• 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!

Removable Mind said:
Human species, "yes". Children, "no".
Click to expand...
A pre adolescent human is a "child". You don't have to like that for it to be true.

But, I'm not surprised at the insistence otherwise. People always dehumanize those whom they wish to abuse. Always.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Yes, really. We are weeding out what we see as undesirable genetic traits by weeding out those who have them.

In the US, IIRC, the wide majority of DS children are killed. In Iceland, which is what we were discussing, people are bragging about how many of them they are killing .

It's absolutely eugenics; but at least you recognize the horror of that enough to tell yourself that it isn't.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. As I explained to Mr. Bucky...

Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

1% of all cases of Down syndrome are hereditary.

Thus, you, like Bucky and Jay's claim is false!
 
cpwill said:
A pre adolescent human is a "child". You don't have to like that for it to be true.

But, I'm not surprised at the insistence otherwise. People always dehumanize those whom they wish to abuse. Always.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's scientifically and medical and legally false.
 
Bucky said:
The purpose of abortion is to get rid of humans that are not wanted, or deemed fit. If these humans were wanted, they would be born.

I feel sorry for you because the moral guilt you feel supporting such an atrocious position must be weighing on your soul. It is not too late and you can be forgiven.
Click to expand...

Again, you are wrong to attach eugenics to abortion.
 
Removable Mind said:
You are simply wrong. As I explained to Mr. Bucky...

Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

1% of all cases of Down syndrome are hereditary.

Thus, you, like Bucky and Jay's claim is false!
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see you admit that abortion has nothing to do with merely exerting control over our breeding, and is in fact therefore simply an act of violence against a defenseless and innocent actor.

Eugenics, however, absolutely included the elimination of people like DS children. So, you are wrong to think this case is not an example.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
I'm glad to see you admit that abortion has nothing to do with merely exerting control over our breeding, and is in fact therefore simply an act of violence against a defenseless and innocent actor.

Eugenics, however, absolutely included the elimination of people like DS children. So, you are wrong to think this case is not an example.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Eugenics is not the term to use in conjunction to women who choose to abort DS fetuses. You are still wrong.
 
Removable Mind said:
That's scientifically and medical and legally false.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And blacks, Jews, Chinese, and/or mentally disabled "aren't really humans" either :roll:


We have always dehumanized those we wish to abuse. So, it's telling when folks do it now.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Removable Mind said:
Eugenics is not the term to use in conjunction to women who choose to abort DS fetuses. You are still wrong.
Click to expand...
Sure it is - and was. When you exercise eugenics, that's what you are doing; you don't have to have a state actor initiate the program for eugenics to be eugenics.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. And blacks, Jews, Chinese, and/or mentally disabled "aren't really humans" either :roll:


We have always dehumanized those we wish to abuse. So, it's telling when folks do it now.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What do Jews and Chinese have to do with this topic?

A human is a human, but not all stages of human life are equal in development or social value.
 
Removable Mind said:
What do Jews and Chinese have to do with this topic?
Click to expand...

They are previous groups over whom we have had this debate.

And those who wished to abuse them always came up with names for them designed to dehumanize them. Just as modern folks who wish to justify abusing unborn children generally refuse to address them as such.

A human is a human, but not all stages of human life are equal in development or social value.
Click to expand...

Like the very old and infirm. Yeah, you're not mirroring historical eugenicists at all :roll:

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Sure it is - and was. When you exercise eugenics, that's what you are doing; you don't have to have a state actor initiate the program for eugenics to be eugenics.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You, again, have just made another false claim.

You don't understand the definition of eugenics or you wouldn't insist on claiming that they's a relationship with abortion in general or DS.

Once again...

Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

1% of all cases of Down syndrome are hereditary. People can't even use eugenics to increase the number of Down Syndrome pregnancies.
 
Removable Mind said:
You, again, have just made another false claim.

You don't understand the definition of eugenics or you wouldn't insist on claiming that they's a relationship with abortion in general or DS.

Once again...

Eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

1% of all cases of Down syndrome are hereditary. People can't even use eugenics to increase the number of Down Syndrome pregnancies.
Click to expand...
1. You are incorrect
2. First, however (you ignored this earlier): are you admitting that abortion has nothing to do with controlling breeding?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
1. You are incorrect
2. First, however (you ignored this earlier): are you admitting that abortion has nothing to do with controlling breeding?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

CP, you're talking in circles.

Women who choose to have abortions - who have had the test used to see if DS exist - is for individual personal reasons, none of which you are privy to.

Abortion in general (or otherwise, really) is not a conspiracy "to selectively create an outcome" - which can only be achieved by purposely BREEDING to produce a specific outcome.
 
Elvira said:
Life itself can cause life threatening complications...from the time we are born, we are dying...
Click to expand...

All the more reason to choose a healthy fetus to raise. Nature does the same thing but when we can do even better it is a no-brainer. It is against nature to not choose a healthy fetus over a defective one.
 
cpwill said:
Abortion absolutely targets unborn children.
Click to expand...
FALSE. It targets unborn *humans* --but those humans are not physically developed enough to be called "babies" or "children" or "kids" or other similar words, exactly the same as ordinary babies are not physically developed enough to be called "toddlers", and toddlers are not physically developed enough to be called "pre-teens", and pre-teens are not physically developed enough to be called "adolescents", and adolescents are not physically developed enough to be called "adults". When folks talk about "children", they usually envision young humans older than toddlers and often including pre-teens. They don't normally envision babies in cribs, or teenagers.

An unborn human is nothing more than a baby-under-construction, and when the construction process is finished (if it finishes; remember the Natural Miscarriage Rate), it gets born and NOW can be referred-to as ordinary baby. You don't claim a house-under-construction is equal to a house you can move into and live in, do you? So, on what basis should an unborn human be equated with something to which it is obviously not actually equal (thanks to the existence of an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ for the unborn human)?

cpwill said:
The idea it doesn't is ludicrous;
Click to expand...
IT IS TOTALLY SENSIBLE AND CONSISTENT, as explained above.

cpwill said:
If not human, what species do you think they are?
Click to expand...
UNBORN HUMANS ARE 100% human --and actually more human than ordinary children; the amniotic sac generally protects an unborn human from bacterial invasion and symbiosis. So there's another reason why unborn humans are different enough from ordinary children that unborn humans should never be equated with ordinary babies or children.
 
cpwill said:
Yes, really. We are weeding out what we see as undesirable genetic traits by weeding out those who have them.

In the US, IIRC, the wide majority of DS children are killed. In Iceland, which is what we were discussing, people are bragging about how many of them they are killing .

It's absolutely eugenics; but at least you recognize the horror of that enough to tell yourself that it isn't.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I said each woman makes her own decision whether or not continue a DS pregnancy.

It is not eugenics.
In n the US , since genetic testing our DS population has dropped about 30 percent.

It seems many women diagnose with a DS pregnancy are choosing to continue their pregnancies when the DS symptoms are the milder symptoms.

In the US most women understand DS had a wide range of disabilities and not all are life threatening.

So many continue with DS pregnancy that non life threatening.

It seems the US we are more educated about DS and we are more accepting of the DS population.
 
cpwill said:
Yes, really. We are weeding out what we see as undesirable genetic traits by weeding out those who have them.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what the claim is, but that's not even what's happening.

Down syndrome isn't genetic. It's a chromosomal anomaly which almost always happens by random chance, and the parents are almost always genetically normal. It can happen to any parents.

(There's a very small percentage of cases where it's inherited, but those cases are rare.)

Simply eliminating everyone who has it, then, doesn't do anything to stop it from happening again. It can't. It just keeps them from being born. It's not bred out of the species.

Even if it were genetic, it still wouldn't matter much, because people with it rarely have offspring, so they weren't going to pass it on anyway. And if it were a genetic condition, even someone not affected by it themselves may carry the gene, so if you don't eliminate them, too, it's still there.

So yeah:

Iceland, which is what we were discussing, people are bragging about how many of them they are killing .
Click to expand...

They're bragging about something they're not even doing -- eliminating the condition itself.

It's absolutely eugenics;
Click to expand...

Yeah. Considering they see it as the elimination of the condition itself, they see it as eugenics, and that's presented as a good thing by the story.
 
cpwill said:
It is eugenics. It's weeding out those deemed to be unfit, in this case, with violence.
Click to expand...

Eugenics

noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1. the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

Eugenics | Define Eugenics at Dictionary.com


So no, it is not eugenics.



:shrug: the system puts that marker in automatically.
Click to expand...

I believe you can set your device to not put that in.
 
FutureIncoming said:
FALSE. It targets unborn *humans* --but those humans are not physically developed enough to be called "babies" or "children" or "kids" or other similar words, exactly the same as ordinary babies are not physically developed enough to be called "toddlers", and toddlers are not physically developed enough to be called "pre-teens", and pre-teens are not physically developed enough to be called "adolescents", and adolescents are not physically developed enough to be called "adults". When folks talk about "children", they usually envision young humans older than toddlers and often including pre-teens. They don't normally envision babies in cribs, or teenagers.
Click to expand...

Babies are absolutely children. That's why we say a woman is "with child". They are a subset of children, specifically very young ones.

An unborn human is nothing more than a baby-under-construction, and when the construction process is finished (if it finishes; remember the Natural Miscarriage Rate), it gets born and NOW can be referred-to as ordinary baby. You don't claim a house-under-construction is equal to a house you can move into and live in, do you? So, on what basis should an unborn human be equated with something to which it is obviously not actually equal (thanks to the existence of an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ for the unborn human)?
Click to expand...

Miscarraige no more makes us not-a-child/adult/baby/etc. than sudden infant death syndrome or heart attacks make a 6-month old or a 60 year old not a baby or an adult. What a ridiculous claim.

IT IS TOTALLY SENSIBLE AND CONSISTENT, as explained above.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Observe:

UNBORN HUMANS ARE 100% human --and actually more human than ordinary children; the amniotic sac generally protects an unborn human from bacterial invasion and symbiosis. So there's another reason why unborn humans are different enough from ordinary children that unborn humans should never be equated with ordinary babies or children.
Click to expand...

Thus far in this thread you've put forth the ideas that being on a feeding tube and/or being in a protected environment is enough to make one not a child. By this (foolish) measurement, we can equally deny humanity to anyone in an ICU, anyone in a coma, or anyone with a severely compromised immune system.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Whites get more abortions than any other race.

Reported Legal Abortions by Race of Woman Who Obtained Abortion by the State of Occurrence | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow:

While it wouldn't astonish me (and, I think the point is better made that minorities abort a far larger percentage of their children) to find this is true, this source is not a very good one when it comes to providing supporting data, as it itself states that the data is incomplete, and results in underreporting both numbers and ratios.

New York, for example, which features very high abortion rates amongst minorities, is omitted. Ditto sections of DC, etc.
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow:

While it wouldn't astonish me (and, I think the point is better made that minorities abort a far larger percentage of their children) to find this is true, this source is not a very good one when it comes to providing supporting data, as it itself states that the data is incomplete, and results in underreporting both numbers and ratios.

New York, for example, which features very high abortion rates amongst minorities, is omitted. Ditto sections of DC, etc.
Click to expand...

Feel free to back up your claim with stats.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Not sure why you feel they aren't, but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

:) You are deliberately misinterpreting the point, which is simply that we have had this debate several times before, about different groups of people.


Always the people on your side attempt to dehumanize that group of people whom they wish to abuse for their own benefit :shrug: and the people on my side generally feel like we're losing. Until we win :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom