Aborting a Down Syndrome Twin at full term.

kylith

robman60 wrote: »

I'm aware that many of these conditions are only detected at the 20 week scan. Believe me, I am not cold-hearted and I realise that the women (and men, for that matter) at the centre of these cases are left in a terrible predicament. However, I think that permitting abortion until birth, even in these cases is equal to infanticide and that is something I could never condone.

In your opinion it may be infanticide but in law it is not. And I really don't understand how someone can believe that a foetus with fatal abnormalities can possibly be better off going through the trauma of birth and suffering and death rather than being terminated before birth and never knowing pain or suffering. Or how someone can honestly feel that the parents should be made to witness their child's short life. Personally forcing people to suffer like that is something I could never condone.

robman60 wrote: »

As far as I know Down Syndrome sufferers have pretty decent life expectancy and many enjoy a good quality of life. I don't think the fact you will most likely face a more difficult life gives your parents the right to end your life.

Many do, many don't. Some people with DS can live semi-independently and hold down jobs, some are very severely affected and will never be able to live anything approaching a normal life. Some have serious cardiac and gastric problems, some don't. The thing is that it's a lottery, afaik, they can tell that the foetus has DS but not how severe the DS will be.

seventeen sheep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You see what you've done here? When I said "is this the case?" you read it as me saying "this is the case!"


Now that we've cleared up your little error do you actually know if this is the case? Do you even care ? I do, which is why I am trying to find out the truth.

I've heard pro-choicers want to abort healthy five-year-olds, is this the case?

See what I did there?

Nichololas

I heard in Germany it's legal to abort bad posters for up to 24 years outside the womb, even if their posts are only slightly bad. Does anyone know if this is true? It sounds great, and we should get it here

Delirium

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

Rightio, so I listened to it.

There's an interview with a lady who gave birth at 23 weeks to a perfectly formed baby and thinks that as a result the abortion limit should be lowered from 24 weeks.

Later on (at 1:40 mins) a man called the show to say that when his wife was five months pregnant is was discovered that the child may not be healthy. At each check up afterwards, he stated she was offered and recommended a termination. At 8 months, two weeks before her planned caesarean section, her consultant recommended that she should consider termination. He informed her that she would be induced and have to give birth and in the event that the baby was born breathing, they would hand the baby over to the consultant who would end its life.

There is no mention of terminating a twin with downs syndrome.

The caller regarding the terminating of a twin explained that a woman had one of the twins diagnosed with possbile Downs Syndrome.

Doctors discussed abortion with the woman and it was explained that an abortion at that point in the pregnancy would potentially be fatal to the other twin. The abortion would have to be done at a later stage to give the other twin the best possible chance of survival.

The abortion would have been possible at the inital diagnosis if it hadn't been a multiple prengancy (i.e. twins).

Brown Bomber

seventeen sheep wrote: »

I've heard pro-choicers want to abort healthy five-year-olds, is this the case?

See what I did there?

Think so, was it an attempt to be clever to avoid answering fair and reasonable questions?

Packrat

seventeen sheep wrote: »

I've heard pro-choicers want to abort healthy five-year-olds, is this the case?

See what I did there?

Good man, shut down discussion on topics where someone has the temerity to disagree with the majority by using ridicule and personal attacks. No wonder this country is the way it is when to question the consensus is to open oneself up to this sh1t.

Apt username Sheep.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

The caller regarding the terminating of a twin explained that a woman had one of the twins diagnosed with possbile Downs Syndrome.

Doctors discussed abortion with the woman and it was explained that an abortion at that point in the pregnancy would potentially be fatal to the other twin. The abortion would have to be done at a later stage to give the other twin the best possible chance of survival.

The abortion would have been possible at the inital diagnosis if it hadn't been a multiple prengancy (i.e. twins).

Thank for that summary. I have two questions for you because I trust you to answer honestly. Given the summary, would you agree that the thread title is accurate and this situation raises some moral and ethical questions?

seventeen sheep

Packrat wrote: »

Good man, shut down discussion on topics where someone has the temerity to disagree with the majority by using ridicule and personal attacks. No wonder this country is the way it is when to question the consensus is to open oneself up to this sh1t.

Apt username Sheep.

Good man? I amn't a man.

And I'm all for open discussion, when the person opening the debate has some solid facts to support their argument. For that matter, when the person HAS an argument.

In this case, it seems they think they heard something on the radio (which was later disproven, by those who actually made the effort to listen to the radio show - more than the OP did, at least!) From what those who have listened to it have posted, the OP completely misheard/misinterpreted/lied. We'll be kind and assume it's one of the first two.

What more is there to discuss? It's a non-issue, the entire thread is based on the OP's misunderstanding of what he thought he might have heard.

opiniated

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

Rightio, so I listened to it.

There's an interview with a lady who gave birth at 23 weeks to a perfectly formed baby and thinks that as a result the abortion limit should be lowered from 24 weeks.

Later on (at 1:40 mins) a man called the show to say that when his wife was five months pregnant is was discovered that the child may not be healthy. At each check up afterwards, he stated she was offered and recommended a termination. At 8 months, two weeks before her planned caesarean section, her consultant recommended that she should consider termination. He informed her that she would be induced and have to give birth and in the event that the baby was born breathing, they would hand the baby over to the consultant who would end its life.

There is no mention of terminating a twin with downs syndrome.

:eek: That's horrendous. It's also infanticide.

SW wrote: »

The caller regarding the terminating of a twin explained that a woman had one of the twins diagnosed with possbile Downs Syndrome.

Doctors discussed abortion with the woman and it was explained that an abortion at that point in the pregnancy would potentially be fatal to the other twin. The abortion would have to be done at a later stage to give the other twin the best possible chance of survival.

The abortion would have been possible at the inital diagnosis if it hadn't been a multiple prengancy (i.e. twins).

To the best of my knowledge, Downs syndrome children do not suffer any pain.
Certainly, those that I know are extrememy happy children.
I am aware that it is challenging for parents to raise a child with a mental handicap.
The question is - do those difficulties give the parents the right to end that childs life?
IMO, the answer is a resounding "No".

One eyed Jack

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You see what you've done here? When I said "is this the case?" you read it as me saying "this is the case!"


Now that we've cleared up your little error do you actually know if this is the case? Do you even care ? I do, which is why I am trying to find out the truth.

Sure you are, in After Hours no less. Health Sciences wouldn't have occurred to you as a more suitable forum for such a question?

Your questions were answered on the first page (the one about other people's morality too?), and yet you expect other posters should be doing your research for you to prove your third hand anecdotes wrong?

Stop for jesus sake :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

seventeen sheep wrote: »

Good man? I amn't a man.

And I'm all for open discussion, when the person opening the debate has some solid facts to support their argument. For that matter, when the person HAS an argument.

In this case, it seems they think they heard something on the radio (which was later disproven, by those who actually made the effort to listen to the radio show - more than the OP did, at least!) From what those who have listened to it have posted, the OP completely misheard/misinterpreted/lied. We'll be kind and assume it's one of the first two.

What more is there to discuss? It's a non-issue, the entire thread is based on the OP's misunderstanding of what he thought he might have heard.

I'm going to interject here to save you any further embarrasment. It has been established by lucy8080 that the radio show did have a section on the thread topic. The precise timing has been given. Perhaps you might take a listen?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

seventeen sheep

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm going to interject here to save you any further embarrasment. It has been established by lucy8080 that the radio show did have a section on the thread topic. The precise timing has been given. Perhaps you might take a listen?

I have no reason to be embarrassed. The link proves you're talking crap. Downs Syndrome was (contrary to your assertions) never even mentioned at any stage.

And I did listen, thanks for the waste of my time, but at least it's more than you did!

dissed doc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just been listening to a UK radio show and I was shocked to find out that when 1 one of the twins is diagnosed with potential downs an abortion will be offered to get rid of the "sick" twin. The problem is that an early abortion will put the "healthy" twin at risk so they need to carry out the abortion at close to full term at which stage he/she will be fully developed and there is a possibility that the aborted downs syndrome twin will come out alive and they would have to kill him/her outside the womb.


1) First of all is this the case? It sounds like a Third Reich horror story...
and 2) What are people's views on the morality of this?

Sounds more like Sweden until 2012 than the Third Reich. In fact, Sweden started the racial purity thing before the Third Reich and continued with compulsory sterilisation until recently.

Are you one of the We Love Scandinavia type of Irish person?

Brown Bomber

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah I was shocked. How can someone who does such things sleep at night? "so how was your day?", "oh ok, killed a DS baby but I got a seat on the train":

robinph

opiniated wrote: »

:eek: That's horrendous. It's also infanticide.

