• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Increasing number of disabled Israeli children sue for not being aborted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fiddytree said:
That's great, and how dare you sir. You know, I know people with Down's Syndrome and they are quite fine. Many people with Downs Syndrome are productive members of society in every sense of the term, some more wealthy and successful than any of us will be. Even if they were not in every sense of the term, they deserve to have a life and not be told by people like you eugenicists that they should have never existed.

Click to expand...


That's the problem with the pro abortionists. They're heartless. This joker probably wants to create a master race, so he probably has a long list of unacceptable traits.

There are probably a number of reasons for supporting abortion.
 
Smart said:
Even if a Down alive today is able to be "successful" (subjective), it doesn't change the fact they are inherently deformed. Some ethicists don't even believe they are human because of how deformed they actually are. I tend to agree with them.
Click to expand...

Don't stop now!

This is VERY interesting!

Keep going. You're doing great.
 
Smart said:
Even if a Down alive today is able to be "successful" (subjective), it doesn't change the fact they are inherently deformed. Some ethicists don't even believe they are human because of how deformed they actually are. I tend to agree with them.
Click to expand...

How can you say they aren't human?? Of course they are human!!!! Is someone born without a limb human? Of course. No different with someone born with Down Syndrome. My best friend had a son who had Down's and she'd be highly offended to be told he wasn't human!!!!!

I'm pro CHOICE and I distance myself from attitude like the one displayed by this poster.
 
Smart said:
Even if a Down alive today is able to be "successful" (subjective), it doesn't change the fact they are inherently deformed. Some ethicists don't even believe they are human because of how deformed they actually are. I tend to agree with them.
Click to expand...

Do you think those ethicists believe in eugenics?
 
Smart said:
I'm not sufficiently educated in those matters to determine what disabilities would qualify.

but I definitely support all fetuses suffering from Down's, Trisomy-18, etc to be aborted. If you're genetically flawed, you're of no real use to humanity. I don't want to sound Spartan, but we should be spending our money and time helping Senior citizens, cancer patients, veterans, etc. Not flawed-from-utero humans.
Click to expand...

Er, 'Smart,' I wonder what is the malady that makes you think this way? And if there were a way to detect, in utero, the emotional issue that causes it, would your mother have aborted? If she were 'human,' surely she would.
 
RamFel said:
Do you think those ethicists believe in eugenics?
Click to expand...

Everyone who is a Christian, and I know that includes you, technically believes in eugenics because following marriage rules is not just about being nice to your spouse. Monogamy has specific consequences for genetics, as the Rice and Holland experiments with Drosophila fruit flies showed - given enough generations of such a practice, the male's sperm became less toxic to the female and the male became less physically coercive in courtship, resulting in female longevity. If a religion prescribes certain types of behavior and everyone follows these, there will be specific genetic consequences, so a religion itself is basically a statement of some type of eugenics.
 
Smart said:
Your particular Syndrome does not always result in glaucoma, retardation/impairment, etc. So it would be unreasonable to suggest to women with fetuses with that condition to abort on those grounds alone.
Click to expand...

No, SWS does not ALWAYS result in those things; though back in my youth those things were required for the diagnosis. Now it appears that only the birthmark is actually necessary for the SWS diagnosis to be attributed. I was 4 years old when I had my seizure and that was the first time my parents ever heard the phrase Sturge-Weber Syndrome. The concept of ending the pregnancy WAS suggested to my mother by several medical professionals.

Smart said:
Judging by your ability to type, use proper grammar, etc - I'm assuming you have suffered no such retardation.
Click to expand...

I am, or at least would have been, a medical case study if I'd been born 20 years later. I have every single "sympton" of SWS.... the birthmark, glaucoma, the cranial calcification which generally leads to the retardation, and the seizures yet none of these symptoms really have a major impact on my life for the most part. I'm very thankful for that, especially having seen others who suffer from even just one or two of those symptoms in a debilitating manner.

Smart said:
I appreciate your reply, and will note in the future that Sturge-Weber is not one of those "problems" that should result in pregnancy termination. Thank you for not being hostile, I realize my position is offensive to some.
Click to expand...

No problem.
 
choiceone said:
Everyone who is a Christian, and I know that includes you, technically believes in eugenics because following marriage rules is not just about being nice to your spouse. Monogamy has specific consequences for genetics, as the Rice and Holland experiments with Drosophila fruit flies showed - given enough generations of such a practice, the male's sperm became less toxic to the female and the male became less physically coercive in courtship, resulting in female longevity. If a religion prescribes certain types of behavior and everyone follows these, there will be specific genetic consequences, so a religion itself is basically a statement of some type of eugenics.
Click to expand...

Having specific, yet unintentional, genetic impacts is not even closely comaprable to engaging in premeditatied, intentional, population controls...for genetic or any other reasons.

Saying that eugenics is inherent in any religion, much less Christianity, is just ludicrous.
 
mac said:
Having specific, yet unintentional, genetic impacts is not even closely comaprable to engaging in premeditatied, intentional, population controls...for genetic or any other reasons.

Saying that eugenics is inherent in any religion, much less Christianity, is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand, as usual. Just because the people involved in the religion and following the rules have absolutely no intention to have a genetic impact and have no idea what the genetic impact will be does not mean that eugenics are not inherent in the religion. As far as Christianity goes, God knows everything, so God must have known what would happen if people followed the rules that God made. The eugenics are not those of the ignorant people: they are the eugenics of the God that made the rules for them to follow. That is, God made marriage rules because God had a particular agenda. Why should this be only for the character of the current people and not also for the genetic impact on future people? God would be more holistic in action than some ignoramus focusing on only the obvious.
 
choiceone said:
Everyone who is a Christian, and I know that includes you, technically believes in eugenics because following marriage rules is not just about being nice to your spouse. Monogamy has specific consequences for genetics, as the Rice and Holland experiments with Drosophila fruit flies showed - given enough generations of such a practice, the male's sperm became less toxic to the female and the male became less physically coercive in courtship, resulting in female longevity. If a religion prescribes certain types of behavior and everyone follows these, there will be specific genetic consequences, so a religion itself is basically a statement of some type of eugenics.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to add that the Catholic Church does actively encourage healthy couples to have large families ...
 
choiceone said:
You misunderstand, as usual. Just because the people involved in the religion and following the rules have absolutely no intention to have a genetic impact and have no idea what the genetic impact will be does not mean that eugenics are not inherent in the religion. As far as Christianity goes, God knows everything, so God must have known what would happen if people followed the rules that God made. The eugenics are not those of the ignorant people: they are the eugenics of the God that made the rules for them to follow. That is, God made marriage rules because God had a particular agenda. Why should this be only for the character of the current people and not also for the genetic impact on future people? God would be more holistic in action than some ignoramus focusing on only the obvious.
Click to expand...


And yet God allows everyone to concieve.

Your premise is flawed, as usual.
 
mac said:
And yet God allows everyone to concieve.

Your premise is flawed, as usual.
Click to expand...

About 10-15% of couples are infertile

By Mayo Clinic staff
Female infertility, male infertility or a combination of the two affects millions of couples in the United States.
An estimated 10 to 15 percent of couples are infertile, which means that they've been trying to get pregnant for at least a year — or for at least six months if you're a woman age 35 or older.

Generally, infertility results from female infertility factors about one-third of the time and male infertility factors about one-third of the time.
In the rest, the cause is either unknown or a combination of male and female factors.
Click to expand...
Read more:

Female infertility - MayoClinic.com
 
Smart said:
Even if a Down alive today is able to be "successful" (subjective), it doesn't change the fact they are inherently deformed. Some ethicists don't even believe they are human because of how deformed they actually are. I tend to agree with them.
Click to expand...

Do you consider a decently accomplished actor and social/political activist to be successful? Do you consider the guy down the street making parts in a factory to be alright? How about someone who is living in a group home and has a very supporting family give him or her independence to the degree able? Perhaps all of them should be killed too.

They have a disability, so what? I have a disability and most of the folks I grew up with have a disability, some more severe than others. They are just as human as you are. Scratch that. They are more human. Your barbarity and detached view of human life is disturbing and offensive.
 
Last edited:
Smart said:
Even if a Down alive today is able to be "successful" (subjective), it doesn't change the fact they are inherently deformed. Some ethicists don't even believe they are human because of how deformed they actually are. I tend to agree with them.
Click to expand...

Identify these "ethicists" please.

There are many types of "deformity," and I'd say that denying the humanity of a person with Down Syndrome is a character deformity.
 
Despite the fact that people are trying to sue because they weren't aborted is incredibly disturbing, isn't one of the tenants of the pro-choice movement that a woman has a right to chose if she terminates a pregnancy or not? Wouldn't allowing someone to sue their mother because she chose to keep the child be in violation of this?
 
tryreading said:
Er, 'Smart,' I wonder what is the malady that makes you think this way? And if there were a way to detect, in utero, the emotional issue that causes it, would your mother have aborted? If she were 'human,' surely she would.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, my mother is an ardent pro-lifer. I personally disagree with her decision not to abort.

nota bene said:
Identify these "ethicists" please.

There are many types of "deformity," and I'd say that denying the humanity of a person with Down Syndrome is a character deformity.
Click to expand...

Peter Singer being one. I don't have a list of said ethicists handy, this is only my first time even discussing this topic on a forum.
 
digsbe said:
Despite the fact that people are trying to sue because they weren't aborted is incredibly disturbing, isn't one of the tenants of the pro-choice movement that a woman has a right to chose if she terminates a pregnancy or not? Wouldn't allowing someone to sue their mother because she chose to keep the child be in violation of this?
Click to expand...

Not at all, you can be pro-choice and strongly object to an individual woman's choice.

Fiddytree said:
Do you consider a decently accomplished actor and social/political activist to be successful? Do you consider the guy down the street making parts in a factory to be alright? How about someone who is living in a group home and has a very supporting family give him or her independence to the degree able? Perhaps all of them should be killed too.

They have a disability, so what? I have a disability and most of the folks I grew up with have a disability, some more severe than others. They are just as human as you are. Scratch that. They are more human. Your barbarity and detached view of human life is disturbing and offensive.
Click to expand...

Yes
Yes
No

you're not defining disabilities here. As I previously stated, I do not believe that all deformed/disabled fetuses should be aborted. However, in many cases - such as Down, Trisonomy-18, etc they absolutely should be aborted.

However, I'm not an abortion doctor, so I won't be recommending any abortions anytime soon.

Do you oppose sex-selective abortion as well then?
 
Last edited:
Smart said:
Peter Singer being one. I don't have a list of said ethicists handy, this is only my first time even discussing this topic on a forum.
Click to expand...

That man is an affront to our movement and our community.

you're not defining disabilities here.
Click to expand...

No, I am demonstrating that your views of those with disabilities is far from reality and tainted with eugenic evil.
Do you oppose sex-selective abortion as well then?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

Yes
Yes
No
Click to expand...

Well then you have advocated for the removal of individuals who are successful by your definition, however flawed yours is, strictly because they are disabled. Lastly, you argue that a family ought not have the ability to support their children in a group home, or achieve the independence they can reasonably grab. You even have the audacity to call them something other than human.

You bio-prophets speak a great evil that has harmed and killed thousands.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
That man is an affront to our movement and our community.



No, I am demonstrating that your views of those with disabilities is far from reality and tainted with eugenic evil.


Yes, absolutely.



Well then you have advocated for the removal of individuals who are successful by your definition, however flawed yours is, strictly because they are disabled. Lastly, you argue that a family ought not have the ability to support their children in a group home, or achieve the independence they can reasonably grab. You even have the audacity to call them something other than human.

You bio-prophets speak a great evil that has harmed and killed thousands.
Click to expand...

bio-prophets? I'm going to trademark that.

It's people like you that don't have the emotional restraint necessary to have discussions on the ethics of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. How far we have come as a species. We used to place more value on life. Seeing people suffer through disability is one of the hardest things for me. I'm horrified at the prospect that our society will continue to allow such people to come into the world. If there was no foreknowledge of their disabilities - that is fine. However, any such disability detected in utero is not only cause for abortion - but it would be unethical not to abort.

Not only do children deserve to be wanted and loved, but they also deserve to be physically equivalent to the children around them.

So i have another question to ask:
Is there such a thing as an ethical merciful abortion or not? If there is a guarantee that after birth, the new baby will die within the first 3 months, why shouldn't it be aborted? Why should any human suffer simply because of the delusions of their birth mother?
 
It's people like you that don't have the emotional restraint necessary to have discussions on the ethics of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.
Click to expand...

No, sir. On the contrary. It's people like me who have the good sense and decency to not tell people or think that they ought to have never lived. I dare you to talk to a parent that way or someone with Down's Syndrome. Good God man, how on earth did you expect me to react?

Seeing people suffer through disability is one of the hardest things for me. I'm horrified at the prospect that our society will continue to allow such people to come into the world. If there was no foreknowledge of their disabilities - that is fine. However, any such disability detected in utero is not only cause for abortion - but it would be unethical not to abort.
Click to expand...

It offends your sensibilities that these people are even alive? Why, they ought to apologize for this egregious offense. How dare they tell us they like who they are. They should run that by you first.

If there is a guarantee that after birth, the new baby will die within the first 3 months, why shouldn't it be aborted? Why should any human suffer simply because of the delusions of their birth mother?
Click to expand...

That is a conversation between the parents and the possible deity they may or may not believe in. I do not deny the hard choices parents face with almost certain quick deaths.
 
Last edited:
A gateway has just opened for kids suing their parents for not giving them enough vitamens or making them exercise enough...
 
Anyone who claims that they'd been better off aborted than living and whom is still drawing breath is a liar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom