Child "Aborted" for having a Cleft Lip

Originally posted by devilwasp
If it was reparable, then why did 2 doctors agree it was a serios defect?
And the mother agreed as well.

A busted axle, a cracked engine block, etc. are serious defects. These are serious defects that are also reparable. Cleft pallate can be, and often is a serious defect, but it IS a defect that is reparable. Lots of babies that have had severe pallatte malformations have had them corrected and live pretty much normal lives. Down's syndrome is also a serious defect... and one that isn't reparable, but it is one that can have a broad spectrum of disability ranging from severely disabled, to being just slightly below normal IQ wise. Do you support aborting Down's syndrome fetuses simply because it doesn't conform with your idealized view and expectations for your children?

The operation occured because it was a serios defect, nothing "cosmetic" would have sorted it.

But this is the point, is it not? Obviously the soft pallette needs to be closed, and this IS a defect, but it is also a defect that the medical community CAN and regularly does repair.

It is not possible since there are people like you and me who wouldnt want it , that is if you agree with what I said...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this statement is referencing specifically. Negative eugenics IS occuring. This thread is a perfect example of this. This is occurring irrespective of what you or I believe. Whether or not I agree with you about anything isn't going to prevent Dr's from advising their patients to abort Down's babies based on the prospect of them having 'unacceptably low' levels of intelligence. Our opinion also won't really affect the decisions of the thousands of couples that engage in pre-natal embryonic screening in an effort to control which traits a child carries or the sex of their child.

No in other threads he has made his statements on killing quite clear.
Its adding because people justify war as fine, yet get up in arms about one child being aborted.

I don't make an effort to follow Dr.H's posting specifically, though I am certainly aware of his/her perspective on abortion. I am not aware of his particular perspective re: war.

what child was napalmed.

Napalmed? Are we still using that stuff? What is the source of your pic? Where did it come from? How long ago was it taken?

He has done so many times.

Sorry... have to ask for clarification here too. WHAT has he done so many times?

Originally posted by mattison0922
A busted axle, a cracked engine block, etc. are serious defects. These are serious defects that are also reparable. Cleft pallate can be, and often is a serious defect, but it IS a defect that is reparable. Lots of babies that have had severe pallatte malformations have had them corrected and live pretty much normal lives. Down's syndrome is also a serious defect... and one that isn't reparable, but it is one that can have a broad spectrum of disability ranging from severely disabled, to being just slightly below normal IQ wise. Do you support aborting Down's syndrome fetuses simply because it doesn't conform with your idealized view and expectations for your children?

I support mothers haveing a choice, it might be wrong but its thier choice.
There are no expectations for me, if the mother chooses not to abort then so be it but if she does so be it.

But this is the point, is it not? Obviously the soft pallette needs to be closed, and this IS a defect, but it is also a defect that the medical community CAN and regularly does repair.

They said a pallette , not anything else about it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this statement is referencing specifically. Negative eugenics IS occuring. This thread is a perfect example of this. This is occurring irrespective of what you or I believe. Whether or not I agree with you about anything isn't going to prevent Dr's from advising their patients to abort Down's babies based on the prospect of them having 'unacceptably low' levels of intelligence. Our opinion also won't really affect the decisions of the thousands of couples that engage in pre-natal embryonic screening in an effort to control which traits a child carries or the sex of their child.

All this shows is one child being aborted becase the mother and doctors thought the defect was too serios for the child to live.
No "standards" or expectations are there.

I don't make an effort to follow Dr.H's posting specifically, though I am certainly aware of his/her perspective on abortion. I am not aware of his particular perspective re: war.

He believes we should install .50 millimetre miniguns on the borders to stop the immigrents and build a minefield and a 30 foot wall.

Napalmed? Are we still using that stuff? What is the source of your pic? Where did it come from? How long ago was it taken?

Sorry, wrong picture thats one of a beaten child...

This 10-year-old Palestinian boy was beaten to death by an Israeli army officer/settler on October 27, 1996. The boy’s name was Helmi Shawashe.

Sorry... have to ask for clarification here too. WHAT has he done so many times?

Shown his stance on killing.

Originally posted by devilwasp
All this shows is one child being aborted becase the mother and doctors thought the defect was too serios for the child to live.
No "standards" or expectations are there.

Yes, this is an EXAMPLE of the growing eugenic trends in this country... growing is probably actually the wrong... resurgence of eugenic trends in this country... not too many steps away from the forced sterilizations and things of that nature from the recent past.

He believes we should install .50 millimetre miniguns on the borders to stop the immigrents and build a minefield and a 30 foot wall.

Hmmmm, I wonder if he lives in Arizona too.

Sorry, wrong picture thats one of a beaten child...

