Aborting children with genetic defects

[straightalker]

It's true. Medical science has advanced far. So for some craven reason many so-called "parents" are testing their children inside the mother's womb for genetic defects like cystic fibrosis, and murdering those unwanted kids before they pass out the birth canal. The ultimate ambush. Nice people eh? They call themselves "parents". But i dissagree with such a broad use of that term in this instance.

The other factor to consider is the slippery slope principle. In Holland many people permanently have tattooed on their bodies "don't kill me". Doctors there will too often kill you if they feel your life is in their PERVERSE medical judgement not worth living.

Once the killing starts it's like a slip on a banana peel at the top of the stairs...

Where's the love? It used to be when even a child was born with a terrible misfortune that person was still loved. These days they just get tossed into the bio-hazzard bin pre-birth or get euthenized sometime after birth. Like an animal at a humane society shelter.

At the bottom of that fall is killing unwanted sectors of society. Like perhaps the homeless we see wandering the streets.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The unborn are not people, and should not be awarded similar rights. And "used to be" depends on where and when you are talking about. Many cultures simply discarded defective newborns in the past. Your slippery slope argument is poor as well since living persons have far more protections than fetuses do.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: straightalker
In Holland many people permanently have tattooed on their bodies "don't kill me".

And in the US everyone still rides on horses in full cowboy gear :roll:

I have never heard of anyone here having 'don't kill me' tattooed on them, but there are some who have 'do not revive me' tattooed on them. Euthenasia is something which is not done except if the person not only agrees with it him-/herself, but when also intolerable and incurable suffering can be proven, and it can be proven that the person is still perfectly sane at the time when the decision is made. Unless you have made clear that you do not want it (and sometimes even then still) people who get a heartfailure or something will be revived, even if it is already known that the person will not live long anymore, and that the rest of their lives will only consist of horrible pain and suffering.

So unless you choose to believe Republican propaganda rather than believing actual facts I'd review your arguments a bit.

Saying that letting a child be born with an open back is better than aborting something which has not yet developed even the most primordial selfsense, let alone an actual functional brain yet does not sound very humane to me. But I guess that's just a question of how much you like to see kids suffer eh?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: straightalker
In Holland many people permanently have tattooed on their bodies "don't kill me".

And in the US everyone still rides on horses in full cowboy gear :roll:

I have never heard of anyone here having 'don't kill me' tattooed on them, but there are some who have 'do not revive me' tattooed on them. Euthenasia is something which is not done except if the person not only agrees with it him-/herself, but when also intolerable and incurable suffering can be proven, and it can be proven that the person is still perfectly sane at the time when the decision is made. Unless you have made clear that you do not want it (and sometimes even then still) people who get a heartfailure or something will be revived, even if it is already known that the person will not live long anymore, and that the rest of their lives will only consist of horrible pain and suffering.

So unless you choose to believe Republican propaganda rather than believing actual facts I'd review your arguments a bit.

Saying that letting a child be born with an open back is better than aborting something which has not yet developed even the most primordial selfsense, let alone an actual functional brain yet does not sound very humane to me. But I guess that's just a question of how much you like to see kids suffer eh?

I remember reading an article from a UK professor a couple of weeks ago who claimed patients are euthanised by doctors without their consent in the Netherlands every year. I'll see if I can find a link to the article. I remember there being some news about babies being euthanized a few months ago, too. So, I guess it happens without consent sometimes, but perhaps it may be for the best?

I'm interested in the demographics of the euthanized. I think that it would be an interesting statistic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would it be ok to weed out defective sperm or defective eggs before they join?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: straightalker
It's true. Medical science has advanced far. So for some craven reason many so-called "parents" are testing their children inside the mother's womb for genetic defects like cystic fibrosis, and murdering those unwanted kids before they pass out the birth canal. The ultimate ambush. Nice people eh? They call themselves "parents". But i dissagree with such a broad use of that term in this instance.

The other factor to consider is the slippery slope principle. In Holland many people permanently have tattooed on their bodies "don't kill me". Doctors there will too often kill you if they feel your life is in their PERVERSE medical judgement not worth living.

Once the killing starts it's like a slip on a banana peel at the top of the stairs...

Where's the love? It used to be when even a child was born with a terrible misfortune that person was still loved. These days they just get tossed into the bio-hazzard bin pre-birth or get euthenized sometime after birth. Like an animal at a humane society shelter.

At the bottom of that fall is killing unwanted sectors of society. Like perhaps the homeless we see wandering the streets.

Do you stand on street corners holding a sign "Save the Cells!!!" ???

 

[chcarnage]

Nice job linking abortions, murder and euthanasia. So far these slippery slopes are nothing but your personal opinion because it didn't happen. But I have to admit that your idea of the Netherlands is entertaining.

 

[straightalker]

Heeheehe.

I even see some saying this is a republican verses democrat issue. Why does everything for some people all boil down to the false left-right paradigm? Try to think outside that box.

This is about life. And regardless whether or not you believe life begins at conception, if you terminate the progress of the timeline that any human being is on after their conception, you effectively pre-empted their birth. Those who call a pre-born child a blob of cells ignore that logic like as if it is non existent.

I'm not going to get into any arguments over this. It made the news today and a video on it is on the Yahoo News video website dated yesterday.

What was so bizzare was the way some people so crassly call themselves "parents" yet toss out their unborn children like playing a game of chance. Here's the facts. It takes awhile to confirm a successful conception. Then it takes waiting the required two months minimum after to have the genetic tests processed. This could be 3 or 4 months into a child's development. Pretty far beyond the Zygote stage would'nt you say? For those of you falling into the camp that says these kids are just "cells".

If the pre-born child is without a head or a brain that's something different. There's a game some can play on where to draw the line. But yesterday's news dealt more with very livable ailments like just a disease called cystic fibrosis. Who's to say medical science won't find a way to make that condition very livable in the future. How many people in our World with cystic fibrosis are also great scientists or even doctors working on it's cure?

I'm for raising the standards of reverance for life. While i won't turn this into a heated argument. I will stand infinitely firm on my beliefs. Allow me to express my honest beliefs without ridicule.

Nice job linking abortions, murder and euthanasia. So far these slippery slopes are nothing but your personal opinion because it didn't happen. But I have to admit that your idea of the Netherlands is entertaining.

It did happen. Hitler, Stalin, Mao. 20th century.

Next.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The reality is that women don't need a reason to abort their pregnancies. Period. A woman's right to protect her body from the unwanted intrusion of an embryo is inviolate.

 

[straightalker]

unwanted intrusion of an embryo

There are tens of thousands of surviving children from botched abortions walking around on our Planet enjoying sunshine, love, joy and life who would take issue with your low opinion of humanity.

Next.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: straightalker
In Holland many people permanently have tattooed on their bodies "don't kill me".

And in the US everyone still rides on horses in full cowboy gear :roll:

I have never heard of anyone here having 'don't kill me' tattooed on them, but there are some who have 'do not revive me' tattooed on them. Euthenasia is something which is not done except if the person not only agrees with it him-/herself, but when also intolerable and incurable suffering can be proven, and it can be proven that the person is still perfectly sane at the time when the decision is made. Unless you have made clear that you do not want it (and sometimes even then still) people who get a heartfailure or something will be revived, even if it is already known that the person will not live long anymore, and that the rest of their lives will only consist of horrible pain and suffering.

So unless you choose to believe Republican propaganda rather than believing actual facts I'd review your arguments a bit.

Saying that letting a child be born with an open back is better than aborting something which has not yet developed even the most primordial selfsense, let alone an actual functional brain yet does not sound very humane to me. But I guess that's just a question of how much you like to see kids suffer eh?

I remember reading an article from a UK professor a couple of weeks ago who published a study in a medical journal which claimed over 1000 patients are euthanised by doctors without their consent in the Netherlands every year. I'll see if I can find a link to the article. I remember there being some news about babies being euthanized a few months ago, too.

I'm interested in the demographics of the euthanized. I think that it would be an interesting statistic.

If there is one country in which healthcare is a mess it's the UK

There they keep people in horrible suffering alive against their wishes and that of their families and do not allow family to help if someone is in hospital and there is no personel available to do something. So they can lie in their own dirt without their family being allowed to act, because there is of course enough personel to tell you off...

