Ruth Marcus of The WaPo: I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome.

a reply to: butcherguy

Let them be offended, that's their right.

Not every person should be required to, or is capable of making the sacrifices they are.

Legislating morality, or the opinion of it will never work.

These hot button issues are used to misdirect your anger towards something other than the pyramid scheme we live in.

It is working like a dream.

I am definitely pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion in pretty much all cases. Not just the ones like this. The way I see it if you don't have at least a million dollars in the bank you have no business having kids. And even then it's pointless on a planet with 7 billion people (and a good chunk of them struggling to survive).

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
The issue of abortion is between the woman, whatever God she MIGHT believe in, and the doctor. Government and politics have no place in the matter. There isn't a shred of scientific or, (since so many like to claim we are a "Christian nation") Biblical evidence (beyond gross mistranslation) to support the possibility that a fetus contains any form of consciousness.

Until you abort one and another woman's at the same stage of development is born prematurely and survives. You cannot tell me the two are different based only on their location. Please explain to me the magic that occurs that suddenly allows the one to be conscious while the other never was.

If the one is conscious, so was the other. Well, it was until someone killed it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy


The slaughter of those that are truly innocent.

After Every Already LIVING CHILD is taken care of, fed, educated, housed, loved, sheltered, etc etc etc etc

Then talk to me about not aborting a fetus that is unwanted. It is NOT a Child.

The legal justification for murder.

You mean religion, capitalism and national security? because most human deaths are caused by those things.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I am definitely pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion in pretty much all cases. Not just the ones like this. The way I see it if you don't have at least a million dollars in the bank you have no business having kids. And even then it's pointless on a planet with 7 billion people (and a good chunk of them struggling to survive).

Statistically, the more educated, more successful women are - - - the fewer kids they choose to have.

So then, what does non-discriminate procreation give us?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy


The slaughter of those that are truly innocent.

After Every Already LIVING CHILD is taken care of, fed, educated, housed, loved, sheltered, etc etc etc etc

Then talk to me about not aborting a fetus that is unwanted. It is NOT a Child.

I disagree.

But you already knew that.

*shrugs*

Abortion proponents claim their body is their own and they can do what they want. "Our Bodies Ourselves" and all that. It's hard to imagine a more selfish stance. One way or another that body got pregnant. Accident or on purpose, if not forced, it doesn't matter. That body made that choice. Basically what has happened is that woman has become a landlady and rented out her womb for a fixed term of 9 months. It's her womb,we can all acknowledge. But is that foetus hers? Really? I don't think so. You signed a lease agreement. After that agreement is up, you can do anything you want. But unless the tenant has violated the lease agreement, you can't just kill him to get rid of him. That tenant has rights, and one of his rights is the right to life. How an you justify killing the tenant because you don't like him or if you find out after the fact that he may not live up to your ideals?

The thing is, you don't have to keep him after the nine months. You can trot over to the nearest fire station and leave him and never look back. If you decide to keep him and raise him, well, that's also your decision, a separate one. so don't come whining to me that since I've never raised a Down's Syndrome kid I don't know what I'm talking about. Bringing him to term and raising him are two different decisions. Once you've leased your womb to a human being, that lease should not be broken on a whim. That's a person in there. To claim, well, he can't read or other specious comments is utterly absurd. You get to live with the decision. It's really too bad that out culture devalues life to the extent it does. I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, but think about it. You committed to a short-term lease. You can't just renege on it without consequences.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy


The slaughter of those that are truly innocent.

After Every Already LIVING CHILD is taken care of, fed, educated, housed, loved, sheltered, etc etc etc etc

Then talk to me about not aborting a fetus that is unwanted. It is NOT a Child.

I disagree.

But you already knew that.

*shrugs*

Name ONE unselfish reason to procreate.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I am definitely pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion in pretty much all cases. Not just the ones like this. The way I see it if you don't have at least a million dollars in the bank you have no business having kids. And even then it's pointless on a planet with 7 billion people (and a good chunk of them struggling to survive).

In my opinion, you have missed the concept of existence. We do not exist because money, money is a human construct. We exist because we are perpetual beings of frequency - our existence has nothing to do with money. You are looking at life based upon current human constructed axioms such as economics and religion - we are more advanced than that, a lot more.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy


The slaughter of those that are truly innocent.

After Every Already LIVING CHILD is taken care of, fed, educated, housed, loved, sheltered, etc etc etc etc

Then talk to me about not aborting a fetus that is unwanted. It is NOT a Child.

I disagree.

But you already knew that.

*shrugs*

Name ONE unselfish reason to procreate.

Why?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I am definitely pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion in pretty much all cases. Not just the ones like this. The way I see it if you don't have at least a million dollars in the bank you have no business having kids. And even then it's pointless on a planet with 7 billion people (and a good chunk of them struggling to survive).

In my opinion, you have missed the concept of existence. We do not exist because money, money is a human construct. We exist because we are perpetual beings of frequency - our existence has nothing to do with money. You are looking at life based upon current human constructed axioms such as economics and religion - we are more advanced than that, a lot more.

Interesting though that "lower form" animals procreate only with the healthiest males. To ensure their offspring are the "best of the best".

And some have ways of keeping their population in check to accommodate their resources.

Human's have the capacity to understand both those things - - - yet choose to believe random irresponsible procreation is a gift from some imaginary being.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I am definitely pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion in pretty much all cases. Not just the ones like this. The way I see it if you don't have at least a million dollars in the bank you have no business having kids. And even then it's pointless on a planet with 7 billion people (and a good chunk of them struggling to survive).

In my opinion, you have missed the concept of existence. We do not exist because money, money is a human construct. We exist because we are perpetual beings of frequency - our existence has nothing to do with money. You are looking at life based upon current human constructed axioms such as economics and religion - we are more advanced than that, a lot more.

Interesting though that "lower form" animals procreate only with the healthiest males. To ensure their offspring are the "best of the best".

And some have ways of keeping their population in check to accommodate their resources.

Human's have the capacity to understand both those things - - - yet choose to believe random irresponsible procreation is a gift from some imaginary being.

There is a difference between shagging like rabbits to produce a litter and shagginbg like Lions to produce a cub - this is most evident in nature with rabbits having no concept of 'do not procreate' and 'procreate at all costs because our survival depends on it' versus the opposite in nature with Lions - being very careful who they choose and spend vast resources rearing and protecting that cub.

Both of these are also evident in human society so yes, I agree - eradicate the rabbits so only Lions exist.

Now, how do we determine who are the lions and who are the rabbits?

Some folks here will understand the references I'm making here in regards to the concept of r-selection versus K-selection in genetics.

a reply to: Violater1


Let's use some financial and legal logic.

If states are making it illegal for women to abort with Down's, then the state gets to pay for the cost of caring for that child, including all medical.

If they make laws protecting, then just like protected wildlife they need to step-up and provide all the necessary funding for soon-to-be parents that wanted to abort, because they couldn't financially care for the child.

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Violater1


Let's use some financial and legal logic.

If states are making it illegal for women to abort with Down's, then the state gets to pay for the cost of caring for that child, including all medical.

If they make laws protecting, then just like protected wildlife they need to step-up and provide all the necessary funding for soon-to-be parents that wanted to abort, because they couldn't financially care for the child.

Even if the government did.

What kind of care would that child really get?

Pretty sure we all know the answer to that.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I am definitely pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion in pretty much all cases. Not just the ones like this. The way I see it if you don't have at least a million dollars in the bank you have no business having kids. And even then it's pointless on a planet with 7 billion people (and a good chunk of them struggling to survive).

In my opinion, you have missed the concept of existence. We do not exist because money, money is a human construct. We exist because we are perpetual beings of frequency - our existence has nothing to do with money. You are looking at life based upon current human constructed axioms such as economics and religion - we are more advanced than that, a lot more.

Interesting though that "lower form" animals procreate only with the healthiest males. To ensure their offspring are the "best of the best".

And some have ways of keeping their population in check to accommodate their resources.

Human's have the capacity to understand both those things - - - yet choose to believe random irresponsible procreation is a gift from some imaginary being.

There is a difference between shagging like rabbits to produce a litter and shagginbg like Lions to produce a cub - this is most evident in nature with rabbits having no concept of 'do not procreate' and 'procreate at all costs because our survival depends on it' versus the opposite in nature with Lions - being very careful who they choose and spend vast resources rearing and protecting that cub.

Both of these are also evident in human society so yes, I agree - eradicate the rabbits so only Lions exist.

Now, how do we determine who are the lions and who are the rabbits?

Some folks here will understand the references I'm making here in regards to the concept of r-selection versus K-selection in genetics.

At this point in time - - "Free-for-All" irresponsible human procreation is a death sentence to this planet and the human species.

But, HEY! It's a gift . . .

a reply to: ketsuko

Drawing first breath of air is a sign that a fetus has received a soul. The moment of first breath kicks off a flood of neurotransmitters and hormones that are unique to birth, and the circulatory system undergoes a profound and permanent change. That would be the difference.

I am generally against abortion being used as birth control, but I can admit I would have aborted a down syndrome (or other serious genetic defect) child.... with that said, I certainly don't support laws that prevent parents from making the choice that is right for them in this situation.

Raising a special needs child is a huge commitment both mentally and financially. Heck, it is hard enough raising healthy kids.

We live in a time, when we are supposedly, more educated than anytime in history.
We know how conception happens. There are a plethora of birth control options available.
Why are there still so many unwanted pregnancies & abortions?
Is it laziness & irresponsibly? And because there's always an abortion to fall back on?
Maybe if abortions were harder to come by, women would be more vigilant about birth control.
Did I see something about the morning after pill, supposedly soon to be over the counter?

One of my nieces found out that she was pregnant with a Down's baby. They were worried, scared...
All she knew about DS were the stereotypes. They did a lot of research. Went to Down's support
group meetings. She never would have had an abortion, but after doing the research, they felt much
more confident that they could be good parents.
He's four years old, only a little behind developmentally & has the sweetest disposition!

Where do we draw the line for 'flawed' fetuses? Untreatable deafness, blindness, no arms or legs?
My nephew was in grade school with a boy who was born without arms or legs.
Today he is a motivational speaker!
What about autism? Much more of a struggle than DS in my opinion! But that happens after birth.
Do we institutionalize those children because they become difficult?

My nephew was born almost 44 years ago at 6 months. He weighed a pound & a half. Today he is 6'4"!
He shouldn't have survived, especially back then. Still today he could be aborted.
The only health problem he has from being that premature, is with his eyesight. They used pure oxygen
in the incubators back then & it did some damage. He couldn't get into the air force, but he's able to see
well enough to drive.

So where do we draw the line???

WOQ

a reply to: Violater1

Like 10% of the population wouldn’t abort a fetus if they found out early that it would have Down syndrome..


We don’t even let people with Down’s syndrome breed because there is a 45% chance a child with even one Down syndrome parent is born with Downs....


With 2 parents with Down’s syndrome it is like a 60+% chance of them passing it on.