- Boards
- Current Events
- Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome
|
Would you abort you baby if it were disabled? - Results (251 votes)
Yes
82.07%
206
No
17.93%
45
|
|
I mean, I won't abort anything because I can't get pregnant. but if I could, I wouldn't because I hate kids. But if I didn't hate kids and and could get pregnant and did, somehow, yes, I'd abort any obvious mental or physical deformities such that the child would have a severe handicap in life and make being a parent harder than it already is.
|
|
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
|
|
no answer, i dont plan to have kids
Drawn for me by | Popcorn_Fairy: https://i.imgtc.com/cvSNxRT.jpg | Volkswagen_Bros: http://i.imgur.com/86XOVXb.jpg | ShinobiNinjaX: https://imgur.com/bPb5vEV
|
|
I'm not sure when it comes to Down-Syndrome. I've met a few people with Down-Syndrome who have personalities, preferences, opinions, and even a sense of humor. Many of them work, have purpose and lead happy lives. Certainly there are many challenges, but it can definitely be argued it is not the worst disability to be born with.
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
3rd_Best_Master posted...
CountessRolab posted...Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that. This, but I think I might change my mind when I actually have a child. Seeing my child up close and making that decision would kill me.
The Official Odin of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board.
"You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me." |
|
NeoShadowhen posted...
Good god. 2/10 |
|
Capn Circus posted...
I'm not sure when it comes to Down-Syndrome. I've met a few people with Down-Syndrome who have personalities, preferences, opinions, and even a sense of humor. Many of them work, have purpose and lead happy lives. Certainly there are many challenges, but it can definitely be argued it is not the worst disability to be born with. This. |
|
littlebro07 posted...
Capn Circus posted...I'm not sure when it comes to Down-Syndrome. I've met a few people with Down-Syndrome who have personalities, preferences, opinions, and even a sense of humor. Many of them work, have purpose and lead happy lives. Certainly there are many challenges, but it can definitely be argued it is not the worst disability to be born with. |
|
To be completely honest, I would say there are some people living with Down-Syndrome that live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives than some people on CE.
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
TheMarthKoopa posted...
Could you walk up to a person with down syndrome and tell them they'd be better off dead?
Drawn for me by | Popcorn_Fairy: https://i.imgtc.com/cvSNxRT.jpg | Volkswagen_Bros: http://i.imgur.com/86XOVXb.jpg | ShinobiNinjaX: https://imgur.com/bPb5vEV
|
|
@Sativa_Rose posted...
Not sure this is something to brag about. Also Iceland only has like 330,000 people, a population smaller than that of the city of Omaha, Nebraska. It gets way too much attention and credit for what it does. Why Omaha Leave us alone We're f***ing awesome |
|
littlebro07 posted...
@Sativa_Rose posted...Not sure this is something to brag about. Also Iceland only has like 330,000 people, a population smaller than that of the city of Omaha, Nebraska. It gets way too much attention and credit for what it does. I just thought of a random medium sized city that people (who live outside of that area at least) don't hear much about
I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister.
|
|
Sativa_Rose posted...
littlebro07 posted...@Sativa_Rose posted...Not sure this is something to brag about. Also Iceland only has like 330,000 people, a population smaller than that of the city of Omaha, Nebraska. It gets way too much attention and credit for what it does. Fair enough But we showed up on that map of important metro area in F8 of the Furious >_> |
|
Capn Circus posted...
To be completely honest, I would say there are some people living with Down-Syndrome that live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives than some people on CE. Sure and there are a couple of dudes with ALS that live more productive lives than everyone on CE combined (Lou Gehrig, Steven Hawking), but why would you inflict a life of ALS on someone intentionally? |
|
I say let them abort if there's 100% certainty the child will be born with a debilitating disorder. I have two mentally and physically disabled siblings, and while I love them very much, they live very sad lives. Never leave home, can't even walk, are prone to outbursts, etc. They are literally trapped within their minds and bodies. I feel awful for them every day. And that's not even going into the burden it puts on the family, although it's not their fault at all. They didn't ask to be born like this.
I would consider it child abuse if I allowed my unborn to come into this world with conditions such as that. That said, can't you live a pretty normal life with down syndrome?
this just here so I ain't a smelly sigless user
|
|
3rd_Best_Master posted...
CountessRolab posted...Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that. would you be ok if you were born blind? |
|
That's f***ed up. We live in a world where people want perfection and if THEY don't get it someone else has to die. You can't tell me all people with downs are miserable because they are not.
Wombo Combo!
http://i.imgur.com/fToefC5.jpg |
|
ToonLinkWithGun posted...
That's f***ed up. We live in a world where people want perfection and if THEY don't get it someone else has to die. You can't tell me all people with downs are miserable because they are not. 1. Downs affects more than just the person with the disorder. Literally families are torn apart over this s***. 2. I'm going to wager that more Downs sufferers are miserable than not. |
|
ChromaticAngel posted...
Capn Circus posted...To be completely honest, I would say there are some people living with Down-Syndrome that live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives than some people on CE. It's definitely a tough subject. But I would ask people such as Stephen Hawking if they wish they had never been born. I'm sure many of them would say they are glad to be alive and experience life, despite their worldly challenges. After all, there's plenty of body and mentally abled people who wish they were never born. Pain, suffering, limitations and disability can be subjective.
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
Capn Circus posted...
But I would ask people such as Stephen Hawking if they wish they had never been born. I'm sure many of them would say they are glad to be alive and experience life, despite their worldly challenges. I've never asked Stephen Hawking's opinion on this personally, but having talked to similar people, while some of them do say they're glad to have experienced life, they also always say they'd understand why someone would abort a child with their disorder if they could. |
|
Capn Circus posted...
ChromaticAngel posted...Capn Circus posted...To be completely honest, I would say there are some people living with Down-Syndrome that live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives than some people on CE. Stephen Hawking was born healthy sooooo... |
|
My older brother is a high functioning autistic. Obviously you can't diagnose this during pregnancy, but I couldn't say what my choice would be if I knew my unborn kid had Down Syndrome. Yes, it makes your lives more difficult, but on the other hand, these types of difficulties end up giving you stories and a life you wouldn't change. These types of challenges, like being able to accommodate the disabled, I feel society needs to undergo to progress further.
CountessRolab posted... Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that. Holy hell dude. This is a dangerous way of thinking. Crispr is coming and it's a guarantee that people will use it to make their daughters look like Kim Kardashian and their sons Michael Phelps, all with top tier intelligence and high metabolism. Is it going to be unethical to not have a designer baby then?
imgtc.com/i/4HgTl0ebzq.jpg imgtc.com/i/60CWP2Gtlg.gif
|
|
CountessRolab posted...
Stephen Hawking was born healthy sooooo... ALS is degenerative. Everyone with it is born healthy and it f***s them up in their adult life. |
|
Sad_Face posted...