This 10-year-old Palestinian boy was beaten to death by an Israeli army officer/settler on October 27, 1996. The boy’s name was Helmi Shawashe.

Why did the Israeli army find it necessary to beat a 10 year old boy? What does this have to do with the 'negative eugenics' theme of this thread?

Shown his stance on killing.

Gotcha. How do you feel about the death penalty?

Originally posted by mattison0922
Yes, this is an EXAMPLE of the growing eugenic trends in this country... growing is probably actually the wrong... resurgence of eugenic trends in this country... not too many steps away from the forced sterilizations and things of that nature from the recent past.

Wait, because they aborted it because they believed it would be too painful on the child to live their wrong?

Hmmmm, I wonder if he lives in Arizona too.

....Okey then.......

Why did the Israeli army find it necessary to beat a 10 year old boy? What does this have to do with the 'negative eugenics' theme of this thread?

Sorry, as I have said before, wrong picture...
What I am pointing out is that people are getting up in arms about abortion yet ignore things like the above picture to happen in war.

Gotcha. How do you feel about the death penalty?

It is wrong, doesnt teach anyone but state.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Wait, because they aborted it because they believed it would be too painful on the child to live their wrong?

It's not necessarily a question of right or wrong in my mind; I just think that it sets a dangerous precedent. But, personally, yeah, I do believe its wrong to abort children because they don't conform to one's preconcieved ideas about what they want their children to be.

Sorry, as I have said before, wrong picture...
What I am pointing out is that people are getting up in arms about abortion yet ignore things like the above picture to happen in war.

Well, I personally don't ignore it. But the commission of one atrocity doesn't justify the commission of another.

Gotcha. How do you feel about the death penalty?

It is wrong, doesnt teach anyone but state.

I see. So when it comes to death and murder, morality is relative. It's not okay to kill and maim in war, capital punishment isn't okay, but it IS okay to abort babies because they don't conform to one's wants for their children, or if it might somehow disrupt the parent's lives. Gotcha.... makes TOTAL sense

Originally posted by mattison0922
It's not necessarily a question of right or wrong in my mind; I just think that it sets a dangerous precedent. But, personally, yeah, I do believe its wrong to abort children because they don't conform to one's preconcieved ideas about what they want their children to be.

It is a bit dangerous, but sometimes a dangerous course of action is needed.

Well, I personally don't ignore it. But the commission of one atrocity doesn't justify the commission of another.

It depends on what you believe as an "atrocity", this is a typical and justified medical procedure...

I see. So when it comes to death and murder, morality is relative. It's not okay to kill and maim in war, capital punishment isn't okay, but it IS okay to abort babies because they don't conform to one's wants for their children, or if it might somehow disrupt the parent's lives. Gotcha.... makes TOTAL sense

Actually no, I believe its okay to kill in self defense.
Maiming, no.
Death and murder are diffrent, murder implies wanting to kill, death implies already being in a non alive state.
Why is it okay to abort babies?
Because it wont just "disrupt the parents lives" or "doesnt conform to thier wants" it has multiple reasons.
Rape; Is it okay for a woman to illegally be used for mateing against her wishes?
Illness: Is it okay to keep a baby alive knowning they will grow up in terrible ammounts of pain/ serios dissabilities aka paralysed?
Inability to cope; Is it okay for someone to have an unplanned pregnancy and be totaly unprepared to have a child?
Sure adoption is availible, but there are pro's and cons for that.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Actually no, I believe its okay to kill in self defense.

So capital punishment is self defense?

Why is it okay to abort babies?
Because it wont just "disrupt the parents lives" or "doesnt conform to thier wants" it has multiple reasons.

Rape; Is it okay for a woman to illegally be used for mateing against her wishes?

Is it okay... of course not. I think what you mean to ask is this: "Should society force a woman to have a baby that is the product of a sexual assault?" My answer to that is, No. I don't think society should be able to tell anyone what to do with their bodies. Just FYI, I am not a pro-lifer... well not exactly. I am pro-life on a personal level, but I am totally opposed to telling people what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies. HOWEVER, I think that this is more of an issue of societal values than personal values. We've begun to measure the inherent value of human life on preconceived notions, materialistic ideals, and selfish wants, therein lies the problem.

Illness: Is it okay to keep a baby alive knowning they will grow up in terrible ammounts of pain/ serios dissabilities aka paralysed?

First of all, cleft pallate doesn't generally result in serious disabilities, terrible amounts of pain, or paralysis. However is it okay to allow a child to grow up with in those circumstances. Why don't you ask a child who has? Perhaps you could email my personal favorite example: Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking is a poster child for eugenics. Do you believe that Stephen Hawking should have been aborted? Is his life not worth living because of his disease? Would the world be a better place without him?

Inability to cope; Is it okay for someone to have an unplanned pregnancy and be totaly unprepared to have a child?

It's called personal responsibility. And yes, people are accountable for their actions and behaviors. It's not difficult to not get pregnant. It involves very little, save for a small bit, a fraction of a seconds worth of forethought and planning. If you don't want to have children, step up and take some responsibility to begin with.

Sure adoption is availible, but there are pro's and cons for that.

Cons being..... ?

Originally posted by mattison0922
So capital punishment is self defense?

That can be argued, true you are defending the people from a killer yet killing a man who , acording to law, has not attacked the people....apart from the crimes that got him on death row.

Is it okay... of course not. I think what you mean to ask is this: "Should society force a woman to have a baby that is the product of a sexual assault?" My answer to that is, No. I don't think society should be able to tell anyone what to do with their bodies. Just FYI, I am not a pro-lifer... well not exactly. I am pro-life on a personal level, but I am totally opposed to telling people what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies. HOWEVER, I think that this is more of an issue of societal values than personal values. We've begun to measure the inherent value of human life on preconceived notions, materialistic ideals, and selfish wants, therein lies the problem.

Life and death choices are made almost every day and have done so for the last 2000 years, its just that they've gone over to the birth side.

First of all, cleft pallate doesn't generally result in serious disabilities, terrible amounts of pain, or paralysis. However is it okay to allow a child to grow up with in those circumstances. Why don't you ask a child who has? Perhaps you could email my personal favorite example: Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking is a poster child for eugenics. Do you believe that Stephen Hawking should have been aborted? Is his life not worth living because of his disease? Would the world be a better place without him?

I believe its not about if the world would have been better, but the amount of pain and suffering mr hawkings has went through.
The doctors that made the choice to abort the child along with the mother obviosly didnt think it was ethecily or moraly right to do so.

It's called personal responsibility. And yes, people are accountable for their actions and behaviors. It's not difficult to not get pregnant. It involves very little, save for a small bit, a fraction of a seconds worth of forethought and planning. If you don't want to have children, step up and take some responsibility to begin with.

Young kids and younger adults dont know much about responsibilty, besides sex ed at school is not the best...

Cons being..... ?

Actually haveing to go through with 9months of pregnancy and the pain of birth....

Originally posted by devilwasp
Life and death choices are made almost every day and have done so for the last 2000 years, its just that they've gone over to the birth side.

I see. It's justified because, "It's the way it always has been."

I believe its not about if the world would have been better, but the amount of pain and suffering mr hawkings has went through.

I see. So irrespective of the value Dr. Hawking places on his own life, if his parents had decided that it would have been to painful for him to be alive that would be okay. Grand Unified Theory be damned!!!

Young kids and younger adults dont know much about responsibilty, besides sex ed at school is not the best...

I see. Since young people don't know about personal responsibility, they are hereby absolved from taking responsibility for their actions. Hopefully you're not a parent. Sex education and the teaching of moral responsibility is not the job of schools. That's what parents are for.

Actually haveing to go through with 9months of pregnancy and the pain of birth....

Oh yes... I forgot about your perspective: Heaven forbid someone actually take responsibility for their actions. Nine months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth are the risks you take when you engage in a sexual relationship... too much of a risk - then don't do it, or at the very least, make an effort to protect and/or be responsible for yourself.

Originally posted by mattison0922
I see. It's justified because, "It's the way it always has been."

No, its about chooseing the lesser evil.
No death in this world can be justified....only the timeing can...

I see. So irrespective of the value Dr. Hawking places on his own life, if his parents had decided that it would have been to painful for him to be alive that would be okay. Grand Unified Theory be damned!!!

Its them that are bringing him into the world, if they wanted to bring him in and dump him on the streets thereby not killing him would that be betteR?

I see. Since young people don't know about personal responsibility, they are hereby absolved from taking responsibility for their actions. Hopefully you're not a parent. Sex education and the teaching of moral responsibility is not the job of schools. That's what parents are for.

No, they are responsibility for their actions BUT its also thier responsibility to pick the best course of action for them, AND thier child.

Actually sex education and teaching moral responseibilities is a job for the schools as well, same with every role model they have....why do you think cadet orginisations have cadets doing high responsibility jobs.

Oh yes... I forgot about your perspective: Heaven forbid someone actually take responsibility for their actions. Nine months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth are the risks you take when you engage in a sexual relationship... too much of a risk - then don't do it, or at the very least, make an effort to protect and/or be responsible for yourself.

My perspective is giveing them a choice, not forceing anything on them, they are responsible for thier actions, do you know what kind of guilt it would be like knowing you killed a posible child?

Oh yeah and when your raped as well, yeah thats a good thing...."sorry but you should have got your raper to put on a condom"....