 

[chcarnage]

So you are not comfortable with ending any form of human life. Incompatible position with the mother's right of self-determination but an opinion nonetheless.

What you were claiming is a slippery slope from abortion to mass murder and race hygiene. The chronology of the Holocaust and the Gulag do not show this logic.

(Edited a misunderstanding)

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: straightalker

unwanted intrusion of an embryo

There are tens of thousands of surviving children from botched abortions walking around on our Planet enjoying sunshine, love, joy and life who would take issue with your low opinion of humanity.

Next.

And there are hundreds of millions of sadists, rapists, terrorists, republicans, murderers and other scum which should have been aborted before birth to make life more enjoyable for the rest of humanity.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I remember reading an article from a UK professor a couple of weeks ago who claimed patients are euthanised by doctors without their consent in the Netherlands every year. I'll see if I can find a link to the article. I remember there being some news about babies being euthanized a few months ago, too. So, I guess it happens without consent sometimes, but perhaps it may be for the best?

I'm interested in the demographics of the euthanized. I think that it would be an interesting statistic.

I haven't anything about this (and I live in the UK). However, I suspect it depends on your definition of "euthanised". Doctors do administer drugs that shorten the life of patients. However, in most cases this is simply because they are trying to relieve suffering. One obvious example is morphin which, when given in high doses, can effectivly kill the patient. However, such high doses are still given to terminally ill patient if the only alternative is severe pain. So the patient is "euthanised" but in reality we are maybe talking of reducing the expected life span by a few days or maybe a few weeks at most.

As far as I know this is done everywhere. Although technically speaking I don't think it is obvious that it is legal, the question is of course whether you consider the cause of death to be the morphin or the illness.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The unborn are not people, and should not be awarded similar rights. And "used to be" depends on where and when you are talking about. Many cultures simply discarded defective newborns in the past. Your slippery slope argument is poor as well since living persons have far more protections than fetuses do.

They said the same about Blacks and Women at one point.

btw the Feminist movement has quite the moral dilema on their hands. After working so hard to get abortion rights into many 3rd world countries they are learning what the pro0life movement has been telling them for decades. These cultures value male children more than girls and abort unwanted female babies due to their sex.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would it be ok to weed out defective sperm or defective eggs before they join?

ok, yes, but i have to admit it would probably lead to some pretty crappy determinations about what kind of people should be left out of society...... as well as some benefits

 

[halik]

I'd hope my parents would have enough sense to abort me If I had a mental defect of those sorts.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The unborn are not people, and should not be awarded similar rights. And "used to be" depends on where and when you are talking about. Many cultures simply discarded defective newborns in the past. Your slippery slope argument is poor as well since living persons have far more protections than fetuses do.

They said the same about Blacks and Women at one point.

btw the Feminist movement has quite the moral dilema on their hands. After working so hard to get abortion rights into many 3rd world countries they are learning what the pro0life movement has been telling them for decades. These cultures value male children more than girls and abort unwanted female babies due to their sex.

Actually, only white men said that about blacks and women . . . at least in America. Well, to be totally accurate . . . they said blacks (regardless of gender) were 3/5 of a person.

I didn't know the pro-retarded life movement had been saying male children are more valued than female.

 

[Meuge]

You just don't understand - they key to life is suffering! The more people suffer, the holier they are... thus more people should suffer. And what better way than to get people to suffer, then have them be born with, or take care of, people with severe congenital defects. I mean that's suffering galore - for a lifetime! You don't want to suffer? Too bad - if God didn't want you to suffer, he wouldn't have given your kid Down's syndrome. What? You disagree? Well, I can't hear you... you're not suffering enough.

Yay for our "values"!

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Garth
The reality is that women don't need a reason to abort their pregnancies. Period. A woman's right to protect her body from the unwanted intrusion of an embryo is inviolate.

Yeah, that's call birth-control or abstinence. But if women can't exercise those controls, and a life resulted in her womb, she better have the decency to at least give up 10 month of her life and carry that life to fruition. After that, she can give up the child to adoption if she decide to do so.

Let's see, a human life or 10 month out of a women's life as a result of her own action....hmm...tough choices huh?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Garth
The reality is that women don't need a reason to abort their pregnancies. Period. A woman's right to protect her body from the unwanted intrusion of an embryo is inviolate.

Yeah, that's call birth-control or abstinence. But if women can't exercise those controls, and a life resulted in her womb, she better have the decency to at least give up 10 month of her life and carry that life to fruition. After that, she can give up the child to adoption if she decide to do so.

Let's see, a human life or 10 month out of a women's life as a result of her own action....hmm...tough choices huh?

What do you think are the chances of a child with severe birth defects ever being adopted? Are you going to do it?

So now, we've given this woman emotional trauma from bringing something deformed into the world, physical trauma from carrying and birthing this child. We've also given our entire society the financial trauma of now having to take care of this human for the rest of its natural life. Figure a nursing home is $30k/year... so for someone with Down's that... say... 50 years... at $30k = $1.5M

Do you know how many rounds of free chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplants $1.5M will buy you.

But no, what we've done is generate a non-functional member of a society, who will never contribute to society in any way, will not produce any functional offspring, and will only leech off the already limited social and medical funds.

Very moral of you.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The unborn are not people, and should not be awarded similar rights. And "used to be" depends on where and when you are talking about. Many cultures simply discarded defective newborns in the past. Your slippery slope argument is poor as well since living persons have far more protections than fetuses do.

They said the same about Blacks and Women at one point.

btw the Feminist movement has quite the moral dilema on their hands. After working so hard to get abortion rights into many 3rd world countries they are learning what the pro0life movement has been telling them for decades. These cultures value male children more than girls and abort unwanted female babies due to their sex.

Actually, only white men said that about blacks and women . . . at least in America. Well, to be totally accurate . . . they said blacks (regardless of gender) were 3/5 of a person.

I didn't know the pro-retarded life movement had been saying male children are more valued than female.

And? The fact is it was said.

As for your comment about pro-life, they have been saying countries value the life of male babies over female babies. Unsurprising in countries like India and Egypt it came true.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge
You just don't understand - they key to life is suffering! The more people suffer, the holier they are... thus more people should suffer. And what better way than to get people to suffer, then have them be born with, or take care of, people with severe congenital defects. I mean that's suffering galore - for a lifetime! You don't want to suffer? Too bad - if God didn't want you to suffer, he wouldn't have given your kid Down's syndrome. What? You disagree? Well, I can't hear you... you're not suffering enough.

Yay for our "values"!

Actually, I have heard lots of people talk of the joys their Downs syndrome children and siblings have brought to families and not as you suggest, suffering.

I draw from this not, however, a recommendation for Downs children, but rather a testament to the fact that what brings joy to life transcend most people's understanding and is sometimes uncovered only by suffering through foolishness and conformist notions of what should bring pain will. What you see as suffering may not be so to the spiritually developed and wise.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Meuge
But no, what we've done is generate a non-functional member of a society, who will never contribute to society in any way, will not produce any functional offspring, and will only leech off the already limited social and medical funds.

However useless you may be, I still recognize your right to exist.

You'll probably get a free pass, because you're left of center, but if someone like Zendari said the same thing, other people here would recognize it for what it is - the statements of a monster.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The unborn are not people, and should not be awarded similar rights. And "used to be" depends on where and when you are talking about. Many cultures simply discarded defective newborns in the past. Your slippery slope argument is poor as well since living persons have far more protections than fetuses do.

They said the same about Blacks and Women at one point.

btw the Feminist movement has quite the moral dilema on their hands. After working so hard to get abortion rights into many 3rd world countries they are learning what the pro0life movement has been telling them for decades. These cultures value male children more than girls and abort unwanted female babies due to their sex.

I hardly see the connection between people that are in society and their rights being taken away and the rights of a bunch of cells prior to the end of the first or even second trimester.

I further argue, that an abortion is even allowed by the Christian bible. I quote:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Leviticus 17:11

So if you abort the embryo (or zygote) in the first 10-20 days after conception there is no blood and according to Leviticus there is no life which means if there is no life you can't 'kill' it.