Current Events > Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Hexagon 08/17/17 1:34:43 PM #201:	OpheliaAdenade posted... if we're not supposed to abort ds babies because God doesn't like it, why does God let babies have ds to begin with? I mean, I get the whole "God only lets you fall so you can learn to fly" thing. But err... there isn't much you can do when you're missing chromosomes from the get go. Actually they have too many :( for down syndrome anyway. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:884949862] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>OpheliaAdenade posted...</cite> <quote>if we're not supposed to abort ds babies because God doesn't like it, why does God let babies have ds to begin with? I mean, I get the whole "God only lets you fall so you can learn to fly" thing. But err... there isn't much you can do when you're missing chromosomes from the get go.</quote> Actually they have too many :( for down syndrome anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 1:43:30 PM #202:	Asherlee10 posted... Okay? That seems childish. "I'm not stupid, you're stupid." no you are putting words in my mouth and then going "you should be ashamed for saying that!" so it doesn't seem to me you want logical debate Asherlee10 posted... I would be interested to hear how you think someone who might be prone to cataracts is even comparable to a person that will be born with a mental or physical disability. They are not comparable. The point was you defined eugenics as trying to get rid of a trait that had no impact. These both have impact was the point. Just because one is smaller doesn't loose it from your definition. In logical debates, definitions are important. A lipoma is tumor. Does that mean I think it is as bad as a malignant brain tumor? no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoma But because it is usually harmless doesn't mean it is not a Tumor. Does that not make sense to you? But this is what you did: me: Lipomas are tumors, much like deadly brain tumor you: omg! How dare you equate them! BE ASHAMED! that is silly Asherlee10 posted... How is this relevant to what I'm saying? I'll be sure you understand my point clearly: A line in the sand must be drawn at this point in time when referencing eugenics and abortion. Choosing a certain hair color or eye color != aborting a fetus due to a mental or physical disability. I am not sure what you are saying so I must ask for you to specify. You think it is wrong to abort a baby for something like have blue eyes correct? You mean you want to draw a line saying you cannot do that? If not, then what do you mean by a line? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884950347] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>Okay? That seems childish. "I'm not stupid, you're stupid."</quote> no you are putting words in my mouth and then going "you should be ashamed for saying that!" so it doesn't seem to me you want logical debate <cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>I would be interested to hear how you think someone who might be prone to cataracts is even comparable to a person that will be born with a mental or physical disability.</quote> They are not comparable. The point was you defined eugenics as trying to get rid of a trait that had no impact. These both have impact was the point. Just because one is smaller doesn't loose it from your definition. In logical debates, definitions are important. A lipoma is tumor. Does that mean I think it is as bad as a malignant brain tumor? no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoma But because it is usually harmless doesn't mean it is not a Tumor. Does that not make sense to you? But this is what you did: me: Lipomas are tumors, much like deadly brain tumor you: omg! How dare you equate them! BE ASHAMED! that is silly <cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>How is this relevant to what I'm saying? I'll be sure you understand my point clearly: A line in the sand must be drawn at this point in time when referencing eugenics and abortion. Choosing a certain hair color or eye color != aborting a fetus due to a mental or physical disability.</quote> I am not sure what you are saying so I must ask for you to specify. You think it is wrong to abort a baby for something like have blue eyes correct? You mean you want to draw a line saying you cannot do that? If not, then what do you mean by a line?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 08/17/17 1:44:20 PM #203:	I'd abort it in a fucking second. --- We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales, and sing our whaling tune. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:884950394] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>I'd abort it in a fucking second.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Callixtus 08/17/17 1:51:18 PM #204:	Asherlee is just trolling and making up definitions for eugenics that no one else uses. Don't even bother. --- KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos <cite>Callixtus posted [p:884950782] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>Asherlee is just trolling and making up definitions for eugenics that no one else uses. Don't even bother.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/17/17 3:34:42 PM #205:	Asherlee is making a pretty good point. If you're debating this and not seeing it then you're just being obtuse and should drop the subject. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884956408] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>Asherlee is making a pretty good point. If you're debating this and not seeing it then you're just being obtuse and should drop the subject.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#206	Post #206 was unavailable or deleted.
#207	Post #207 was unavailable or deleted.
Teen Girl Squad 08/17/17 4:21:17 PM #208:	I agree that eugenics can be a slippery slope but downs' syndrome isn't that line, ignoring the philosophical debate over when life starts etc... It doesn't benefit the person with the disease, the parents or the government/society who has to support that person. Its like the gun debate or the war on drugs. 100% banning them doesn't work, nor does no-holds barred wild wild west. --- "Rest of league playing checkers, Chargers playing E-Sports." Drug_Smoker. <cite>Teen Girl Squad posted [p:884958971] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>I agree that eugenics can be a slippery slope but downs' syndrome isn't that line, ignoring the philosophical debate over when life starts etc... It doesn't benefit the person with the disease, the parents or the government/society who has to support that person. Its like the gun debate or the war on drugs. 100% banning them doesn't work, nor does no-holds barred wild wild west.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#209	Post #209 was unavailable or deleted.
Hexagon 08/20/17 8:21:39 AM #210:	Teen Girl Squad posted... I agree that eugenics can be a slippery slope but downs' syndrome isn't that line, ignoring the philosophical debate over when life starts etc... It doesn't benefit the person with the disease, the parents or the government/society who has to support that person. Its like the gun debate or the war on drugs. 100% banning them doesn't work, nor does no-holds barred wild wild west. How does 100% banning guns not work? I mean it works for Canada. You can't carry a gun for self defense here and we're not a heaping mess overrun with criminals that do have guns. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885107737] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Teen Girl Squad posted...</cite> <quote>I agree that eugenics can be a slippery slope but downs' syndrome isn't that line, ignoring the philosophical debate over when life starts etc... It doesn't benefit the person with the disease, the parents or the government/society who has to support that person. Its like the gun debate or the war on drugs. 100% banning them doesn't work, nor does no-holds barred wild wild west.</quote> How does 100% banning guns not work? I mean it works for Canada. You can't carry a gun for self defense here and we're not a heaping mess overrun with criminals that do have guns.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 08/20/17 9:59:39 AM #211:	Hexagon posted... How does 100% banning guns not work? I mean it works for Canada. You can't carry a gun for self defense here and we're not a heaping mess overrun with criminals that do have guns. Canada is not the world. Canada is Canada. They don't have the same number of firearms in private possession as the US, for example, and they don't place the same cultural value on them either. Assuming you could ban them, that won't make the hundreds of millions of firearms disappear and it certainly won't automatically make owners turn them over to the government. Something to consider is that the costs to enforce that law would probably be quite high. --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:885110455] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote> How does 100% banning guns not work? I mean it works for Canada. You can't carry a gun for self defense here and we're not a heaping mess overrun with criminals that do have guns.</quote> Canada is not the world. Canada is Canada. They don't have the same number of firearms in private possession as the US, for example, and they don't place the same cultural value on them either. Assuming you could ban them, that won't make the hundreds of millions of firearms disappear and it certainly won't automatically make owners turn them over to the government. Something to consider is that the costs to enforce that law would probably be quite high.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/20/17 11:04:52 AM #212:	@Lorenzo_2003 posted... Hexagon posted... How does 100% banning guns not work? I mean it works for Canada. You can't carry a gun for self defense here and we're not a heaping mess overrun with criminals that do have guns. Canada is not the world. Canada is Canada. They don't have the same number of firearms in private possession as the US, for example, and they don't place the same cultural value on them either. Assuming you could ban them, that won't make the hundreds of millions of firearms disappear and it certainly won't automatically make owners turn them over to the government. Something to consider is that the costs to enforce that law would probably be quite high. 1. Who mentioned the "world"? 2. This "cultural value" you mention is circular logic, you don't ban them because they have cultural value, but they have culture value because they aren't banned. 3. It's your opinion that making it illegal to be in possession of firearms wont make people turn them over to the government. I'd wager there are many people that are willing to follow the law than risk being fined and go to jail just so they can admire their gun collection that they can't show most people and can't bring out in public. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885112633] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Lorenzo_2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote> How does 100% banning guns not work? I mean it works for Canada. You can't carry a gun for self defense here and we're not a heaping mess overrun with criminals that do have guns.