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

gctest50

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 ?

Never heard it described as a miscarriage of a baby

More something like " i had 2 miscarriages"

It's hardly miscarriage of a nissan micra ffs

Wombatman

gctest50 wrote: »

Never heard it described as a miscarriage of a baby

More something like " i had 2 miscarriages"

It's hardly miscarriage of a nissan micra ffs

It's not a Nissan Micra yet. It's just some molten metal and a pile of rubber and plastic.

seamus

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 ?

By whom?

Not by any doctors or medical literature, that's for certain.

In everyday use, it's just "miscarriage". You can't go inventing phrases and pretending that they prove anything.

gctest50

Wombatman wrote: »

It's not a Nissan Micra yet. It's just some molten metal and a pile of rubber and plastic.

That's nothin, have you seen my unmade Ferrari ?

The Legend Of Kira

eviltwin wrote: »

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

Have you ever worked in retail or worked in a supermarket ? I have- there were two men in their 20s who had down syndrome who also worked in the same supermarket that I worked in they worked 3 days part time for a few hours in the afternoon till evening hours & still gets their social welfare payments ; they used to pack bags at the checkouts; its more then likely they wouldn,t of being capable to using a till or taking credit card payments if they had problems with maths at school- hence why management likely never put them on the till; what,s wrong in allowing them work to the best of their own abilities ?

snowflaker

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

A non-invasive test for Down Syndrome is now being offered by public health care in some Northern European countries.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/down-syndrome-ireland-blasts-prenatal-testing-34969733.html

This improves on previous methods of testing as being non-intrusive & 99% accurate.

Now we all like to think of ourselves as loving beings but what are the facts so far with parents receiving the prognosis.

In Iceland 100% of parents opted to abort
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/babies-with-down-syndrome-deserve-love-not-eradication

In Denamrk that figure is 98%
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/28/denmark-wants-total-elimination-of-people-with-down-syndrome-aborts-98-of-babies/

In the Uk that figure is at 90% of those who have the test
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189

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

Fact check:

https://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/

those who get this specialised 2nd test tent to abord, but 100% of DS foetuses scanned are not aborted

Outlaw Pete

Grew up knowing a quite a few families that had children with Down Syndrome given that my own sister is Autistic (or "mentally handicapped" as she was referred to at the time) and such children tended to be rounded up and schooled together (St. Michael's House for those lucky enough to get their child placed). My parents did not cope so well and at 16 my sister was put into care, where she still is today in her late 30's. In that community care facility there are many adults with Down Syndrome, some of whom she has grown up with given that they too went to St. Michael's House and one who is even from the town we grew up in.

Some of those adults with Down Syndrome that I regularly see have very productive and happy lives and a few even hold down jobs in the local community. While I do my best, and try and take my sister for one day a week (since my father no longer can) it is very difficult and becoming increasingly so given that her mobility is in decline.

I say all this to give a little context as many are saying that the life of someone with Down Syndrome is difficult, for them and their families, which is true, it is, but many adults with autism have lives which can be even more difficult. So, are they next? Should it be okay to extinguish their lives as they are developing in the womb too? Just because their life will be difficult? Some of you point out many potential pitfalls that could lay ahead for an adult with down syndrome, and their families also, and then suggest this as justification for stilling their heartbeats. About as illogical and morally bankrupt as it gets.

Yes, it's true society needs to do much much more for those with special needs, and of course their families too, to ensure things are not nearly as difficult as they currently are. That is where the focus should be, not on making excuses for ending their lives just as they have begun. We should not have the right to kill someone because of a non-fatal birth defect or a disability (unless the mother's life is at risk). Human beings are not products, to be binned when we spot a defective one. Yet this is the mindset being promoted at an alarming rate these days.

end of the road

Jayop wrote: »

I have more* respect for that than the crap that the other lad was spouting that if they want an abortion, fine but go to England.

At least if you want to ban abortions have the courage of your convictions to want it completely banned and not BS people with that ****e about everyone can get one if they want.


*more than a very small starting point, still not much.

there is no point in looking for it to be banned all over the world, that's not going to happen. we can only keep it out of here, we can't stop people going abroad however unless they are breaking the rules such as not having the correct documentation.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

there is no point in looking for it to be banned all over the world, that's not going to happen. we can only keep it out of here, we can't stop people going abroad however unless they are breaking the rules such as not having the correct documentation.

By "it" do you mean increased medical/surgical/patient-safety ?

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

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?

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

Lack of balls confirmed.

Guy:Incognito

Geuze wrote: »

Video by person with DS making presentation to US Congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQJEoRhkapw

I could take a video of my cousins child that has ds if you like. She has a host of other issues, can't speak, walk, eat orally (Shes fed through a tube in her stomach) and by all accounts won't see 20. Her mother had to give up work and is her 24/7 carer. Her older brother hasn't had a proper holiday in his life. If she does somehow live to be , say 70 and her parents are dead after a life of full time care, does her brother now have to become a carer in his 70's?


Much like any other pregnancy, the parents should have the choice. That choice won't have any effect on any aspect of your e life, despite the usual sky is falling nonsense. Sure we are all supposed to be burning in hell fire for letting the gays ruin marriage aren't we?

captbarnacles

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.

I used to think so too but it would really help to know. We barely managed looking after a healthy child. We wouldn't have been able to handle a disabled child without preparation if we chose that route.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

There's some seriously worrying crazy shít being spewed in here.

Doltanian wrote: »

The hypocrisy of Left-Wing Liberals they will defend the life of killers and murderers but gladly take away the life of innocents whether they are healthy or otherwise.

Considering this thread is about terminating seriously ill fetus, wtf does you post have to do with anything?

The discussion is about abortion, not about the death penalty.

end of the road wrote: »

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

Nobody should have to travel for this procedure just to appease the illogical morals of some incredibly egocentric people in our society.

Doltanian wrote: »

It's being responsible, you know Children cost money and a surprisingly large amount of it also. Both my partner and I will wait until after marriage so our future children will get the best start in life, we own our own home and have zero debts so a family is something we will be considering. The country has enough deadbeat dads and single mothers. Its called being responsible, being a father figure and caring for your partner and children.

Sex before marriage? You're not a real Christian, sorry to tell you.

A Little Pony wrote: »

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

A Little Pony wrote: »

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

A Little Pony wrote: »

So you agree with abortion of DS babies at 27 weeks, that is fine. At least you are honest and support on demand abortion.

Nobody said that, you are literally making things up. Using a worst case scenario to back up your entire argument. Late term pregnancies are incredibly rare, as already highlighted, but this is the foundation of your argument. Actually, this seems to be your only argument. Your opinions are very immature.

Your posting style is so childish. You do this in all threads where you hold an opinion, however wrong it is, that differs from others. You make something up and just repeat, repeat, repeat... like seriously, how can you possibly think this works? It's incredibly shallow.

CerebralCortex

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

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 .

So? It seems like you're equivocating on the word life. Do you mean in a biological sense? If yes that has no impact on ethical concerns relative developmental stage. Can you mean life in the metaphysical sense? Like a soul or spirit? In that case no amount of reasoned argument will convince you. Besides a fetus is not a baby. Elderly people have a beating heart are you into life extension?

endacl

rawn wrote: »

WHAT DOES GODWINNING MEAN?!

Opposite of godlosing?

endacl

snowflaker wrote: »

Fact check:

https://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/

those who get this specialised 2nd test tent to abord, but 100% of DS foetuses scanned are not aborted

Careful now. You don’t want to be bringing facts and such into a conversation around abortion...

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

By "it" do you mean increased medical/surgical/patient-safety ?

no just the act of killing an unborn child. has no place in this country bar very extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is under threat. something which is facilitated for now. anything outside that, you are able to go to the uk.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

no just the act of killing an unborn child. has no place in this country bar very extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is under threat. something which is facilitated for now. anything outside that, you are able to go to the uk.

Wombatman wrote: »

You have to be born and grow a bit to qualify as a child. Could you change the red top headline please.

.

Oldtree

I firmly believe in a woman's choice, and had no issue with it when I was young and it was a possible sinareo I would face.

I don't think I will be having any more children at my age so it dosn't apply to me now, but it may apply to my daughter in the future.

This, when I think on it, in a possible future leaves me somewhat conflicted and sad almost grieving, in that it may be my potential grandchild we are talking about, DS or not. But I would fully support my daughters decision 100% without any undue influence.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

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

Not good enough. It is not accessible for poorer women or msny migrants. The current situation is discriminatory against the most vulnerable.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

no just the act of killing an unborn child. has no place in this country bar very extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is under threat. something which is facilitated for now. anything outside that, you are able to go to the uk.

You should campaign to ban travel and campaign to repeal the 13th amendment. But no you wont. This "not on my Island" but perfectly fine in UK mentality is extreme hypocrysy.

Wombatman

gctest50 wrote: »

That's nothin, have you seen my unmade Ferrari ?

Some on here would surely look to tax and insure their unmade car.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

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.

Forewarned is forearmed I suppose. If you can know in advance, then you can educate the sh1t out of yourself on what to expect.

It's not an easy decision in any case. Someone who may have said before pregnancy that they would abort in the case of DS may have a change of heart when they actually become pregnant, but get the test anyway.

Hector Savage

Mickeroo wrote: »

Every sperm is sacred.

Reminds me of

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/03/19/dozens-attend-pro-life-protest-outside-teenagers-bedroom-who-insists-on-aborting-sperm/

sorry if already posted

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

no just the act of killing an unborn child. has no place in this country bar very extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is under threat. something which is facilitated for now. anything outside that, you are able to go to the uk.

But why should they go to the UK? Whether it happens here or abroad there is the same outcome.

You are so concerned with these unborn children, what about when they are born to unfit parents or born disabled to parents who cannot cope?
What would be your advice to people in these circumstances?

ohnonotgmail

WhiteRoses wrote: »

But why should they go to the UK? Whether it happens here or abroad there is the same outcome.

You are so concerned with these unborn children, what about when they are born to unfit parents or born disabled to parents who cannot cope?
What would be your advice to people in these circumstances?

EOTR is not in the slightest bit concerned about unborn children, they only care that the abortion doesnt take place in ireland.

Hector Savage

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How do you explain the large percentage of women who are anti abortion. Are they self hating women?

It's a cognitive dissonance , I would say it's similar to the women who still want to associate themselves with the Catholic Church despite the appalling things coming to light in recent years.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hector Savage

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Frank Stephens gave this speech recently about screening for down syndrome & abortion of babies with down syndrome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQJEoRhkapw

I dont understand the relevance ?

Is someone suggestion this guy should be killed ???

nozzferrahhtoo

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Frank Stephens gave this speech recently about screening for down syndrome & abortion of babies with down syndrome.

Indeed, but other than the fact he himself has DS..... did he offer any salient points that other people against this scientific progress has not already made and been rebutted?

Because if not, is this video anything more than an emotive appeal, rather than an actual argument of note?

Also contrast that video with the link to the story about the mother who wished she had aborted. You are trotting out a relatively "high functioning" person with DS. DS is not a single instance thing that is the same across everyone. There is a continuum of determinant/potential there that is not negated by rolling one of the more positive examples of it in front of the camera circus show.

Maybe try and get the DS Adult from the newspaper link to repeat the same speech before congress and see how that goes for you?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Quick question to people who support choice to abort a down syndrome unborn baby,  what are your thoughts on people being put on death row for the death penalty, do you support or disagree with such laws ? I ll explain why I asked this question in this context based on answers I receive .

I am undecided on the death penalty I have to admit. I think I err on being against it, but it is not a subject I have sat down and really investigated "both sides" like I have with abortion. It is on my "to do" list. But as it is not something anyone is substantively proposing for Ireland, it is far down my to do list.

But the distinction for me is clear. When people CHOOSE to abort they BY FAR do so before 12 weeks of gestation and almost entirely do so before 16 weeks.

So such abortion by choice is the termination of an entity that lacks, not slightly but entirely, the faculty of human consciousness or sentience and is as such not an entity of moral and ethical concern for me.

Someone being terminated in the death penalty however is.

So whatever the motivation of your question turns out to be, which you appear to be holding close to your chest for whatever reasons, I would hope it is one that is cognizant of that distinction. I suspect however it does not, and your point is not going to be the "gotcha" you believe it is going to be.

Because then it would be like saying to me "You think it is ok to rip up a blue print, but not to knock down someones house???" because it would essentially be the same (non) argument you are offering.

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 ?

Where that happens (and I do not think it is universal as you might want to pretend and I have certainly heard it ZERO times in all the miscarriages I have heard of) it is a simple result of narrative and nothing needs to be explained.

But if you need explanation I will offer one anyway.

It IS a fetus. People who have become invested in that fetus, and what it represents for them and their future, call it a baby. The word "baby" is representative of their emotional investment in what the fetus represents..... not what the fetus actually IS.

We are a creature of narrative. This is known. Our language is representative more of THAT, than actual realities it is used to describe.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

The Genocide of Down Syndrome children in Nothern Europe, perhaps coming soon

Some of these tests are done in the first trimester. Calling these things "children" is where your error lies, and is just an attempt to be emotive where there is no cause to be.

At that point you can look at the fetus as being a blue print for the child you are planning to create and build. And I think the onus is on parents to study that blue print as closely as our science allows and decide FOR THEMSELVES (generally, I can imagine exceptions) whether they believe it is ethical, or personally right for them, to build the child the blue print is for.

c_man wrote: »

Eugenics and abortion hand in hand? Colour me shocked.

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

It's the targeted termination of a subset of people who share a common trait.

Interesting that the first definition of Eugenics that google offers up when asked is "the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."

Your alarmist and emotive reference to it seems to fall on a few counts.

First the dark history of Eugenics was based in a government FORCING certain programs on the populace. What is being talked about HERE is giving parents the knowledge AND the choice about what kind of baby they want to produce. Fail number 1 from you.

Second the definition says it is to "increase the occurrence of desirable characteristics". What is being discussed here is the termination of a condition/disease. So rather than the increase of desirable characteristics, it is the termination of a negative and detrimental condition. So double fail from you there really.

But hooks adds a third fail over the other users first two. Calling a fetus "people". What definition and meaning of "people" or "person" are you using here? This is a FETUS. It has no sentience, no consciousness, no faculty for either, its cellular and organ functionality is barely differentiated, it is essentially a soulless meat based blue print for building a person. That is HARDLY comparable to the mass murders that were performed in the name of "Eugenics" in our past.

Three outright fails in one point though, is in itself rather impressive.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Some people in the west, all things being equal, don't want to raise a DS kid just as some people in the east, given the option don't want to raise a female kid.

Sure and at that point it becomes useful between questioning peoples rights to do X and peoples motivations for doing X.

I would happily question their motivation not to have a girl baby, and to terminate an early stage pregnancy on that basis. I would investigate with them the flaws in their society and culture and religions and their own conditioning that might have led to their choice.

I would not see it as an argument against their RIGHT to do so however.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That is where the focus should be, not on making excuses for ending their lives just as they have begun. We should not have the right to kill someone because of a non-fatal birth defect or a disability (unless the mother's life is at risk).

Why "should" we not exactly? I see no argument, other than the mere assertion of it here, that we should not have such a right. Specifically the right to terminate a fetus up to 16 weeks once the "defect" in question has been identified.

I absolutely think we should have that right. I see no argument why we should not. At that stage the fetus is little more than a meat based blue print for a person to be constructed. I see no reason to hold moral and ethical concern for it, let alone to the degree that it overrides the choices of the parent(s) to continue to feed materials and personal resources into developing that blue print into a person.

nozzferrahhtoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

People with DS are human beings like everyone else and deserve to have a chance at life and many can live a perfectly normal and loving life. It's just murder.

Yes PEOPLE with DS deserve all of that.

The fetus is not yet a person. It is the PARENTS choice, given their knowledge of the genetic issue in their fetus, whether they emotionally and ethically feel it is the right decision FOR THEM to create a person with that condition.

So no, not murder at all. I urge you to check the definition of murder in not just dictionary, but also in philosophy and law.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Just say you don't want down syndrome people in the world and be done with it, at least it's an intellectually honest argument.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

but many adults with autism have lives which can be even more difficult. So, are they next?

I include a reference to Pete's post here as my reply is not directly to it, but also relevant to it. I will include a more direct response elsewhere.

How is espousing a position one does not actually hold an "intellectually honest argument"??? Are you contriving openly not to make any sense, or what is your agenda there?

I have no problem with a world containing DS people. In fact I was moved to tears pretty much when Colin Farrell was on the faith based Gay Byrne talk show (sorry I forget the title of the show) and he talked about his work with such people.

In his view WE are the sick people and they are the well ones. Why? Because he said without a single exception these people were full of love of life, engaged and enjoying every activity he saw them do. Whereas we are the ones walking around stressed, and sick, and worried and with neurotic investment over many things that are mere petty concerns.

A world with them in it is a wonderful place! But that does not mean any parent should be compelled, or in any way admonished, to produce such a person if they do not so wish and if their decision NOT to is made and executed long before the fetus transitions into a stage when we can even REMOTELY consider it a person, or an entity to which we should assign rights.

Also, as I may have missed a few posts reading the thread quite quickly, can you tell me where you pulled "27 weeks" from exactly and what you were talking about specifically when you mentioned it?

Because you do know that when a termination of a pregnancy happens by choice, rather than by some medical emergency, it almost ENTIRELY happens before week 16 right? This is a stat you have been made away of before I hope?

A Little Pony wrote: »

Why? If you believe in abortion then time limits shouldn't matter as the end result is still the same, the ethics behind it remain the same.

Except they really do not remain the same AT ALL. There are stages of the fetal development process when we know (as much as we "know" anything in science) that the fetus lacks ENTIRELY the faculty of sentience and consciousness (A). There are stages where we "know" they have that faculty (C) (though to what operational functionality is debatable). And there is a grey area of transition in between. (B).

The ethics of abortion at A, B, and C are massively different. MASSIVELY. To have you pretend they are "the same" is nothing more than comedy.

AbusesToilets

What, precisely, is the issue with trying to screen for a terrible, debilitating condition? Is there some virtue in having DS children?

Hector Savage

January wrote: »

Oh and BTW abortions do happen in this country. Up to 5 a day happen in secret at home, using abortion pills procured from the internet. These women live in fear of someone telling the Garda they have done this and being prosecuted.

And it's such a shame that this is even necessary, getting pills from the net is so dangerous too.

Seems Ireland has a long way to go in it's respect and treatment of women.

erica74

For a lot of parents and families who have children with disabilities, the concern is when the parents get older or become unwell themselves and unable to care for their grown up children. In Ireland we may have a record as being very accepting of young children with disabilities but I see grown ups with disabilities not being treated with the same care and kindness as young children.

bucketybuck

WhiteRoses wrote: »

But why should they go to the UK? Whether it happens here or abroad there is the same outcome.

Its such a strange, hypocritical opinion to have. If you are against abortion that is one thing, but to claim you are against abortion but its fine because people can go somewhere else to get one? Thats just bizarre logic!

And then there is the guy who is supposedly against abortion, but happily states that if a baby didn't suit him he would just have his partner go to the UK for an abortion! The hypocrisy is just staggering!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In his view WE are the sick people and they are the well ones. Why? Because he said without a single exception these people were full of love of life, engaged and enjoying every activity he saw them do. Whereas we are the ones walking around stressed, and sick, and worried and with neurotic investment over many things that are mere petty concerns.

Do it matter at all that such love of life and enjoyment of activity is only possible on the backs of others who have to be stressed, sick and worried to facilitate that happiness?

Without wanting to be ignorant, how full of life and love would people with DS be if they had to make their own way in the world and received no more or less support than any of the rest of us?

And no, I don't say that disadvantaged people should be left to fend for themselves.

MrPudding

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

So no person with DS suffers, ever?

MrP

mahamageehad

We should pull back from the abortion debate here for a second and relook at the thread topic. Abortion in this specific case is just a potential side effect of the test. In any case, there's a specific thread for arguing about abortion.

So, what people who are anti-choice here are arguing against is access to a test. Actually, I've had an anti-choicer argue with me that no anomaly scans should be performed during pregnancy and that we should let nature have it's way just in case someone chooses to have an abortion. This was in relation to the revelation that in Galway they are dropping their anomaly scanning on cost basis. It'll still likely be available in special cases, but no longer available to everyone.

Yes, tests such as these do show up things life FFAs, LLCs and chromosomal disorders such as DS. But they also show up issues that can be corrected (e.g. with prenatal surgery) or that help doctors (and parents) prepare better for a birth. Often they just ease the mind of pregnant women that everything is ok. There is no question that these tests save lives, so why shouldn't they be allowed? Just because some are worried about what a parent make choose to do about a certain result? It's another facet of the pro-lies hypocrisy.

GreeBo

Its a highly emotive issue, made more so by sensationalist verbiage, on both sides.

Giving examples of born people with DS does nothing for the debate, the decision to abort is irrelevant here, its not an option. If we were talking about the removal of DS from society "right now" by preventing the birth of a chile with DS AND the rounding up already born DS sufferers, then and only then is it relevant. Thats not the case, so lets forget about people in society who have DS.

Now, the argument about when is a fetus a person and when does it have consciousness, when can it feel pain, etc are all moot. If thats the defining line, then we would all be annoying vegans.

Forcing abortion is probably over the line, you can easily make arguments for that approach (better for everyone in the long run, etc) but I personally think its a step too far, today.
Giving the ability to know in advance and allowing abortion seems like a very logical place to make a stand.
Avoiding abortion because of worries of inflicting pain on the fetus make no sense. Life is pain. Life with DS is incredibly more painful again; and for more people.

People shouldnt be forced into being martyrs, having a child with DS often means an inability to have further children (not medically, financially, emotionally, etc). Is this not denying the rights of these "unborn" children?
Is there that much of a difference between planning on having kids and being a couple of weeks pregnant, from a social point of view? Obviously its totally different on a number of levels, just ask anyone who cant have children, but from the point of view of making laws, the intent is the exact same. To bring life into the world. Forcing people to raise DS children is often denying them the right to bring other life into the world.

A person with DS is just as much a person as someone without DS. They have all the same rights in the world as anyone else.
The whole point of this test is to allow a decision to be made *before* its too late. A born baby is too late, its impossible to make a decision at that stage.

Also, why should FFA being the defining line? Everyone dies at some stage. FFA babies die very soon. Babies with CF die later but sooner than normal. DS babies die later than CF but sooner than normal. Babies with genetic heart defects die someone where in the middle. If you start drawing lines based on life expectancy you are immediately in trouble. Japanese people are living much longer than the rest of us. Should only Japanese babies be allowed to be born now?

Hardlining on choices is a very backward approach to life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do it matter at all that such love of life and enjoyment of activity is only possible on the backs of others who have to be stressed, sick and worried to facilitate that happiness?

Yes of course, which was kinda the message in the bits I wrote in my post AFTER the small bit you just quoted from me here

The exact distinction I am drawing is the same as yours, between the joy of having such people in the world, and the individual rights and choices of a parent who has been informed that is the blue print they have developing inside them.

The point being that the users idea that people who want this test, or choice based abortion, just want a world without DS people in it.... is a fantasy strawman THEY have invented for us.

mahamageehad

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, I mean I agree but I do think it's still an important issue to talk through because it's one of the foundations of the anti-choice campaign.

GreeBo

mahamageehad wrote: »

Yeah, I mean I agree but I do think it's still an important issue to talk through because it's one of the foundations of the anti-choice campaign.

Its an important issue in general, because, as a society, we are going to have to decide on something that impacts everyone.
That fact that the thread was started by a nutter is irrelevant. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

FishOnABike

splinter65 wrote: »

When does a fetus become a baby? Which day following conception is it a baby and no longer a fetus?

Tuesday. I think it's definitely Tuesday. Maybe...

seamus

GreeBo wrote: »

Its an important issue in general, because, as a society, we are going to have to decide on something that impacts everyone.
That fact that the thread was started by a nutter is irrelevant. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Sure, but it is worth noting that Down's Syndrome is the latest "battleground" for the anti-choice brigade in Iona.

And in that regard you have to consider where they're coming from: It would be the Catholic assertion that a Down's Syndrome child is a blessing in the same way that a permanent disability is; because Catholicism values suffering and hardship as the highest form of virtue.

Catholics don't oppose abortion of Down's Syndrome on the basis that they cherish DS children. They oppose it because they see it as a form of "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" rather than embracing and enduring a hardship that God has passed down to test you.

And before people start hopping up and down with, "I'm Catholic and I don't believe that" - your church does. And that's who I'm talking about.

DS like many chromosomal disorders falls outside any eugenics argument. DS people as a rule are typically non-reproductive (both due to infertility and incapability), and DS is not a heritable or detectable disorder for those without it. Therefore allowing the abortion of DS foetuses does not "purify" the gene pool, and does not lend itself to arguments that, "People will be aborting based on hair colour next".

People abort DS foetuses because it's a hard life for the person with DS and their family. Not because they're attempting to achieve genetic purity or have a "perfect family".
Those who choose to proceed should be respected and assisted as much as possible. Those who choose to not proceed, do not deserve to be demonised.

Hooks Golf Handicap

January wrote: »

Oh and BTW abortions do happen in this country. Up to 5 a day happen in secret at home, using abortion pills procured from the internet. These women live in fear of someone telling the Garda they have done this and being prosecuted.

I said this too over in the repeal thread but it was pointed out to me that the opposite is true.
Apparently women have gone as far as documenting their procurement of the pills & posted the same on social media, the authorities purposely look the other way.
The customs stop 100's of pills coming in but nobody follows up the person who ordered them.

GreeBo

seamus wrote: »

Sure, but it is worth noting that Down's Syndrome is the latest "battleground" for the anti-choice brigade in Iona.

And in that regard you have to consider where they're coming from: It would be the Catholic assertion that a Down's Syndrome child is a blessing in the same way that a permanent disability is; because Catholicism values suffering and hardship as the highest form of virtue.

Catholics don't oppose abortion of Down's Syndrome on the basis that they cherish DS children. They oppose it because they see it as a form of "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" rather than embracing and enduring a hardship that God has passed down to test you.

And before people start hopping up and down with, "I'm Catholic and I don't believe that" - your church does. And that's who I'm talking about.

DS like many chromosomal disorders falls outside any eugenics argument. DS people as a rule are typically non-reproductive (both due to infertility and incapability), and DS is not a heritable or detectable disorder for those without it. Therefore allowing the abortion of DS foetuses does not "purify" the gene pool, and does not lend itself to arguments that, "People will be aborting based on hair colour next".

People abort DS foetuses because it's a hard life for the person with DS and their family. Not because they're attempting to achieve genetic purity or have a "perfect family".
Those who choose to proceed should be respected and assisted as much as possible. Those who choose to not proceed, do not deserve to be demonised.

Which is why we have to separate the choice over this test from the choice to be Catholic. They should be two unrelated choices.

Being Catholic is a choice.
Making this test readily available, is a choice.

As a society we have an opinion and can make a decision on the test. Being Catcholic is a personal choice, just like *availing* of the test would be.

Making its *available* is not availing of the test.

FutureGuy

seamus wrote: »

Sure, but it is worth noting that Down's Syndrome is the latest "battleground" for the anti-choice brigade in Iona.

And in that regard you have to consider where they're coming from: It would be the Catholic assertion that a Down's Syndrome child is a blessing in the same way that a permanent disability is; because Catholicism values suffering and hardship as the highest form of virtue.

Catholics don't oppose abortion of Down's Syndrome on the basis that they cherish DS children. They oppose it because they see it as a form of "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" rather than embracing and enduring a hardship that God has passed down to test you.

And before people start hopping up and down with, "I'm Catholic and I don't believe that" - your church does. And that's who I'm talking about.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Hooks Golf Handicap

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Some of these tests are done in the first trimester. Calling these things "children" is where your error lies, and is just an attempt to be emotive where there is no cause to be.


Interesting that the first definition of Eugenics that google offers up when asked is "the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."

Your alarmist and emotive reference to it seems to fall on a few counts.

First the dark history of Eugenics was based in a government FORCING certain programs on the populace. What is being talked about HERE is giving parents the knowledge AND the choice about what kind of baby they want to produce. Fail number 1 from you.

Your retort seems to focus on my thread title being alarmist & misleading.
I will concede it was a little red top which served to draw the punters in.

Perhaps if I had the power to amend it I would but this message board software wont allow me to do that.

If a mod could do the necessary I suggest a title change to "Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Positive fetus's ".