is the aborted children who have no life. :rolleyes:

davet82

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are somewhat confused about the definition of life. Au contraire, it is the aborted children who have no life. :rolleyes:

Read the sign >>>>>>>>> Please Do Not Feed The Trolls


:P

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

First of all calm down, I explained the other confusion so no need to get into a strop.

Secondly your not separating anything just saying "Its murder but it isnt murder". It doesnt make any sense. Your saying its murder, but its not really murder because there is no further risk to society, which there must be if you think abortion is murder and the person had an abortion. And what has sentencing got to do with something that isnt illegal ?? If it was illegal do you still think women shouldnt be punished for murdering their unborn child ?

Your doing nothing in the way of separating it from murder and the moral implications associated. All your doing is confusing your own position.

Question is how can you claim the same moral attachments do not apply to a woman post abortion as is being asserted pre abortion ? You cant because the term murder is a catch all and everything that applies to one instance applies to all instance. This is wilful termination of a life as far as your concerned. So why is it all fine after the fact but not before ??

Calm down? strop? patronise much? Maybe I am confusing you, but I am clear on my position.

Your "catch all" point is simply a counter to the "greyness" that we widely accept exists for this issue. How can you apply such black and white rules to something so grey? It doesn't work.

OldNotWIse

davet82 wrote: »

Read the sign >>>>>>>>> Please Do Not Feed The Trolls


:P

ah hah! Thanks

Kooli

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are deliberately badgering me because you want me to say, "Abortion is murder!!!Punish all the women who murder their babies!!!", then you can label me a fanantic and dismiss the points I am making.

No that's not what I want at all. And I'm not trying to paint you as a fanatic.

I guess what I want is for you to acknowledge or realise that when you say 'abortion is murder' which you do, that has an impact on women who have opted for abortion. That's all. You may be OK with that, or you might not, but you can't deny it by adding weird caveats about how it's murder but it's not really murder, or it's murder but she shouldn't feel guilty or something.

OldNotWIse

Kooli wrote: »

No that's not what I want at all. And I'm not trying to paint you as a fanatic.

I guess what I want is for you to acknowledge or realise that when you say 'abortion is murder' which you do, that has an impact on women who have opted for abortion. That's all. You may be OK with that, or you might not, but you can't deny it by adding weird caveats about how it's murder but it's not really murder, or it's murder but she shouldn't feel guilty or something.

It's not like I am standing outside an abortion clinic shouting it, or waving signs that say MURDER in big red font. But if I am pressed, and people ask my stance, then yes I will state my stance. I dont think its acceptable to tell people that they should not vocalise a view lest it hurt the feelings of others - imagine we all ahd to walk through life like this, watching everything we say lest we offend someone else? we'd be mute. As I said in 225, a woman is not going to suddenly start to feel guilty because some eejit with a picture of a dead baby tells her she is a murderer. Women are capble of forming their OWN opinions on whether it is murder or not. If a woman had an abortion, then you can deduce that she probably did not view it as murder,so why would she suddenly become super sensitive to the oppostitions stance? Frnakly, to suggest that she is so susceptible to other people's views and comments, and that her conscience depends on the parping on of fanatics is quite insulting. For Gods sake some people even say that "meat is murder" - I still eat it. I dont suddenly become veggie just because I found someone who doesnt like what I do.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Calm down? strop? patronise much? Maybe I am confusing you, but I am clear on my position.

Your "catch all" point is simply a counter to the "greyness" that we widely accept exists for this issue. How can you apply such black and white rules to something so grey? It doesn't work.

Your the one defending the act of classing it as murder while supporting the position that the same moral implications of that apply to the act but not to a person who has already committed it.

There can be no separation of the moral aspects when someone classes it as murder. Murder is murder and that word is used for a reason. It doesnt just refer to the act of terminating a life it refers to the legal and moral consequences the act should have associated with it. So if that is someones opinion then how can they ignore all that after the fact without undermining their own position ?

Diapason

I don't agree with your stance, ONW, but I certainly agree with a lot of your points.

harr

CruelCoin wrote: »

I would abort.

As much as down syndrome parents say they do, affected children have no life. Its cruelty to the child to keep it, and selfish in the extreme.
Add to that the cost of full-time care, borne either by the parents or the state, for someone who will never be productive, or even a partially functioning member of the community.

Extreme selfishness and cruelty to keep the child.

Such crap,what do you know about it enlighten me... Muppet

aristotle25

You won't get a 100% accurate reading when looking\testing for Downs Syndrome in a fetus.

From about 20 weeks on you can get various ultrasound scans done that measure for things like thickness of the neck relative to the head etc and these tests results in a % chance of the baby being born with Downs Syndrome or not. I know of one case when a mother was given a 50/50 chance of the baby being born with Downs and it was born healthy. Must of the results are a 1 in 1000 chance or more etc.

So I am not sure how you can really be sure.

Plus, aborting on the basis of Downs Syndrome is just wrong, disgusting, immoral, and unbelieavble that someone would suggest it.

SocSocPol

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are deliberately badgering me because you want me to say, "Abortion is murder!!!Punish all the women who murder their babies!!!", then you can label me a fanantic and dismiss the points I am making.

Fact is, its not a black and white issue of its "murder" therefore we need to "punish" the woman - the fact that abortion is not legal here but women can travel to avail of it elsewhere and not face legal consequences is symptomatic of this greyness, however if you want to avail of verbal gymnastics and pendantics in order to point score then the conversation will simply stagnate - so whats the point?

Re your "guilt" point, I certainly think most do feel guilty, but that doesn't mean I think they should. What is this "should" doing here - does it mean they have an obligation to feel guilty? That they deserve to feel guilty? That they should try to feel guilty? What would any of this achive???

Eh, time to clarify, Abortion is legal in this state and has been since the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal in the X case. The fact that our cowardly politicans have thus far failed in the responsibility to legislate for it does not negate in way the fact abortion is and continues to be legal in this state.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your the one defending the act of classing it as murder while supporting the position that the same moral implications of that apply to the act but not to a person who has already committed it.

There can be no separation of the moral aspects when someone classes it as murder. Murder is murder and that word is used for a reason. It doesnt just refer to the act of terminating a life it refers to the legal and moral consequences the act should have associated with it. So if that is someones opinion then how can they ignore all that after the fact without undermining their own position ?

And??????


Yes I think it is murder as it destroys the life of the child.

No I dont think women should be punished for the murder as this would serve nobody and achieve nothing.


I'm not really sure why you keep paraphrasing my opinions...(note the use of the word opinions here)

OldNotWIse

SocSocPol wrote: »

Eh, time to clarify, Abortion is legal in this state and has been since the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal in the X case. The fact that our cowardly politicans have thus far failed in the responsibility to legislate for it does not negate in way the fact abortion is and continues to be legal in this state.

your post is missing "if there is a threat to the womans life" after "continues to be legal in this state"