</quote> Canada is not the world. Canada is Canada. They don't have the same number of firearms in private possession as the US, for example, and they don't place the same cultural value on them either. Assuming you could ban them, that won't make the hundreds of millions of firearms disappear and it certainly won't automatically make owners turn them over to the government. Something to consider is that the costs to enforce that law would probably be quite high.</quote> 1. Who mentioned the "world"? 2. This "cultural value" you mention is circular logic, you don't ban them because they have cultural value, but they have culture value because they aren't banned. 3. It's your opinion that making it illegal to be in possession of firearms wont make people turn them over to the government. I'd wager there are many people that are willing to follow the law than risk being fined and go to jail just so they can admire their gun collection that they can't show most people and can't bring out in public.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 08/20/17 12:43:22 PM #213:	Hexagon posted... 1. Who mentioned the "world"? 2. This "cultural value" you mention is circular logic, you don't ban them because they have cultural value, but they have culture value because they aren't banned. 3. It's your opinion that making it illegal to be in possession of firearms wont make people turn them over to the government. I'd wager there are many people that are willing to follow the law than risk being fined and go to jail just so they can admire their gun collection that they can't show most people and can't bring out in public. 1. Are we only talking about the US? It seemed an open-ended question, but confining it to just the US makes the case of a hypothetical ban more clear that it won't ever be accepted and wouldn't work even if it was. 2. Nope. The US has a culture of firearms because of the historic significance firearms played in both securing its independence and expanding its borders westward through the New World. Surely you've noticed the romanticization of the Wild West and both mob and modern gang violence in American movies, songs, books and so on. The right to keep firearms is also written into their constitution as a means of self-defense, defense of the nation and a safeguard against oppression. It's not impossible to remove that right, but with an issue that near and dear to a lot of people, the US might need another big violent conflict to resolve it. (Good luck to you, if you're the one assigned to searching people's homes and removing their firearms by force.) We should also consider that the US develops and sells various types of firearms and ammunitions, so it's a dynamic part of their economy. 3. My opinion? Of course it is, just like it's your opinion that "many" people will surrender their firearms. I don't have a problem believing that some will and others won't. Even now, there are many citizens who do not own guns although they have the means to get one. I guess we will never know exactly how many will go either route. But just as Prohibition in the 20's failed to stop alcohol distribution and consumption and the drug war failed to stop people from smoking marijuana or cocaine, I seriously doubt a ban on firearms will have the effect you might be hoping for. Jailing all those people has also been extremely expensive for the government (in other words, taxpayers) and has had a huge negative impact on many communities. --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:885116888] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote> 1. Who mentioned the "world"? 2. This "cultural value" you mention is circular logic, you don't ban them because they have cultural value, but they have culture value because they aren't banned. 3. It's your opinion that making it illegal to be in possession of firearms wont make people turn them over to the government. I'd wager there are many people that are willing to follow the law than risk being fined and go to jail just so they can admire their gun collection that they can't show most people and can't bring out in public.</quote> 1. Are we only talking about the US? It seemed an open-ended question, but confining it to just the US makes the case of a hypothetical ban more clear that it won't ever be accepted and wouldn't work even if it was. 2. Nope. The US has a culture of firearms because of the historic significance firearms played in both securing its independence and expanding its borders westward through the New World. Surely you've noticed the romanticization of the Wild West and both mob and modern gang violence in American movies, songs, books and so on. The right to keep firearms is also written into their constitution as a means of self-defense, defense of the nation and a safeguard against oppression. It's not impossible to remove that right, but with an issue that near and dear to a lot of people, the US might need another big violent conflict to resolve it. (Good luck to you, if you're the one assigned to searching people's homes and removing their firearms by force.) We should also consider that the US develops and sells various types of firearms and ammunitions, so it's a dynamic part of their economy. 3. My opinion? Of course it is, just like it's your opinion that "many" people will surrender their firearms. I don't have a problem believing that some will and others won't. Even now, there are many citizens who do not own guns although they have the means to get one. I guess we will never know exactly how many will go either route. But just as Prohibition in the 20's failed to stop alcohol distribution and consumption and the drug war failed to stop people from smoking marijuana or cocaine, I seriously doubt a ban on firearms will have the effect you might be hoping for. Jailing all those people has also been extremely expensive for the government (in other words, taxpayers) and has had a huge negative impact on many communities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/20/17 12:59:12 PM #214:	Lorenzo_2003 posted... Hexagon posted... 1. Who mentioned the "world"? 2. This "cultural value" you mention is circular logic, you don't ban them because they have cultural value, but they have culture value because they aren't banned. 3. It's your opinion that making it illegal to be in possession of firearms wont make people turn them over to the government. I'd wager there are many people that are willing to follow the law than risk being fined and go to jail just so they can admire their gun collection that they can't show most people and can't bring out in public. 1. Are we only talking about the US? It seemed an open-ended question, but confining it to just the US makes the case of a hypothetical ban more clear that it won't ever be accepted and wouldn't work even if it was. 2. Nope. The US has a culture of firearms because of the historic significance firearms played in both securing its independence and expanding its borders westward through the New World. Surely you've noticed the romanticization of the Wild West and both mob and modern gang violence in American movies, songs, books and so on. The right to keep firearms is also written into their constitution as a means of self-defense, defense of the nation and a safeguard against oppression. It's not impossible to remove that right, but with an issue that near and dear to a lot of people, the US might need another big violent conflict to resolve it. (Good luck to you, if you're the one assigned to searching people's homes and removing their firearms by force.) We should also consider that the US develops and sells various types of firearms and ammunitions, so it's a dynamic part of their economy. 3. My opinion? Of course it is, just like it's your opinion that "many" people will surrender their firearms. I don't have a problem believing that some will and others won't. Even now, there are many citizens who do not own guns although they have the means to get one. I guess we will never know exactly how many will go either route. But just as Prohibition in the 20's failed to stop alcohol distribution and consumption and the drug war failed to stop people from smoking marijuana or cocaine, I seriously doubt a ban on firearms will have the effect you might be hoping for. Jailing all those people has also been extremely expensive for the government (in other words, taxpayers) and has had a huge negative impact on many communities. 1. I can't speak for you, but what I was talking about is that the "100% ban solution doesn't work" is hypothetical as long as that right to bear arms amendment is in place and I was giving an example of a socially similar country that does show where it is highly effective to suggest that the statement is not true. 2. Yeah right. Remember the good old days when you and I would walk the streets of the wild west and had to endure the issues with slavery? Cultures change. A lot of your points are "we should keep everything the same, because a lot of things depend on things being the same like the economy". You might be surprised to hear that change can also bring prosperity and economic success. 3. Expecting people will follow the law is not simply my opinion. Its a fact and much more reasonable then expecting a violent uprising against the country especially if the decision was already made democratically. People can smuggle all the alcohol they want, but when they are caught they will hand it over or face repercussions. A difference is you can easily make more alcohol illegally, but you can't easily get firearms over and over unless you are willing to deal with some risky people. Also prohibition is different. Drinking is habitual and dependence forming, which does not apply for guns. Alcoholics will drink because they feel compelled by their addiction while carrying a firearm is hardly the same. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885117640] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote> 1. Who mentioned the "world"? 2. This "cultural value" you mention is circular logic, you don't ban them because they have cultural value, but they have culture value because they aren't banned. 3. It's your opinion that making it illegal to be in possession of firearms wont make people turn them over to the government. I'd wager there are many people that are willing to follow the law than risk being fined and go to jail just so they can admire their gun collection that they can't show most people and can't bring out in public.</quote> 1. Are we only talking about the US? It seemed an open-ended question, but confining it to just the US makes the case of a hypothetical ban more clear that it won't ever be accepted and wouldn't work even if it was. 2. Nope. The US has a culture of firearms because of the historic significance firearms played in both securing its independence and expanding its borders westward through the New World. Surely you've noticed the romanticization of the Wild West and both mob and modern gang violence in American movies, songs, books and so on. The right to keep firearms is also written into their constitution as a means of self-defense, defense of the nation and a safeguard against oppression. It's not impossible to remove that right, but with an issue that near and dear to a lot of people, the US might need another big violent conflict to resolve it. (Good luck to you, if you're the one assigned to searching people's homes and removing their firearms by force.) We should also consider that the US develops and sells various types of firearms and ammunitions, so it's a dynamic part of their economy. 3. My opinion? Of course it is, just like it's your opinion that "many" people will surrender their firearms. I don't have a problem believing that some will and others won't. Even now, there are many citizens who do not own guns although they have the means to get one. I guess we will never know exactly how many will go either route. But just as Prohibition in the 20's failed to stop alcohol distribution and consumption and the drug war failed to stop people from smoking marijuana or cocaine, I seriously doubt a ban on firearms will have the effect you might be hoping for. Jailing all those people has also been extremely expensive for the government (in other words, taxpayers) and has had a huge negative impact on many communities.</quote> 1. I can't speak for you, but what I was talking about is that the "100% ban solution doesn't work" is hypothetical as long as that right to bear arms amendment is in place and I was giving an example of a socially similar country that does show where it is highly effective to suggest that the statement is not true. 2. Yeah right. Remember the good old days when you and I would walk the streets of the wild west and had to endure the issues with slavery? Cultures change. A lot of your points are "we should keep everything the same, because a lot of things depend on things being the same like the economy". You might be surprised to hear that change can also bring prosperity and economic success. 3. Expecting people will follow the law is not simply my opinion. Its a fact and much more reasonable then expecting a violent uprising against the country especially if the decision was already made democratically. People can smuggle all the alcohol they want, but when they are caught they will hand it over or face repercussions. A difference is you can easily make more alcohol illegally, but you can't easily get firearms over and over unless you are willing to deal with some risky people. Also prohibition is different. Drinking is habitual and dependence forming, which does not apply for guns. Alcoholics will drink because they feel compelled by their addiction while carrying a firearm is hardly the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StarReaper13 08/20/17 2:28:48 PM #215:	I believe that it should be up to the parents given that abortion is their choice to make. --- Ignore when people say that the title length is not important, that a title should just convey what the game is about. They're just jealous theirs isn't as long <cite>StarReaper13 posted [p:885121937] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>I believe that it should be up to the parents given that abortion is their choice to make.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/21/17 11:50:30 AM #216:	@YourAlt hey you still seem butthurt over this thread got something to add? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:885175746] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>@YourAlt hey you still seem butthurt over this thread got something to add?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cookie Bag 08/21/17 11:53:24 AM #217:	NeoShadowhen posted... Good god. You know who else killed everyone with Down syndrome? The nazis. Yeah yeah yeah abortion isn't murder blah blah. Save it. Only on CE you get clowns comparing the nazis to aborting babies with mental deficiencies lmao --- http://i.imgur.com/OF1xgHw.gif <cite>Cookie Bag posted [p:885175911] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>NeoShadowhen posted...</cite> <quote>Good god. You know who else killed everyone with Down syndrome? The nazis. Yeah yeah yeah abortion isn't murder blah blah. Save it.</quote> Only on CE you get clowns comparing the nazis to aborting babies with mental deficiencies lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/21/17 12:00:46 PM #218:	Cookie Bag posted... Only on CE you get clowns comparing the nazis to aborting babies with mental deficiencies lmao Nah. It's a convenient argument for moral-panickers elsewhere as well. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:885176252] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cookie Bag posted...</cite> <quote>Only on CE you get clowns comparing the nazis to aborting babies with mental deficiencies lmao</quote> Nah. It's a convenient argument for moral-panickers elsewhere as well.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/22/17 5:09:34 AM #219:	Cookie Bag posted... NeoShadowhen posted... Good god. You know who else killed everyone with Down syndrome? The nazis. Yeah yeah yeah abortion isn't murder blah blah. Save it. Only on CE you get clowns comparing the nazis to aborting babies with mental deficiencies lmao You can hardly dismiss it as a colourful equivalence when encouraging and sometimes forcing the abortion of children with congenital defects is literally something the Nazis did. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885224291] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cookie Bag posted...</cite> <quote><cite>NeoShadowhen posted...</cite> <quote>Good god. You know who else killed everyone with Down syndrome? The nazis. Yeah yeah yeah abortion isn't murder blah blah. Save it.</quote> Only on CE you get clowns comparing the nazis to aborting babies with mental deficiencies lmao</quote> You can hardly dismiss it as a colourful equivalence when encouraging and sometimes forcing the abortion of children with congenital defects is literally something the Nazis did.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
apolloooo 08/22/17 5:10:47 AM #220:	AlternativeFAQS posted... yes. it's pretty fucked up to bring a kid into the world who's just gonna suffer just so you can say you had a kid. --- http://i.imgtc.com/iJyp6bF.png http://i.imgtc.com/ZBw36Qh.png Thanks for the peeps that made the pics <3 if i make typos it means i am on phone <cite>apolloooo posted [p:885224310] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>AlternativeFAQS posted...</cite> <quote>yes. it's pretty fucked up to bring a kid into the world who's just gonna suffer just so you can say you had a kid.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ToonLinkWithGun 08/22/17 5:13:14 AM #221:	apolloooo posted... AlternativeFAQS posted... yes. it's pretty fucked up to bring a kid into the world who's just gonna suffer just so you can say you had a kid. Clearly you've never spent time with a person with downs. They are not suffering. The only reason they suffer is because of bullies and people who say they aren't worth anything because they are defective. I've met hundreds of people with downs and they love being alive and they love literally everyone. The only suffering they endure is because of people who blame them or bully them. --- Wombo Combo! http://i.imgur.com/fToefC5.jpg <cite>ToonLinkWithGun posted [p:885224361] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>apolloooo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>AlternativeFAQS posted...</cite> <quote>yes. it's pretty fucked up to bring a kid into the world who's just gonna suffer just so you can say you had a kid.</quote></quote> Clearly you've never spent time with a person with downs. They are not suffering. The only reason they suffer is because of bullies and people who say they aren't worth anything because they are defective. I've met hundreds of people with downs and they love being alive and they love literally everyone. The only suffering they endure is because of people who blame them or bully them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MrMallard 08/22/17 5:22:03 AM #222:	When the doctors of Iceland are instructed to forcibly abort handicapped fetuses against a mother's wishes, and the women carrying them are drugged, beat or otherwise made to miscarry due to the will of the government, then we'll talk about Nazis. According to the article, "many opt to end the pregnancy" when they detect developmental issues - like they can choose to end the pregnancy, which is the opposite of this Nazi forced abortion angle you're taking! A woman choosing to abort a fetus is a far cry from Nazi Germany forcing abortions. Call it a cultural crisis, or an eradication, or whatever alarmist terms you want to compare abortion to Nazi horrors - but this is nowhere near what Nazis were doing, and you're a moron if you think the two situations are equivalent. Again - when Iceland's government sponsors eugenics, to the point of mandatory abortion for unwilling mothers, then we'll talk about Nazis. This is not the same, because there is choice involved and it's all entirely above board. --- We kept our friends at bay all summer long, treated the days as though they'd kill us if they could Currently playing: South Park:SoT, Okami <cite>MrMallard posted [p:885224552] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>When the doctors of Iceland are instructed to forcibly abort handicapped fetuses against a mother's wishes, and the women carrying them are drugged, beat or otherwise made to miscarry due to the will of the government, then we'll talk about Nazis. According to the article, "many opt to end the pregnancy" when they detect developmental issues - like they can choose to end the pregnancy, which is the opposite of this Nazi forced abortion angle you're taking! A woman choosing to abort a fetus is a far cry from Nazi Germany forcing abortions. Call it a cultural crisis, or an eradication, or whatever alarmist terms you want to compare abortion to Nazi horrors - but this is nowhere near what Nazis were doing, and you're a moron if you think the two situations are equivalent. Again - when Iceland's government sponsors eugenics, to the point of mandatory abortion for unwilling mothers, then we'll talk about Nazis. This is not the same, because there is choice involved and it's all entirely above board.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/22/17 5:34:46 AM #223:	MrMallard posted... When the doctors of Iceland are instructed to forcibly abort handicapped fetuses against a mother's wishes, and the women carrying them are drugged, beat or otherwise made to miscarry due to the will of the government, then we'll talk about Nazis. Nobody is claiming women in Iceland are forced into aborting down syndrome foetuses. But the society of Iceland clearly has a culture of aborting foetuses because they have down syndrome, and that same culture and attitude existed in Nazi Germany. Furthermore, you have people in this topic praising this attitude, and in some cases prescribing it. According to the article, "many opt to end the pregnancy" when they detect developmental issues - like they can choose to end the pregnancy, which is the opposite of this Nazi forced abortion angle you're taking! In case you didn't see it, I also said "encouraging... the abortion of children with congenital defects." A woman choosing to abort a fetus is a far cry from Nazi Germany forcing abortions. Call it a cultural crisis, or an eradication, or whatever alarmist terms you want to compare abortion to Nazi horrors - but this is nowhere near what Nazis were doing, and you're a moron if you think the two situations are equivalent. Again - when Iceland's government sponsors eugenics, to the point of mandatory abortion for unwilling mothers, then we'll talk about Nazis. This is not the same, because there is choice involved and it's all entirely above board. Of course it's nowhere near what the Nazis were doing in the totality of their eugenics program, but a same (or at least similar) attitude exists in Iceland as existed in Nazi Germany: that people with congenital defects are economic burdens, and it is therefore OK to abort they who would otherwise have been carried to term. Cultural pressure (and its more violent brother, coercion) are certainly part of eugenics, so if you find yourself in a situation where you are aborting certain kinds of babies on the grounds that they are an economic inconvenience, that deserves a lot of caution and evaluation. What's that saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885224848] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>MrMallard posted...