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

starbelgrade

grindle wrote: »

It's reasonable to think that if it's gotten past foetus-stage and grown to infancy/been birthed, either the parent wants to take care of it, or wants to give it to people who want to take care of it (or, as is too often the case, the unwilling parents were coerced by family or a society too quick to stick it's nose in).
It's not reasonable to think that because someone has gotten pregnant, that they wanted a baby.
They usually just wanted to have sex.

I don't disagree with any of that, but my point still stands.

uriah

SocSocPol wrote: »

I congratulate you on your sheltered and naive existance, but then again are you certain none of certain no one you know has had a termination for that reason, oops did I burst your little perfection bubble?

You know nothing about my life.
People who would do that would reveal that mindset in many ways - indeed, they couldn't hide it if they tried.

grindle

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

That's fair enough, but if your view were to become mainstream enough, then it would become a part of the decision-making process; ie the decision to abort a foetus with a disability would be influenced by societal pressure, even if that pressure was largely unspoken.

...

But the thought of people basing the decision to abort on whether the tax-payer will be hurt or not is an idea that I find rather depressing, I must say. But that's only my own view on it.

I know, that's the terrible thing about society as a faceless whole. People think that becoming a mass, or a grouping, is a good enough reason to screw with someone else's life.
...
I wouldn't like people to be thinking that way at all either.
The way it is now, that's the way it would have to work out, because we've painted ourselves into a corner where all negatives must be worked into the ever-pliable whole. Black clay, white clay... Grey clay (society).
Ideally (idealistically), tax as a crutch, or as an offloading of financial or personal responsibility wouldn't exist.
If we were in an age where other's taxes wouldn't pick up the slack, people wouldn't feel forced by society to do anything, they'd just be thinking of their own situation, going "Fuuuuuuuuuuuu... Can I afford this? On my money? Can I take care of it? Do I have the time?"
It's up to them, then.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that, but my point still stands.

That a newborn or infant is relatively close to a late-term foetus?
Yup.
But one is wanted, another isn't.
Let the one that's not wanted go, or take it on at your own cost, or the cost of other (caring, btw) people like you.
To me, it's a foetus, it's human frog-spawn, I don't care about it.

SerialComplaint

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

So society should pressurize people with low incomes/savings into aborting a foetus that is at risk of developing into a disabled child? I assume that the majority of families would require some kind o
f state assistance.
.

Just for the record, every child in Ireland gets state assistance, not just children with disabilities.

grindle wrote: »

You can't guarantee it, life is filled with chance - but you can guarantee that a (Nintendo?) "DS" child will not be able to fend or learn for itself in the way any other would from the get-go, and most likely won't grow to be a fully functioning person later in life.
That's not to say they can't live outrageously happy lives for themselves, I'm certain they can, but they need a mountain of money, care and support to do it.

I'd be interested to explore your definition of 'fully functioning'? Is an alcoholic fully functioning? Is a person with bipolar disorder fully functioning? Is a person who sits on their ass watching Jeremy Kyle all day fully functioning? Is the person who's never worked a day in their life living in their council accomodation fully functioning?

What they need more from you than any mountain of money scrounged from your wages, is a quick change of attitude. They need you to recognise that providing them with whatever services or facilities they need to get over their disability is simple common decency. Whether that's the level-access entrance to the shop or school, or possible the personal assistance or supported accomodation that they need to allow them to live an independent life, it's actually not a 'mountain of money' is the vast majority of cases.

grindle wrote: »

Unless the family can support a child with such needs without scrounging from my wages, they should act responsibly (Unpopular Opinion right there).

Not so much 'unpopular' as 'foolish'. All children in Ireland 'scrounge from your wages' for their child benefit, their education, their healthcare, their playgrounds, their seats on the bus or the Luas etc etc.

But really,

grindle wrote: »

If somebody has an abortion after the arbitrary 12-16 week figure given, the child knows nothing about it, you know nothing about it, and the potential parent has flung the albatross from their neck.

Yay! You've saved a potential child from death and delivered them into a potentially tortuous life as their resentful, embittered parent takes out "what could have been" on them. Hurrah!
Can you put a price on such love?

Let's just have a quick look at some of those 'albatrosses' and their 'tortuous lives', working as software testers, passing their driving tests, their leaving certs, their college exams, working in hospitals, etc etc

http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Social-Business/Autism-Traits-Prove-Valuable-for-Software-Testing/
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/passing-driving-test-another-golden-moment-for-olympian-2581130.html
http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/pressreleases/pressRelease.php?headerID=2160&pressReleaseArchive=2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npsb5kKkXM

Scioch

In reference to the human frog spawn comment I dont disagree with how you see it although I wouldnt say it quite like that.

grindle

Could've sworn I saw a post from Lord Smeg there...?
Ah... Just saw new post, didn't know a user could delete without trace.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Actually I'm not sure about this. I do think a person should take responsibility and factor their circumstances into their decision in regards having a child. But I also think society as a whole has a responsibility to support people who need support.

As for the human frog spawn I dont disagree with how you see it although I wouldnt say it quite like that.

Fine. We think differently.
In society, none of us is wrong, because society is a mass of opinions squished together, attempting to form a unified best-guess opinion. The greyest grey wins.
I've not got much of a problem with that. I don't personally like it, but I'm blessed by chance not to've been born in Sudan, sharing a one-room hut with my widowed mother and fifteen siblings, drinking my last drop of water for the week, trying to avoid government-sponsored terrorists.
I can afford to debate semantics on relatively pithy topics (well, not too pithy, but pithier), living a life well beyond relative luxury (to reeeeally poor people, not our pathetic misnomer of "poor people").

As for the human frog-spawn... I have a way with words, what can I say?
I thought I was being kind! :pac:

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Just for the record, every child in Ireland gets state assistance, not just children with disabilities.

Let's just have a quick look at some of those 'albatrosses' and their 'tortuous lives', working as software testers, passing their driving tests, their leaving certs, their college exams, working in hospitals, etc etc

http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Social-Business/Autism-Traits-Prove-Valuable-for-Software-Testing/
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/passing-driving-test-another-golden-moment-for-olympian-2581130.html
http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/pressreleases/pressRelease.php?headerID=2160&pressReleaseArchive=2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npsb5kKkXM

Your video wasn't working, sliced off a character in YT url...fixed.

If they can afford to take care of themselves, that's fantastic. It's a huge chance to take (as far as I know).
If someone can present numbers for the likelihood that they'll end up productive and earn more than they take, I'd like to see it.

It's not like I have anything against them, I just don't think I should have to pay for their care.
If I (inexplicably) had one, I wouldn't think anyone should have to pay for them but me. My choice, my cost.

poppyvally

This is a very sensitive issue. Totally unsuitable to discuss on a fickle forum like A.H

SerialComplaint

grindle wrote: »

If they can afford to take care of themselves, that's fantastic. It's a huge chance to take (as far as I know).
If someone can present numbers for the likelihood that they'll end up productive and earn more than they take, I'd like to see it.

It's not like I have anything against them, I just don't think I should have to pay for their care.
If I (inexplicably) had one, I wouldn't think anyone should have to pay for them but me. My choice, my cost.

Do you want to apply the same productivity test to all pregnancies? So if the child is going to become a dole layabout, they should be aborted? And if the child is going to become an alcoholic, they should be aborted? And if the child is going to get knocked down by a car and suffer horrific injuries, they should be aborted too - right?

Scioch

grindle wrote: »

Could've sworn I saw a post from Lord Smeg there...?
Ah... Just saw new post, didn't know a user could delete without trace.

Sorry I deleted the original and then edited the new draft, was hard to know what to make of what you were sayin

Fine. We think differently.
In society, none of us is wrong, because society is a mass of opinions squished together, attempting to form a unified best-guess opinion. The greyest grey wins.
I've not got much of a problem with that. I don't personally like it, but I'm blessed by chance not to've been born in Sudan, sharing a one-room hut with my widowed mother and fifteen siblings, drinking my last drop of water for the week, trying to avoid government-sponsored terrorists.
I can afford to debate semantics on relatively pithy topics (well, not too pithy, but pithier), living a life well beyond relative luxury (to reeeeally poor people, not our pathetic misnomer of "poor people").

Well I do think too that people have a responsibility to maintain society so if something is having a negative impact then yes people have a responsibility to take that into account.

I edited that bit out of my post because I thought it misrepresented your view somewhat, I know your not trying to absolve yourself from your responsibility in regards to society or downplay societies responsibility only trying to cut out these issues before they becomes issues. I hope I have that right.

As for the human frog-spawn... I have a way with words, what can I say?
I thought I was being kind! :pac:

I'm actually surprised an angry mob hasnt shown up.

Scioch

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Do you want to apply the same productivity test to all pregnancies? So if the child is going to become a dole layabout, they should be aborted? And if the child is going to become an alcoholic, they should be aborted? And if the child is going to get knocked down by a car and suffer horrific injuries, they should be aborted too - right?

Could also argue that having a child to begin with is one of the most cruel and selfish things a human being can do.

Your creating consciousness in a being set for a life of confusion and misery. Just because your parents doomed you to a life of existence doesnt mean you can subject some other poor being to it to make yourself feel better.

Given the choice personally I'd have picked abortion for myself to avoid all this unnecessary bother.

grindle

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Do you want to apply the same productivity test to all pregnancies?

Okay, I'll try. Is this like Minority Report (without the "choice"-twist?), where we factually know the child will be next-to-useless?

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So if the child is going to become a dole layabout, they should be aborted?

Not "should be". If the parents decide to subsidise their child's life, let them, if they know they won't/can't, and they know the child is utterly resilient to the idea of being productive, sure, get rid. No use anyway.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And if the child is going to become an alcoholic, they should be aborted?

Not "should be". If the parents decide to subsidise their child's life, let them, if they know they won't/can't, and they know the child is utterly resilient the idea of being productive, sure, get rid. No use anyway.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And if the child is going to get knocked down by a car and suffer horrific injuries, they should be aborted too - right?

Not "should be". If the parents to subsidise their child's life, let them, if they know they won't/can't...

If they had that foresight, and the parents couldn't make those choices without partially disowning their child and putting their hands in other's pockets, why am I supposed to have the burdened conscience (as deemed by society)?

LordSmeg wrote: »

I know your not trying to absolve yourself from your responsibility in regards to society or downplay societies responsibility only trying to cut out these issues before they becomes issues. I hope I have that right.

In an idealistic world.
So many societies stick their pickle in when it's not necessary, so I view society negatively (i.e. people making everything their business, whether or not it is).
If we had a truly responsible society (where each looks after their own, and morally, not with the grandiose sense of MEMEME-entitlement the majority have), I'd view it positively.

Jimmyhologram

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm actually surprised an angry mob hasnt shown up.

Well, about that "human frog spawn" ...

I don't find it particularly offensive myself, though I wouldn't go saying it out loud..

My take on it is that its very easy and perhaps necessary to think of an early term pregnancy in those terms as long as its other people we're thinking about... There is only so much time, resources and sympathy in the world and they are perhaps best spent on the already born, among whom there is more than enough need to go around..

As soon as it becomes our own potential offspring we're talking about, it is natural to start thinking about the life that might potentially develop. You can't legislate for people's emotions, but they are real things nonetheless that should be taken into account.

In the same way, a million euro in cash is objectively just a pile of dead trees with no intrinsic value. Try telling that to someone who's just been robbed of that amount ...

I doubt if there'll be a time in the foreseeable future when we all agree on what a foetus is, and what it is not.

Scioch

grindle wrote: »

In an idealistic world.
So many societies stick their pickle in when it's not necessary, so I view society negatively (i.e. people making everything their business, whether or not it is).
If we had a truly responsible society (where each looks after their own, and morally, not with the grandiose sense of MEMEME-entitlement the majority have), I'd view it positively.

Ah yes but I dont think that is attainable, so we have society to balance out the negative aspects of human nature by protecting us from ourselves and each other by lumping us into something bigger than that. With that comes certain downsides such as people taking advantage but what can ya do ?

grindle

LordSmeg wrote: »

Ah yes but I dont think that is attainable, so we have society to balance out the negative aspects of human nature by protecting us from ourselves and each other. With that comes certain downsides such as people taking advantage but what can ya do ?

Exactly. As I said... Arguing semantics.
One thing/subject can appear to be a definite, but you just need a contrast, to juxtapose and then you're all...
"FnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG"

I can see the shades of grey the "morally upright" are seeing, I just can't understand settling on whatever shade it is.
Maybe I'm slightly autistic. I should put myself down.

And lo, society was born!

CruelCoin

Smeggy wrote: »

I have a nephew with DS and his parents have the same standard of living as they did beforehand and for you to be so cold as to say he could have been "avoided" makes me extremely mad.

What would you do if your own child had a child with DS, would you refuse to see your grandchild as they would be a burden on you and society?

Would i avoid it entirely? no. Would i be resentful when the exhausted parents roped me in to help care? maybe.
Truth be told, you will never be able to interact with a DS child as you will with normal children.

If you knew the child was going to have DS, and you chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, fully aware of the burden that places on society/family, etc, then it is arrogance and selfishness in the extreme.

Your nephews parents are just fine financially. Thats great. I suppose they're not accepting a penny of state assistance then? I'd like to thank them for giving me a choice on where my money went. Oops, they didn't.

CruelCoin

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Well, about that "human frog spawn" ...

I don't find it particularly offensive myself, though I wouldn't go saying it out loud..

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Smeggy

CruelCoin wrote: »

Would i avoid it entirely? no. Would i be resentful when the exhausted parents roped me in to help care? maybe.
Truth be told, you will never be able to interact with a DS child as you will with normal children.

If you knew the child was going to have DS, and you chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, fully aware of the burden that places on society/family, etc, then it is arrogance and selfishness in the extreme.

Your nephews parents are just fine financially. Thats great. I suppose they're not accepting a penny of state assistance then? I'd like to thank them for giving me a choice on where my money went. Oops, they didn't.

Did anyone else claiming off the state give you a choice where your money went?? That's a ridiculous thing to say frankly. My brother has been working full time for the last 20 years and they were means tested and only claim what they're entitled to unlike a lot of people!

It sounds to me like you do not have anybody in your life with any disabilities and it's very easy for you to say abortion is best and people are arrogant and selfish, you never know how you might feel when it actually affects you directly

Ms.M

CruelCoin wrote: »

If you knew the child was going to have DS, and you chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, fully aware of the burden that places on society/family, etc, then it is arrogance and selfishness in the extreme.

That is a despicable comment to make. You're pro-choice.... but not when it comes to DS babies.... They should be aborted. :mad:
Are you a pro-lifer trying to make pro-choicers out to be arseholes?
Because then your post would almost be clever...

grindle

Ms.M wrote: »

CruelCoin wrote: »

If you knew the child was going to have DS, and you chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, fully aware of the burden that places on society/family, etc, then it is arrogance and selfishness in the extreme.

That is a despicable comment to make. You're pro-choice.... but not when it comes to DS babies.... They should be aborted. :mad:
Are you a pro-lifer trying to make pro-choicers out to be arseholes?
Because then your post would almost be clever...

You seem to have deliberately misinterpreted what he wrote.
Parents of DS children have the same choice as parents of "normal" children.
The choice should be made based on whether they can handle or afford it.
The majority of DS parents need outside assistance, and this gets taken from taxes.
I don't want it taken from my taxes, CruelCoin doesn't want it taken from his.
That doesn't mean "Kill them all now", that means "Not my choice, shouldn't be my burden".
How, Mrs.M, can you afford the Internet, when there are clearly thousands of other altruistic notions that need your money and your time?
Are you as indignant about your implicit choice of inaction in almost every charitable case worth noting as you are about our current hope for a choice in the matter?

CruelCoin

Ms.M wrote: »

That is a despicable comment to make. You're pro-choice.... but not when it comes to DS babies.... They should be aborted. :mad:
Are you a pro-lifer trying to make pro-choicers out to be arseholes?
Because then your post would almost be clever...

Just trying to point out how i see it as selfish. Quote me the bit please where i explicitly said "kill them, kill them allll".

Example:
I scuba quite a bit. I am fully aware i could have an horrific accident which could leave me disabled. I know the risks in advance, as did the DS mother in the OP.
Do i go ahead with it anyway and should the worst happen allow the taxpayer to pick up the tab? No. Why? Its selfish. It's deeply irresponsible to expect others to pay your way.

What i do is pay for mega powerful insurance which will make sure the taxpayer never pays a cent for any diving accident i have.
I do the same with car/house/life insurance.

You want to keep your DS child? Fine. But not from my money tyvm.

Ms.M

grindle wrote: »

You seem to have deliberately misinterpreted what he wrote.
Parents of DS children have the same choice as parents of "normal" children.
The choice should be made based on whether they can handle or afford it.
The majority of DS parents need outside assistance, and this gets taken from taxes.
I don't want it taken from my taxes, CruelCoin doesn't want it taken from his.
That doesn't mean "Kill them all now", that means "Not my choice, shouldn't be my burden".
How, Mrs.M, can you afford the Internet, when there are clearly thousands of other altruistic notions that need your money and your time?
Are you as indignant about your implicit choice of inaction in almost every charitable case worth noting as you are about our current hope for a choice in the matter?

The comment I quoted does not state that society shouldn't pay taxes for DS babies and that is not what I'm taking offence to. What he did state explicitly is that if you knew your child was going to have DS, because of the burden this places on society, opting not to have an abortion makes you guilty of "arrogance and selfishness in the extreme". This is what I was "indignant" about.

While, you wrongly presumed I was "indignant" about your clever non-"altruistic" notions (yes, that's how you sound!) I don't agree with them. How do you propose to make the tax system fairer? For non-disabled people? For people who aren't a victim of crime? For non-smokers? For the wealthy? For people who don't drink alcohol? For people who choose to stay indoors everyday and get the prescribed amount of exercise and eat only the healthiest of food-stuffs? ...

bhovaspack

CruelCoin wrote: »

Would i avoid it entirely? no. Would i be resentful when the exhausted parents roped me in to help care? maybe.
Truth be told, you will never be able to interact with a DS child as you will with normal children.

Truth be told, you don't seem to have enough experience to make claims about experiences of people who have children with special needs.

If you knew the child was going to have DS, and you chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, fully aware of the burden that places on society/family, etc, then it is arrogance and selfishness in the extreme.

Your nephews parents are just fine financially. Thats great. I suppose they're not accepting a penny of state assistance then? I'd like to thank them for giving me a choice on where my money went. Oops, they didn't.

But you're a burden too. I can guarantee that you were a burden to your parents for the best part of two decades, and you might yet be a burden to your children. Who decides how much burden is too much burden? You?

Society has had to shoulder the burden of educating you, and even today we all shoulder the burden of providing a relatively safe environment and functioning infrastructure in which you can do business, associate with friends and do whatever else it is that you do.

Do you have any idea how much it costs just for you to have the luxury of moving about freely without the need of your own personal army to protect you from attack?

Providing care for the very few that are incapable of caring for themselves is the very least of our financial worries as a society - compared to paying for roads or a police force, it is the tiniest, most insignificant fraction of your tax, a pittance.

A mere pittance just to make life a small bit more tolerable for those that have been dealt a rough hand.

grindle

Ms.M wrote: »

The comment I quoted does not state that society shouldn't pay taxes for DS babies and that is not what I'm taking offence to. What he did state explicitly is that if you knew your child was going to have DS, because of the burden this places on society, opting not to have an abortion makes you guilty of "arrogance and selfishness in the extreme". This is what I was "indignant" about.

Thanks for clearing that up. If it does place a burden on society, who are they to choose that my money be spent on their child?

Ms.M wrote: »

yes, that's how you sound!

What's how I sound?
Using quotes for speech or to signal 'so-called' is standard English grammar. You teach English? Do you know enough about it's standards to teach it? Syntax? Removing ambiguity?
I used quotes to avoid patronising disabled children, and "you" decide that "I" use it willy-"nilly", whereas you use it to pointlessly chide someone.
Good work, English teacher. Our children are in safe hands.

Ms.M wrote: »

I don't agree with them. How do you propose to make the tax system fairer? For non-disabled people? For people who aren't a victim of crime? For non-smokers? For the wealthy? For people who don't drink alcohol? For people who choose to stay indoors everyday and get the prescribed amount of exercise and eat only the healthiest of food-stuffs? ...

Policing is one of the few things that should be consistently paid for, as it truly is a lottery as to when someone's going to be a prick to someone else.
Smokers pay extra tax.
Drinkers pay extra tax.
Eaters will, soon, be paying extra tax.
It's been decided that these measures make things fairer tax-wise, and promote good health.
When people choose to have babies they can't take care of or afford without dipping into everybody else's pockets, however, the opposite of logic comes into play, masquerading as humanism.
All of a sudden, the unfair is fairest and the least healthy is to be given the most money (not saying DS people are the least healthy, I'm extrapolating).

bhovaspack wrote: »

A mere pittance just to make life a small bit more tolerable for those that have been dealt a rough hand.

You make it sound like a known negative, while most other pro-DS-birthers have said it's largely a positive (so loving, caring, massive smiles, etc - who wouldn't want a DS baby?!?) with few ill effects.
Thanks for that honesty at least.

But it's still a forcing of my money towards something I don't care about.
If you were walking around with all your money in your hand, and everybody you walked past decided "That money needs to go to a good cause!", would you think them taking your money was correct and right?
That's happening to all of us. Some don't want to pay for a junky's rehabilitation, others don't want to pay a politician's petty cash bill, and others don't want to pay for another person's child, DS or not.

Ms.M

grindle wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up. If it does place a burden on society, who are they to choose that my money be spent on their child?

They don't choose this, do they? They haven't created the tax system. So object to the tax system if you want, but there's nothing gained from objecting to families who choose to have a DS baby. (Many don't even know they're having one and don't make this choice; I presume you're advocating forced testing) As the previous poster pointed out, you are a burden yourself. So am I. I wasn't stating that DS babies are more of a burden on society than anyone else. Due to other factors such as life-expectancy which is too depressing to get into, they're often less of a burden. Not all DS babies need special schools. I would like to know what expenses you think DS babies clock up?

What's how I sound?
Using quotes for speech or to signal 'so-called' is standard English grammar. You teach English? Do you know enough about it's standards to teach it? Syntax? Removing ambiguity?
I used quotes to avoid patronising disabled children, and "you" decide that "I" use it willy-"nilly", whereas you use it to pointlessly chide someone.
Good work, English teacher. Our children are in safe hands.

What I was implying is that you were making presumptions. If you need an update, you've gone from sounding presumptuous to sounding patronising. A winky face does not prevent you from doing so. (;) = turning a patronising remark into "banter" in terms of standard English ..................................
I was using the quotes to indicate something that I don't believe to be true. I am not "indignant" about Cruelcoin's views on the tax system. And I do not agree that I was presenting "altruistic" notions. It's accepted practise in English. Read a few newspaper articles and you'll spot a few.

Policing is one of the few things that should be consistently paid for, as it truly is a lottery as to when someone's going to be a prick to someone else.
Smokers pay extra tax.
Drinkers pay extra tax.
Eaters will, soon, be paying extra tax.
It's been decided that these measures make things fairer tax-wise, and promote good health.
When people choose to have babies they can't take care of or afford without dipping into everybody else's pockets, however, the opposite of logic comes into play, masquerading as humanism.
All of a sudden, the unfair is fairest and the least healthy is to be given the most money (not saying DS people are the least healthy, I'm extrapolating).

What should parents with DS babies pay taxes on? In practical terms, how would you go about it? And is there any level of impoverishment where you do think they should receive benefits? What other kinds of babies should be aborted? What if both parents have chronic asthma? Should those people not opt out of having babies altogether? Can you give me a list of conditions please?

You make it sound like a known negative, while most other pro-DS-birthers have said it's largely a positive (so loving, caring, massive smiles, etc - who wouldn't want a DS baby?!?) with few ill effects.
Thanks for that honesty at least.

I think the poster was referring to potential financial difficulties, not the child! You're implying that people who have anything positive to say about DS babies are lying.

But it's still a forcing of my money towards something I don't care about.
If you were walking around with all your money in your hand, and everybody you walked past decided "That money needs to go to a good cause!", would you think them taking your money was correct and right?
That's happening to all of us. Some don't want to pay for a junky's rehabilitation, others don't want to pay a politician's petty cash bill, and others don't want to pay for another person's child, DS or not.

I'm pretty sure most people want to pay for f*** all. You can't run a country on that.

bhovaspack

grindle wrote: »

You make it sound like a known negative, while most other pro-DS-birthers have said it's largely a positive (so loving, caring, massive smiles, etc - who wouldn't want a DS baby?!?) with few ill effects.
Thanks for that honesty at least.

Possibly the most ridiculous label I've had thrown at me in quite some time. What do you define yourself as then? Anti-DS? DS-Aborter? Of course you don't, and nor should you attempt to smear others with stupid labels like that.

To address the substance of your straw man argument - and it is a straw man, because at no point have I subscribed to any of the views that you highlight above - well, newsflash: raising children is difficult, and raising children with special needs is even more difficult again. Parenting is not a goddamn tea-party. And the same goes for pretty much any worthwhile endeavour in life, in my personal opinion.

If you were walking around with all your money in your hand, and everybody you walked past decided "That money needs to go to a good cause!", would you think them taking your money was correct and right?

Eh, well actually no, I'm not walking around with my money in my hand; taxation policy does not work in a way that is even remotely analogous to the scenario you're describing so try to stick to plain language please and you might make some sense.

Carter P Fly

People have abortions everyday for little more then a child would inconvenience them, so knowing if the child has DS is a far better reason then the very very vast majority of the hundreds or thousands of abortions that get done every year. In Ireland and the UK.

( 189,100 abortions in 2009, 195,296 in 2008 in the UK which would include Irish people who travelled)

This option is discussed or considered by absolutely every single couple who find out they have a disabled child before its born, To believe otherwise just isnt realistic.

grindle

bhovaspack wrote: »

I'm not walking around with my money in my hand; taxation policy does not work in a way that is even remotely analogous to the scenario you're describing so try to stick to plain language please and you might make some sense.

I'm walking around with money in my bank, and someone who I don't know decides to spend a portion of it on what they want to spend it on, what they consider worthwhile.
That's plain language, and that's how taxation works. It's pretty analogous. Make sense?

As for the pro-DS-birther thing... isn't that what these opposing factions are doing? Debating whether or not to keep a DS baby?

It's not like saying "pro-DS-birther" insinuates that those people want only DS children in the world.
Where's the straw-man argument? I noticed you said our money makes a hard life more tolerable for these kids, then congratulated you on your analysis.
Others have been talking like they piss rainbows and we're fools for not caring.

Ms.M wrote:

...there's nothing gained from objecting to families who choose to have a DS baby.

There isn't, as long as they're not taking my money. Then there is that "I don't care about it nor want my money spent on it" reason.

Ms.M wrote:

I am not "indignant" about Cruelcoin's views on the tax system.

This isn't indignant?

Ms.M wrote:

That is a despicable comment to make. You're pro-choice.... but not when it comes to DS babies.... They should be aborted.
Are you a pro-lifer trying to make pro-choicers out to be arseholes?

That was in reply to him asserting that some else's choice shouldn't be at anyone else's cost (without him clarifying that if someone wants to take that cost, that's their choice, but then, he's coming at it from the angle of someone who wouldn't. An understandable oversight?).

Ms.M wrote:

And I do not agree that I was presenting "altruistic" notions.

So, you believe I shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices? Thanks!

That's as far as my apparent presumptions went, and I got a "yes, that's how you sound!". You've made clear where you stand on certain viewpoints, I've called your rebuttals indignant and altruistic.
They still seem indignant and altruistic to me.

So where does "yes, that's how you sound!" come into it?

Ms.M wrote:

Can you give me a list of conditions please?

If you can't take care of or afford your own baby, don't have it. Just one condition. Covers all.
I'm not into collective-force in any sense. I've said this earlier, if the funds weren't allotted due to our already-built-the-way-it-is tax-system, people would be making these choices based on the pure values of whether or not they could afford and manage it.
What's the argument there? Force by method of non-existence?
In order to halt that force by non-existence, you have to either convince whoever's willing to pay, to pay (ideal), or (the current system) enforce blind altruism.

Ms.M wrote:

You're implying that people who have anything positive to say about DS babies are lying.

I'm not. I'm implying that from my angle, the negatives outweigh the positives, and from the more caring-type's angle, the positives far, far, far outweigh the negatives because the magical souls of disabled children breathe light unto the world.

Not all DS babies need special schools. I would like to know what expenses you think DS babies clock up?

I've also asked earlier for the approximate Cost/Earnings ratio for these people, but maybe those figures don't exist.
If someone wants to take the chance that that child will cost less than they think without groping for my pay-packet, they're welcome to that choice.
The parents may not have created the tax-system, but they're taking advantage of it in the same way a dole-scrounger does.

SocSocPol

grindle wrote: »

I'm walking around with money in my bank, and someone who I don't know decides to spend a portion of it on what they want to spend it on, what they consider worthwhile.
That's plain language, and that's how taxation works. It's pretty analogous. Make sense?

As for the pro-DS-birther thing... isn't that what these opposing factions are doing? Debating whether or not to keep a DS baby?

It's not like saying "pro-DS-birther" insinuates that those people want only DS children in the world.
Where's the straw-man argument? I noticed you said our money makes a hard life more tolerable for these kids, then congratulated you on your analysis.
Others have been talking like they piss rainbows and we're fools for not caring.

There isn't, as long as they're not taking my money. Then there is that "I don't care about it nor want my money spent on it" reason.

This isn't indignant?

That was in reply to him asserting that some else's choice shouldn't be at anyone else's cost (without him clarifying that if someone wants to take that cost, that's their choice, but then, he's coming at it from the angle of someone who wouldn't. An understandable oversight?).

So, you believe I shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices? Thanks!

That's as far as my apparent presumptions went, and I got a "yes, that's how you sound!". You've made clear where you stand on certain viewpoints, I've called your rebuttals indignant and altruistic.
They still seem indignant and altruistic to me.

So where does "yes, that's how you sound!" come into it?

If you can't take care of or afford your own baby, don't have it. Just one condition. Covers all.
I'm not into collective-force in any sense. I've said this earlier, if the funds weren't allotted due to our already-built-the-way-it-is tax-system, people would be making these choices based on the pure values of whether or not they could afford and manage it.
What's the argument there? Force by method of non-existence?
In order to halt that force by non-existence, you have to either convince whoever's willing to pay, to pay (ideal), or (the current system) enforce blind altruism.


I'm not. I'm implying that from my angle, the negatives outweigh the positives, and from the more caring-type's angle, the positives far, far, far outweigh the negatives because the magical souls of disabled children breathe light unto the world.

I've also asked earlier for the approximate Cost/Earnings ratio for these people, but maybe those figures don't exist.
If someone wants to take the chance that that child will cost less than they think without groping for my pay-packet, they're welcome to that choice.
The parents may not have created the tax-system, but they're taking advantage of it in the same way a dole-scrounger does.

Libertarian crap!
There is such a thing as society, you benifit from belonging to it, you have a duty to others within it.
Even Adam Smyth recognised that.

grindle

SocSocPol wrote: »

Libertarian crap!

If you say so. I didn't realise personal freedoms had taken on such negative connotations.
Is your personal freedom to reply to what I say "Libertarian crap!" too, does that fall under the Libertarian marquee?

SocSocPol wrote: »

There is such a thing as society, you benifit from belonging to it, you have a duty to others within it.

There is - did I say there wasn't? I benefit from the good aspects, and don't benefit from the bad aspects.
The only implicit duty I'm aware of is to not harm anyone or force anyone to do anything they don't want to do.
Why don't you feel that same sense of duty towards me, a member of your society?
Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't care about?
Or, what do you think are the duties of a member of civil society?

SocSocPol

grindle wrote: »

If you say so. I didn't realise personal freedoms had taken on such negative connotations.
Is your personal freedom to reply to what I say "Libertarian crap!" too, does that fall under the Libertarian marquee?

There is - did I say there wasn't? I benefit from the good aspects, and don't benefit from the bad aspects.
The only implicit duty I'm aware of is to not harm anyone or force anyone to do anything they don't want to do.
Why don't you feel that same sense of duty towards me, a member of your society?
Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't care about?
Or, what do you think are the duties of a member of civil society?

Well since "Civil Society" is an accepted term for organized non governmental organizations within society, eg Trade Unions, Business Associations etc neither of which I belong to , I'm not sure what the duties are.