Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

splinter65

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

If Repeal and abortion on demand goes through.
Is there then an obligation on the parents to abort a DS positive foetus.

Surely it would be self indulgent of the parents to keep such a child who will always be a burden on the state and will never contribute to the states coffers.

There may be going to be some sort of appeal system whereby you could make a case for yourselves to be allowed to continue with your pregnancy but only I’d imagine if you sign away any entitlement your handicapped child would have to public healthcare , child benefit etc.
If you want to rear a handicapped child when you had an option not to, you can’t expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

splinter65

mahamageehad wrote: »

I see where you're going with that, but obligated is just another way of saying forced. I doubt you'll find anyone who would agree with forced abortions or consider them a good thing, regardless of the circumstances.

Edit - I see Jayo got there before me, great minds etc etc.

No what I notice a lot is people remarking (Facebook)how self indulgent they regard parents who decide to continue with a pregnancy even though a FFA has been diagnosed.
“Putting the baby through all that pain just so you can feel good about yourself”
If you point out that it’s slightly hypocritical to refer to the fetus as a baby and describe it as feeling pain when you’ve just said it’s non sentient then, obviously your a Nazi.

um7y1h83ge06nx

The thread title is so BS.

Taking it as face value I thought a crazy extreme party in some European country wanted children with Down syndrome euthanised, led away for a lethal injection.

When I think of genocide I think of the Yugoslav wars, the Holocaust, Rwanda etc.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mahamageehad

splinter65 wrote: »

No what I notice a lot is people remarking (Facebook)how self indulgent they regard parents who decide to continue with a pregnancy even though a FFA has been diagnosed.
“Putting the baby through all that pain just so you can feel good about yourself”
If you point out that it’s slightly hypocritical to refer to the fetus as a baby and describe it as feeling pain when you’ve just said it’s non sentient then, obviously your a Nazi.

Firstly, I haven't seen anyone remarking that, here or on facebook. Maybe that's just your circle? It's an incredibly judgemental attitude, if a woman is pregnant with a baby that won't survive outside the womb, I wouldn't judge her for continuing a pregnancy or aborting it, I'd support her either way. Secondly, that's completely off topic as DS is a spectrum, it's not a FFA or incompatible with life at least in the vast vast majority of cases.

The jury is out on whether a foetus can feel pain. Scientists are basically in agreement that it's not even possible til the 3rd trimester, and even at that there's doubt on the capacity to feel pain. Babies born with a condition that means that they're in constant pain, well that's a different kettle of fish. That's life at all costs, but many seem to think that that's preferable or more "moral".

FutureGuy

end of the road wrote: »

you can have an abortion, hop on the boat to the uk. nobody is stopping you from doing that.

What an incredibly ignorant fcuking post. Well done you.

FutureGuy

Doltanian wrote: »

I am against abortion and a Christian as is my Girlfriend, we both actually discussed the matter one evening when we were listening to the whole Abortion debate and agreed we would have an abortion if the baby was deformed or unlikely to live etc. We both are against abortion in Ireland and there is access to Abortion in the UK if required. The status quo should remain here.

What I am against is the liberal marxists pushing for Abortion on demand and under no circumstances should a healthy baby ever be aborted, mental illness of the mother should not be a valid reason either. Its a very delicate situation and all pregnant women should be scanned so as to allow them to make informed decisions. There has been cases where a woman gave birth to a downs syndrome baby and totally disowned the child placing it into care.This type of situation should be avoided at all costs.

Interesting. What an utterly flippant comment. You make it sound like it's an easy trip, one with little or no problems.

I'd strongly encourage you to read the stories of women who have had to travel with/without their partners, particularly after receiving devastating news on an anomaly scan.

Do that and ask yourself the question "would I wish it on myself and my partner"? Because, quite frankly, it's something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.

A Little Pony

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If you want an abortion, you should be able to have one. If you don't want to have an abortion, you shouldn't have to have one.
No one should be able to dictate what another adult does with their reproductive organs. They aren't the ones left holding the baby so its no ones business apart from the two people the decision actually affects.
That's what it all boils down to. To believe you have a say in how someone else goes about their life implies a level of superiority I can't even begin to understand.

So you do think an abortion at 20-27 weeks is fine?

circadian

Oh! Look! Another strawman setup.

SusieBlue

A Little Pony wrote: »

So you do think an abortion at 20-27 weeks is fine?

No, I don't. The vast majority wouldn't.
Why do you keep addressing single points I make rather than the whole post?
Is it because you have nothing to argue back with on the rest of what I'm saying?

A Little Pony

circadian wrote: »

Oh! Look! Another strawman setup.

The person thinks abortion at 27 weeks should be legal, nothing strawman about pointing that out.

SusieBlue

A Little Pony wrote: »

The person thinks abortion at 27 weeks should be legal, nothing strawman about pointing that out.

Please quote where I said abortion at 27 weeks should be legal because I never ever said that. You literally just made that up.

A Little Pony

WhiteRoses wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So you do think an abortion at 20-27 weeks is fine?

No, I don't. The vast majority wouldn't.
Why do you keep addressing single points I make rather than the whole post?
Is it because you have nothing to argue back with on the rest of what I'm saying?

You personally wouldn't but you think abortion should be legal regardless, so in essence in your world abortion at 27 weeks would be perfectly legal. You can disagree with something and think it should be legal which seems to be your position.

snowflaker

Doltanian wrote: »

I am against abortion and a Christian as is my Girlfriend, we both actually discussed the matter one evening when we were listening to the whole Abortion debate and agreed we would have an abortion if the baby was deformed or unlikely to live etc. We both are against abortion in Ireland and there is access to Abortion in the UK if required. The status quo should remain here.

What I am against is the liberal marxists pushing for Abortion on demand and under no circumstances should a healthy baby ever be aborted, mental illness of the mother should not be a valid reason either. Its a very delicate situation and all pregnant women should be scanned so as to allow them to make informed decisions. There has been cases where a woman gave birth to a downs syndrome baby and totally disowned the child placing it into care.This type of situation should be avoided at all costs.

But sure ye won't have to worry about that til yer married!

Slave to the Rhythm (Method)

SusieBlue

A Little Pony wrote: »

You personally wouldn't but you think abortion should be legal regardless, so in essence in your world abortion at 27 weeks would be perfectly legal. You can disagree with something and think it should be legal which seems to be your position.

Now you are manipulating what I said in order to suit your own agenda.

Can you please clarify why you feel you have a right to decide what another woman does with her body?
Why you feel your own beliefs are so superior that EVERYONE should have to adhere to them?

And please, don't reply with a 'think of the children' type reply.
Because you've made it clear you don't give a sh*t what happens the child or the struggling parents after its born.

bucketybuck

A Little Pony wrote: »

You personally wouldn't but you think abortion should be legal regardless, so in essence in your world abortion at 27 weeks would be perfectly legal. You can disagree with something and think it should be legal which seems to be your position.

What is your position on parents having to put the rest of their lives on hold to become full time carers for people with downs syndrome?

Are their lives meaningless? Do their hopes and ambitions have no value? Why does the life of a potential child take precedent over theirs?

Do you have any sympathy for them whatsoever? And do you have the balls to answer the question?

January

A Little Pony wrote: »

So you do think an abortion at 20-27 weeks is fine?

I support abortion as early as possible and as late as necessary. Knowing that 0.2% of abortions take place after the 20th week of pregnancy I'm very comfortable knowing that abortions that do take place at or around week 27 are due to heart breaking circumstances such as ffa or immediate threat to the mothers life. At 27 weeks if a healthy woman requested termination of a healthy foetus what would happen is a termination of pregnancy and the foetus placed in care of the state until such a time the parent/s could look after it or adopted.

Jayop

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Please quote where I said abortion at 27 weeks should be legal because I never ever said that. You literally just made that up.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Now you are manipulating what I said in order to suit your own agenda.

Can you please clarify why you feel you have a right to decide what another woman does with her body?
Why you feel your own beliefs are so superior that EVERYONE should have to adhere to them?

And please, don't reply with a 'think of the children' type reply.
Because you've made it clear you don't give a sh*t what happens the child or the struggling parents after its born.

Pony is the very same in all threads I've ever encountered them in. Completely clueless about the subject in which they are talking about so resort to making up nonsense like that to try to score points. Be careful what you say though because that little report button is the next line of defense.

Annasopra

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Us Irish have a long & proud history on how we accept & view people with down syndrome so could we be a special case & break the trend.

What is this long and proud history you speak of?

Wombatman

Wombatman wrote: »

Have they developed a test for gingers yet?

If wonder if they have developed a test for idiots yet?

eviltwin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What is this long and proud history you speak of?

We patronize them with the Special Olympics and give them underpaid jobs packing bags in supermarkets

jimmycrackcorm

In all likelihood we will have some form of abortion available here. I don't see a distinction about making a choice to abort based on a DS test vs any other reason.