</cite> <quote>When the doctors of Iceland are instructed to forcibly abort handicapped fetuses against a mother's wishes, and the women carrying them are drugged, beat or otherwise made to miscarry due to the will of the government, then we'll talk about Nazis.</quote> Nobody is claiming women in Iceland are forced into aborting down syndrome foetuses. But the society of Iceland clearly has a culture of aborting foetuses because they have down syndrome, and that same culture and attitude existed in Nazi Germany. Furthermore, you have people in this topic praising this attitude, and in some cases prescribing it. <quote>According to the article, "many opt to end the pregnancy" when they detect developmental issues - like they can choose to end the pregnancy, which is the opposite of this Nazi forced abortion angle you're taking!</quote> In case you didn't see it, I also said "encouraging... the abortion of children with congenital defects." <quote>A woman choosing to abort a fetus is a far cry from Nazi Germany forcing abortions. Call it a cultural crisis, or an eradication, or whatever alarmist terms you want to compare abortion to Nazi horrors - but this is nowhere near what Nazis were doing, and you're a moron if you think the two situations are equivalent. Again - when Iceland's government sponsors eugenics, to the point of mandatory abortion for unwilling mothers, then we'll talk about Nazis. This is not the same, because there is choice involved and it's all entirely above board.</quote> Of course it's nowhere near what the Nazis were doing in the totality of their eugenics program, but a same (or at least similar) attitude exists in Iceland as existed in Nazi Germany: that people with congenital defects are economic burdens, and it is therefore OK to abort they who would otherwise have been carried to term. Cultural pressure (and its more violent brother, coercion) are certainly part of eugenics, so if you find yourself in a situation where you are aborting certain kinds of babies on the grounds that they are an economic inconvenience, that deserves a lot of caution and evaluation. What's that saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/22/17 7:35:09 AM #224:	The culture in Iceland is also to drink water water when you feel thirsty, the same culture that existed in Nazi Germany. Iceland must also support Nazi ideology. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885227283] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>The culture in Iceland is also to drink water water when you feel thirsty, the same culture that existed in Nazi Germany. Iceland must also support Nazi ideology.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/22/17 8:27:11 AM #225:	Hexagon posted... The culture in Iceland is also to drink water water when you feel thirsty, the same culture that existed in Nazi Germany. Iceland must also support Nazi ideology. Drinking water hasn't been used as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Aborting foetuses because they have congenital defects or handicaps has been. The comparison is not exact, but fair, and invites a more careful scrutiny of the reasons behind this attitude. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885228684] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>The culture in Iceland is also to drink water water when you feel thirsty, the same culture that existed in Nazi Germany. Iceland must also support Nazi ideology.</quote> Drinking water hasn't been used as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Aborting foetuses because they have congenital defects or handicaps has been. The comparison is not exact, but fair, and invites a more careful scrutiny of the reasons behind this attitude.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/22/17 8:42:35 AM #226:	Sinroth posted... Hexagon posted... The culture in Iceland is also to drink water water when you feel thirsty, the same culture that existed in Nazi Germany. Iceland must also support Nazi ideology. Drinking water hasn't been used as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Aborting foetuses because they have congenital defects or handicaps has been. The comparison is not exact, but fair, and invites a more careful scrutiny of the reasons behind this attitude. The comparison is not comparing ethnic cleansing to drinking water, its comparing anything done to what nazi's did even if it has nothing to do with nazi ideologies. Trisomy 21 is a disease. Period. Doctors and health scientists work to diagnose and treat diseases and to look after the health of their society. Doctors diagnose an untreatable disease in the fetus of their patients and their patients choose to abort their fetus instead of bringing a chronically ill person into the world. The fallacy that you're dedicated to is that nazis did the same thing through horrific means and that doctors must be following after nazi ideologies when no such equivalency exists. Nazis did not exist to consult potential parents of the health of their fetus. That was not their goal. Their goal was to shape the world according to what they deemed was the superior race. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885229181] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sinroth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>The culture in Iceland is also to drink water water when you feel thirsty, the same culture that existed in Nazi Germany. Iceland must also support Nazi ideology.</quote> Drinking water hasn't been used as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Aborting foetuses because they have congenital defects or handicaps has been. The comparison is not exact, but fair, and invites a more careful scrutiny of the reasons behind this attitude.</quote> The comparison is not comparing ethnic cleansing to drinking water, its comparing anything done to what nazi's did even if it has nothing to do with nazi ideologies. Trisomy 21 is a disease. Period. Doctors and health scientists work to diagnose and treat diseases and to look after the health of their society. Doctors diagnose an untreatable disease in the fetus of their patients and their patients choose to abort their fetus instead of bringing a chronically ill person into the world. The fallacy that you're dedicated to is that nazis did the same thing through horrific means and that doctors must be following after nazi ideologies when no such equivalency exists. Nazis did not exist to consult potential parents of the health of their fetus. That was not their goal. Their goal was to shape the world according to what they deemed was the superior race.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#227	Post #227 was unavailable or deleted.
Callixtus 08/22/17 11:13:43 AM #228:	Asherlee10 posted... ToonLinkWithGun posted... apolloooo posted... AlternativeFAQS posted... yes. it's pretty fucked up to bring a kid into the world who's just gonna suffer just so you can say you had a kid. Clearly you've never spent time with a person with downs. They are not suffering. The only reason they suffer is because of bullies and people who say they aren't worth anything because they are defective. I've met hundreds of people with downs and they love being alive and they love literally everyone. The only suffering they endure is because of people who blame them or bully them. I know 2 people with a child that has Down Syndrome and it is incredibly daunting. I've regularly heard them both mention things like, "It's exhausting all the time." "It's expensive." "We can't do a lot of things any more because of him." I think that the parents probably suffer the most. Yeah, they should have killed them instead --- KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos <cite>Callixtus posted [p:885235302] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ToonLinkWithGun posted...</cite> <quote><cite>apolloooo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>AlternativeFAQS posted...</cite> <quote>yes. it's pretty fucked up to bring a kid into the world who's just gonna suffer just so you can say you had a kid.</quote></quote> Clearly you've never spent time with a person with downs. They are not suffering. The only reason they suffer is because of bullies and people who say they aren't worth anything because they are defective. I've met hundreds of people with downs and they love being alive and they love literally everyone. The only suffering they endure is because of people who blame them or bully them.</quote> I know 2 people with a child that has Down Syndrome and it is incredibly daunting. I've regularly heard them both mention things like, "It's exhausting all the time." "It's expensive." "We can't do a lot of things any more because of him." I think that the parents probably suffer the most.</quote> Yeah, they should have killed them instead</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/22/17 11:52:07 AM #229:	You know, maybe we should change the legal limit for abortion in America to the 2880th trimester for the dullards amongst us. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:885237361] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>You know, maybe we should change the legal limit for abortion in America to the 2880th trimester for the dullards amongst us.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medz2017 08/22/17 11:53:59 AM #230:	strange how one hundred percent of people who are pro choice have already been born. --- Hi <cite>Medz2017 posted [p:885237451] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>strange how one hundred percent of people who are pro choice have already been born.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MrPeppers 08/22/17 11:56:15 AM #231:	From personal experience it's about 75/25 in favor of keeping at our particular MFM clinic. --- http://i.imgur.com/SGkkbF0.png <cite>MrPeppers posted [p:885237573] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>From personal experience it's about 75/25 in favor of keeping at our particular MFM clinic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/23/17 8:57:53 PM #232:	You know I'm right. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885333592] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>You know I'm right.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/24/17 6:14:48 AM #233:	Hexagon posted... The comparison is not comparing ethnic cleansing to drinking water, its comparing anything done to what nazi's did even if it has nothing to do with nazi ideologies. Trisomy 21 is a disease. Period. Doctors and health scientists work to diagnose and treat diseases and to look after the health of their society. Doctors diagnose an untreatable disease in the fetus of their patients and their patients choose to abort their fetus instead of bringing a chronically ill person into the world. I would agree with your argument if down syndrome were an actual horrendous disease, committing the person to an extremely short, painful, and miserable life. But that's simply not the case; down syndrome people are perfectly capable of living happy, fulfilling, meaningful lives. This is like saying we should abort all blind people, because you'll face more obstacles as a blind person, or that we should abort all gay people, because you're more likely to face discrimination and therefore be upset. But these arguments are clearly rubbish, because blind and gay people can still live happy, etc. lives despite adversity. The fallacy that you're dedicated to is that nazis did the same thing through horrific means and that doctors must be following after nazi ideologies when no such equivalency exists. Where did you get that idea? All I'm saying is that Iceland, people in this topic, and Nazi Germany have similar attitudes about when abortions are preferable. And in this topic, in some cases, people are prescribing the abortion of down syndrome foetuses as some kind of morally correct action. The attitude that we should abort medical undesirables to improve the stock of humans, for whatever ends, is as reprehensible in Nazi Germany as it is in Iceland. It was just as reprehensible when abortion was pushed (and at its most extreme, forced) onto black Americans in the 1930s. Nazis did not exist to consult potential parents of the health of their fetus. That was not their goal. Their goal was to shape the world according to what they deemed was the superior race. You can phrase it in whatever positive terms you like, but the fact remains that people who could live happy, meaningful, fulfilling lives are being aborted because they are down syndrome, and for no other justifiable reason. It is completely within the means of individuals, communities, and governments in developed western countries to accommodate them. But instead of realising the justice and welfare of all people --- regardless of physical ability --- we let personal shame and economic convenience win. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885352055] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>The comparison is not comparing ethnic cleansing to drinking water, its comparing anything done to what nazi's did even if it has nothing to do with nazi ideologies. Trisomy 21 is a disease. Period. Doctors and health scientists work to diagnose and treat diseases and to look after the health of their society. Doctors diagnose an untreatable disease in the fetus of their patients and their patients choose to abort their fetus instead of bringing a chronically ill person into the world.</quote> I would agree with your argument if down syndrome were an actual horrendous disease, committing the person to an extremely short, painful, and miserable life. But that's simply not the case; down syndrome people are perfectly capable of living happy, fulfilling, meaningful lives. This is like saying we should abort all blind people, because you'll face more obstacles as a blind person, or that we should abort all gay people, because you're more likely to face discrimination and therefore be upset. But these arguments are clearly rubbish, because blind and gay people can still live happy, etc. lives despite adversity. <quote> The fallacy that you're dedicated to is that nazis did the same thing through horrific means and that doctors must be following after nazi ideologies when no such equivalency exists.</quote> Where did you get that idea? All I'm saying is that Iceland, people in this topic, and Nazi Germany have similar attitudes about when abortions are preferable. And in this topic, in some cases, people are prescribing the abortion of down syndrome foetuses as some kind of morally correct action. The attitude that we should abort medical undesirables to improve the stock of humans, for whatever ends, is as reprehensible in Nazi Germany as it is in Iceland. It was just as reprehensible when abortion was pushed (and at its most extreme, forced) onto black Americans in the 1930s. <quote>Nazis did not exist to consult potential parents of the health of their fetus. That was not their goal. Their goal was to shape the world according to what they deemed was the superior race.</quote> You can phrase it in whatever positive terms you like, but the fact remains that people who could live happy, meaningful, fulfilling lives are being aborted because they are down syndrome, and for no other justifiable reason. It is completely within the means of individuals, communities, and governments in developed western countries to accommodate them. But instead of realising the justice and welfare of all people --- regardless of physical ability --- we let personal shame and economic convenience win.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/24/17 8:20:08 AM #234:	I would agree with your argument if down syndrome were an actual horrendous disease Horrendous is in the eye of the beholder. Subjective argument. In a world where manual labor jobs are being rapidly replaced by machinery, I consider a disease that significantly impacts intelligence a horrible thing to have inflicted on you. I would also definitely abort a fetus that will be blind because of the true adversity they will face, which is not comparable to bigotry. All I'm saying is that Iceland, people in this topic, and Nazi Germany have similar attitudes about when abortions are preferable. Nazis drink water. Abortion health consultants also drink water. They must share similar ideologies. but the fact remains that people who could live happy, meaningful, fulfilling lives are being aborted because they are down syndrome No person is being aborted. Of course people are happy they are alive, who can conceive their life not being alive? But removing the existence of a person isn't the same as never existing. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885354807] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><quote> I would agree with your argument if down syndrome were an actual horrendous disease</quote> Horrendous is in the eye of the beholder. Subjective argument. In a world where manual labor jobs are being rapidly replaced by machinery, I consider a disease that significantly impacts intelligence a horrible thing to have inflicted on you. I would also definitely abort a fetus that will be blind because of the true adversity they will face, which is not comparable to bigotry. <quote>All I'm saying is that Iceland, people in this topic, and Nazi Germany have similar attitudes about when abortions are preferable.</quote> Nazis drink water. Abortion health consultants also drink water. They must share similar ideologies. <quote>but the fact remains that people who could live happy, meaningful, fulfilling lives are being aborted because they are down syndrome</quote> No person is being aborted. Of course people are happy they are alive, who can conceive their life not being alive? But removing the existence of a person isn't the same as never existing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/24/17 9:13:57 AM #235:	Hexagon posted... Horrendous is in the eye of the beholder. Subjective argument. In a world where manual labor jobs are being rapidly replaced by machinery, I consider a disease that significantly impacts intelligence a horrible thing to have inflicted on you. I would also definitely abort a fetus that will be blind because of the true adversity they will face, which is not comparable to bigotry. Being blind or having down syndrome doesn't impact your quality of life to the point where you're incapable of living a happy, fulfilling, meaningful life. If your argument is that these people have greater adversity to overcome, then very well, but by the same logic we should have aborted any gay, stupid or black foetus, or any other kind of foetus from a marginalised or challenged group, because they have greater adversity to overcome. Do you think it fine to abort a foetus on the grounds of it being black, or gay, or stupid? I'm sure most people would, but in that case what is it about a black or gay or stupid person that entitles them to existence where a person with down syndrome is not? Nazis drink water. Abortion health consultants also drink water. They must share similar ideologies. The point isn't to say that everything Nazis do or believe is bad, so therefore this is as well. The point is that both are bad for the same reason --- they are morally equivalent --- and to illustrate this by a clear and obvious comparison to the Nazis, who we all unequivocally agree are evil. No person is being aborted. Of course people are happy they are alive, who can conceive their life not being alive? But removing the existence of a person isn't the same as never existing. In weighing whether you ought to do an action, morally, you must consider how your actions will change the world and the future. It is completely sensible to talk about having harmed future generations because of climate change, or bad economic policy, or to consider a more serious kind of wrong to have been committed when a pregnant woman miscarries because of an assault on her person, than if she had not been pregnant. If the non-existence of someone is a direct, positive consequence of your actions, you are the morally responsible agent for the matter. I believe strongly in the pro-life argument, so to me, these are people being killed. But even if you don't believe in that, the moral status of a foetus who would have been carried to term except for their having down syndrome is not an obvious or immediate consequence of the pro-choice position, and an argument (or at least a clarification from your moral framework on abortion ethics) is required either way. The only argument being presented appears to be that people with down syndrome suffer greater adversity, so it is OK to abort what would have otherwise been carried to term. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885356603] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>Horrendous is in the eye of the beholder. Subjective argument. In a world where manual labor jobs are being rapidly replaced by machinery, I consider a disease that significantly impacts intelligence a horrible thing to have inflicted on you. I would also definitely abort a fetus that will be blind because of the true adversity they will face, which is not comparable to bigotry.</quote> Being blind or having down syndrome doesn't impact your quality of life to the point where you're incapable of living a happy, fulfilling, meaningful life. If your argument is that these people have greater adversity to overcome, then very well, but by the same logic we should have aborted any gay, stupid or black foetus, or any other kind of foetus from a marginalised or challenged group, because they have greater adversity to overcome. Do you think it fine to abort a foetus on the grounds of it being black, or gay, or stupid? I'm sure most people would, but in that case what is it about a black or gay or stupid person that entitles them to existence where a person with down syndrome is not? <quote>Nazis drink water. Abortion health consultants also drink water. They must share similar ideologies. </quote> The point isn't to say that everything Nazis do or believe is bad, so therefore this is as well. The point is that both are bad for the same reason --- they are morally equivalent --- and to illustrate this by a clear and obvious comparison to the Nazis, who we all unequivocally agree are evil. <quote>No person is being aborted. Of course people are happy they are alive, who can conceive their life not being alive? But removing the existence of a person isn't the same as never existing.</quote> In weighing whether you ought to do an action, morally, you must consider how your actions will change the world and the future. It is completely sensible to talk about having harmed future generations because of climate change, or bad economic policy, or to consider a more serious kind of wrong to have been committed when a pregnant woman miscarries because of an assault on her person, than if she had not been pregnant. If the non-existence of someone is a direct, positive consequence of your actions, you are the morally responsible agent for the matter. I believe strongly in the pro-life argument, so to me, these are people being killed. But even if you don't believe in that, the moral status of a foetus who would have been carried to term except for their having down syndrome is not an obvious or immediate consequence of the pro-choice position, and an argument (or at least a clarification from your moral framework on abortion ethics) is required either way. The only argument being presented appears to be that people with down syndrome suffer greater adversity, so it is OK to abort what would have otherwise been carried to term.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NepGear462 08/24/17 9:16:00 AM #236:	The ethical choice. <cite>NepGear462 posted [p:885356687] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>The ethical choice.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Callixtus 08/24/17 9:48:06 AM #237:	I don't know why people in this topic assume that they have the right to assume that Downs Syndrome people are better off not being born than live with their disability. It takes an awful lot of arrogance to make that evaluation. --- KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos <cite>Callixtus posted [p:885357856] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>I don't know why people in this topic assume that they have the right to assume that Downs Syndrome people are better off not being born than live with their disability. It takes an awful lot of arrogance to make that evaluation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/24/17 12:13:13 PM #238:	Holy s*** that slippery cliff. or any other kind of foetus from a marginalised or challenged group No because diversity is not a #$@$% disease that's why. If you can't see the difference that doesn't mean that no one can. That's why we have professionals that study these things and are educated on the matter. but by the same logic Indeed. If you insist on the slippery slope argument, then I will do the same. What's that? You were diagnosed with terminal cancer? There is no need to go to a treatment facility, as long as you live your life meaningfully and happily until you die of your vastly reduced life span then that's all that matters. What's that? You contracted malaria and blood eating parasites are slowly killing you and making your life feel as if you are constantly sick and depressed? It's still possible to be happy though therefore as long as you live your life meaningfully there is no course of action that is necessary for dealing with malaria. What's that? You have a flesh eating bacteria that is eating through your arm and you are in incredible pain? Happy thoughts and think of all the things you are still capable of doing if you are still alive the next day. No one cares of the hypothetical "what you could do or what is possible or what could be". The argument is to have the choice. The choice to get medical treatment and not the choice to do nothing, but stay happy. If I have the knowledge I'd be bringing a person with an objectively real disease into the world and I know can conceive again and raise a healthy individual I'll do so if I wish to do so. The point is that both are bad for the same reason --- they are morally equivalent You are still drinking that same thirst quencher as the nazis and you don't even realize it; it's hilarious. The irony is that with your slippery slope argument, it's actually you that is the nazi moral sympathizer. You are putting words in people's mouths and accusing them of something that is not happening. >if we abort people that have diseases, then we will abort people that are marginalized, therefore you are morally equivalent to a nazi. But no one is doing or saying that. There is only one person saying things and that's you. You are saying that people should be restricted from bodily autonomy because they carry a non-person mass of human matter in their body. You are equating disease to biological diversity such as ethnicity This is literally nazi ideology and you are suggesting it. If the non-existence of someone is a direct, positive consequence of your actions, you are the morally responsible agent for the matter. This is a pathetically hilarious argument. I wonder how many millions of times people have caused someone to not exist by not being promiscuous, or wearing protection or maybe because somebody's uterus was too high in pH and conception didn't occur. If only you didn't use that hygienic product. Or you decide you don't want to raise a family but you know you are able to. The possibilities are endless. FYI climate change, economic policy and the works are all matters of convincing people of doing the right choice, not to punish them so you should rethink that. As a second matter, I can argue that willingly bringing a diseased person into the world as being equivalent to willingly contributing to climate change, or willingly make economic policies that will make people's lives difficult. Poor argument. these are people being killed. You are free to say whatever you want, but this choice of words is wrong. Personhood is already defined unless the it's argued to be amended then you are being non sensible. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:885364651] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>Holy s*** that slippery cliff. <quote>or any other kind of foetus from a marginalised or challenged group</quote> No because diversity is not a #$@$% disease that's why. If you can't see the difference that doesn't mean that no one can. That's why we have professionals that study these things and are educated on the matter. <quote>but by the same logic</quote> Indeed. If you insist on the slippery slope argument, then I will do the same. What's that? You were diagnosed with terminal cancer? There is no need to go to a treatment facility, as long as you live your life meaningfully and happily until you die of your vastly reduced life span then that's all that matters. What's that? You contracted malaria and blood eating parasites are slowly killing you and making your life feel as if you are constantly sick and depressed? It's still possible to be happy though therefore as long as you live your life meaningfully there is no course of action that is necessary for dealing with malaria. What's that? You have a flesh eating bacteria that is eating through your arm and you are in incredible pain? Happy thoughts and think of all the things you are still capable of doing if you are still alive the next day. No one cares of the hypothetical "what you could do or what is possible or what could be". The argument is to have the choice. The choice to get medical treatment and not the choice to do nothing, but stay happy. If I have the knowledge I'd be bringing a person with an objectively real disease into the world and I know can conceive again and raise a healthy individual I'll do so if I wish to do so. <quote>The point is that both are bad for the same reason --- they are morally equivalent</quote> You are still drinking that same thirst quencher as the nazis and you don't even realize it; it's hilarious. The irony is that with your slippery slope argument, it's actually you that is the nazi moral sympathizer. You are putting words in people's mouths and accusing them of something that is not happening. >if we abort people that have diseases, then we will abort people that are marginalized, therefore you are morally equivalent to a nazi. But no one is doing or saying that. There is only one person saying things and that's you. You are saying that people should be restricted from bodily autonomy because they carry a non-person mass of human matter in their body. You are equating disease to biological diversity such as ethnicity This is literally nazi ideology and you are suggesting it. <quote>If the non-existence of someone is a direct, positive consequence of your actions, you are the morally responsible agent for the matter.</quote> This is a pathetically hilarious argument. I wonder how many millions of times people have caused someone to not exist by not being promiscuous, or wearing protection or maybe because somebody's uterus was too high in pH and conception didn't occur. If only you didn't use that hygienic product. Or you decide you don't want to raise a family but you know you are able to. The possibilities are endless. FYI climate change, economic policy and the works are all matters of convincing people of doing the right choice, not to punish them so you should rethink that. As a second matter, I can argue that willingly bringing a diseased person into the world as being equivalent to willingly contributing to climate change, or willingly make economic policies that will make people's lives difficult. Poor argument. <quote>these are people being killed.</quote> You are free to say whatever you want, but this choice of words is wrong. Personhood is already defined unless the it's argued to be amended then you are being non sensible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thrashmetal14 08/24/17 12:15:03 PM #239:	CountessRolab posted... Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that. I think its pretty unethical to take away a living being's right to life just because they have a disability <cite>thrashmetal14 posted [p:885364726] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>CountessRolab posted...</cite> <quote>Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.</quote> I think its pretty unethical to take away a living being's right to life just because they have a disability</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 08/25/17 6:45:57 PM #240:	The people saying they would only abort "true autism" are on a slippery slope. 1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"? 2. People want perfect babies. I know there are some parents that would abort just cause the baby is mildly autistic. Oh he is gonna be obsessed with trains? Abort! <cite>Zikten posted [p:885447240] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>The people saying they would only abort "true autism" are on a slippery slope. 1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"? 2. People want perfect babies. I know there are some parents that would abort just cause the baby is mildly autistic. Oh he is gonna be obsessed with trains? Abort!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/25/17 7:12:32 PM #241:	Zikten posted... 1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"? Who is saying this? No you can't detect it. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:885448622] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"?</quote> Who is saying this? No you can't detect it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 08/25/17 8:20:01 PM #242:	P4wn4g3 posted... Zikten posted... 1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"? Who is saying this? No you can't detect it. Then that proves my position. It's wrong to abort autism babies. You could be killing people with mild autism <cite>Zikten posted [p:885451915] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"?</quote> Who is saying this? No you can't detect it.</quote> Then that proves my position. It's wrong to abort autism babies. You could be killing people with mild autism</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/26/17 12:55:07 AM #244:	Zikten posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Zikten posted... 1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"? Who is saying this? No you can't detect it. Then that proves my position. It's wrong to abort autism babies. You could be killing people with mild autism You make no sense at all. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:885464614] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>1. Would we be able to tell in the womb, the difference between true autism and "on the spectrum"?</quote> Who is saying this? No you can't detect it.</quote> Then that proves my position. It's wrong to abort autism babies. You could be killing people with mild autism</quote> You make no sense at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
StickFigures720 08/26/17 2:01:29 AM #245:	This problem here is that many of us are letting our emotional bias run loose. --- "Someone give me some aspirin." PSN: StickFigures1080 <cite>StickFigures720 posted [p:885467054] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>This problem here is that many of us are letting our emotional bias run loose.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/26/17 2:24:15 AM #246:	Hexagon posted... No because diversity is not a #$@$% disease that's why. If you can't see the difference that doesn't mean that no one can. That's why we have professionals that study these things and are educated on the matter. Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, not a disease. But your point isn't really that people with down syndrome are better off being aborted because they have a "disease". Many diseases, genetic or whatever, are (in terms of living a meaningful, fulfilling life) innocuous and do not prevent a person from living a full, satisfying life. Down syndrome is the same. This is not to deny the greater adversity they will face, but the adversity they face isn't really sufficient to say their life is certainly going to be miserable and is better off never happening, just as we wouldn't say the extra adversity a minority endures makes them better off never existing. What's that? You were diagnosed with terminal cancer? There is no need to go to a treatment facility, as long as you live your life meaningfully and happily until you die of your vastly reduced life span then that's all that matters. What's that? You contracted malaria and blood eating parasites are slowly killing you and making your life feel as if you are constantly sick and depressed? It's still possible to be happy though therefore as long as you live your life meaningfully there is no course of action that is necessary for dealing with malaria. What's that? You have a flesh eating bacteria that is eating through your arm and you are in incredible pain? Happy thoughts and think of all the things you are still capable of doing if you are still alive the next day. Down syndrome isn't a flesh-eating bacteria, a blood-eating parasite, malaria, or cancer. It's honestly ridiculous that you think it's some kind of certain death sentence. Have you ever stepped out of your own head and met or talked to anyone with down syndrome? Back home there used to be a guy with down syndrome who did the trolleys at the supermarket, and we'd grumble about the weather, work, and rugby, the same as any two people in polite company would. He had a job, and presumably went home and did whatever people do when they go home. His disability wasn't lethal. This isn't a single case either. People with down syndrome are perfectly capable of having meaningful, fulfilling, happy lives, if only people didn't compare them to fucking cancer and treat them like dogshit. No one cares of the hypothetical "what you could do or what is possible or what could be". The argument is to have the choice. The choice to get medical treatment and not the choice to do nothing, but stay happy. If I have the knowledge I'd be bringing a person with an objectively real disease into the world and I know can conceive again and raise a healthy individual I'll do so if I wish to do so. Your own misapplied argument from before applies here: aborting a foetus isn't curing a chromosomal disorder, it is acting to prevent it from ever actualising. But is it just to act to prevent that person from ever existing? A person who would, except for their down syndrome, have been carried to term, and loved and nurtured? It's tricky. It could be just if they had some truly horrifying condition which condemned them to a miserable existence and a short, certain death. But that isn't the case with down syndrome. This attitude is either prejudice against people with down syndrome, or total ignorance about them. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885467936] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>No because diversity is not a #$@$% disease that's why. If you can't see the difference that doesn't mean that no one can. That's why we have professionals that study these things and are educated on the matter.</quote> Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, not a disease. But your point isn't really that people with down syndrome are better off being aborted because they have a "disease". Many diseases, genetic or whatever, are (in terms of living a meaningful, fulfilling life) innocuous and do not prevent a person from living a full, satisfying life. Down syndrome is the same. This is not to deny the greater adversity they will face, but the adversity they face isn't really sufficient to say their life is certainly going to be miserable and is better off never happening, just as we wouldn't say the extra adversity a minority endures makes them better off never existing. <quote>What's that? You were diagnosed with terminal cancer? There is no need to go to a treatment facility, as long as you live your life meaningfully and happily until you die of your vastly reduced life span then that's all that matters. What's that? You contracted malaria and blood eating parasites are slowly killing you and making your life feel as if you are constantly sick and depressed? It's still possible to be happy though therefore as long as you live your life meaningfully there is no course of action that is necessary for dealing with malaria. What's that? You have a flesh eating bacteria that is eating through your arm and you are in incredible pain? Happy thoughts and think of all the things you are still capable of doing if you are still alive the next day.</quote> Down syndrome isn't a flesh-eating bacteria, a blood-eating parasite, malaria, or cancer. It's honestly ridiculous that you think it's some kind of certain death sentence. Have you ever stepped out of your own head and met or talked to anyone with down syndrome? Back home there used to be a guy with down syndrome who did the trolleys at the supermarket, and we'd grumble about the weather, work, and rugby, the same as any two people in polite company would. He had a job, and presumably went home and did whatever people do when they go home. His disability wasn't lethal. This isn't a single case either. People with down syndrome are perfectly capable of having meaningful, fulfilling, happy lives, if only people didn't compare them to fucking cancer and treat them like dogshit. <quote>No one cares of the hypothetical "what you could do or what is possible or what could be". The argument is to have the choice. The choice to get medical treatment and not the choice to do nothing, but stay happy. If I have the knowledge I'd be bringing a person with an objectively real disease into the world and I know can conceive again and raise a healthy individual I'll do so if I wish to do so.</quote> Your own misapplied argument from before applies here: aborting a foetus isn't curing a chromosomal disorder, it is acting to prevent it from ever actualising. But is it just to act to prevent that person from ever existing? A person who would, except for their down syndrome, have been carried to term, and loved and nurtured? It's tricky. It could be just if they had some truly horrifying condition which condemned them to a miserable existence and a short, certain death. But that isn't the case with down syndrome. This attitude is either prejudice against people with down syndrome, or total ignorance about them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/26/17 2:24:34 AM #247:	You are saying that people should be restricted from bodily autonomy because they carry a non-person mass of human matter in their body. I never said any such thing. You're conflating my declared pro-life position (which isn't under discussion) with the argument about whether it is OK to abort a foetus, who would otherwise be carried to term, on the grounds that it has down syndrome (which is under discussion). You are equating disease to biological diversity such as ethnicity This is literally nazi ideology and you are suggesting it. How can you misinterpret an argument this badly? The point being made in support of Iceland is that it is just to abort a foetus if it is going to have a life of undue misery and adversity. But people with down syndrome don't have such lives. If the adversity of having down syndrome means it's better off you never existing, then a comparable point, based on the same argument, can easily hold for minorities. For example, the suicide rate of transgender people is something absurdly high like 30-50%, depending on what studies you look at. These are people that face tremendous adversity in life. But if we could diagnose a foetus as being transgender, would it be OK to abort them? A better thing to do is just not discriminate against transgender people, nor against those with down syndrome. This is a pathetically hilarious argument. I wonder how many millions of times people have caused someone to not exist by not being promiscuous, or wearing protection or maybe because somebody's uterus was too high in pH and conception didn't occur. If only you didn't use that hygienic product. Or you decide you don't want to raise a family but you know you are able to. The possibilities are endless. Every example you've given is not an action taking in knowledge of the outcomes. They are either actions taken in total ignorance of the outcomes, or inactions. If your inaction leads to some event X (the life of a person with down syndrome), and your action directly causes X to not happen, then you (and other people relating to the cause) are the agent who is morally responsible for it. FYI climate change, economic policy and the works are all matters of convincing people of doing the right choice, not to punish them so you should rethink that. As a second matter, I can argue that willingly bringing a diseased person into the world as being equivalent to willingly contributing to climate change, or willingly make economic policies that will make people's lives difficult. Poor argument. Why is it the right choice? One reason, which I'm sure most would agree with, is because it directly affects the welfare of future people, who don't yet exist, but will. You are free to say whatever you want, but this choice of words is wrong. Personhood is already defined unless the it's argued to be amended then you are being non sensible. We're discussing the ethics of aborting a foetus on the grounds of it having down syndrome in a pro-choice framework, so my personal disbelief in such a framework isn't relevant and only distracts from the major premises at hand. So let's not go there. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885467952] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><quote>You are saying that people should be restricted from bodily autonomy because they carry a non-person mass of human matter in their body.</quote> I never said any such thing. You're conflating my declared pro-life position (which isn't under discussion) with the argument about whether it is OK to abort a foetus, who would otherwise be carried to term, on the grounds that it has down syndrome (which is under discussion). <quote>You are equating disease to biological diversity such as ethnicity This is literally nazi ideology and you are suggesting it.</quote> How can you misinterpret an argument this badly? The point being made in support of Iceland is that it is just to abort a foetus if it is going to have a life of undue misery and adversity. But people with down syndrome don't have such lives. If the adversity of having down syndrome means it's better off you never existing, then a comparable point, based on the same argument, can easily hold for minorities. For example, the suicide rate of transgender people is something absurdly high like 30-50%, depending on what studies you look at. These are people that face tremendous adversity in life. But if we could diagnose a foetus as being transgender, would it be OK to abort them? A better thing to do is just not discriminate against transgender people, nor against those with down syndrome. <quote>This is a pathetically hilarious argument. I wonder how many millions of times people have caused someone to not exist by not being promiscuous, or wearing protection or maybe because somebody's uterus was too high in pH and conception didn't occur. If only you didn't use that hygienic product. Or you decide you don't want to raise a family but you know you are able to. The possibilities are endless.</quote> Every example you've given is not an action taking in knowledge of the outcomes. They are either actions taken in total ignorance of the outcomes, or inactions. If your inaction leads to some event X (the life of a person with down syndrome), and your action directly causes X to not happen, then you (and other people relating to the cause) are the agent who is morally responsible for it. <quote>FYI climate change, economic policy and the works are all matters of convincing people of doing the right choice, not to punish them so you should rethink that. As a second matter, I can argue that willingly bringing a diseased person into the world as being equivalent to willingly contributing to climate change, or willingly make economic policies that will make people's lives difficult. Poor argument.</quote> Why is it the right choice? One reason, which I'm sure most would agree with, is because it directly affects the welfare of future people, who don't yet exist, but will. <quote>You are free to say whatever you want, but this choice of words is wrong. Personhood is already defined unless the it's argued to be amended then you are being non sensible.</quote> We're discussing the ethics of aborting a foetus on the grounds of it having down syndrome in a pro-choice framework, so my personal disbelief in such a framework isn't relevant and only distracts from the major premises at hand. So let's not go there.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/26/17 2:25:19 AM #248:	You are still drinking that same thirst quencher as the nazis and you don't even realize it; it's hilarious. The irony is that with your slippery slope argument, it's actually you that is the nazi moral sympathizer. You are putting words in people's mouths and accusing them of something that is not happening. >if we abort people that have diseases, then we will abort people that are marginalized, therefore you are morally equivalent to a nazi. But no one is doing or saying that. There is only one person saying things and that's you. Discrimination is discrimination, full stop. A racist who doesn't go around lynching their object of hatred and ignorance is still a racist. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885467973] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><quote>You are still drinking that same thirst quencher as the nazis and you don't even realize it; it's hilarious. The irony is that with your slippery slope argument, it's actually you that is the nazi moral sympathizer. You are putting words in people's mouths and accusing them of something that is not happening. >if we abort people that have diseases, then we will abort people that are marginalized, therefore you are morally equivalent to a nazi. But no one is doing or saying that. There is only one person saying things and that's you.</quote> Discrimination is discrimination, full stop. A racist who doesn't go around lynching their object of hatred and ignorance is still a racist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 08/26/17 2:26:28 AM #249:	Xelltrix posted... I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem. Why is this topic still going when this is so obvious? It comes down to whether or not you're ok with abortion. The down syndrome aspect doesn't come into it at all at this point --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:885468018] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Xelltrix posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem.</quote> Why is this topic still going when this is so obvious? It comes down to whether or not you're ok with abortion. The down syndrome aspect doesn't come into it at all at this point</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/26/17 2:30:00 AM #250:	ThyCorndog posted... Xelltrix posted... I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem. Why is this topic still going when this is so obvious? It comes down to whether or not you're ok with abortion. The down syndrome aspect doesn't come into it at all at this point If your reason for aborting comes from a place of discrimination (people with down syndrome aren't capable of living happy, meaningful lives), then it does. Actions don't take place in contextual vacuums. The purposes, desires, and intentions informing actions must also be taken into account. --- 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. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:885468118] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Xelltrix posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem.</quote> Why is this topic still going when this is so obvious? It comes down to whether or not you're ok with abortion. The down syndrome aspect doesn't come into it at all at this point</quote> If your reason for aborting comes from a place of discrimination (people with down syndrome aren't capable of living happy, meaningful lives), then it does. Actions don't take place in contextual vacuums. The purposes, desires, and intentions informing actions must also be taken into account.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorenzo_2003 08/26/17 5:40:33 AM #251:	Sinroth posted... ThyCorndog posted... Xelltrix posted... I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem. Why is this topic still going when this is so obvious? It comes down to whether or not you're ok with abortion. The down syndrome aspect doesn't come into it at all at this point If your reason for aborting comes from a place of discrimination (people with down syndrome aren't capable of living happy, meaningful lives), then it does. Actions don't take place in contextual vacuums. The purposes, desires, and intentions informing actions must also be taken into account. I think he makes a good point, but I kind of see where you're coming from. Currently, and for the most part, abortion is legal in Western societies. You don't have to have a reason beyond not wanting to birth the child. What some people find repulsive is when there is a reason and that reason would normally be considered discriminatory. For example, if we could 100 percent know that a fetus would eventually develop into a trans adult, I bet a lot of people who are pro-trans would be upset if a significant number of pregnant women were aborting for that reason. The discriminatory aspect might violate their principles, but abortion is something they might support, too. --- ... <cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted [p:885472051] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sinroth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Xelltrix posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, if you can abort for literally no reason, I don't see the problem.</quote> Why is this topic still going when this is so obvious? It comes down to whether or not you're ok with abortion. The down syndrome aspect doesn't come into it at all at this point</quote> If your reason for aborting comes from a place of discrimination (people with down syndrome aren't capable of living happy, meaningful lives), then it does. Actions don't take place in contextual vacuums. The purposes, desires, and intentions informing actions must also be taken into account.</quote> I think he makes a good point, but I kind of see where you're coming from. Currently, and for the most part, abortion is legal in Western societies. You don't have to have a reason beyond not wanting to birth the child. What some people find repulsive is when there is a reason and that reason would normally be considered discriminatory. For example, if we could 100 percent know that a fetus would eventually develop into a trans adult, I bet a lot of people who are pro-trans would be upset if a significant number of pregnant women were aborting for that reason. The discriminatory aspect might violate their principles, but abortion is something they might support, too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Current Events > Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome