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

OldNotWIse

Brain Stroking wrote: »

I dont agree with the people here saying "Look, you either agree with abortion or you dont". That's complete crap and borne only of a bias against abortion. There are grey areas in life and this is one of them.
A DS child may be all the great things that those who love them say. But the fact of the matter is that the child is not corpus mentis and will never be. They will never be able to go out and fend completely on their own and will always be dependant. It doesnt matter what they look like.
I've never had to consider such an issue but it isnt as black and white as it is made out to be

In fairness, I have heard a lot of pro-choice people saying this too. For example, if I say that I do not agree with abortion for socio economic reasons, but think its acceptable if the mothers life is in danger, or if its a minor who has been impregnated against her will, the prescribed retort is usually, "well if its ok for A why isn't it ok for B?" - I agree with you on the point that it's not black and white (very few things are).

It's hard to know what any of us would do in that position if we have not been there but I like to think (and am as sure as I can be) that I would never have an abortion. I dont think I could live with the guilt.

SocSocPol

kraggy wrote: »

So someone who wants to abort because it's a girl when they wanted a boy should have as much a right as someone who was raped and got pregnant as a result?

Yes.
The right to abortion is a civil right, enough said.

Yamanoto

jessiejam wrote: »

I do believe it takes a very special and selfless person to care for a child with a disability.

I think the vast majority of folks are simply doing what comes naturally to them - normal people dealing with extraordinary circumstances.

Bestowing upon them some added sense of nobility strikes me as a wee bit patronising. Though undoubtedly jessiejam, many would share your opinion.

IrishAm

SocSocPol wrote: »

The right to abortion is a civil right, enough said.

Where does it say that in Bunreacht na hÉireann?

OldNotWIse

SocSocPol wrote: »

Yes.
The right to abortion is a civil right, enough said.

A civil right?

g'em

starbelgrade wrote: »

While you've had nothing but good experiences, you can't apply your own experiences to everyone else's lives.

Women choose to have abortions for many reasons but usually the ultimate driving factor behind the choice is that they feel that they will not be able to give the child the standard of life that they deserve to have.

This would - I imagine - apply even more so to someone who knows their child will be born Down Syndrome. It's highly disingenuous to suggest that the only burden of having a DS child is the "stigma". In fact, I would suggest that this is probably the least burdening thought when you take into account the additional effort & resources it takes to raise a child with DS.

You can flash a picture of a DS child modelling swimwear in Spain as an argument against people who decide not to carry a DS child full term, but you could easily do the same with any non-DS child model in an argument against anyone who chooses to have an abortion.

Maybe I need to thoroughly rethink my writing style.

How about I completely change my post to this:

My experiences with Down Syndrome Children have been wonderful. My experiences are that they have an undeserved stigma. This, in my opinion, would be worse to cope with than the love that I think a DS child would bring me.

I have no thoughts or feelings on women's right to abort for any reason including, but not limited to, the question of Down's Syndrome children.

I think the hiring of a DS child for a fashion campaign - an area that is usually reserved for society's idea of beautiful people - is a wonderful step forward in changing public perception of a misunderstood disability.

edit: that sounds terribly flippant, I'm just quite confused at how so much is inferred from my post that I never intended to be 'saying'.

IrishAm

Over 100,000 abortions are performed each year throughout the EU and the clowns in charge scratch their noggins and wonder why our birthrate is dangerously low.

davet82

starbelgrade wrote: »

Women choose to have abortions for many reasons but usually the ultimate driving factor behind the choice is that they feel that they will not be able to give the child the standard of life that they deserve to have.

These women sound saintly you talk about... seriously it effects the majorities lifestyle/standard of life, lets not dress it up like they're doing the child a favour here by aborting it

SocSocPol

IrishAm wrote: »

Where does it say that in Bunreacht na hÉireann?

Firstly The Irish Constitution is NOT the be all and end all when it comes to Civil rights here or in the big wide world generally.
Secondly, it is a civil right according to the X Case ruling by the Supreme Court (Which is the arbiter of the constitution).

IrishAm

SocSocPol wrote: »

Secondly, it is a civil right according to the X Case ruling by the Supreme Court .

No, no its not. You might like that to be the case, but that doesn't mean it is.

Oh yeah, and why did you claim that I owed you an apology on the other thread?

Brain Stroking

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont think I could live with the guilt.

This may sound controversial but i dont get the whole "guilt" aspect. A foetus may be technically alive in the womb but it does not have consciousness. Can anyone here remember being in the womb? You are aborting a bunch of cells in my opinion. I wouldnt feel terrible guilt if i accidentally stood on a worm in my driveway or if i swatted a wasp so i dont get the guilt aspect here. Apologies to anyone genuinely offended by that outlook

OldNotWIse

SocSocPol wrote: »

Firstly The Irish Constitution is NOT the be all and end all when it comes to Civil rights here or in the big wide world generally.
Secondly, it is a civil right according to the X Case ruling by the Supreme Court (Which is the arbiter of the constitution).

But the X case pertains to abortions where there is a danger to the mothers life, not to abortions sought because the baby will be less than perfect.

SocSocPol

IrishAm wrote: »

No, no its not. You might like that to be the case, but that doesn't mean it is.

Oh yeah, and why did you claim that I owed you an apology on the other thread?

Yes yes it is. Abortion is legal in Ireland under that ruling based upon , wait for it, the RIGHT to life of the mother.
You can misquote me or misrepresent that case anyway you want , but the facts are the facts.

starbelgrade

davet82 wrote: »

These women sound saintly you talk about... seriously it effects the majorities lifestyle/standard of life, lets not dress it up like they're doing the child a favour here by aborting it

I never said they were doing anyone a favour. When a woman has an abortion, there is the obvious loss of a potential human being & most women who have abortions are deeply affected by it & many end up regretting it. It is a deeply messy business on many levels.

I never said these women were saints, but I would never say that they were sinners either.

As I said earlier, blanket terms really don't apply in what is a very grey area here.

SocSocPol

IrishAm wrote: »

No, no its not. You might like that to be the case, but that doesn't mean it is.

Oh yeah, and why did you claim that I owed you an apology on the other thread?

The following is taken from an Irish Pro-Life website, plenty of other source available.

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/about-us/who-we-are/

In a surprise verdict, the Supreme Court, by a split decision, delivered on March 5th, held that the threat of suicide constituted a "real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" and that in such an instance the equal right to life of the unborn child as envisaged by the 1983 Amendment could not mean an absolute equality, that in fact the rights of the child were "contingent" on the mothers right and, therefore, of lesser importance. In short, abortion became legal in Ireland by the same Constitutional provision which was designed to prevent that. The girl was permitted to travel to England for an abortion.

stovelid

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's a question (is it ok for people to abort their unborn based on, for example, appearances?) and a statement of my opinion (that I do not like the idea of above)

It's an idiotic and emotional premise given that the overall freedom of choice to terminate your pregnancy would encompass any reason that somebody might have to do so: even hysterical hypothetical edge case instances such as yours.

You may as well say that access to cars be restricted or stopped in case somebody chooses to run another person over with one.

OldNotWIse

Brain Stroking wrote: »

This may sound controversial but i dont get the whole "guilt" aspect. A foetus may be technically alive in the womb but it does not have consciousness. Can anyone here remember being in the womb? You are aborting a bunch of cells in my opinion. I wouldnt feel terrible guilt if i accidentally stood on a worm in my driveway or if i swatted a wasp so i dont get the guilt aspect here. Apologies to anyone genuinely offended by that outlook

I'm not offended by your outlook, I respect your opinion as I am sure you respect mine. Tbh I would prefer your mindset, then I wouldnt give a rodents backside about the thousands of abortions carried out each year. Not being smart by the way.

For you, it is a bunch of cells and I respect your feelings towards that. For me, it is an unborn baby and I would feel guilt, whether that guilt is "right" or "wrong" is of no significance, it would still exist. Of course we dont remember being in the womb, but we also dont remember being born or being 2 days old, yet killing a 2 day old is infanticide.

jessiejam

Yamanoto wrote: »

I think the vast majority of folks are simply doing what comes naturally to them - normal people dealing with extraordinary circumstances.

Bestowing upon them some added sense of nobility strikes me as a wee bit patronising. Though undoubtedly jessiejam, many would share your opinion.

Not meant to be patronising in the slightest. A friend of mine has a child with special needs and is the most selfless person I know.

Caring for a child with a disability wouldn't "come naturally" to a lot of people. Me for one.

OldNotWIse

stovelid wrote: »

It's an idiotic and emotional premise given that the overall freedom of choice to terminate your pregnancy would encompass any reason that somebody might have to do so: even hysterical edge case instances such as yours.

You may as well say that access to cars somebody chooses to run another person over with one.

no, sorry, its a question and an opinion. Simple. if you dont agree, fine, but no need to resort to insults. We are not in a playground.

Brain Stroking

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not offended by your outlook, I respect your opinion as I am sure you respect mine. Tbh I would prefer your mindset, then I wouldnt give a rodents backside about the thousands of abortions carried out each year. Not being smart by the way.

For you, it is a bunch of cells and I respect your feelings towards that. For me, it is an unborn baby and I would feel guilt, whether that guilt is "right" or "wrong" is of no significance, it would still exist. Of course we dont remember being in the womb, but we also dont remember being born or being 2 days old, yet killing a 2 day old is infanticide.

The emboldened bit crossed my mind as i was typing and is a solid rebuttal. However all it does is show the grey area that we are operating in. I respect your argument totally and agree with some. However i dont classify a foetus that is under the 8/10/12 week period (whichever is the one) as a human being.

davet82

Brain Stroking wrote: »

However i dont classify a foetus that is under the 8/10/12 week period (whichever is the one) as a human being.

what exact time, date, stage does it become a child in your opinion?

the_syco

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Apologies to anyone genuinely offended by that outlook

It's more as was a part of you that causes the guilt, I suppose.

=-=

IMO, having a jizz and egg combo aborted because it'll need care for the rest of their life, and then some, nay be a bit better than giving it life "just because".

=-=

Nazi eugenics...

Bobsammy

I have a sister in law who has Down Syndrome - she's in her early 20s and leads a very full life. I often think she has a better social life than I do. She is kind and caring, funny and witty, a fabulous artist and a talented swimmer.
She is lucky in that she hasn't had many of the health complications that can often accompany Down Syndrome - although she did have a number of problems as a child that have now been corrected.
I sometimes think that people underestimate what people with Down Syndrome can achieve - they don't realise that like everyone else some of them are very clever and some not so clever, some are sporty and some are not, some are creative and some have zero imagination.
I generally don't agree with abortion although I can understand it in some circumstances. I can see why some one would consider abortion when it can be said that the child will have no real quality of life or will only live for a very short period of time.
But in my opinion Down Syndrome is no reason to not give a person a chance to live and to find out what they will be good at and talented at. Down Syndrome is not a death sentence - people live full and happy lives, they bring joy to their parents and families same as any other child.
They just happen to look a little different and learn in a different way to most of us

Yamanoto

jessiejam wrote: »

A friend of mine has a child with special needs and is the most selfless person I know.

Doesn't mean all parents of special needs kids are, that's my point - they're normal folks, warts n'all.

jessiejam wrote: »

Caring for a child with a disability wouldn't "come naturally" to a lot of people. Me for one.

Actually I think the disability factor is in many ways irrelevant. Regardless of a child's physical or mental abilities, once you've held them in your arms most people will do whatever it takes to ensure their child is safe, to provide unconditional love and attention, to alleviate pain and distress and dedicate themselves tirelessly to meet whatever is required to achieve that.

OldNotWIse

Brain Stroking wrote: »

The emboldened bit crossed my mind as i was typing and is a solid rebuttal. However all it does is show the grey area that we are operating in. I respect your argument totally and agree with some. However i dont classify a foetus that is under the 8/10/12 week period (whichever is the one) as a human being.

I was just trying to make the point that for me, being able to remember a certain stage in our lives is not necessarily justifiable grounds for saying that stage of our lives is not important, hence the application of the original argument to a point further along the line of development to see if it still holds. This doesnt mean I dont respect that you hold a different opinion. I agree re the grey area, and I think this is the common thread - so many of us try to be black and white and say its right or wrong but its far more complex than that. I can admit I dont know where the "line" is for me. an 8 week foetus, a 24 week foetus. There is no magic "cut off" point.

V_Moth

'my husband and I have discussed in depth and at length whether we could keep a baby diagnosed with Down's Syndrome'

AS pillow talk goes, that is pretty crap.

Eve_Dublin

davet82 wrote: »

your 3 year old falls off a bike and his injuries result in him being disabled (lets pretend for a second its legal to euthanize a child) would you go ahead with it?

For all the people who said they would terminate a disabled child.

That´s a ridiculous comparison.

SerialComplaint

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Your idea of independent living is sounding more like an institution.

Try talking to some people with disabilities, or try checking out any of the comprehensive research behind the recent Value for Money study on residential services for people with intellectual disabilities.

Every piece of research and feedback points to community living with appropriate supports as giving the best outcomes for people with disabilities. This could be a shared house or an individual unit. It could have live in support, or visiting support, or remote support - whatever is needed to give the person as much independence, choice and control as is possible and practicable.

It is not a reason to abort.

Latchy

I wouldn't pay any attention to anything Samantha Brick has to say because her whole agenda is about getting people talking about her and not the issues she raises so to put it bluntly ...she's a Knob .

Stereomaniac

I think also that anyone with a decent head on their shoulders isn't going to be swayed by something some "celebrity" says on such an important issue. I'd be very concerned if they were.