How is it horrendous? You have no details at all on the condition of the baby in that case on which to base that claim. Extremely unlikely that they did anything to kill the baby, they may have done something to ease its pain and suffering for the few moments it had to live once born.

Grayson

robinph wrote: »

How is it horrendous? You have no details at all on the condition of the baby in that case on which to base that claim. Extremely unlikely that they did anything to kill the baby, they may have done something to ease its pain and suffering for the few moments it had to live once born.

I was thinking that too. there's a difference between killing a baby and operating a don't resuscitate order.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank for that summary. I have two questions for you because I trust you to answer honestly. Given the summary, would you agree that the thread title is accurate

Yes, but it doesn't reflect the full story. By this I mean that the woman couldn't terminate the twin without endangering the other twin at the earlier stages of the pregnancy.

and this situation raises some moral and ethical questions?

The questions are still there even if it was a single pregnancy rather than twins. The only difference would be that the abortion would probably happen earlier.

BlaasForRafa

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm going to interject here to save you any further embarrasment. It has been established by lucy8080 that the radio show did have a section on the thread topic. The precise timing has been given. Perhaps you might take a listen?

A couple of callers into an english equivalent of Joe Duffy does not constitute credible evidence. Either you're too lazy to do some proper research yourself or you're trying to bait people, given your posting style I think we can guess which of those options is the case here.

volchitsa

SW wrote: »

Yes, but it doesn't reflect the full story. By this I mean that the woman couldn't terminate the twin without endangering the other twin at the earlier stages of the pregnancy.

The questions are still there even if it was a single pregnancy rather than twins. The only difference would be that the abortion would probably happen earlier.

There was also some mix up in what the OP said about an abortion of a twin with Downs and the man who learned they were expecting a child with hydrocephalus, a very painful condition, not simply Downs.

They feel there was pressure put on them to have an abortion, but it was because the baby's head was too swollen to allow normal birth without danger. The fact that they are against abortion is their right, as is the woman's right to put herself at risk - but the claim that the baby would then have been killed is definitely not proven.

That would be infanticide, if the baby is capable of independent life, and illegal. It's noticeable that it didn't actually happen, I think that is because the claim is simply wrong.

I also suspect that the way the OP refused to give any details which would have made this clear indicates that he didn't just "not know" as he claims but has been deliberately trying to mislead people.

Lucy8080

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you so much for making the effort. It's rather telling that nobody thanked your post for finding something that was there but others multithanked a post that couldn't find something that was there don't you think?

No worries b.b.

I can't take all the credit...i was skipping through in my lunch hour and t.b.f..

"Whoopsa" did the work up to 1 hour 40...which made it easier( I know you will agree).

There is a conversation to be had here ( I think it is beyond the hard positions of pro/anti-choice), but iv'e had a long day...and a long week ahead...so I'll hold off for now and maybe look again when I'm a little fresher.

HardenendMan

Haven't read the entire thread. But is it actually true that they can legally kill a baby that is born? That is mad.

How would a doctor that does that actually think he is upholding a moral code of ethics???

Laura Palmer

urbanledge wrote: »

each to their own,
whats it got to do with you?

But that could be said about an opinion expressed in relation to anything. People can still convey their views even if something doesn't directly affect them.

I'm partially pro-choice as I'm not in favour of late-term abortion (wouldn't judge someone for it though as it's unlikely a lightly taken decision and I don't know what led to it) but something I don't get about some pro-choicers is how black and white they can be, and even lacking in compassion, when they tend to be very compassionate and non black and white when it comes to anything else.

Its Only Ray Parlour

opiniated wrote: »

:eek: That's horrendous. It's also infanticide.

Rubbish. Infanticide is unlawful. This is perfectly legal and justified, as I will explain when addressing the rest of your post.

To the best of my knowledge, Downs syndrome children do not suffer any pain.

The ones you meet on the street wouldn't be, they've been released from hospital. There are others who aren't so fortunate. Some never even see daylight.

I am aware that it is challenging for parents to raise a child with a mental handicap.

Ah, this is where demonstrate your naivity. You think DS is just an intellectual disability? You couldn't be more wrong. Here is a list of health complications associated Down's: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/complications/con-20020948

• Heart defects. About half the children with Down syndrome are born with some type of heart defect. These heart problems can be life-threatening and may require surgery in early infancy.
• Leukemia. Young children with Down syndrome have an increased risk of leukemia.
• Infectious diseases. Because of abnormalities in their immune systems, those with Down syndrome are much more at risk of infectious diseases, such as pneumonia.
• Dementia. People with Down syndrome have a greatly increased risk of dementia — signs and symptoms may begin around age 50. Those who have dementia also have a higher rate of seizures. Having Down syndrome also increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.
• Sleep apnea. Because of soft tissue and skeletal changes that lead to the obstruction of their airways, children and adults with Down syndrome are at greater risk of obstructive sleep apnea.
• Obesity. People with Down syndrome have a greater tendency to be obese compared with the general population.
• Other problems. Down syndrome may also be associated with other health conditions, including gastrointestinal blockage, thyroid problems, early menopause, seizures, ear infections, hearing loss, skin problems such as psoriasis, skeletal problems and poor vision.

The question is - do those difficulties give the parents the right to end that childs life?

Of course it does. It is cruel and selfish of parents to allow their children to be born with physical and intellectual disadvantages. Who is going to look after them when the parents die?

It's bad enough us tax-payers have to foot the bill for the selfish decisions just because aborting or euthanizing a child doesn't appease their parent's morals.

IMO, the answer is a resounding "No".

Your opinion is invalid because it's a load of unscientific bollocks.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

This thread is yet another thinly veiled attempt by the pro lifers to get their dig in, it's always the same posters spewing the same sensationalist venomous bullshīt :rolleyes: Like a previous poster said, a few people ringing into a radio show does not constitute evidence.

Laura Palmer

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

It is cruel and selfish of parents to allow their children to be born with physical and intellectual disadvantages. Who is going to look after them when the parents die?

It's bad enough us tax-payers have to foot the bill for the selfish decisions just because aborting or euthanizing a child doesn't appease their parent's morals.

Yes, people should definitely make the decision, no matter how painful for them, to abort their disabled child for the tax-payers.
I agree with you about the issue of who looks after their child when the parents die, but having an abortion is an extremely difficult decision for some people - and not something they can be able for. Yeh you might say well they're just being selfish putting their emotional needs before their child's quality of life, but it's very easy to be that simplistic about it when not in their shoes. I think if I was pregnant and found out my child was going to be disabled, I would consider an abortion... but I don't know if I'd actually go through with it either.
It's not always a straightforward situation for the individual living it.

Brown Bomber

Bryson Obnoxious Bifocal wrote: »

This thread is yet another thinly veiled attempt by the pro lifers to get their dig in, it's always the same posters spewing the same sensationalist venomous bullshīt :rolleyes: Like a previous poster said, a few people ringing into a radio show does not constitute evidence.

Actually it is evidence. It's called testimony. You ought to look it up.

I am going to get straight to the point here, that is if you are done making judgements against me when you don't know me? Do you actually know if the claims, made by the contributors to the BBC radio show are true or false? I am unsure.

Brown Bomber

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Of course it does. It is cruel and selfish of parents to allow their children to be born with physical and intellectual disadvantages. Who is going to look after them when the parents die?

It's bad enough us tax-payers have to foot the bill for the selfish decisions just because aborting or euthanizing a child doesn't appease their parent's morals.



Your opinion is invalid because it's a load of unscientific bollocks.

There you have it, it's "selfish" to not kill off your child who you love with "physical and intellectual disadvantages".

Probably the most revolting post I have had the displeasure to read on this site.

Brown Bomber

HardenendMan wrote: »

Haven't read the entire thread. But is it actually true that they can legally kill a baby that is born? That is mad.

How would a doctor that does that actually think he is upholding a moral code of ethics???

This is testimony given under oath by medical workers in the US.

“Did you ever see those babies move?” asked Prosecutor Joanne Pescatore.

“Yes, once in the toilet,” said Cross.

The baby “was like swimming,” she said. “Basically, trying to get out.”

Adrienne Moton, an employee at the clinic, then took the baby and snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room.

Cross told the jury that when Shayquana Abrams came into the clinic in July 2008 she was pregnant, “and she was big.”

“That was the largest baby I ever saw,” Cross said.

When the baby was born alive, Abrams was sleeping. Cross said Dr. Gosnell took the baby boy, which she described as 12 to 18 inches long, and put him inside a plastic container the size of a shoebox.

“The baby was still breathing,” she said. “He didn’t cut the neck right there.”

The baby was too big for the plastic container, with his arms and legs hanging over the sides.

“The Doctor cut the back of the baby’s neck but didn’t do suction—normally Dr. Gosnell would do suction … to suck the brains out,” Cross said.

“I called people over to come see it [the baby] and we took pictures,” she said.
- Kareema Cross, a “medical assistant

More here, including a photograph which was used in court of the poor baby http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gosnell-trial-witness-baby-abortion-survivor-was-swimming-toilet-trying-get-out

Kevin McCloud

It all a conspiracy theory.

Brown Bomber

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

It all a conspiracy theory.

What is? If you want a Conspiracy you can have one to take you with you the conspiracy theory forum - The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was a white racist and a supporter of Eugenics.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Yes, people should definitely make the decision, no matter how painful for them, to abort their disabled child for the tax-payers.

I just love the way you cherry-picked one of the reasons I listed and tried to make that my entire argument. I listed many reasons why I believe they should be aborted and I mentioned the tax-payer part because their decisions affect me, too.

In the future, I would like to see money could be used elsewhere instead of given to overly-moralistic parents who gamble with their child's health by ignoring the serious health complications associated with DS. The people of Sewden have eradicated the condition and fair ****'s to them.

Hopefully, the Irish will wise up and realize a child's health is not something to be gambled with because that's all you're doing when you're choosing to go through with the pregnancy. You cannot detect the severity of DS until the letter stages of the pregnancy or until it's born.

Laura Palmer

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

I just love the way you cherry-picked one of the reasons I listed and tried to make that my entire argument.

Well no, I touched upon your other points too - you cherrypicked a quote from me though.

I listed many reasons why I believe they should be aborted and I mentioned the tax-payer part because their decisions affect me, too.

But they're the selfish ones...

In the future, I would like to see money could be used elsewhere instead of given to overly-moralistic parents who gamble with their child's health by ignoring the serious health complications associated with DS. The people of Sewden have eradicated the condition and fair ****'s to them.

Money again. Your "concern" for the children does not convince me! As I said, it's not simply about being overly moralistic (it might not even be about it at all) - it's often because of the decision being an extremely difficult, painful one; let alone the fact that it's not even available in this country.

Hopefully, the Irish will wise up and realize a child's health is not something to be gambled with because that's all you're doing when you're choosing to go through with the pregnancy. You cannot detect the severity of DS until the letter stages of the pregnancy or until it's born.

Making the decision to abort all the more difficult IMO.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There you have it, it's "selfish" to not kill off your child who you love with "physical and intellectual disadvantages".

Probably the most revolting post I have had the displeasure to read on this site.

Is that it? Just ignore all the health complications and argue from a purely emotional standpoint? I would just love see how out of your depth you would look in a room full of doctors.

Refusing to abort a child just because it doesn't appease your morals is selfishness and I find those parents to be disgusting. I would never allow my children to be born with a disability because I care about them and I'm not an idiot.

I'm sure the parents of DS kids do love their children, they're just incredibly misguided.

dark crystal

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Is that it? Just ignore all the health complications and argue from a purely emotional standpoint? I would just love see how out of your depth you would look in a room full of doctors.

Refusing to abort a child just because it doesn't appease your morals is selfishness and I find those parents to be disgusting. I would never allow my children to be born with a disability because I care about them and I'm not an idiot.

I'm sure the parents of DS kids do love their children, they're just incredibly misguided.

What I find disgusting, is the morals one places on someones else in a situation they've never been in.

A DS child is no less a human being than you are, so perhaps keep your moral outrage to yourself until you've had to make the choice to give birth to one or not.

Misguided....Jesus.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Well no, I touched upon your other points too

You still attempted to make it look my whole argument was about money.

- you cherrypicked a quote from me though.

What's you point?

But they're the selfish ones...

Aborting a child because of serious health complications is "selfish". Really? Do you even know what selfish means?

Money again. Your "concern" for the children does not convince me!

If my girlfriend's/wife's foetus was diagnosed with DS, I would abort and money obviously wouldn't be the motive behind it since the child would be looked after by the tax-payer anyway.

As for other people's children. They're not my children so I don't really care about them, but I would certainly advise my friends and family to abort their DS pregnancies because of the health issues.

As I said, it's not simply about being overly moralistic (it might not even be about it at all) - it's often because of the decision being an extremely difficult, painful one; let alone the fact that it's not even available in this country.

Abortions are available for disabled foetus. Even deeply Islamic countries allow it.

Making the decision to abort all the more difficult IMO.

Well, if you think gambling with a child's health is a difficult decision, then I guess I'm just a classier person than you are.

Kevin McCloud

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was a white racist and a supporter of Eugenics.

She was, that's no conspiracy.

AngeGal

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Of course it does. It is cruel and selfish of parents to allow their children to be born with physical and intellectual disadvantages. Who is going to look after them when the parents die?

It's bad enough us tax-payers have to foot the bill for the selfish decisions just because aborting or euthanizing a child doesn't appease their parent's morals.




Your opinion is invalid because it's a load of unscientific bollocks.

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread because frankly the discussion is far too complex and nuanced for After Hours. However, the above is a disgusting remark. To call people who care for their disadvantaged children "cruel and selfish"? What planet do you live on?

To even consider 'taxpayer money' as part of the discussion? Get help.

Corvo

Daily Mail esq

darced

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is testimony given under oath by medical workers in the US.



More here, including a photograph which was used in court of the poor baby http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gosnell-trial-witness-baby-abortion-survivor-was-swimming-toilet-trying-get-out

From a Doctor that acted outside the law and was prosecuted for same.

Why are you trying to smear all Doctors with the same brush?

NewYork1979

Laura Palmer wrote: »

But that could be said about an opinion expressed in relation to anything. People can still convey their views even if something doesn't directly affect them.

I'm partially pro-choice as I'm not in favour of late-term abortion (wouldn't judge someone for it though as it's unlikely a lightly taken decision and I don't know what led to it) but something I don't get about some pro-choicers is how black and white they can be, and even lacking in compassion, when they tend to be very compassionate and non black and white when it comes to anything else.

I really don't know how anyone can be so black and white on any side of the abortion debate, it is such a grey area. I think we all have our base opinion based on our own experiences, morals, values etc but god I really don't know how anyone can just be black or white about it, no situation is the same.

Stealthfins

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Is that it? Just ignore all the health complications and argue from a purely emotional standpoint? I would just love see how out of your depth you would look in a room full of doctors.

Refusing to abort a child just because it doesn't appease your morals is selfishness and I find those parents to be disgusting. I would never allow my children to be born with a disability because I care about them and I'm not an idiot.

I'm sure the parents of DS kids do love their children, they're just incredibly misguided.

I'm sure in the future before the baby is born they're going to be able to diagnose all types of defects from emotional to physical.

Such as chemical imbalances which can lead to depression and maybe cell growth deformities which can lead to cancer, blood cells which show the possibility of diabetes or or something similar.

What's your definition caring ?

Looking after something or getting well rid ?

Would you throw away the car because it's ran out of fuel. ..

bear1

This is an abomination of a thread. Can't believe it's still going on frankly.

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is testimony given under oath by medical workers in the US.



More here, including a photograph which was used in court of the poor baby http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gosnell-trial-witness-baby-abortion-survivor-was-swimming-toilet-trying-get-out

You do know that gosnell was doing stuff outside of the law right? Hence him being in court. Its not like this was common, there's always a few rogue doctors doing surgeries and treatments that aren't legal.

RDM_83 again

AngeGal wrote: »

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread because frankly the discussion is far too complex and nuanced for After Hours. However, the above is a disgusting remark. To call people who care for their disadvantaged children "cruel and selfish"? What planet do you live on?

To even consider 'taxpayer money' as part of the discussion? Get help.

There's a really good question here RE the value of life and how we judge it in terms of mental capacity. Mercy killing and the ethics behind this and the fact that many define an entities (fetus/child/person) value elusively of one part of its condition (presence in the womb).
Its unfortunate that that the issue is impossible to talk without people jumping to either extreme, and this being boards.ie its 10-1 pro-choice vs pro-life so cr@p like "so you think woman are just breeding machines" that doesn't address any of the issues diverts the actual point.
Its also worth noting how the uniformed posters are about abortion/termination law when this is the most thanked post

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

What's 'close to full tern?' iirc, abortions are only legal up to 24 weeks, not full term.

Edit: ridiculous thread title, too. Nothing you've posted indicates that full term abortions are being offered.

Abortion hasn't suddenly been redefined to mean only "optional" abortion

opiniated

robinph wrote: »

How is it horrendous? You have no details at all on the condition of the baby in that case on which to base that claim. Extremely unlikely that they did anything to kill the baby, they may have done something to ease its pain and suffering for the few moments it had to live once born.

Since I have no details on the condition of the baby, neither do you.
Yet you can infer the above, without said details. Agenda much?

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Rubbish. Infanticide is unlawful. This is perfectly legal and justified, as I will explain when addressing the rest of your post.



The ones you meet on the street wouldn't be, they've been released from hospital. There are others who aren't so fortunate. Some never even see daylight.



Ah, this is where demonstrate your naivity. You think DS is just an intellectual disability? You couldn't be more wrong. Here is a list of health complications associated Down's: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/complications/con-20020948

• Heart defects. About half the children with Down syndrome are born with some type of heart defect. These heart problems can be life-threatening and may require surgery in early infancy.
• Leukemia. Young children with Down syndrome have an increased risk of leukemia.
• Infectious diseases. Because of abnormalities in their immune systems, those with Down syndrome are much more at risk of infectious diseases, such as pneumonia.
• Dementia. People with Down syndrome have a greatly increased risk of dementia — signs and symptoms may begin around age 50. Those who have dementia also have a higher rate of seizures. Having Down syndrome also increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.
• Sleep apnea. Because of soft tissue and skeletal changes that lead to the obstruction of their airways, children and adults with Down syndrome are at greater risk of obstructive sleep apnea.
• Obesity. People with Down syndrome have a greater tendency to be obese compared with the general population.
• Other problems. Down syndrome may also be associated with other health conditions, including gastrointestinal blockage, thyroid problems, early menopause, seizures, ear infections, hearing loss, skin problems such as psoriasis, skeletal problems and poor vision.

Of course it does. It is cruel and selfish of parents to allow their children to be born with physical and intellectual disadvantages. Who is going to look after them when the parents die?

It's bad enough us tax-payers have to foot the bill for the selfish decisions just because aborting or euthanizing a child doesn't appease their parent's morals.



Your opinion is invalid because it's a load of unscientific bollocks.

To suggest that people in hospitals or institutions never see daylight is a gross exaggeration.

As to the conditions that some Downs Syndrome patients may acquire?
Seriously?
The majority of those conditions are widespread throughout the population, and are easily treatable with antibiotics, or immunisation.

As to the remainder.
Heart defects: Common enough where there is a family history. Also can be acquired as a complication of various illnesses.
Does that mean that anyone with a family history of heart disease should abort their children, since they are at increased risk? Or does it mean that those who acquire heart defects should be euthanized? If so, at what age would this be an option? Before they're a year old? Younger? Older?

What about people who have a family history of Leukemia, or Cancer?
should they be prevented from becoming parents because their child might go on to develop an illness? What about where there is no family history, but someone develops a form of cancer? Euthanasia?

Do you begin to see the moral and ethical questions yet?

More importantly, however, is your assertion that parents who choose to care for a child with a disabilty are "cruel and selfish".
They are the complete opposite. They are loving, caring, incredibly unselfish and generous human beings.

A physical or mental disability is just that - A disability. That does not mean that disabled people are not able and gifted in many ways, or that they cannot contribute to society. It certainly should not mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be born.

Finally, your comment about "Us taxpayers"! "Us taxpayers" don't all share your views, thankfully. Particularly the taxpayers who happen to have a disability.

If that's "unscientific bollocks" then I'm rather happy to side with the caring and compassionate scientific community. The ones who try to develop medicines and treatments for various illnesses and disabilities.
I'm equally happy to be a member of the unscientific community who value caring and compassion above any notions of perfection or cost to the taxpayer. It feels a lot more humane than what you propose.

suicide_circus

Eugenics back in vogue I see. I'm out.

xXxkorixXx

I completely disagree with the situation, no baby no matter what it may have should be aborted it's disgusting. I'm sorry, but I do hope this woman gets what she deserves. That poor innocent baby. In my eyes. That's murder!

volchitsa

opiniated wrote: »

More importantly, however, is your assertion that parents who choose to care for a child with a disabilty are "cruel and selfish".
They are the complete opposite. They are loving, caring, incredibly unselfish and generous human beings.

Of course in Ireland they actually don't choose, that choice is made for them.
So while that may be true for people who could have aborted but didn't, it isn't relevant in a country where abortion isn't a choice.
That may be why there is apparently no problem in Ireland withdrawing medical cards for example from such parents, since they might have chosen not to be unselfish. If they had had the possibility.