Is it going to be unethical to not have a designer baby then? Yes, absolutely. If the technology is available, you are a fool not to use it. |
|
This is horrible. There was a time where I was fully behind abortion with the justification of protecting a child from a difficult life, but I've met many people with Downs syndrome who work and live their lives. They didn't need to be rescued by being denied even a chance. In school we watched videos of inspirational speakers who were born with deformed limbs from amelia but they still want to live and be happy.
After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child.
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
|
|
Most animals eat or abandon their disabled young, so I'm gonna go ahead and say that there's a lot of precedence in life to not take on the vastly additional amount of energy required in caring for a disabled child. Particularly, because it doesn't end when they become adults
|
|
CountessRolab posted...
Sad_Face posted...Is it going to be unethical to not have a designer baby then? not everything suboptimal is unethical. presumably designer babies won't be free. someone isn't unethical for deciding it won't fit into their budget. |
|
ThePrinceFish posted...
After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child. abortions are done because the parents cannot protect the child. |
|
ChromaticAngel posted...
ThePrinceFish posted...After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child. Or they are unwilling to.
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
|
|
Life is never easy to begin with.
Never easy. For those who chose abortion, their punishment is the cloud of doubt that will taunt them forevermore. As for me, no I can not protest, nor agree, but only thank God I haven't been in such a situation. Just wonder how many events like this have to happen before people ask, what have we become?
Novus Ordo Seclorum
|
|
ThePrinceFish posted...
ChromaticAngel posted...ThePrinceFish posted...After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child. If they are unwilling to, then the baby is better off aborted. I've seen where that road leads and it's not pretty. |
|
ThePrinceFish posted...
After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child. Oh I don't doubt that. That's true in general even if you take down's syndrome out of the picture. At least in the US and other wealthy nations, it is rare for people to be actually starving or suffer from malnutrition unless their parents are meth addicts or something.
I may not go down in history, but I will go down on your sister.
|
|
ChromaticAngel posted...
CountessRolab posted...Sad_Face posted...Is it going to be unethical to not have a designer baby then? To be fair, I also think it is unethical to have a child if you are low-income. |
|
CountessRolab posted...
To be fair, I also think it is unethical to have a child if you are low-income. Well how do you define low-income? I mean, I wouldn't consider people making $150k low-income, but I doubt they will be able to afford a designer baby regardless. |
|
I personally think that people should be able to abort the child for any reason. my opinion on those reasons is irrelevant, because I don't think they should be restricted
that being said, I do know quite a few people with down syndrome who live what they perceive to be happy and fulfilling lives. I also recognize the toll their condition has taken on their family, even those who do readily accept any and all challenge but yes, if I were to have kids and my wife were to ask me my opinion, I would be all for aborting the child if it had certain birth defects (down syndrome being one of them). |
- Boards
- Current Events
- Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome
- Boards
- Current Events
- Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome
CountessRolab posted...Sad_Face posted...
Is it going to be unethical to not have a designer baby then?
Yes, absolutely. If the technology is available, you are a fool not to use it.
The big concern here is that the usage of designer baby might lead to homogeneity. It's because of our individual differences that force us to be creative to keep up with one another.imgtc.com/i/4HgTl0ebzq.jpg imgtc.com/i/60CWP2Gtlg.gifmustachedmystic posted...Kaname_Madoka posted...
TheMarthKoopa posted...
Could you walk up to a person with down syndrome and tell them they'd be better off dead?
I mean, would you ever walk up to literally anyone and say that? Not really the best argument, woman get abortions for any number of reasons from financial to just plain not wanting a baby.Reading this post may induce one or more of the following:
Nausea / Butt-Hurt / Lulz / UM? Syndrome / Angst / DiarrheaI'm strong in the camp that if you know for certain that your child is going to be disabled and you don't abort it, you're a selfish monster.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngTheMarthKoopa posted...Could you walk up to a person with down syndrome and tell them they'd be better off dead?
This
It's not like it's the exact same person next time except non-down-syndrome'dI don't see anything wrong with aborting a baby with mental disabilities. It's not about getting perfection, it's about not letting the child live through life with mental disabilities. It's 10x the amount of work for parents and the child suffers for most of his life.
A few years ago, I saw a mom in her 50s, completely miserable pushing her mentally disabled son who is in his 20s down the street on wheelbarrow...a wheelbarrow. I can never get that image out of my mind. I wouldn't want to see someone suffer like that.Sig under construction!Its ethical dilemmas like this that makes me not want to have kids.I wouldn't want my child to have that, from what I have seen it is quite hard to raise someone with it.Yea, I would abort. I remember the down syndrome kids from school... I wouldn't want that sort of existence for myself or my child.ChromaticAngel posted...CountessRolab posted...
To be fair, I also think it is unethical to have a child if you are low-income.
Well how do you define low-income?
I mean, I wouldn't consider people making $150k low-income, but I doubt they will be able to afford a designer baby regardless.
I am talking more about being able to pay for your kid's education.CountessRolab posted...Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
That's just a weird argument...
"He won't have a leg" hmm how many people are in wheelchairs or use prosthetics that do have happy lives? It's not perfect but it's something.
Or some disabilities like deafness? There's a whole culture around it. Same for blindness.
What about learning disabilities? "Can't read straight, it shouldn't live that way" is sooo monstrous.
Or worst case probably Down's syndrome? Yeah that's tougher but Downs kids are doing well having families making friends doing art and stuff they have fun. They don't even know they're different if nobody bullies them and they have a lot of fun I've volunteered at events for them and they love life more than mentally abled people lol.
So if you can't handle it or it's too hard on you, admit it, don't act like it's some sentence to a life of misery just because you don't think you can handle it lolI-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!LittleRoyal posted...CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
That's just a weird argument...
"He won't have a leg" hmm how many people are in wheelchairs or use prosthetics that do have happy lives? It's not perfect but it's something.
Or some disabilities like deafness? There's a whole culture around it. Same for blindness.
What about learning disabilities? "Can't read straight, it shouldn't live that way" is sooo monstrous.
Or worst case probably Down's syndrome? Yeah that's tougher but Downs kids are doing well having families making friends doing art and stuff they have fun. They don't even know they're different if nobody bullies them and they have a lot of fun I've volunteered at events for them and they love life more than mentally abled people lol.
So if you can't handle it or it's too hard on you, admit it, don't act like it's some sentence to a life of misery just because you don't think you can handle it lol
Your basis for comparison are people who both already exist and have had to sink-or-swim (so to speak) with their disabilities. Also, it's nonsense putting in learning disabilities with much more serious inflictions like down's syndrome.
You're basically saying "Lol other people dealt with it so will you". That's selfish. It's ludicrous to think that just because they can deal with it that they should just because you want them to. If somebody shot you in the leg and then said 'lol other people have been shot in the leg you'll deal with it', you'd be f***ing pissed.
The end of the line is that you're inflicting a life sentence on children simply because you're too afraid to question your morality.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngWhen it comes to stuff like this, I always put myself in the situation.
In this instance, would I rather be born with downs syndrome, or not live life at all? I would rather not exist than suffer through this life, and change the lives of everyone around me because of it.
In nature, when an animal has babies and there is something wrong with one, they reject it from the nest, or from the litter, and it inevitably dies. Instincts tell them that the infant isn't fit to survive on it's own and is therefore tossed aside.
As cruel as it sounds, I respect any parent's decision in this scenario. I generally lean more toward pro-life but this is an exception to that.
Sorry if that makes me a s***ty person.Ten million dollars on a losing campaign
Twenty million starving and writhing in painYaridovich posted...LittleRoyal posted...
CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
That's just a weird argument...
"He won't have a leg" hmm how many people are in wheelchairs or use prosthetics that do have happy lives? It's not perfect but it's something.
Or some disabilities like deafness? There's a whole culture around it. Same for blindness.
What about learning disabilities? "Can't read straight, it shouldn't live that way" is sooo monstrous.
Or worst case probably Down's syndrome? Yeah that's tougher but Downs kids are doing well having families making friends doing art and stuff they have fun. They don't even know they're different if nobody bullies them and they have a lot of fun I've volunteered at events for them and they love life more than mentally abled people lol.
So if you can't handle it or it's too hard on you, admit it, don't act like it's some sentence to a life of misery just because you don't think you can handle it lol
Your basis for comparison are people who both already exist and have had to sink-or-swim (so to speak) with their disabilities. Also, it's nonsense putting in learning disabilities with much more serious inflictions like down's syndrome.
You're basically saying "Lol other people dealt with it so will you". That's selfish. It's ludicrous to think that just because they can deal with it that they should just because youwant them to. If somebody shot you in the leg and then said 'lol other people have been shot in the leg you'll deal with it', you'd be f***ing pissed.
The end of the line is that you're inflicting a life sentence on children simply because you're too afraid to question your morality.
They just said "disabilities" so I tried to cover all the bases.
And I'm selfish for wanting to give people a chance?
You're attributing their happiness to desperation? Maybe chalk it up to humanity? Should people stop existing because females get raped and beaten all the time, so being female and being safe is almost impossible?
I'm not saying "get over it" that came from you. I'm saying "they can make it work. They deserve a chance to try"I-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!LittleRoyal posted...You're attributing their happiness to desperation? Maybe chalk it up to humanity? Should people stop existing because females get raped and beaten all the time, so being female and being safe is almost impossible?
This isn't an apt analogy, though, because being born female doesn't guarantee being raped.
Being born with down's syndrome guarantees hardship. And stop saying you're 'giving people a chance', because that implies that they're sitting and waiting, conscious and already sentient, for you to pull them out of the abyss--which is untrue. They don't exist until you make them exist and to do so with the promise of them having an objectively harder time of it--simply because YOU thought it better--is ridiculously selfish and borderline evil if not fully so.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngYaridovich posted...LittleRoyal posted...
You're attributing their happiness to desperation? Maybe chalk it up to humanity? Should people stop existing because females get raped and beaten all the time, so being female and being safe is almost impossible?
This isn't an apt analogy, though, because being born female doesn't guarantee being raped.
Being born with down's syndrome guarantees hardship. And stop saying you're 'giving people a chance', because that implies that they're sitting and waiting, conscious and already sentient, for you to pull them out of the abyss--which is untrue. They don't exist until you make them exist and to do so with the promise of them having an objectively harder time of it--simply because YOU thought it better--is ridiculously selfish and borderline evil if not fully so.
You don't understand it.
They have fun. They have friends and families and they dream of things. They can go to events and do things that make them happy. And they are quick to be scared or hurt as some other people. They're more innocent a lot if times too. You looking down in them and pitying people is your fault not mine or theirs and it doesn't make me evil.
you're saying "it doesn't deserve a chance to be happy because it isnt my definition of perfect"
I'm saying "it is just as likely to be happy as me even if it has a different life"
And that makes me evil because...you want me to abort downs shndromes kids? I don't understand your argument at all here because you're literally just saying that because you perceive their life one way, they shouldn't ever have been given life.
"Life is hard on everyone so you shouldn't be so quick to say these people shouldn't live, their parents are evil."
Idk that's pretty monstrous of a mindset. I think everyone deserves a shot no matter what they look like or act like or even how they think. I disagree with you but I don't think you're evil I just think you have some ideas that are very very disturbingI-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!If you asked somebody with a major disability if they'd want to get rid of said disability, how do you think they'd answer? You look at people who find happiness despite their conditions, and that's great, it really is, but you can't just look at the good and ignore the bad because of it.
I'm not talking about how I perceive their life to be, I'm talking about how they will be. I understand that you know people with disabilities that live rich lives, and that's fine, but that's your only basis for comparison. You can't see how they would be without their handicaps. You can't grasp nonexistence.
If somebody put a gun to your head and made you live in concrete box for the rest of your life, you'd be upset. You'd hate it. But eventually, you'd make the best of it. Maybe even find happiness in your box. That doesn't mean that you should have been put in there. And that's something that happened to you as a cognitive, aware, sentient person.
So, why is it right to put children into that box, who have no means to object otherwise? It's wrong.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngYaridovich posted...If you asked somebody with a major disability if they'd want to get rid of said disability, how do you think they'd answer? You look at people who find happiness despite their conditions, and that's great, it really is, but you can't just look at the good and ignore the bad because of it.
I'm not talking about how I perceive their life to be, I'm talking about how they will be. I understand that you know people with disabilities that live rich lives, and that's fine, but that's your only basis for comparison. You can't see how they would be without their handicaps. You can't grasp nonexistence.
If somebody put a gun to your head and made you live in concrete box for the rest of your life, you'd be upset. You'd hate it. But eventually, you'd make the best of it. Maybe even find happiness in your box. That doesn't mean that you should have been put in there. And that's something that happened to you as a cognitive, aware, sentient person.
So, why is it right to put children into that box, who have no means to object otherwise? It's wrong.
Because they aren't in a box! They have all of America to be in and around. I didn't say they are their best selves but they have something they're allowed that much.
You're saying they shouldn't ever have a chance because it wont be perfect. That's just not good enough for me.
I don't deny it will be hard; the disabled are one of many minority groups who have struggles including women and non rights.
I don't think anyone should be forced into anything just because we're minority.
I think Down's syndrome on average may have it worst. That doesn't mean they CANT have it good and I believe in giving people a chance.
When you see homeless people do you say "your life sucks, want me to erase you? Do you wish you never existed?" Or do you give them a few dollars and/or leave them be? Leave them to make the best out of what they can.
Somebody phsyicslly kidnappinf me and shoving me in a box after I've had the whole world is much different than someone naturally who is born in a wheelchair or with down syndrome. I'm not taking anything from these people I am giving them a chance (to be happy and make others happy), at the cost of nothing to them.I-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!Capn Circus posted...I'm not sure when it comes to Down-Syndrome. I've met a few people with Down-Syndrome who have personalities, preferences, opinions, and even a sense of humor. Many of them work, have purpose and lead happy lives. Certainly there are many challenges, but it can definitely be argued it is not the worst disability to be born with.
It can definitely be more severe in some. My mom works with developmentally disabled people and some will have jobs and live pretty much like a normal adult.
Some are 40 years old who still wet themselves and can barely feed themselves.The night brims with defiled scum,and is permeated by their rotten stench.
Just think. Now you're all set to hunt and kill to your heart's content.CountessRolab posted...Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
i was born hemiplegic, my sister was born retarded, my oldest brother has had all sorts of diseases, and another brother of mine was born with internal bleeding in the eyes and has terrible eyesight
i don't think any of us would be better off dead, so f*** offIlluminoius posted...CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
i was born hemiplegic, my sister was born retarded, my oldest brother has had all sorts of diseases, and another brother of mine was born with internal bleeding in the eyes and has terrible eyesight
i don't think any of us would be better off dead, so f*** off
This is sweet. I'm sorry for how some users in this topic are treating you allI-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!yes, I would want to abort assuming my wife would be ok with it. being born with down syndrome is basically hard mode for both you and the kidYes, its ethical and humane.
Ideally adoption should be much more popular.I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm not gonna tell anyone else that they shouldn't. Raising a mentally handicapped kid is a lot of work.The first 2 forms of Cell flaunted his tail, like he's Ron Jeremy. But after he absorbed 18 his tail retracted and only seemed useful for reproducing. -Byron808if you're not prepared to have a child that is flawed, you're not prepared to be a parent and shouldn't be having kids. this applies to everyone who voted yes itt. you would all be absolute terrible parents.It's honestly horrifying to see people rationalising this up and down, as if people with down syndrome are some inferior class incapable of having fulfilling lives. Just step back a second and realise what you're doing --- justifying why people who aren't mentally or physically "good enough" shouldn't exist. Existence shouldn't be predicated on whether or not you're an economic burden. People with disabilities need more support. Getting rid of them because you personally can't be bothered is ridiculous.
Questionmarktarius posted...You cannot have abortion be a "right", then declare it's not when you don't like the reason why.
If it really is a right, then "i don't want a girl" or "the child will be disabled" is just as valid a reason as "I'm not ready to be a parent", "it'll make my ass fat", or "it's Tuesday."
Well put.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.I'm surprised that Yes is the majority vote.
...And I admit, I am one of the people who voted Yes.
Of course, I wouldn't consider it solely my decision. I would advise against it, but if the mother wants it, I wouldn't stop her. Though in that case I would want to put them up for adoption. I'll only take the challenge if the mother is truly that stubborn.
That's the entire thing. It's a challenge. I'm selfish, I don't want to spend my entire life taking care of someone who can possibly end up not being self-sufficient. Yes, yes, I've seen Down Syndrome people, I've seen the sheer joy they have for just being alive, I've seen the success stories. I've also seen the struggles the parents had to go through, I've seen the emotional hardship Downs children experience, particularly when they are aware just what effect they have on other people, and I've heard the horror stories, particularly for the more severely disabled people who have to go to group homes and get abused. And ultimately, these children will not be the ones to take care of ailing parents, and it stresses out siblings of normal functioning.
The challenges put me so off that any perceived joy that could be experienced from having such a life is not enough to convince me.
People who take care of severely mentally handicapped people have my respect. I don't have that strength of character.NNID: MWatcher27 / 3DS FC: 1203 - 9408 - 2283
http://steamcommunity.com/id/MWatcher/wishlistIt's not about deeming a person "good enough". It's also f***ing NOT telling people that they should be dead. It's about providing a child the best possible life and creating them with a severe disability goes against that.
It also amazes me how many people can't separate existence from non-existence and the meaning behind both of them. When a child is aborted, miscarried--whatever, the whole notion of their existence becomes this nebulous what-if space when the reality is there is nothing there, just like there wasn't beforehand. If I wasn't ever born, or was aborted or whatever, then you'd never see this post, my family wouldn't know about me, I WOULDN'T f***ING EXIST and you CANNOT compare existence to that and expect anything meaningful to come of it.
It's like when people say "Well, what if Edison was aborted? Then we wouldn't have the light bulb!". Well--if he was aborted, then we wouldn't f***ing know about him at all and the light bulb would trickle on down to be invented somewhere else (or not at all, who knows that's all just speculation). There's zero point in laboring over what could have been. In this linear existence all that we know is what IS.
Sure, there are a lot of people that live happily with their disabilities, and yay for them, really. But they're not what I'm talking about and what really the discussion at hand shouldn't even be looking at. The real question here is if you know--without a shade of doubt--that your child is going to be disabled in a significant way and within the time frame that abortion is allowed, would you abort it?
To me, knowing full well that a child is going to be born with a disability and carrying it through to term is inherently disgusting. This child cannot provide any consent, knowns nothing but the existence you provide it and has to sustain off the world which you create for it. Having children is incredibly selfish that way--and so to make it so a child is already burdened by no fault of its own, simply so you can reap the emotional benefits of childbirth, is in my opinion, borderline evil if not already so. THAT'S what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I wish people already born to be dead, that's f***ing stupid. Nor am I advocating hierarchical standards--I'm strictly thinking about the child.
If somebody forced you to now to live in a way that crippled you physically and emotionally, you'd be against it. Sure--given enough time you'd be able to adjust to it, that's what humans do, but the very concept of being given a sub-optimal condition of living against your will is morally wrong...so why is it okay to create life in the same way?
I just hate the idea of creating life that is inherently harmed simply for the moral fulfillment of the parents. If that's not 'playing god', then I don't know what it.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngYaridovich posted...It's not about deeming a person "good enough". It's also f***ing NOT telling people that they should be dead. It's about providing a child the best possible life and creating them with a severe disability goes against that.
People with down syndrome are absolutely capable of having meaningful and fulfilling lives as much as you or I. This is about economic convenience. If it really was about the life and welfare of children, you would be arguing their support and non-discrimination from individuals, communities, and governments, rather than advocating their non-existent.It also amazes me how many people can't separate existence from non-existence and the meaning behind both of them. When a child is aborted, miscarried--whatever, the whole notion of their existence becomes this nebulous what-if space when the reality is there is nothing there, just like there wasn't beforehand. If I wasn't ever born, or was aborted or whatever, then you'd never see this post, my family wouldn't know about me, I WOULDN'T f***ING EXIST and you CANNOT compare existence to that and expect anything meaningful to come of it.
No idea what your point is here. Even if you aren't pro-life, a foetus is unquestionably a potential human, and aborting that foetus is aborting at least a potential human. It is accurate to say you are denying that hypothetical person an existence.It's like when people say "Well, what if Edison was aborted? Then we wouldn't have the light bulb!". Well--if he was aborted, then we wouldn't f***ing know about him at all and the light bulb would trickle on down to be invented somewhere else (or not at all, who knows that's all just speculation). There's zero point in laboring over what could have been. In this linear existence all that we know is what IS.
Completely bizarre. It is meaningful to talk about hypotheticals and what-ifs, including the hypothetical life of an aborted down syndrome foetus --- a potential human who could have lived as happily as someone without down syndrome.Sure, there are a lot of people that live happily with their disabilities, and yay for them, really. But they're not what I'm talking about and what really the discussion at hand shouldn't even be looking at. The real question here is if you know--without a shade of doubt--that your child is going to be disabled in a significant way and within the time frame that abortion is allowed, would you abort it?
The article and topic are about people and foetuses with down syndrome. People with down syndrome, despite their, are absolutely capable of meaningful and fulfilling lives.To me, knowing full well that a child is going to be born with a disability and carrying it through to term is inherently disgusting.
Denying life to a person because it has down syndrome is disgusting.This child cannot provide any consent,
Worthless point, nobody consents to their existence.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.knowns nothing but the existence you provide it and has to sustain off the world which you create for it.
Is there any reason that world has to be bad? People with down syndrome need support and non-discrimination, not non-existence.Having children is incredibly selfish that way--and so to make it so a child is already burdened by no fault of its own, simply so you can reap the emotional benefits of childbirth, is in my opinion, borderline evil if not already so.
Casting childbirth as some selfish act is incredibly revealing of your self-centred position. It is incredibly cruel and immoral to abort a foetus because you think people with down syndrome are incapable of having meaningful lives, or because you can't personally be bothered securing their welfare.THAT'S what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I wish people already born to be dead, that's f***ing stupid. Nor am I advocating hierarchical standards--I'm strictly thinking about the child.
If you were thinking about the child, you would rather we spent more of our resources as individuals, communities, and governments looking after people who need it, rather than aborting them.If somebody forced you to now to live in a way that crippled you physically and emotionally, you'd be against it. Sure--given enough time you'd be able to adjust to it, that's what humans do, but the very concept of being given a sub-optimal condition of living against your will is morally wrong...so why is it okay to create life in the same way?
First of all, people with down syndrome are not physically or emotionally crippled, and it is hilariously offensive to say otherwise.
Second, the comparison is off. Nobody chooses to conceive a baby with down syndrome. There is a clear difference between giving someone previously undisabled a disability, and aborting someone who would have been carried to term were it not for their condition. The latter was never not disabled.I just hate the idea of creating life that is inherently harmed simply for the moral fulfillment of the parents. If that's not 'playing god', then I don't know what it.
People shouldn't be denied existence because they aren't physically or mentally perfect, or born into economically uncertain circumstances.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...People with down syndrome are absolutely capable of having meaningful and fulfilling lives as much as you or I. This is about economic convenience. If it really was about the life and welfare of children, you would be arguing their support and non-discrimination from individuals, communities, and governments, rather than advocating their non-existent.
And who's saying I don't? If the child is born, of course you support it and give it the best life possible, but also it would be perhaps a kinder thing to simply abort it. You're too involved in the whole morality of abortion. Not every child has to be born.
Sinroth posted...No idea what your point is here. Even if you aren't pro-life, a foetus is unquestionably a potential human, and aborting that foetus is aborting at least a potential human. It is accurate to say you are denying that hypothetical person an existence.
Potential this, potential that, fact of the matter is nobody knows and nobody would ever know. You get so hung up over what could be you lose sight of what is. If a person is aborted there's literally nothing there. There's no denying anything. Life doesn't work like programming code, where you just cite in a new example to see how things could have been.
Sinroth posted...Completely bizarre. It is meaningful to talk about hypotheticals and what-ifs, including the hypothetical life of an aborted down syndrome foetus --- a potential human who could have lived as happily as someone without down syndrome.
But instead they don't exist and you don't know any the better. It's all about emotions, right? The morals that you sling around at the mere notion of something happening and it's because of that you can't seem to understand that there's no use in talking about potentials. If it's born, yes, support it to the ends of the earth, love it, pray for its happy life but if its not then what the f*** do you even know about it?
Sinroth posted...The article and topic are about people and foetuses with down syndrome. People with down syndrome, despite their, are absolutely capable of meaningful and fulfilling lives.
No f***ing s***. I feel like every time you say this you get farther from the point.
Sinroth posted...Denying life to a person because it has down syndrome is disgusting.
I think the big problem here is that my philosophy is of course a person can exist happily with down's syndrome, but why should they have to? whereas yours is Everybody should exist without question. To me, the square ends of life are non-existence, a state in which nobody can comprehend. I feel it is better to simply leave a life in such a state rather than give it an existence I know would be hindered, DESPITE the happiness they could find in it. It's all or nothing with creating life, there is no excuse for in-betweens.
Sinroth posted...Worthless point, nobody consents to their existence.
Not worthless, because those that exist determine when and how those that don't do (what a cluttered sentence). The onus of life rests on our shoulders and it's irresponsible and as I've been saying, borderline evil to simply mandate that everybody is to be born despite what they may be born with.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngSinroth posted...Is there any reason that world has to be bad? People with down syndrome need support and non-discrimination, not non-existence.
I feel like I've covered this point already.
Sinroth posted...Casting childbirth as some selfish act is incredibly revealing of your self-centred position. It is incredibly cruel and immoral to abort a foetus because you think people with down syndrome are incapable of having meaningful lives, or because you can't personally be bothered securing their welfare.
How is it not selfish? As discussed before, there is no allowance of consent and the whole of it relies on those creating. Also, I am in no way saying that people with down's (or is it just down?) syndrome can't live meaningful, happy lives.
Sinroth posted...If you were thinking about the child, you would rather we spent more of our resources as individuals, communities, and governments looking after people who need it, rather than aborting them.
Again, non-existence, etc. etc. I already discussed ths. Of course we support everything and everybody and strive for the best possible lives, but that also includes looking at simply NOT creating life when the situation calls for it.
Sinroth posted...First of all, people with down syndrome are not physically or emotionally crippled, and it is hilariously offensive to say otherwise.
Second, the comparison is off. Nobody chooses to conceive a baby with down syndrome. There is a clear difference between giving someone previously undisabled a disability, and aborting someone who would have been carried to term were it not for their condition. The latter was never not disabled.
I didn't say they were, it was just an hypothetical situation. I want to be very clear in saying I am not trying to insult, downplay or disparage people with handicaps in any way. This discussion isn't about that.
Second, of course nobody chooses and the point of this whole conversation is that IF YOU KNEW your child was going to be afflicted, would you abort it.
Sinroth posted...People shouldn't be denied existence because they aren't physically or mentally perfect, or born into economically uncertain circumstances.
Quit talking about denying existence like it's denying them a meal. They don't know otherwise. Think back to before you were born. What do you know of it? Nothing. What would you know if you weren't born. Nothing.Talk about backseat fishing
http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.pngI voted no. I have a strong belief that every human being deserves to live, no matter how disabled they are. And yes, I do understand that disabilities cause quite a bit of stress and other difficulties for then and their families. But from the people with disabilities who I know, they are happy, have a good life, and their families love them and enjoy having them around. And at least where I live, there are organizations and support groups that families can take advantage of to help them with their loved one.
And for the record, I was actually aborted early at 32 weeks (although we don't know why my biological mother did that) and have a disability myself. I can honestly say that I am happy I survived and I have a wonderful adoptive family who loves me very much. Even if I had never learned to walk, talk or even do anything except drool (which the doctors thought would be my fate), my family adopted me fully accepting that reality.
My point is that even if the biological family is unable or unwilling to care for a disabled child, there is almost certainly someone out there who would love the child and make them a part of their family. Of course I know that it's not always possible to find such a family, but I still don't think a child should be aborted just because they have a disability.Come check out Charlie's Chill!
http://www.s3.zetaboards.com/desert_rats_clanCountessRolab posted...Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
Speak for yourself. I am disabled. Don't project your opinions on to others. I am personally disturbed that so many people are in favor of killing a baby just cause of a defectZikten posted...CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
Speak for yourself. I am disabled. Don't project your opinions on to others. I am personally disturbed that so many people are in favor of killing a baby just cause of a defect
No one is in favor of that.
We are in favor of the right for parents to choose to have abortions because the developing fetus has a birth defect.having a child with a serious disability is one of my greatest fears in life.
not really sure what i'd do honestly. from where i stand now id say that i wouldnt terminate the pregnancy unless it was a situation where the baby's life would be REALLY f***ed up (like severe deformities), but it's a lot easier to make that call when you're not dealing with the issue. im kind of against abortion in general but i can understand why someone would abort in this caseA Green Butter Alt(TM)
http://i.imgur.com/LhwwG.gif- Boards
- Current Events
- Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome
- Boards
- Current Events
- Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome
I don't think I would, but I could understand why some people would make that decision. My youngest brother has autism and it's a life long challenge for the family, but I love him to death regardless. Some people may not be able to deal with that weight though, it's tough.http://soundcloud.com/marcostaz http://i.imgur.com/AgJ8OvU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/WYvGE.gif Seven Kilo Gold Chain3rd_Best_Master posted...CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
It depends on the disability tbqh.
Also this, I have a friend who has a bad arm from a birth defect, and he's lived a successful life. He played lacrosse, is the bassist in a really good band, and moved to California to pursue his music career further, he's definitely not letting anything hold him back.http://soundcloud.com/marcostaz http://i.imgur.com/AgJ8OvU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/WYvGE.gif Seven Kilo Gold ChainChromaticAngel posted...Zikten posted...
CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
Speak for yourself. I am disabled. Don't project your opinions on to others. I am personally disturbed that so many people are in favor of killing a baby just cause of a defect
No one is in favor of that.
We are in favor of the right for parents to choose to have abortions because the developing fetus has a birth defect.
That's the same thing I saidZikten posted...ChromaticAngel posted...
Zikten posted...
CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
Speak for yourself. I am disabled. Don't project your opinions on to others. I am personally disturbed that so many people are in favor of killing a baby just cause of a defect
No one is in favor of that.
We are in favor of the right for parents to choose to have abortions because the developing fetus has a birth defect.
That's the same thing I said
Do a google search on "embryonic development" then look for the terms in bold and educate yourself. You and ChromaticAngel did not say the same thing. What you're suggesting is literally the same thing and crazy as saying if somebody doesn't give you $20 they owed, they need to pay you a new car because you could have invested that money and eventually bought a new car therefore you lost out on a new car.No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's humanZikten posted...No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human
A fetus is a human. No one is contesting that, but it's not what you wrote in bold.so many emotional argumentsCapn Circus posted...To be completely honest, I would say there are some people living with Down-Syndrome that live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives than some people on CE.
The CE example being you, a known Trump shill. So of course they live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives.Sig User Logic
http://i.imgur.com/lA5fm7w.jpgIlluminoius posted...CountessRolab posted...
Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
i was born hemiplegic, my sister was born retarded, my oldest brother has had all sorts of diseases, and another brother of mine was born with internal bleeding in the eyes and has terrible eyesight
i don't think any of us would be better off dead, so f*** off
Your experience isn't going to be universal.
This story here is about rape and not disabilities, but same fundamental principles apply:
https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/4j4nei/i_hate_when_people_assume_i_should_be/ElatedVenusaur posted...http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Down's can't be "eliminated" via abortion. It's a random trisomy mutation.Questionmarktarius posted...ElatedVenusaur posted...
http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Down's can't be "eliminated" via abortion. It's a random trisomy mutation.
It is eliminated in the same way that HIV transmission during birth is eliminated with proper techniques in developed countries, how bacterial and viral diseases are eliminated with vaccines. Now is the time to eliminated down syndrome with genotyping. What is your point really?Questionmarktarius posted...ElatedVenusaur posted...
http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Down's can't be "eliminated" via abortion. It's a random trisomy mutation.
I thought the article was about how Iceland was aborting children with Downs, not that they eradicated the disease itself.Questionmarktarius posted...Hexagon posted...
how bacterial and viral diseases are eliminated with vaccines
Downs can't be "eliminated" in the same sense as smallpox. There's no transmissible agent, apart from random errors in meiosis.
I didn't specifically say smallpox, but if you think bringing up a special case makes your point then be my guest.Yaridovich posted...It's not about deeming a person "good enough". It's also f***ing NOT telling people that they should be dead. It's about providing a child the best possible life and creating them with a severe disability goes against that.
It also amazes me how many people can't separate existence from non-existence and the meaning behind both of them. When a child is aborted, miscarried--whatever, the whole notion of their existence becomes this nebulous what-if space when the reality is there is nothing there, just like there wasn't beforehand. If I wasn't ever born, or was aborted or whatever, then you'd never see this post, my family wouldn't know about me, I WOULDN'T f***ING EXIST and you CANNOT compare existence to that and expect anything meaningful to come of it.
It's like when people say "Well, what if Edison was aborted? Then we wouldn't have the light bulb!". Well--if he was aborted, then we wouldn't f***ing know about him at all and the light bulb would trickle on down to be invented somewhere else (or not at all, who knows that's all just speculation). There's zero point in laboring over what could have been. In this linear existence all that we know is what IS.
Sure, there are a lot of people that live happily with their disabilities, and yay for them, really. But they're not what I'm talking about and what really the discussion at hand shouldn't even be looking at. The real question here is if you know--without a shade of doubt--that your child is going to be disabled in a significant way and within the time frame that abortion is allowed, would you abort it?
To me, knowing full well that a child is going to be born with a disability and carrying it through to term is inherently disgusting. This child cannot provide any consent, knowns nothing but the existence you provide it and has to sustain off the world which you create for it. Having children is incredibly selfish that way--and so to make it so a child is already burdened by no fault of its own, simply so you can reap the emotional benefits of childbirth, is in my opinion, borderline evil if not already so. THAT'S what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I wish people already born to be dead, that's f***ing stupid. Nor am I advocating hierarchical standards--I'm strictly thinking about the child.
If somebody forced you to now to live in a way that crippled you physically and emotionally, you'd be against it. Sure--given enough time you'd be able to adjust to it, that's what humans do, but the very concept of being given a sub-optimal condition of living against your will is morally wrong...so why is it okay to create life in the same way?
I just hate the idea of creating life that is inherently harmed simply for the moral fulfillment of the parents. If that's not 'playing god', then I don't know what it.
As someone on the spectrum, this is dumbI don't know too much about down syndrome but raising a kid with certain disabilities can easily bankrupt a family that would have otherwise been able to stay afloat raising a child without disabilities.Doe posted...Yaridovich posted...
It's not about deeming a person "good enough".
As someone on the spectrum, this is dumb
No one cares if you're on the spectrum. If you can use a computer and browse through current events, and write a coherent sentence you're clearly not a prime example of the autism disease/disorder and you know it.
When I was in grade school "autism" referred to the people in the special ed class that needed full walkers to assist them to walk upright, they needed a full dedicated teacher help them to walk in a straight line and do all of their other activities, they became paralyzed and cried if the lights are too strong or if its too loud. They need to point to stickers to say they need to use the restroom or eat, or greet someone. You are clearly not the target of this sort of advancement. I swear this spectrum is so wide anything puts you on the spectrum. You can have deep interest in trains, you're on the spectrum. You excel on an activity, you're on the spectrum.
darkphoenix181 posted...being proud of eugenics
smh
Do you even know what eugenics means? Because from this post it shows you don't. Eugenics is trying to stop people with undesirable traits from reproducing and to get those with desirable ones to reproduce. A couple deciding to terminate their embryo and try conceiving again because the random segregation of their combined alleles or chromosomes will result in a diseased person or person with a defect is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.Zikten posted...No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human
As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aetherP4wn4g3 posted...Zikten posted...
No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human
As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.
It's definitely not. I'm sorry your disability has made life so bad for you you wish for inexistence but that doesn't mean no kid with disabilities deserves a chance.I-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!my cousin can't even talk
she is like 40 now
but she appears to be pretty happy
she lives in a home that caters to people with mental disabilities like her not to far from her mom
@Hexagon posted...Do you even know what eugenics means? Because from this post it shows you don't. Eugenics is trying to stop people with undesirable traits from reproducing and to get those with desirable ones to reproduce. A couple deciding to terminate their embryo and try conceiving again because the random segregation of their combined alleles or chromosomes will result in a diseased person or person with a defect is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.
oh look a disingenuous person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
Those humans targeted for destruction under Nazi eugenics policies were largely living in private and state-operated institutions, identified as "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including prisoners, degenerate, dissident, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (including feebleminded, epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind) (German: erbkranken), homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while more than 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.[3][4][5][6]
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20494The Nazis wanted to create a society of healthy and strong individuals that could make Germany the dominant power on the planet. There was no place in this vision for the weak and feeble. Germans that were disabled and could not contribute to society were a burden that had to be removed. More than 100,000 disabled Germans were murdered in the Nazi "Euthanasia"’ program - mercy killings.
The Nazi mass murder of disabled people can be traced to a field of science called Eugenics. Eugenics was very popular in the late 19th century. It was also quite popular in the United States until the Second World War. The central idea is that healthy individuals should be allowed to have families and "unhealthy" individuals should be prevented from doing so. Allowing unhealthy people to have children would weaken societies. This approach has also been called "Social Darwinism" – survival of the fittest in society. Tens of thousands in the United States were sterilized in the first part of the 20th century in such programs.
killing people is part of eugenics if you are being an honest person
besides, you probably don't think these are people anyways, you think they are just things to be purged smhsigless user is me or am I?@darkphoenix181 thinks he/she is making a point and calling me disingenuous.is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.
Literally from your quoteMore than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will,
Please try harder and don't bold parts that literally call it euthanasia not eugenics.
Also look up what "traced" means.@Hexagon posted...darkphoenix181 thinks he/she is making a point and calling me disingenuous.
is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.
Literally from your quoteMore than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will,
Please try harder and don't bold parts that literally call it euthanasia not eugenics.
Also look up what "traced" means.
so you are a dishonest person
"oh it says people were killed BECAUSE of eugenics! I am going to ignore that and cite where it says other were sterilized!!!"sigless user is me or am I?@Hexagon posted...call it euthanasia not eugenics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs
how can you rectify your beliefs?
either you must apologize and admit you are wrong or you will become a cartoon character representing disingenuity.Euthanasia programs
Edwin Black wrote that one of the methods that was suggested to get rid of "defective germ-plasm in the human population" was euthanasia.[7] A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes, and method number eight was euthanasia.[7] The most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers.[7] However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions.[7] For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30–40% annual death rates.[7] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[7]
In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives.[72] The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[73]
Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[7]sigless user is me or am I?darkphoenix181 posted...@Hexagon posted...
darkphoenix181 thinks he/she is making a point and calling me disingenuous.
is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.
Literally from your quoteMore than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will,
Please try harder and don't bold parts that literally call it euthanasia not eugenics.
Also look up what "traced" means.
so you are a dishonest person
"oh it says people were killed BECAUSE of eugenics! I am going to ignore that and cite where it says other were sterilized!!!"
"This article has the word eugenics in it, therefore any phrase, clause, or sentence fragment must be unequivocally refer to eugenics even if it literally it says it was part of another program because wikipedia is written by professional writers and historians."@Hexagon posted...
"This article has the word eugenics in it, therefore any phrase, clause, or sentence fragment must be unequivocally refer to eugenics even if it literally it says it was part of another program because wikipedia is written by professional writers and historians."
the entire article is about eugenics
the killing part is also eugenics
again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs
Euthanasia programs
Edwin Black wrote that one of the methods that was suggested to get rid of "defective germ-plasm in the human population" was euthanasia.[7] A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes, and method number eight was euthanasia.[7] The most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers.[7] However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions.[7] For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30–40% annual death rates.[7] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[7]
In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives.[72] The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[73]
Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[7]
It is very easy to understand.
Not sure what weird bias is getting between you and basic reading.
Do you somehow believe that admitting this is eugenics means you cannot justify aborting babies anymore?
I mean what is the ultimate sterilization? The ultimate way to make sure a person doesn't reproduce?
by killing themsigless user is me or am I?@darkphoenix181
No, my mistake was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you had an actual defense for calling this advancement eugenics. At first I thought you meant the health care system is committing eugenics by forcing the parents to conceive only healthy embryos. Now I realize you're incredibly daft and think the parents are committing eugenics for aborting their own embryo. An embryo is not a person and no person is being killed and certainly no one is being denied the right to reproduce. With your s***** logic, anyone who turns you down must also be committing eugenics because they are not willing to start a family with you. Absolute nonsense.@Hexagon posted...
No, my mistake was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you had an actual defense for calling this advancement eugenics. At first I thought you meant the health care system is committing eugenics by forcing the parents to conceive only healthy embryos. Now I realize you're incredibly daft and think the parents are committing eugenics for aborting their own embryo. An embryo is not a person and no person is being killed and certainly no one is being denied the right to reproduce. With your s***** logic, anyone who turns you down must also be committing eugenics because they are not willing to start a family with you. Absolute nonsense.
literally 3 articles saying killing the disabled was eugenics and you stubbornly cling to your weird bias
should we welcome the living cartoon parody of himself known as mr.not honest?
let us all be reminded of the ACTUAL DEFENSE that was indeed given by me
as opposed to you just arguing your feelings about the issue from a weird bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs
a one
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20494
a two!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
a three!
sad when a guy can't admit he is wrong amidst overwhelming evidence when he can't even find one outside source to support his weak view
shamesigless user is me or am I?I personally believe it's unethical to have any abortion, aside from one that prevents the mother's death. So no, I wouldn't abort my child just because they were disabled. With assistance, most disabled children can experience many joys in life. In fact from what I've seen, people with Down syndrome are treated well in society and are generally very happy.glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall
ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants?darkphoenix181 posted...Hexagon posted...
>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence
I'm dying.
where is your source?
oh yeah
"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics?s=t
eugenics
noun, (used with a singular verb)
1.
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)darkphoenix181 posted...Hexagon posted...
>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence
I'm dying.
where is your source?
oh yeah
"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"
People are hiveminded.
"A Wikipedia article was had they're all jokes LOL"
Each one now has many sources in itself.
Wikipedia is overseen and edited now. People can't really just go in and lie on itI-I really needed this~~
Time to stomp some faces!!!LittleRoyal posted...darkphoenix181 posted...
Hexagon posted...
>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence
I'm dying.
where is your source?
oh yeah
"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"
People are hiveminded.
"A Wikipedia article was had they're all jokes LOL"
Each one now has many sources in itself.
Wikipedia is overseen and edited now. People can't really just go in and lie on it
Then quote the source itself, don't expect others to do your research for you. Wikipedia is written by anonymous people therefore there is no reason to believe that anything there is factually correct.LittleRoyal posted...darkphoenix181 posted...
Hexagon posted...
>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence
I'm dying.
where is your source?
oh yeah
"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"
People are hiveminded.
"A Wikipedia article was had they're all jokes LOL"
Each one now has many sources in itself.
Wikipedia is overseen and edited now. People can't really just go in and lie on it
you are correct
all he had to do is go to wiki and see what sources they cite
since he wants to continue being hardheaded, I will just cite the sources they use that says mercy killing was used to promote eugenics as method of eugenics
Edwin Black (9 November 2003). "Eugenics and the Nazis – the California connection". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
Pernick, Martin (1999). The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures since 1915. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 161. ISBN 978-0195135398.
Pernick, 2009: p. 161.
"Close-up of Richard Jenne, the last child killed by the head nurse at the Kaufbeuren-Irsee euthanasia facility.". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved July 29, 2011.
Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Profile in Power, Chapter VI, first section (London, 1991, rev. 2001)
Snyder, S. & D. Mitchell. Cultural Locations of Disability. University of Michigan Press. 2006.
Proctor, Robert (1988-01-01). Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674745780.
DER HERR JUST 2 WIKI ARTICLES!!!!sigless user is me or am I?the oxford handbook on the history of eugenics
https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false
@Hexagonsigless user is me or am I?@darkphoenix181
What do you tag me? You already think wikipedia is a good source and think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not going to converse with all day until you "get me".
But just because I felt in the mood. Are you talking about this book?
"The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics
edited by Alison Bashford, Philippa Levine"
The book that on page one, describe what eugenics is? The book that literally on the first page has the phrase "prevent life" and abortion as an example?"Eugenics practices sometimes aimed to prevent life (sterilization, contraception, segregation, abortion in some cases);..."
Not only is your argument that the original post is the same as eugenics is wrong, abortion in itself is not a form of killing in eugenics by your very own source.
Great job.
Don't even bother replying to me.@Hexagon posted...What do you tag me? You already think wikipedia is a good source and think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not going to converse with all day until you "get me".
that is 7 books you are saying aren't a good source
yeah, it is fruitless to try to convince you when the only argument you got is that 7 books are stupid and not correct!
Hexagon posted...The book that on page one, describe what eugenics is? The book that literally on the first page has the phrase "prevent life" and abortion as an example.
are you being real?
it says literally:
Eugenic practice sometime is aimed to prevent life (strilizatiom, contraception, segregation, abortion in some instances); it aimed to bring about fitter life.
And at its most extreme, it ended life the so-called euthanasia of the disable, the non-treatment of neonates)
You just said the opposite of what the first page actually says!
It says ABORTION in some instances IS INDEED eugenics!
HOLY s***
https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
It also says euthanasia of the disabled is eugenicssigless user is me or am I?Hexagon posted...Do you even know what eugenics means? Because from this post it shows you don't. Eugenics is trying to stop people with undesirable traits from reproducing and to get those with desirable ones to reproduce. A couple deciding to terminate their embryo and try conceiving again because the random segregation of their combined alleles or chromosomes will result in a diseased person or person with a defect is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.
Hexagon posted..."Eugenics practices sometimes aimed to prevent life (sterilization, contraception, segregation, abortion in some cases);..."
Remember, you originally said abortion wasn't eugenics.
Now you are trying to use the first page to argue that abortion isn't killing but perhaps conceding it is eugenics to have some weird mental gymnastics?
But we can all read the statement.
Abortion in some cases is indeed eugenics.
That goes against what you said before.
Also:And at its most extreme, it ended life the so-called euthanasia of the disable, the non-treatment of neonates)
I won't be surprised if you leave this thread forever.
You have been proven wrong. There isn't much for you to do now other than admit being wrong. But are you man enough to do that?sigless user is me or am I?LittleRoyal posted...P4wn4g3 posted...
Zikten posted...
No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human
As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.
It's definitely not. I'm sorry your disability has made life so bad for you you wish for inexistence but that doesn't mean no kid with disabilities deserves a chance.
It's not wishing for inexistance. It's knowing and accepting the fact that I have it harder than a healthy person, and that if I could give that easier life to a child rather than the alternative I would. Pretty straightforward.Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aetherP4wn4g3 posted...LittleRoyal posted...
P4wn4g3 posted...
Zikten posted...
No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human
As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.
It's definitely not. I'm sorry your disability has made life so bad for you you wish for inexistence but that doesn't mean no kid with disabilities deserves a chance.
It's not wishing for inexistance. It's knowing and accepting the fact that I have it harder than a healthy person, and that if I could give that easier life to a child rather than the alternative I would. Pretty straightforward.
It is straightforward. People can't get over the fact or don't understand that embryos, blastocysts, and even fetuses to a certain extent don't have a perception of their existence that "you're taking away" or "not giving a chance". Its literally a bag of chemicals with no consciousness. Apparently we live in a world still where fertilization is some sort of magic jump that gives two smaller bags of chemicals a soul or some supernatural precognition as they become a bigger bag of chemicals.ThePrinceFish posted...
After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child.
Wait, that took you a while to figure out? Come on, bruh. Abortion has pretty much always been about convenience, barring the small percentage of pregnancies where a woman's life was legitimately threatened. There is a lengthy gestational period, labor pains, various birthing and child care expenses, and many other costs spread over the lifetime of a growing child, almost all of which can be conveniently sidestepped with an abortion. It is also more convenient for society because an abortion generally means you don't have to spend taxes on the kid. (Keep in mind that I'm not for or against abortion, and would just like to keep these discussions open and honest.)...- Boards
- Current Events
- Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome
No comments:
Post a Comment