• 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!

Iceland is close to eradicating their country of Down Syndrome!

truthatallcost said:
I won't argue any of that. Just that this thread reminded me of 8th grade. We had a girl with down syndrome come to our class midway through the school year and I was judgmental of her at first. Which I really regretted later, because as I soon saw, she was the single nicest person in my entire class, never mean or judgmental as other 'normal' kids are. And she was always happy it seemed. To think of mothers killing people like her, yes on some level I understand wanting your children to be normal, but remember that diversity isn't just about people's skin color. I can think of no other people who deserve to be protected more than the handicapped.
Click to expand...

Yes, children with Down and adults with Down are often nice, but they are always going to have to be cared for. First by the parents and then by the siblings because without that they would be taken advantage of or worse sexually exploited. They also may want children but that too is an issue. And with modern medicine Down children/adults live much longer than they did before.

And while a lot of them are in general nice persons, not every Down child is like that and not every Down child is higher functioning. There are some that are quite violent. And there are those who are not able to do much of anything.

I have seen documentaries and I have seen that a high number of those youths/young adults had to have almost constant supervision. They they could burst out in anger over things "normal people" would not loose their cool over and I have seen them get very stressed and frustrated because they know they are not able to do things they would like to do. They have issues with love and relationships that make those much harder on them as it would with "normal" young people.

And with the modern technology, not burdening a family with a down child, because that too became obvious (regardless of how much they love that Down brother or sister), it puts a lot of pressure and issues on the rest of the children. Their parents will always have to pay more attention to that Down child, often at the expense of the other children. And they will not complain about that, but still, it is inevitable that a parent cannot spend the normal amount of time with all siblings because a Down child needs a lot of extra time and supervision. And that is fine if it is your first child, it however is a lot more difficult if you already have 3 young children.

And in a perfect world, there would be a place for children with Down, but this is not a perfect world. They are bullied, they are taken advantage of, etc. etc. etc. Just this morning I read about 2 Canadian police officers who had pulled over a woman for a traffic violation and she disagreed with the ticket so she got the video of the event, including the conversation that the officers had about her and her 2 children, one of which had Down syndrome and let us just say, what the officers said was highly offensive to the mother and her child. And if even police officers take that kind of an offensive attitude towards Downs syndrome children, what does that say about the other "adults" in society.
 
Peter King said:
Yes, children with Down and adults with Down are often nice, but they are always going to have to be cared for. First by the parents and then by the siblings because without that they would be taken advantage of or worse sexually exploited. They also may want children but that too is an issue. And with modern medicine Down children/adults live much longer than they did before.

And while a lot of them are in general nice persons, not every Down child is like that and not every Down child is higher functioning. There are some that are quite violent. And there are those who are not able to do much of anything.

I have seen documentaries and I have seen that a high number of those youths/young adults had to have almost constant supervision. They they could burst out in anger over things "normal people" would not loose their cool over and I have seen them get very stressed and frustrated because they know they are not able to do things they would like to do. They have issues with love and relationships that make those much harder on them as it would with "normal" young people.

And with the modern technology, not burdening a family with a down child, because that too became obvious (regardless of how much they love that Down brother or sister), it puts a lot of pressure and issues on the rest of the children. Their parents will always have to pay more attention to that Down child, often at the expense of the other children. And they will not complain about that, but still, it is inevitable that a parent cannot spend the normal amount of time with all siblings because a Down child needs a lot of extra time and supervision. And that is fine if it is your first child, it however is a lot more difficult if you already have 3 young children.

And in a perfect world, there would be a place for children with Down, but this is not a perfect world. They are bullied, they are taken advantage of, etc. etc. etc. Just this morning I read about 2 Canadian police officers who had pulled over a woman for a traffic violation and she disagreed with the ticket so she got the video of the event, including the conversation that the officers had about her and her 2 children, one of which had Down syndrome and let us just say, what the officers said was highly offensive to the mother and her child. And if even police officers take that kind of an offensive attitude towards Downs syndrome children, what does that say about the other "adults" in society.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, and those are good insights. I can't say that I condone aborting children with downs, but I understand if someone feels like it's their only option.
 
Josie said:
Creepy, though, to kill your child simply because they aren't normal.
Click to expand...
MISCHARACTERIZATION. No unborn human qualifies for the label of "child" --it has an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ, while an ordinary child neither has nor needs any such thing.
AND, most folks want what is best for their offspring. That means not handicapping them with defective minds and/or bodies. It seems to me that only sadists would want children to suffer for a lifetime --but since abortion opponents prove over and over and over again that they lack the compassion to oppose such sadism, perhaps the Logical Conclusion is that they themselves are sadists.
 
Josie said:
Of course they don't see it that way because that would be evil.
Click to expand...

When a parent removes life support to prevent prolonged suffering ...its not evil.
 
Peter King said:
They are not killing their child, they are having an abortion on a fetus.

Also, it is the mother's choice whether or not she wants a child with Downs, not that of the government or of other people.
Click to expand...

Lets blunt shall we. They are killing their kid.
 
davidgarcia said:
Well, there are also studies to disprove your "every single study". You cannot also confirm and generalize all women that they are happy about their aborted DS babies. Some women are deeply affected by this. Humans are individual beings, some feels this way and other feels the other.

I never claimed anything. I witnessed some ladies who felt that way which I shared with you guys. I don't know the reason why you think that I tell ladies on what they should feel about abortions. I never stated any of those statements or said anything related to that notion.
Click to expand...

How many women do you know who have aborted because the fetus had DS?
 
Josie said:
For many people everywhere, it seems.

To be clear, Iceland's government doesn't decide -- the mother does. Creepy, though, to kill your child simply because they aren't normal.
Click to expand...
But you are OK with the government footing the bill for their care when parents are not capable?
 
Instead of touting the worst aspects of ableism, it would be good to ask Iceland what they are doing for people with Down Syndrome and their families.

Perhaps increasing the number of DS youth with full-time or competitive employment? Carved out entrepreneurship? Increased inclusion in school activities?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
It's not eugenics in the traditional sense, because the mutation that causes Down Syndrome isn't inheritable, and people with Down Syndrome don't have kids. Think of it more as analogous to ethnic cleansing, if ethnicity was replaced with chromosome count and the cleansing happened before birth.
Click to expand...

Actually, It is eugenics in the classic sense. Classical eugenics believed that all manner of public maladies, intellectual and physical "deformities" were inheritable and thus (regardless if it was fundamentally true or not), any number of solutions needed to be created. Though the ethnic cleansing bit does help give a good push to be more careful with quick endorsement of this issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
Oh fer christ sakes...it's not eugenics if it's a damn choice.

Are women being forced to abort if it's found they are carrying a child with Downs?

Can anyone who is found to be carrying a child with Down's still have the baby?

Choice does not equal eugenics.
Click to expand...

You're confusing forced or directly coerced action with the basic parameters of both negative and positive eugenics. Negative eugenics (prevention of what we don't like) and positive eugenics (promotion of that which we like) both have substantial opportunities for individual choice, as they do with coercion and force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter King said:
Yes, children with Down and adults with Down are often nice, but they are always going to have to be cared for. First by the parents and then by the siblings because without that they would be taken advantage of or worse sexually exploited. They also may want children but that too is an issue. And with modern medicine Down children/adults live much longer than they did before.

And while a lot of them are in general nice persons, not every Down child is like that and not every Down child is higher functioning. There are some that are quite violent. And there are those who are not able to do much of anything.

I have seen documentaries and I have seen that a high number of those youths/young adults had to have almost constant supervision. They they could burst out in anger over things "normal people" would not loose their cool over and I have seen them get very stressed and frustrated because they know they are not able to do things they would like to do. They have issues with love and relationships that make those much harder on them as it would with "normal" young people.

And with the modern technology, not burdening a family with a down child, because that too became obvious (regardless of how much they love that Down brother or sister), it puts a lot of pressure and issues on the rest of the children. Their parents will always have to pay more attention to that Down child, often at the expense of the other children. And they will not complain about that, but still, it is inevitable that a parent cannot spend the normal amount of time with all siblings because a Down child needs a lot of extra time and supervision. And that is fine if it is your first child, it however is a lot more difficult if you already have 3 young children.

And in a perfect world, there would be a place for children with Down, but this is not a perfect world. They are bullied, they are taken advantage of, etc. etc. etc. Just this morning I read about 2 Canadian police officers who had pulled over a woman for a traffic violation and she disagreed with the ticket so she got the video of the event, including the conversation that the officers had about her and her 2 children, one of which had Down syndrome and let us just say, what the officers said was highly offensive to the mother and her child. And if even police officers take that kind of an offensive attitude towards Downs syndrome children, what does that say about the other "adults" in society.
Click to expand...

One wonders if the propensity for large swaths of the human population to demonstrate less than adequate levels of empathy and "niceness" ought to be a calculation for the legitimacy of every other birth. Or is that solely reserved for the disabled?

While I do not wish to see parents or family members who are either unable or unwilling to provide the level of support that may be necessary, I can honestly say that being the guardian of an adult, though demanding energy and humility, is something I would never, ever demean and I take that responsibility seriously and would never give it up. When the time comes for me to take it on, I do it with love and dedication for the well-being of my sibling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
PirateMk1 said:
Lets blunt shall we. They are killing their kid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that is not a fact, that is an opinion. You are free to hold that one but I disagree with that description wholeheartedly.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Lets blunt shall we. They are killing their kid.
Click to expand...
LYINGLY FALSE. A "kid" is not the same thing as an unborn human. When was the last time you saw an unborn human playing on a swing set? An unborn human is what it is, and is not right-now what it has the potential to become. An unborn human is a baby under construction, or a child under construction, or a kid under construction. When the construction process is finished, that is when it gets born and its placenta (a vital organ prior to birth) gets discarded. Even the word "offspring", as in "off of a parent did one spring" is a bad description for an unborn human, and best applies after birth!
 
Call **** a rose if you want. I don't care. Fact is an abortion is killing a child. Period. If you going to do, or condone it, then man up and own it. People want to call it something else because they don't have the stones to call a spade a spade.
 
FutureIncoming said:
LYINGLY FALSE. A "kid" is not the same thing as an unborn human. When was the last time you saw an unborn human playing on a swing set? An unborn human is what it is, and is not right-now what it has the potential to become. An unborn human is a baby under construction, or a child under construction, or a kid under construction. When the construction process is finished, that is when it gets born and its placenta (a vital organ prior to birth) gets discarded. Even the word "offspring", as in "off of a parent did one spring" is a bad description for an unborn human, and best applies after birth!
Click to expand...

Its a kid and if you kill it without the mothers permission, you get charged with murder. Gets some stones, and call it abortion what it is, the deliberate premeditated killing of a child. Grow a pair and own your position. I aint saying its right or wrong. Just saying what it is. If you got a problem calling the killing what it is then maybe you need to think about your position more.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its a kid and if you kill it without the mothers permission, you get charged with murder. Gets some stones, and call it abortion what it is, the deliberate premeditated killing of a child. Grow a pair and own your position. I aint saying its right or wrong. Just saying what it is. If you got a problem calling the killing what it is then maybe you need to think about your position more.
Click to expand...
.



An unborn is a maybe.
Fact: 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies where the woman is aware is pregnant end in sontanious abortion
( miscarriage ) no matter how much the pregnancy was wanted.
Fact : spontaneous abortions are not deliberate premeditated killings unless you wish to blame God or Nature ( depending on belief system ) of premeditated killing of the unborn.

-------

Feticide laws are based on States rights.

Feticide laws are not grounded in fetal rights; they are based on the interests of the state.

States can, and do, act to protect certain entities, even when those entities themselves have no rights.
....
Moreover, whereas abortion mediates between the opposing interests of the state and the woman, feticide laws pursue the same goals for both the woman and the state. In these scenarios, the state and the woman have similar interests, so the state can be more aggressive about pursuing its goals.

Finally, there is a clear difference between a pregnant woman consenting to an abortion and a nonconsensual attack on a woman that results in the loss of her pregnancy. The woman has a right to act; the attacker does not.
Click to expand...

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+...ling+Roe+and+fetal+homicide+laws.-a0250470479
 
DiAnna said:
I wouldn't personally consider aborting because of Down's Syndrome, mainly because I've been around families with Down's children who love them desperately and as loved in return. Most Down's children are exceptionally sweet, empathetic, and naturally loving... to a fault, since they have no real sense of fear of strangers, and gravitate to everyone who has a smile for them.

However, I also wouldn't fault any woman who makes a different choice. Families are different, their needs are different, and the choice should be theirs alone.

A caveat, however, about this brave new world of fetal/genetic manipulation. As SkepticBob so eloquently explained earlier, the potential for abuse in some areas of the world should give us all pause. China nearly flat ran out of females with it's one-child rule and forced abortions in a country where girls are considered undesirable, and only sons are cherished as heirs. When China realized that men outnumbered females by a margin of ten to one in some areas, they realized the *cough* error of their ways.

Science should proceed cautiously, me thinks.
Click to expand...

Nilly said:
1430061365-20150426.png
Click to expand...

So . . . how do you argue against people who choose to abort for eugenicist, sexist, racist, or homophobic reasons? I mean, the ones who might want to abort because it's a girl they want a boy, or because the baby is partially black, or if a "gay gene" can be identified, because the baby will be gay, etc.? Or to eliminate any other trait?

Genuine question.
 
Harshaw said:
So . . . how do you argue against people who choose to abort for eugenicist, sexist, racist, or homophobic reasons? I mean, the ones who might want to abort because it's a girl they want a boy, or because the baby is partially black, or if a "gay gene" can be identified, because the baby will be gay, etc.? Or to eliminate any other trait?

Genuine question.
Click to expand...

The reason for which someone wants an abortion is personal, and none of my business. A woman can choose to abort for whatever reason she wants, even if I don't agree with it. That's what being pro-choice is about. Respecting a woman's sovereignty over her body.

edit: Spud said it better than I could

spud_meister said:
Being pro-choice means accepting choices I don't agree with. :shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Nilly said:
The reason for which someone wants an abortion is personal, and none of my business. A woman can choose to abort for whatever reason she wants, even if I don't agree with it. That's what being pro-choice is about. Respecting a woman's sovereignty over her body.

edit: Spud said it better than I could
Click to expand...

What exactly was your cartoon meant to convey?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its a kid
Click to expand...
NOPE. And lying about it doesn't change the Objectively Verifiable Facts. An unborn human is *provably* very different from a "kid" or a "child" or a "baby". YOU are more similar to them than an unborn human is similar to them.

PirateMk1 said:
and if you kill it without the mothers permission, you get charged with murder.
Click to expand...
ONLY IN PLACES WHERE IDIOTS ARE IN CHARGE OF WRITING LAWS. Usually the charge is "homicide", not "murder", and the crime is analogous to "destruction of property", like killing a neighbor's dog. It is never "murder" when such a dog is killed; "murder" requires that a person be killed, and no abortion opponent has ever offered any Objectively Valid Data to support the ridiculous claim that an unborn human qualifies as a person. If you shoot and kill an extraterrestrial alien intelligent being peacefully walking down the ramp of a flying saucer, that would be "murder" (due to international legal recognition of personhood).

PirateMk1 said:
Gets some stones, and call it abortion what it is, the deliberate premeditated killing of a
Click to expand...
UNBORN HUMAN. That link I included above explains two ways in which it is literally unethical to call an unborn human a "baby" or "child" (or "kid"), because they are provably so different from each other. (One explanation involves causing unnecessary suffering the other involves Stupid Hypocrisy.) But then again, we all know abortion opponents are unethical, since they want to enslave women, reducing the status of women from "persons" to "toilets". receptacles for the toxic biowastes dumped into their bloodstreams by unborn human animals.

PirateMk1 said:
child.
Click to expand...
PROVE IT. Prove that an unborn human, with an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ, is the same thing as an "child", which neither has nor needs any such organ.

PirateMk1 said:
Grow a pair and own your position.
Click to expand...
I DO OWN MY POSITION. And it is much more honest and ethical and logically consistent than the lying propaganda and Stupid Hypocrisies routinely blathered by abortion opponents!

PirateMk1 said:
I aint saying its right or wrong.
Click to expand...
YOU ARE SAYING WRONG. Because you are denying Objectively Verifiable Facts.

PirateMk1 said:
Just saying what it is.
Click to expand...
NOPE. An unborn human is very different from that. A simple way to think of things in general, about human development, is this: An adolescent is not physically mature enough to be called an adult. A toddler is not physically mature enough to be called an adolescent. A baby is not physically mature enough to be called a toddler. And an unborn human is not physically mature enough to be called a baby. Each stage is biologically "under construction" to become the next stage. When the construction process is finished, for an unborn human (if things don't go wrong enough to cause a miscarriage), then it gets born and THEN it can be called a baby.

PirateMk1 said:
If you got a problem calling the killing what it is
Click to expand...
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT ABORTION TARGETS UNBORN HUMAN ANIMALS FOR KILLING. Facts are Facts! Note that "kids" are persons, more than mere-animal entities. And according to Arbitrary Law (but not Objectively Measurable scientific data, which didn't exist when early versions of that Law were written), babies are persons, too.

PirateMk1 said:
then maybe you need to think about your position more.
Click to expand...
ON THE CONTRARY. Because I'm not the one Denying Fact! (by the way, I wrote most of the stuff posted at the fightforsense site, and one reason I wrote it is because there is too much material to routinely post here --but links to it are easy)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom