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

SocSocPol

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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

You are the one missing the point , you wrongly claimed that abortion is not legal here, in fact it is legal.
Either you were just poorly informed on the subject or you were being misleading , either way you were wrong and I called you on it.

CruelCoin

harr wrote: »

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

General knowledge, reading up on the subject, knowing what subsidies are in place, care assistants.

To be trapped in that 5 year old prison of a mind for your entire life, while being a burden to your parents and all of society, is not questionable how?
The child will have a sub-standard quality of life, that in the case of ms. Brick was known in advance. Its not fair on the child, its not fair on the extended family (who willing or no, will be roped in to care), its not fair on society as a whole.
It places stress on the parents social life, and that of their other kids. It places stress on their marriage. Stress on a reduced standard of living. Stress on society to have to carry the cost. I have enough bills to pay, without having to pay for what could have been avoided.

I don't disagree with people being emotional about it all. Its hard to lose a child. My ex had a miss-carriage, as did by brother and his wife. It's heartbreaking to lose a child. But a short sudden heartbreak is infinitely more desirable than a slow life-long gut-wrenching one, wathcing your down-syndrome child suffer needlessly and pointlessly.

You may call me harsh all you want, but if i see a wounded rabbit, beyond care, i don't try to prolong its misery. That's cruel, inhumane. I feel bad about ending its life, but i feel a lot better for having ended its torment.


Also, i present an opposing viewpoint and you respond with insults. Classy.

From this: http://tomthefanboy.com/misc/argument_pyramid.jpg You don't even get off the first tier....

Ellis Dee

All the bricks that come from that factory seem to be only half baked. Like Samantha.:)

It never ceases to amaze me how abortion always gets people in Ireland so worked up.:rolleyes:

There's nothing anyone can do any more to make it impossible for women to exercise that choice for themselves. That's because travel to England is cheap and convenient, and an abortion over there would probably cost less than it would in an Irish hospital if the laws were brought into line with most other European countries.

All that the self-styled pro-lifers have been able to do is place a few irritating, but not insurmountable obstacles in the way of Irish women who want access to a full range of gynaecological services in their own country.;)

All that controversial and generalising statements by the likes of Samantha Brick do is spark the generation of a lot of hot air.:)

Meanwhile mothers/families faced with difficult decisions will quietly reach and implement their decision quietly and in privacy.:)

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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)

I'm trying to get you to see your position and view is irrational. Your telling me its murder but not murder. You cant explain why that makes sense. Yet you refuse to accept that it doesnt to hold onto your opinion.

Your opinion doesnt make sense, accept it, learn and reform your opinion based on reason and logic.

Ray Palmer

davet82 wrote: »

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

so you didn't understand. I never suggested aborting a child because they could be badly behaved.
The effect on the family was the only reason I suggested. I didn't say my friends had bad experiences with them either.
I said it had a negative impact.
Now on my 3 rd time explaining you might get that if not I don't care. Your responses are too troll like for me.

SocSocPol

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.

Hilarious post absoloutley hilarious. The only ones who have ever tried to silence anyone are the anti abortion side, who went to the high court to get injunctions to prevent the distribution of information on abortion? go on, who?
The only ones using scare tactics to stifle debate on abortion in Ireland are the anti abortion side led by the Youth Defence fanatics.

OldNotWIse

SocSocPol wrote: »

You are the one missing the point , you wrongly claimed that abortion is not legal here, in fact it is legal.
Either you were just poorly informed on the subject or you were being misleading , either way you were wrong and I called you on it.

Ok five points for you.

We are talking about abortion of DS foetuses yes? That is illegal here.

As for your "stating that abortion is legal", you ommitted the fact that it is only legal in a very small percentage of cases, so unless I have somehow been sleeping and we have, in fact, been talking only about those abortions...your post was misleading and you know it.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm trying to get you to see your position and view is irrational. Your telling me its murder but not murder. You cant explain why that makes sense. Yet you refuse to accept that it doesnt to hold onto your opinion.

Your opinion doesnt make sense, accept it, learn and reform your opinion based on reason and logic.

How can an opinion be right or wrong? I am not stating it as fact, I am stating it as an opinion. Are you aware of that concept?

SocSocPol

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ok five points for you.

We are talking about abortion of DS foetuses yes? That is illegal here.

As for your "stating that abortion is legal", you ommitted the fact that it is only legal in a very small percentage of cases, so unless I have somehow been sleeping and we have, in fact, been talking only about those abortions...your post was misleading and you know it.

Wrong again, any abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, the status of the foetus is therfore irrellavent.If the mother of a foetus with DS states that she is suicidally opposed to giving birt to it, and her doctors agree then legally she can abort in Ireland (though finding a hospital to carry out the procedure could be problematic)
I am sorry to you feel compelled to try and rewrite the law to suit your arguement, unfortunatley in real life you cant.

jank

If this was extended to people with limited IQ's then After Hours traffic would drop 60%.

One thing I cant understand about abortion is that either side cannot understand the other sides point. The pro-"choice" (should we say those that favor killing unborn babies!!) think they are all high and mighty and think they are perusing some liberal agenda that will benefit society. Yet cannot see that the decision they are making is in fact killing an unborn child. Call it what you want but thats the fact of it.

The pro life crowd want to push their morals onto the rest of society but cannot see that some people do not adhere to their morals.

Personally I have a problem with it they way it is used so generally. I understand that there may be medical cases for it especially in the case of rape, insect but lets face it, these are very rare circumstances. Don't know the odds but I would hazard a guess at less then 1%.

The rest are just stupid women or some sluts copping out. Now, I don't want the government telling people what they can and cannot do to their bodies but on a personal level I believe its wrong, I would never advocate it myself. Some people wouldn't know responsibility if it slapped them on the head.

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

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

What? You mean until moderates have distanced themselves sufficiently, in your eyes, from extremists, their opinions should/could be ignored? Please.

I feel no need to distance myself from an extremist because I don't relate to one. It is YOU who is relating to me to one, so I'd suggest YOU educate yourself, as opposed to expecting me and others like me to enlighten you from your ignorance.
That said, I recognise that you are making some sort of attempt to do that in this thread, so kudos for that.

because they are really the loudest voice shouting at the moment and they are getting a lot of airtime.

Extremists often are.

Does that bother pro-life people who disagree with YD? (are you one of them?)

I disagree with their "images", and yes, it does bother me that they feel the need to display them.

Kooli

Zulu wrote: »

What? You mean until moderates have distanced themselves sufficiently, in your eyes, from extremists, their opinions should/could be ignored? Please.

I have literally no idea how you got that from what I wrote. Genuinely. And you keep doing this ('paraphrasing' what you think I 'meant' and then getting really angry with me about it), so I think I might leave it there for now.

I'm not trying to 'educate myself', unless by that you mean trying to understand someone else's point of view?

I actually think it's essential both sides try to understand the other's point of view in any argument. Otherwise it's a pointless shouting match where each side tries to persuade the other, while being completely immovable themselves.

Ms.M

LordSmeg wrote: »

Prevent them having abortions by demonising the practise and those involved in it. An extension of that is the inference that people should feel guilty and be tormented by it as they would be given how wrong it is and an extension of that is that if you have done it then you should feel guilty and tormented by it.

If you claim something is worthy of contempt then you must hold those who do it in contempt. You cant pick a campaign based on demonising something and think or expect the opinions expressed that way not to apply to people who have done it.

Yes, I agree that their is an inference that people should feel guilty, but I was saying I don't think it's their motivation. The question was about pro-lifers wanting women who've had abortions to feel guilty.

No, you don't have to hold people in contempt because they do something you consider immoral. That would mean all pro-choicers would hate pro-lifers and all pro-lifers would hate pro-choicers wouldn't it? Abortion is a divisive issue, I think generally people have enough empathy and maturity not to be disgusted by people who hold a different point of view than they do. You can attack the philosophy, without attacking the validity of an individual's beliefs. And you can say "I believe I am morally right" without dismissing the notion that you might be wrong.

Smeggy

Quote from Cruelcoin... It places stress on the parents social life, and that of their other kids. It places stress on their marriage. Stress on a reduced standard of living. Stress on society to have to carry the cost. I have enough bills to pay, without having to pay for what could have been avoided.

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?

grindle

OldNotWIse wrote: »

How can an opinion be right or wrong?

Opinion, loosely based on duck being served with orange or plum sauce: a duck is a form of fruit.
Wrong.

Opinions can, have been, and always will be, wrong.

Opinion: A foetus (an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal) is a human (Noun: a human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal; Adjective: of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings).

Does a foetus carry the important characteristic traits of humans, the ones that separate us from the "lower" animals?
Advanced cognition and reasoning?

Scioch

Ms.M wrote: »

Yes, I agree that their is an inference that people should feel guilty, but I was saying I don't think it's their motivation. The question was about pro-lifers wanting women who've had abortions to feel guilty.

But they have to want that if they want people to agree with them that its morally corrupt. Might not be their primary motive to want people to feel guilty but it is inherent in their argument.

No, you don't have to hold people in contempt because they do something you consider immoral. That would mean all pro-choicers would hate pro-lifers and all pro-lifers would hate pro-choicers wouldn't it? Abortion is a divisive issue, I think generally people have enough empathy and maturity not to be disgusted by people who hold a different point of view than they do. You can attack the philosophy, without attacking the validity of an individual's beliefs. And you can say "I believe I am morally right" without dismissing the notion that you might be wrong

It has nothing to do with hating anyone for disagreeing with you its to do with how you view a person who you believe to have wilfully committed a horrific act such as murdering an unborn child (if thats the view you take).

If you see that act as immoral and despicable then by proxy that is the view you take of the person who wilfully committed it. This isnt just arguing philosophy this is discussing actions, the consequences of those actions and the moral issues attached to that in relation to those who do it. So a philosophical stance of "its murder" isnt just that its also a statement that you think people who have abortions are murderers.

I fail to see how someone can attack something on the grounds its immoral and disgusting and a terrible thing to do without also attacking the validity of someone's right to do it. They go hand in hand because they are both dependant on the validity of the action.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

How can an opinion be right or wrong? I am not stating it as fact, I am stating it as an opinion. Are you aware of that concept?

Calling something an opinion isnt a get out clause to ignore the validity of holding it. If you want to argue a point based on your opinion then you will have to show that opinion is valid.

If you cant do that then you have to have a think about it and change your view until you do have grounds to think something to be the case. Otherwise your really just talking nonsense.

starbelgrade

grindle wrote: »

Does a foetus carry the important characteristic traits of humans, the ones that separate us from the "lower" animals?
Advanced cognition and reasoning?

No, but neither do infants.

uriah

LordSmeg wrote: »

Personally I wouldnt want to have a kid that will likely have a bad experience in life. .

How on earth can you guarrantee that any child you may have will not have a 'bad experience in life'?

uriah

There are people who would not be willing to become the parents of a child with DS or other disability.

I would never be willing to have anything to do with people who would reject a child because the child had a disability.

grindle

starbelgrade wrote: »

No, but neither do infants.

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.

Scioch

uriah wrote: »

How on earth can you guarrantee that any child you may have will not have a 'bad experience in life'?

You cant but same as anything else you can judge when certain things will have a huge impact on their lives.

I'd never reject a child simply because they had a disability but I certainly would choose not to have one that would. Because I think it a pretty serious thing to bring a child into the world, it should never be done lightly, the child's potential life and environment should always be considered. And if you think that it just wont be suitable for whatever reason (disability of the child, war, famine, financial) then you shouldnt have the child.

Its not a puppy, its a human being your bringing into the world and to base a decision on "I'll love it and I want it" is pretty flimsy reasoning to me.

grindle

uriah wrote: »

How on earth can you guarrantee that any child you may have will not have a 'bad experience in life'?

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.

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

Jimmyhologram

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).

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 of state assistance.

If you were rendered incapacitated for the purposes of work tomorrow and hereafter for the rest of your life, should you then commit suicide to relieve the tax burden on others?

Serious questions btw, as I appreciate that the two cases I cite are different.

Smeggy

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).

There are worse people out there 'scrounging from your wages' than people with disabilities!

SocSocPol

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 of state assistance.

If you were rendered incapacitated for the purposes of work tomorrow and hereafter for the rest of your life, should you then commit suicide to relieve the tax burden on others?

Serious questions btw, as I appreciate that the two cases I cite are different.

Dumbest, most mis-representative and trolling post I have ever read anywhere, where did you buy whatever it is your on.

Jimmyhologram

SocSocPol wrote: »

Dumbest, most mis-representative and trolling post I have ever read anywhere, where did you buy whatever it is your on.

Whoa! I am asking questions in logical response to comments by a previous poster. He admits that the opinion is unpopular, he is entitled to it, and I think I am entitled to ask him to elaborate.

I'm not claiming to "represent" anyone, I do not troll, and I can assure you I am not dumb.

And in any case, I'm sure Grindle is perfectly capable of responding for him or herself.

grindle

Cool, I'll bite.

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?

Society shouldn't pressure at all, each person should be responsible for their own choices.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

If you were rendered incapacitated for the purposes of work tomorrow and hereafter for the rest of your life, should you then commit suicide to relieve the tax burden on others?

Should I? I'd take what was taken from me first...
But I wouldn't like to be dependent on anybody. I was a leech on my father for a few years, and I hate that version of me.
Personally, I'd say my goodbyes and swan off to Rainbow Bridge, if they'll have me, yes.
Life is odd enough, I wouldn't want it to be more severe, to feel incapacitated.

Smeggy wrote: »

There are worse people out there 'scrounging from your wages' than people with disabilities!

...and I'm always wondering why they can't be aborted.

Jimmyhologram

grindle wrote: »

Society shouldn't pressure at all, each person should be responsible for their own choices.

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.

I'm all for birth-control and family planning education, believe abortion should be available relatively easily and think that people should definitely not stand to gain financially by reproducing.

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.

SocSocPol

uriah wrote: »

There are people who would not be willing to become the parents of a child with DS or other disability.

I would never be willing to have anything to do with people who would reject a child because the child had a disability.

I congratulate you on your sheltered and naive existance, but then again are you certain none of the people you know has had a termination for that reason, oops did I burst your little perfection bubble?

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.