Annasopra

harr wrote: »

As a parent with a child with DS I still think it’s a woman’s choice what she wants to do...yes a lot of kids and adults with DS function very well but like our case a lot of kids with DS have more severe symptoms and not to mention the other health issues that come with DS.
Normally charities and campaigners will always show examples of high functioning people with DS, rarely do we see the more severe cases...and expectant mothers really need to weigh up the facts before making that decision..both financially and emotionally not everyone is cut out to be a parent of a special needs child..

You also never hear people who go on about children with DS or other disabilities arguing for increased investment in services for people with DS or ID. Having a child with DS or ID can be quite a difficult task - it can cause huge family stress and strain and often breakups as well quite often poverty for the family. Parents who end up as carers for their adult children can often have an extremely difficult life and they have to fight the state tooth and nail for support and services.

Neyite

Dynamic Generator wrote: »

They should look after their child and receive every assistance to do so. That is the only logical and humane answer.

Yeah Ireland don't do that either. In fact, Ireland is pretty sh!t at giving it's disabled citizens the resources they need to live as good a life as they can with their limitations. Our special needs resources are scant and useless and kids only get things like hearing aids, speech and language therapy and all that stuff after a long bloody waiting list.

Then they have to reapply for the bloody medical card every year despite the child clearly having a condition that it's not possible to grow out of or cure.

I'd love to see every pro-life advocate who calls abortion murder to give actual hands-on help to those that are disabled. Make it mandatory. You are that much of a pro-life preacher, get cracking helping insert feeding tubes, lugging around oxygen tanks, navigating broken paths and illegal drivers on footpaths with wheelchairs. Sit for three hours sorting out paperwork or travelling across the country to avail of yet another consultant appointment. Instead of wringing their hands uselessly and calling those parents "saints" Do some practical stuff.

A Little Pony

WhiteRoses wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

You personally wouldn't but you think abortion should be legal regardless, so in essence in your world abortion at 27 weeks would be perfectly legal. You can disagree with something and think it should be legal which seems to be your position.

Now you are manipulating what I said in order to suit your own agenda.

Can you please clarify why you feel you have a right to decide what another woman does with her body?
Why you feel your own beliefs are so superior that EVERYONE should have to adhere to them?

And please, don't reply with a 'think of the children' type reply.
Because you've made it clear you don't give a sh*t what happens the child or the struggling parents after its born.

I'm not manipulating anything you said, the fact is a person can have an abortion at 27 weeks in your world because that is what you said by saying abortion should be legal and basically no questions asked.  I am picking you up on your position, you didn't clarify it by including any time limits. 

So I didn't make anything up, it is in black and white, people can read it for themselves. At least be honest with your positions, if you believe abortion should be legal, that includes non time limits as your post indicates, then that is your position, I can't change that. 

It also doesn't matter if it is a very small number of people who have abortions after 20 weeks, when you legalize abortion on demand, then anyone who is pregnant can have an abortion for whatever reason, it would be legal in law. What I think about that is irrelevant because the law would dictate they would be allowed to do that and as I follow the rule of law I would have to accept that.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Can you please clarify why you feel you have a right to decide what another woman does with her body?

we aren't deciding anything of the sort. a woman can have an abortion, by going to the uk.

Jayop

end of the road wrote: »

we aren't deciding anything of the sort. a woman can have an abortion, by going to the uk.

Apart from those that can't for financial or legal reasons.

Apart from them.

Annasopra

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't want a child with DS. I have 4 children, and having a child with DS would have a serious impact on our ability to give those existing children the kind of start in life I want them to have.

Even if I did not already have children, I would not want to have a child with DS. I don't believe in life at any cost or irrespective of the quality of that life. I would not want to bring a child with DS into the world, i would not want to because I would not intentionally bring a child into the world where I knew that child would suffer. Additionally, and quite selfishly, I would not want to suffer the impact it would have on my life.

All that said, if someone else wants to bring a child with DS into the world then all power to them. I salute them. It is entirely their choice, and I support that. After all, I am pro-choice.

MrP

I get that. On the other hand your view that everything about a DS person is suffering is completely untrue.

January

end of the road wrote: »

we aren't deciding anything of the sort. a woman can have an abortion, by going to the uk.

Except for those that can't. Probably the ones who need access to it most

SusieBlue

Dynamic Generator wrote: »

Good. Anything that discourages abortion is to be welcomed.

Yes. Because God forbid a person has a say in what happens to their body and in what course their life takes.

Electric Sheep

Neyite wrote: »

I'd love to see every pro-life advocate who calls abortion murder to give actual hands-on help to those that are disabled. Make it mandatory. You are that much of a pro-life preacher, get cracking helping insert feeding tubes, lugging around oxygen tanks, navigating broken paths and illegal drivers on footpaths with wheelchairs. Sit for three hours sorting out paperwork or travelling across the country to avail of yet another consultant appointment. Instead of wringing their hands uselessly and calling those parents "saints" Do some practical stuff.

Not going to happen. The "child" is only important before it's born, pro-lifers don't care after it's born.

eviltwin

Dynamic Generator wrote: »

Good. Anything that discourages abortion is to be welcomed.

It probably won't discourage abortion. It will likely encourage those women to have unsafe abortions. Generally those who are unable to travel are the most vulnerable and they are usually the most desperate and the most likely to be exploited.

Ulysses Gaze

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

If Repeal and abortion on demand goes through.
Is there then an obligation on the parents to abort a DS positive foetus.

Surely it would be self indulgent of the parents to keep such a child who will always be a burden on the state and will never contribute to the states coffers.

Sesame

Haven't read all the replies but in response sent to the first post

"I'm interested if firstly this test would be accepted in Ireland & if it were then what would our respective termination figure be."

This test is called harmony (and there are others) and is already carried out in Ireland. You can pay around €300 and get the done at around 9 weeks gestation. It's just a blood test.

Irish women are already using it though make decisions.
This is technological advancement We can now find out during the first 3 months about any chromosomal issues. Why wouldn't we use this technology to both prepare for impending births or to decide to abort and start the conceiving process again without too much upset and lost time.

Why would we not take advantage while this technology? Or should Ireland remain in the dark ages and leave it all as a "surprise".

And no one would chose a child with a chromosomal disorder over a child without. If someone said you can choose one or the other, no one would chose to have a child who has health issues and developmental issues throughout their life over equality child who may not have these issues. I really don't see any moral or ethical dilemma with following Denmark and the UK and choosing to use the technology that exists. The chose after is the question, not the technology itself.

And no we will never have those high levels of aborting foetuses that test positive for chromosomal issues due to the Catholic culture here. But women that are not Catholic or other wise should continue be able to use this technology for helping to make their own decisions. All these moral and ethical issues are so personal to each individual family it shouldn't be something a government or supposed moral guardian should be deciding for everyone else.

Jayop

Dynamic Generator wrote: »

It's not just your life and body though, is it? If I get a girl pregnant should I be allowed shirk my duties as a father because it's an inconvenience? No.

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=863148&sort=newest

YAWN

meeeeh

end of the road wrote: »

we aren't deciding anything of the sort. a woman can have an abortion, by going to the uk.

Ah so you are in favour of rights for those who have money and lack of rights for poor and vulnerable. This is all the anti abortion side is about. Control...

screamer

Those tests already exist op.....so why the outrage I don't know. These tests can only give a likelihood of DS. The only test that can confirm it is amniosynthesis.
As to abortion which is a whole different topic....I'm on the fence. What use is life with little or no quality to it? And that's for a much wider range of things than DS. Who knows what we'd decide if faced with such awful diagnoses. It's all grand to be high horsed with some perfect notion of life....but back in the real world there's **** hands dealt every day and tough heartbreaking decisions to be made.

The Legend Of Kira

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Down Syndrome isnt some race of people to destroy. Its a condition which has huge implications on the child and the parents.

What you describe is a test which allows parents to know if their child will be born with a condition that prevents them from living a normal life and also which prevents that child from maturing and being independent from the parents.

I know that if i knew my child would be born with Downs then i would absolutely terminate. I couldn't imagine myself being a 70 year old aging father and still having to take care of my child.

Downs isnt just a visual and mental condition. It comes with a host of other medical problems too.

"" Down Syndrome isnt some race of people to destroy ""

Replying to this quote from your post.  people with down syndrome are a minority group , given that they are a minority group what legal protections ( If any )  do you think they should have under the law before birth & after birth ?

Jayop

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Down Syndrome isnt some race of people to destroy ""

Replying to this quote from your post.  people with down syndrome are a minority group , given that they are a minority group what legal protections ( If any )  do you think they should have under the law before birth & after birth ?

The same as everyone else.

pickarooney

I wonder who are the parents who get the test done and decide to go ahead with the pregnancy anyway. Seems a bit pointless.

The Legend Of Kira

Somedaythefire wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Im baffled by this logic, someone on death row for serious crimes its wrong for them to face the death penalty, but an innocent unborn baby who,s completely defenseless & never harmed anyone its ok to end such life prematurely by abortion, Im truly baffled & don,t get such logic , reason I asked question in context was to see people.s opinion in comparison on the two .

Fetuses aren't babies.

When a woman suffers a miscarriage why is it described as a miscarriage of a baby & not a miscarriage of a fetus ?

eviltwin

pickarooney wrote: »

I wonder who are the parents who get the test done and decide to go ahead with the pregnancy anyway. Seems a bit pointless.

No it's not. It gives them time to prepare, come to terms with the diagnosis, research options etc.

The Legend Of Kira

Jayop wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Down Syndrome isnt some race of people to destroy ""

Replying to this quote from your post.  people with down syndrome are a minority group , given that they are a minority group what legal protections ( If any )  do you think they should have under the law before birth & after birth ?

The same as everyone else.

So you re in favour of laws protecting unborn babies with down syndrome from abortion then ?

January

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

When a woman suffers a miscarriage why is it described as a miscarriage of a baby & not a miscarriage of a fetus ?

Because when a pregnancy is wanted and an attachment forms calling it a baby makes it seem more real. When the pregnancy is unwanted or we are talking in general terms and not of specific pregnancies then foetus is used.

screamer

pickarooney wrote: »

I wonder who are the parents who get the test done and decide to go ahead with the pregnancy anyway. Seems a bit pointless.

It's not though. People would get it done to know what they are facing. I've heard many a time of parents who went in to have their baby and we're devestated to find out the baby had DS. I know I'd rather be mentally prepared for that than not.

gctest50

Sesame wrote: »

Haven't read all the replies but in response sent to the first post

"I'm interested if firstly this test would be accepted in Ireland & if it were then what would our respective termination figure be."

This test is called harmony (and there are others) and is already carried out in Ireland. You can pay around €300 and get the done at around 9 weeks gestation. It's just a blood test. ............

kinda OT but anyway, they've improved the process :

https://www.nature.com/articles/gim2017188

Jayop

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

When a woman suffers a miscarriage why is it described as a miscarriage of a baby & not a miscarriage of a fetus ?

If it helps them cope then they are welcome to call it a baby if they want. It's semantics and quite a pointless avenue to go down.

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

So you re in favour of laws protecting unborn babies with down syndrome from abortion then ?

Laws yes, not the current laws though, but you know that from my previous posts. I'm in favour of abortion on demand, so a fetus without DS could be aborted just like a fetus with DS. Like I said, the same laws for everyone.

The Legend Of Kira

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Im baffled by this logic, someone on death row for serious crimes its wrong for them to face the death penalty, but an innocent unborn baby who,s completely defenseless & never harmed anyone its ok to end such life prematurely by abortion, Im truly baffled & don,t get such logic , reason I asked question in context was to see people.s opinion in comparison on the two .

They're clearly not the same situation. It's a false equivalence. Do you understand the difference between a self aware prisoner and a developing fetus? Them both being genetically unique is not the salient point. The logic is clear:

Prisoner is sentient = true
Fetus is sentient = false

Prisoner suffers = true
Fetus suffers = false

Prisoner has a developed nervous system = true
Fetus " = false

Logic.

Baby has a beating heart , an abortion stops a beating heart = abortion ends a life, sure the babies life is at a different stage to that of the prisoner as in the babies life is at an early stage, but once someone intentionally stops a beating heart of a healthy unborn baby the life of the unborn baby is ended .

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

we aren't deciding anything of the sort. a woman can have an abortion, by going to the uk.

So. Let's come up with an exhaustive list of reasons why a woman may not be able to travel for an abortion. Let's assume for the sake of argument we're talking about a flight over in the AM and a return flight after dinner time:

- She cannot afford to
- She has other children and nobody to care for them
- She has a long term illness which makes long journeys impossible
- She had a physical disability which makes long journeys impossible
- She has a mental disability and is legally incapable of going
- She is a legal minor who is afraid of telling her parents
- She is in an abusive relationship and cannot tell her partner
- She is a ward of the state and cannot get permission to travel
- She is an illegal immigrant and cannot enter the UK (or leave Ireland)
- She is a legal immigrant but her visa will not permit travel to the UK


Anything else? I'm sure there are others.

Now, except maybe for the legal migrant, how many of those women would be better off with a(nother) child to take care of? Is it right to force both the child and the mother into such a life?