Thread: Couple awarded $2.9 million for the birth of their Down Syndrome child

Originally Posted by tessaesque

There is ONE person saying that DS shouldn't be a qualification for abortion. You're making this into a bigger issue than it is. Most of us are saying that the parent's willingness to admit they would have aborted even after four years of love and affection with the child shows a distinct level of cruelty. It's basically saying, "Knowing what I know now, spending time with my daughter, I'd have aborted her if I'd had the chance."

That's a bit different than "I was going to abort you when we found out we were pregnant, but I'm sure glad we didn't." The child now has a face, a personality, emotions, character. And to say "Yeah...I wouldn't still have aborted"...that's kind of cold. I think that's why some people are reacted so harshly to what this woman said/did.

Then again, those of you who disagree with that premise are totally entitled to do so, but I would request that the tone of your posts be modified, because they come across as sanctimonious, hateful diatribes against people who feel just as passionately as you but who have not, to my knowledge, been nearly as rude and insulting.

Maybe we should be glad that someone is being honest about their thoughts and feelings about abortion. It must be very hard to come out and say any of it, really, why would you do that publicly? This is one of the reasons i advocate choice. What is going on inside your family dynamic is not my business, nor what is going on in your uterus my business, hence choice, I never said at which point and under which circumstances a woman should not have an abortion,

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

Did you know that it is possible (though extremely rare) for an ova to duplicate its genetic code and create a clone of the woman? We've seen it in other animals. Is an ova a person to you? Should menstruation be illegal?

A clone, by whatever method it comes into being, is still a individual human, its own organism.

A haploid gamete cell is not an organism.

If not, are you one of those people who thinks birth control should be illegal? Occasionally, birth control works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. So is that "aborting" a "person" to you?

A "fertilzed egg" can't be prevented from doing anything, as it does not exist. There is no such thing. That is a nonsense phrase. Fertilization is a process. There is no more egg cell after fertilization.

Birth control that prevents ovulation / fertilization - ie almost all birth control - has no moral issue whatsoever.

That cell is not a "body."

Yes it is. Some organisms are unicellular their entire lifespan. The term "body" applies to the entirety of the cells that comprise an organism, whether that's one or trillions.

It has no independent functions. All of that is regulated by the woman's body. The woman's body must feed it, regulate it, provide it materials... it has no features of an organism. Do you even know what an organism is?

Condescension from the ignorant is almost never welcome, though rarely hilarious. This is more the former than the latter, I think.

Yes, the human organism has independent functions from the beginning of its lifespan. Yes, as living organisms, we demonstrate every defining characteristic of "life" from the moment we are created by our parents. This is almost entirely Bio 101, though there are certainly advanced courses on cell biology...

Which means they are part of her body.

Negative. Two distinct bodies.


Speaking of fantasy life science. Jeez, "fertilized eggs" and "part of her body." We may as well argue about the average wingspan of an adult dragon.

This makes me lose faith in humanity. I am also made ill by this.

Originally Posted by taxigirl

Maybe we should be glad that someone is being honest about their thoughts and feelings about abortion. It must be very hard to come out and say any of it, really, why would you do that publicly? This is one of the reasons i advocate choice. What is going on inside your family dynamic is not my business, nor what is going on in your uterus my business, hence choice, I never said at which point and under which circumstances a woman should not have an abortion,

Per the bolded, do you believe that sexual abuse of a child isn't "your"(by which I assume you mean the public's) business? Or, do we have an obligation, as a society founded on individual rights, to ensure a child is being treated with some dignity as a fellow human being and citizen of said country?

It is usually difficult for murderers to speak about their desire to kill. Us legalizing the act doesn't make it much easier.

Originally Posted by Republic Now!

Per the bolded, do you believe that sexual abuse of a child isn't "your"(by which I assume you mean the public's) business? Or, do we have an obligation, as a society founded on individual rights, to ensure a child is being treated with some dignity as a fellow human being and citizen of said country?

It is usually difficult for murderers to speak about their desire to kill. Us legalizing the act doesn't make it much easier.

Calling abortion murder doesn't help your argument much.

Originally Posted by JayDubya

A clone, by whatever method it comes into being, is still a individual human, its own organism.

A haploid gamete cell is not an organism.



A "fertilzed egg" can't be prevented from doing anything, as it does not exist. There is no such thing. That is a nonsense phrase. Fertilization is a process. There is no more egg cell after fertilization.

Birth control that prevents ovulation / fertilization - ie almost all birth control - has no moral issue whatsoever.


Yes it is. Some organisms are unicellular their entire lifespan. The term "body" applies to the entirety of the cells that comprise an organism, whether that's one or trillions.



Condescension from the ignorant is almost never welcome, though rarely hilarious. This is more the former than the latter, I think.

Yes, the human organism has independent functions from the beginning of its lifespan. Yes, as living organisms, we demonstrate every defining characteristic of "life" from the moment we are created by our parents. This is almost entirely Bio 101, though there are certainly advanced courses on cell biology...



Negative. Two distinct bodies.


Speaking of fantasy life science. Jeez, "fertilized eggs" and "part of her body." We may as well argue about the average wingspan of an adult dragon.

Do you agree that, depending on the stage of development, the words "zygote," "embyro," and "fetus" are accurate?

Originally Posted by Republic Now!

It is usually difficult for murderers to speak about their desire to kill. Us legalizing the act doesn't make it much easier.

Do you have ANYTHING to back up that claim?

Originally Posted by tessaesque

And, of course, they always had the option to give her up for adoption if they didn't want her/couldn't care for her.

I thought about that, but I would imagine that a DS baby is not incredibly likely to be adopted. And who would pay for her healthcare? The State.

Originally Posted by JayDubya

A clone, by whatever method it comes into being, is still a individual human, its own organism.

A haploid gamete cell is not an organism.

Answer the question. It is theoretically possible for an ova to become a human. Don't try to wiggle out of this with the odds. 75% of conceptions end in miscarriage, so it's not as though typical pregnancy is sure-fire. Is menstruation abortion?

And what about birth control? Are you against birth control?

A "fertilzed egg" can't be prevented from doing anything, as it does not exist. There is no such thing. That is a nonsense phrase. Fertilization is a process. There is no more egg cell after fertilization.

Birth control that prevents ovulation / fertilization - ie almost all birth control - has no moral issue whatsoever.

Forgive me for using laymen's terms with someone who doesn't appear to understand biology very well.

All hormonal birth control and copper IUD's can cause a zygote to be inhibited from implanting in the uterus. It is the "last line of defense" so to speak, but it does happen.

Overview: Birth Control : American Pregnancy Association

Why Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control | Abortion Debate, Contraception & Roe v. Wade | Pregnancy, Fertility, Conception & Implantation | LiveScience

Birth Control Information: IUD

So, are you against birth control?

Yes it is. Some organisms are unicellular their entire lifespan. The term "body" applies to the entirety of the cells that comprise an organism, whether that's one or trillions.

Depends on the cell, doesn't it. Your skin cells are not little microscopic people, dude. Neither is a zygote for the reasons I already mentioned. Seriously, get a handle on this.

Condescension from the ignorant is almost never welcome, though rarely hilarious. This is more the former than the latter, I think.

Yes, the human organism has independent functions from the beginning of its lifespan. Yes, as living organisms, we demonstrate every defining characteristic of "life" from the moment we are created by our parents. This is almost entirely Bio 101, though there are certainly advanced courses on cell biology...

Oh does it? Like what? You may want to look up the qualifications for "organism" before you try this one.

Negative. Two distinct bodies.

One of them just happens to be totally dependent on the functions of the other, else it would instantly die because it has no complete systems, and often times is missing them entirely? Right.

Originally Posted by joko104

Do you agree that, depending on the stage of development, the words "zygote," "embyro," and "fetus" are accurate?

Just terms of age. Like "infant" or "teenager."