Aborting children with genetic defects

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 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.

I am just a realist. To me, the rights of the mother, the father, the family, and the rest of the society overshadow the rights of a fetus.

It may be wrong to end it's life, but it's the lesser wrong. I don't claim to be saintly, nor do I subscribe to moral absolutism. Such is my decision, and I have to live with its moral implications. But it's a lot easier for me to live with these implications than their converse.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 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.

Down's was the first example I thought of. There are many more severe conditions out there.

In any case, who the hell are you to tell people what they should perceive as pain or pleasure. As an individual, you have the right to keep the child and decide whether it's pain or pleasure for yourself. What I do object to, is you forcing others to follow the same choice.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Meuge
In any case, who the hell are you to tell people what they should perceive as pain or pleasure. As an individual, you have the right to keep the child and decide whether it's pain or pleasure for yourself. What I do object to, is you forcing others to follow the same choice.

And yet, you'd "force" others to keep the child if the defects were not discovered until after birth, right? Or maybe not; after all, you're a "realist" who doesn't believe in moral absolutes.

I'm just curious; if there are no moral absolutes, when is rape justified? Torture?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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.

No, it's called the right to bodily integrity, but I'm sorry for trying to stand in your way of trampling on the Constitution.

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.

Nonsense. Driving without a seatbelt is not tantamout to waiving one's right to seek recourse in the case of an accident. But again, it appears facts confuse you.

After that, she can give up the child to adoption if she decide to do so.

No woman can be forced to become or remain pregnant against her will.

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?

Your emotional appeals are irrelevant to the facts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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.

I have the highest regard for humanity. It is not me that is trying to strip rights away from people. It is you that wants to turn women into involuntary incubators -- slaves to the unwelcome intruder leeching off of the woman's body.

Would you also oppose the right of a person to defend his home, property and family from the unwelcome intrusion of an armed robber? What if the owner left his door unlocked? Does that mean that the burglar is free to enter the premises and begin repossessing the owner's property?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Garth

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.

I have the highest regard for humanity. It is not me that is trying to strip rights away from people.

So if my kid's ugly, can I kill it? You wouldn't strip away my parental rights, would you? You wouldn't force me to pay to raise an ugly kid, would you?

Would you also oppose the right of a person to defend his home, property and family from the unwelcome intrusion of an armed robber? What if the owner left his door unlocked? Does that mean that the burglar is free to enter the premises and begin repossessing the owner's property?

Your analogy doesn't work - did you choose to enter your mother's body? Did anyone choose to exist? In fact, in the creation of a life, the mother and father are the only ones with the ability to exercise choice; certainly not the child. When the mother can't exercise choice in engaging in sex (rape), it's rightly a crime.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 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.

Down's was the first example I thought of. There are many more severe conditions out there.

In any case, who the hell are you to tell people what they should perceive as pain or pleasure. As an individual, you have the right to keep the child and decide whether it's pain or pleasure for yourself. What I do object to, is you forcing others to follow the same choice.

Nope, I am saying that your notion that somebody is trying to force something that causes suffering isn't always right. Downs children bring some folks more joy than suffering. That is all I said. I was telling you not to decide what is or isn't suffering or to use that judgment as a theory to explain away your opposition although it may account for some. Everybody is acting out of what they perceive as good and the real debate is about that I think.

 

[bamacre]

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

I hope so, I do it at least twice a week.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, if you decide how moral a person is by talking in money terms, then yeah I guess you can call me immoral. But at least I don't think so divinely of myself as to have the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

You talk about bring someone deformed into this world. Who is going to decide this term "deformed" or "non-functional"? Does having an IQ of 50 deformed or non-functional? What about 80? what about 100? Where do you draw the line, and who do you think you are to decide where the line is?

There are plenty of loving people who will adopt dysfunctional children. Just because you don't have the capability to love "non-standard" human being, don't assume everyone else doesn't as well.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, if you decide how moral a person is by talking in money terms, then yeah I guess you can call me immoral. But at least I don't think so divinely of myself as to have the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

You talk about bring someone deformed into this world. Who is going to decide this term "deformed" or "non-functional"? Does having an IQ of 50 deformed or non-functional? What about 80? what about 100? Where do you draw the line, and who do you think you are to decide where the line is?

There are plenty of loving people who will adopt dysfunctional children. Just because you don't have the capability to love "non-standard" human being, don't assume everyone else doesn't as well.

Put your life where your mouth is. I'll start listening to you, as soon as you adopt someone with an IQ of 80. In the meantime, it's just demagogy. All you're showing is that you want OTHERS to make choices that are difficult for them. And I'd bet all of my money you'd sing a different tune if you were faced with that choice.

Similarly to way that Jehovahs Witnesses parents allow their children to get blood transfusions... similarly to how the most devout Christian girls run to the abortion clinics. Contrary to what you may imagine, beign righteous involves making your own choices, not forcing others to do what you probably wouldn't do yourself.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, if you decide how moral a person is by talking in money terms, then yeah I guess you can call me immoral. But at least I don't think so divinely of myself as to have the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

He's not talking about money as in buying new TVs, computer hardware, cars, etc. He's talking about how that money could be used to save several people. People that actually have the ability to think, ie a developed brain. That's what defines human life, not a bunch of cells that have the potential to become life.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: rchiu
But at least I don't think so divinely of myself as to have the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

You're full of ******. Of course you decide that... you do it on a daily basis. You could have saved ten lives this year with the amount of money you dumped on your computer. You could have fed a family with the amount of food you throw out.

Of course you decide who lives and who dies, we all do it on an everyday basis. Just because you don't see the people who die so that you could live such a luxurious life, doesn't mean they are not dying.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, if you decide how moral a person is by talking in money terms, then yeah I guess you can call me immoral. But at least I don't think so divinely of myself as to have the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

You talk about bring someone deformed into this world. Who is going to decide this term "deformed" or "non-functional"? Does having an IQ of 50 deformed or non-functional? What about 80? what about 100? Where do you draw the line, and who do you think you are to decide where the line is?

There are plenty of loving people who will adopt dysfunctional children. Just because you don't have the capability to love "non-standard" human being, don't assume everyone else doesn't as well.

Put your life where your mouth is. I'll start listening to you, as soon as you adopt someone with an IQ of 80. In the meantime, it's just demagogy. All you're showing is that you want OTHERS to make choices that are difficult for them. And I'd bet all of my money you'd sing a different tune if you were faced with that choice.

Similarly to way that Jehovahs Witnesses parents allow their children to get blood transfusions... similarly to how the most devout Christian girls run to the abortion clinics. Contrary to what you may imagine, beign righteous involves making your own choices, not forcing others to do what you probably wouldn't do yourself.

And you know this how?
You don't - you're just making things up to justify yourself.
And for the record, I know plenty of people who've loved and accepted less-than-perfect babies. Our firstborn was suspected to have a severe spinal defect, based on a blood test. We never once considered abortion. Luckily, she's a healthy and beautiful child. My nephew was born with that condition in which the intestine developed outside the body and the abdomen did not fully close (forget the name), and while she knew prior to birth, my in-law never once considered abortion. This condition required several surgeries to correct, but you'd never know of the problem today.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Put your life where your mouth is. I'll start listening to you, as soon as you adopt someone with an IQ of 80. In the meantime, it's just demagogy. All you're showing is that you want OTHERS to make choices that are difficult for them. And I'd bet all of my money you'd sing a different tune if you were faced with that choice.

Similarly to way that Jehovahs Witnesses parents allow their children to get blood transfusions... similarly to how the most devout Christian girls run to the abortion clinics. Contrary to what you may imagine, beign righteous involves making your own choices, not forcing others to do what you probably wouldn't do yourself.

My oldest son has slight degree of autism. If I had known when he was still an unborn child, I would still welcome him to this world with open hand. We spent tons of money on his therapies, and we endured tons of prejudice from people, like his pre-school teacher telling us to take him somewhere else, but we still love him for who he is. So don't tell me about making choices, I have and I will make the same choice every time.

As for forcing other people to make the same choices, I know I don't have that kind of power. I only HOPE others will either exercise responsibility in birth-control or abstinence, and if other can't do that and a life is created as a result, and it doesn't matter if you are a man or woman, you better have the decency and take up the responsibility for the life you've created. And you don't have the right to judge if that life you've created is up to your standard, and you don't have the right to decide if that life live or die.

That's just my opinion and if you agree, good, if not, well that's too bad.

 

[Meuge]

How conveniently you've ignored the post about how you decide who lives and who dies. But alas, I understand that you may make a certain choice... and I may make the same choice... but I am not prepared to judge those who'd make another, and certainly not prepared to enact legal measures against them making that choice. You don't see me trying to create a law that would force you to perform abortions... so do the world a favor and refrain from doing the converse.

P.S. I applaud your story about your son's 'slight' autism... but I've also seen mothers who cry themselves to sleep every day, because they are taking care of a shell that will never read, write, rebel against them, and give them grandchildren. The kind of cruelty it would take to force these people to bear such unbelievable pain out of nothing more than principle is incomprehensible to me.

 

[straightalker]

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?

Now add to that the ultra convenient abortion practice of selecting only wanted children and tossing the unwanted into a garbage can. Now you see why i'm so amazed at the crassness of the so called "parents" who SORT through their 2-4 month pre-birth children to select one good enough (in their opinion) to let live.

Whoa hoss! Did things suddenly just get creepy on this Planet or what?? And where is this convenience all going to go in further time down this dark and desolate road??

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What is really being aborted is love.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is better not to kill than to kill. It is better to be born normal than defective. Abortion is legal. Everybody has to weigh these things and make their own decisions. You have the right to judge another's decision but you don't have the right to decide for them which of the impossible mental escapes they choose in dealing with traps created by competing absolutes.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: straightalker
And where is this all going to go in further time down this dark and desolate road??

It's probably just going to lead to more secondary accounts on anandtech. Cause when your point is weak, and you've got little support, you can always count on yourself to give you a hand.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Garth

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.

No, it's called the right to bodily integrity, but I'm sorry for trying to stand in your way of trampling on the Constitution.

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.

Nonsense. Driving without a seatbelt is not tantamout to waiving one's right to seek recourse in the case of an accident. But again, it appears facts confuse you.

After that, she can give up the child to adoption if she decide to do so.

No woman can be forced to become or remain pregnant against her will.

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?

Your emotional appeals are irrelevant to the facts.

Heh, it appears that you are the one who have the facts confused. Driving without a seatbelt doesn't cause an accident, at least not directly. Haveing sex without birth control does cause women preganent. So your analogy doesn't not equate at all. A the better analogy is that if you drive down the opposite direction of a one way street and you get into an accidient, it does pretty much tantamout to waiving your right in the accident. Driving down the wrong direction of the street have high probability of causing an accident, just like having sex without birth control have a chance of causing pregancy. Both are direct cause and effect, and both the party have a choose not to participate in.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Meuge
P.S. I applaud your story about your son's 'slight' autism... but I've also seen mothers who cry themselves to sleep every day, because they are taking care of a shell that will never read, write, rebel against them, and give them grandchildren. The kind of cruelty it would take to force these people to bear such unbelievable pain out of nothing more than principle is incomprehensible to me.

So help those mothers whack those shells; by your ethics, that seems to be OK. If a child only results in pain to the parents, it should go bye-bye, right? To say otherwise is just cruel to the parents, and who can be for that?!?!

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: straightalker
And where is this all going to go in further time down this dark and desolate road??

It's probably just going to lead to more secondary accounts on anandtech. Cause when your point is weak, and you've got little support, you can always count on yourself to give you a hand.

Thou shalt not kill. I believe in that principle. It's clear guidance.

And the exceptions are also clear. As when an attacker invades your home or when someone else is seen being critically assaulted, you intervene with lethal force. As in the ultimate example too. When a hostile foriegn Nation invades your Country. You act. You defend.

Doctors take an oath not to kill. Yet so many become so perverse and kill millions. That's a part of my point. And it's the exact opposite of weak.

You want weak. Try another thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: straightalker
And where is this all going to go in further time down this dark and desolate road??

It's probably just going to lead to more secondary accounts on anandtech. Cause when your point is weak, and you've got little support, you can always count on yourself to give you a hand.

Thou shalt not kill. I believe in that principle. It's clear guidance.

And the exceptions are also clear. As when an attacker invades your home or when someone else is seen being critically assaulted, you intervene with lethal force. As in the ultimate example too. When a hostile foriegn Nation invades your Country. You act. You defend.

Doctors take an oath not to kill. Yet so many become so perverse and kill millions. That's a part of my point. And it's the exact opposite of weak.

You want weak. Try another thread.

You don't seem to understand that you also can't force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to carry. Otherwise, when scientists figure out how to have men carry babies women will have every right to capture, impregnate, and hold you immobile in a cell to carry her baby.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You don't seem to understand that you also can't force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to carry.

So if she's walking home, and the child is heavy, and her arms are tired, she can just leave it on the ground, and hope a benevolent stranger appears?

And can you force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want carried by a woman?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Thou shalt not kill. I believe in that principle. It's clear guidance.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you stand on the corner with a sign? "Save the Cells!!!"

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh my gosh!! I just agreed with moonbeam