Would you abort a down syndrome fetus?

[got tonkaed]

i understand that....i just think your way of looking at things fails to recognize the gradations of quality and differences that make the world different than absolutes.

Its not that theres than anything wrong with it, i just think that way of thinking is overly simplistic and lacks refinement.

[Ariel*]

A person with downs syndrome can live a perfectly good and happy life. My father's cousin has it and he is one of the most fun people I know! He's happy most of the time and hilarious on top of that (don't get me wrong, I laugh with him and not at him). For being a man with downs syndrome he has lived very long so far, being 43 years old. And I honestly think that is because of the love from his family and the wonderful childhood and life they have given him. And he seems perfectly happy.

For this reason I think it's wrong to use the argument that you're sparing the child for an unhappy life. Personally I would probably do it out of pure selfishness. Not because I don't think the baby deserves a chance at life or that I don't think the child would be happy, because if I did decide to keep it I would love the child just like any other and do my best to give it a happy and meaningful life. And be proud of him/her. The reason I think I would chose an abortion is because of the burden on myself and the family. I would imagine it is a lot of work and a tough job (which is why I admire the people who goes through with it, such as my Great-Aunt and Uncle). I want healthy beautiful children who will grow up and have successful carreers, get married and give me new healthy beautiful grand children. Purely selfishness.

[Beastly]

What if you lived in a World with all Down syndrome people and you were born like you were right now? would your life not be full. should you be aborted. Just because some people are born different doesn't mean they should be aborted. DS children are just as beautiful as all other children and babies. Yes, there life may be harder, but not as hard as some "normal" people.

If people think they should be aborted, then all people who become disabled, small people, blind, deaf, or handicapped in anyway should be executed. Ridiculous!

Or maybe we should kill anybody who isn't perfect. hmmm... who would be left. I guess only me.

[got tonkaed]

there is an ocean of difference between any individual who cannot cognitively function in the way that a DS individual cannot, and the multitude of other illness and conditions that could exist in a human being.

In a similar vein, there is a wide difference in any condition which affects the body, and any condition that affects the brain. To some point, if an individual is approaching lower levels of functioning as a result of a medical condition, there is certainly a difference between that and an indivdual who has a variety of other ailments.

Personally, i probably wouldnt abort a child, but without a notion of something like a soul, there is no reason for me to assume i should have any sway over a very difficult decision that a parent(s) would have to make.

Also, though i know your just trying to make an example, and this probably poor form to break it down....but given the conditions of our existance, a world with nothing but indivduals with DS would be a world that in very short order was humanless

[viperbitex]

If you really want to go by survival of the fittest then we must stop all foreign aid to third world countries and allow them to kill each other off.

F*CKING RIGHT!!!!!

[Neoteny]

What if you lived in a World with all Down syndrome people and you were born like you were right now? would your life not be full. should you be aborted. Just because some people are born different doesn't mean they should be aborted. DS children are just as beautiful as all other children and babies. Yes, there life may be harder, but not as hard as some "normal" people.

If people think they should be aborted, then all people who become disabled, small people, blind, deaf, or handicapped in anyway should be executed. Ridiculous!

Or maybe we should kill anybody who isn't perfect. hmmm... who would be left. I guess only me.

There's a big difference between abortion and execution. There is no way I'd agree to killing any human beyond the birth stage. And comparing a three month embryo to a handicapped person of any age is a bit much.

[Napoleon Ier]

What if you lived in a World with all Down syndrome people and you were born like you were right now? would your life not be full. should you be aborted. Just because some people are born different doesn't mean they should be aborted. DS children are just as beautiful as all other children and babies. Yes, there life may be harder, but not as hard as some "normal" people.

If people think they should be aborted, then all people who become disabled, small people, blind, deaf, or handicapped in anyway should be executed. Ridiculous!

Or maybe we should kill anybody who isn't perfect. hmmm... who would be left. I guess only me.

There's a big difference between abortion and execution. There is no way I'd agree to killing any human beyond the birth stage. And comparing a three month embryo to a handicapped person of any age is a bit much.

Yet we essentially get back to the concept of personhood, and humanity. You cannot play around with when you believe life begins, you must respect its sanctity from birth. We can't say "it begins round about....12 weeks, no! medical evidence says 15, woops, 10, down to 8 weeks, hey latest study says 17 weeks, oh, back to just 6 weeks...". You have to accept a gentically distinct organism as a person. Endowed with inviolable and inalienable rights. Full Stop.

[MeDeFe]

I'll go out on a limb and play the devils advocate here.

"sanctity of life" you say, exactly what is this sanctity of life, where does it derive from? From a sky-daddy whose existence is less likely than 19 dimensions that didn't get to "unfold" during the big bang? Hardly.
If life is nothing more than chemical processes taking place then life at most gets a mark in a tourist guide as a must-see because of its rarity. And honestly, we living beings aren't exactly famous for respecting each other, what with the way we kill and eat each other left and right.

"humanity" you say, a certain genetic code with some variability and what species your parents happen to belong to, that's what defines a being as a human.

"personhood", what a great concept, please, define what it is that makes a person a person. Surely it isn't something as arbitrary as the genetic code. Maybe the cognitive abilites? But at what degree does a living being become a person then? And why at just that degree and not at any other? I hope you see the implications of using the cognitive ability as the yardstick.

And these "inviolable and inalienable rights", where do they come from? From sky-daddy again? Or from something else, maybe from this thing called "empathy", that might be possible, some have argued along those lines. But what about those we call sociopaths then, who lack this. If they don't have any empathy, can they then possibly recognize these rights? Would that make them less then persons? Or does it mean that empathy is insufficient as a basis for "inviolable and inalienable rights", whatever these rights entail.

There, I'm done taking a controversial position for now. Just one last thing regarding your post.

I think you meant to say that we must respect "its sanctity from conception", not from birth. Otherwise the rest of your post doesn't make much sense.

[Napoleon Ier]

^^Fine, take that moral relativist position.

Where do my inalienable rights come from? Do I have any?

What is right?

What is wrong?

What is justice?

Where does anyone's right to life stem from?

Was the My Lai massacre wrong, or necessary ativistic barbarity to show the reds our determination? Was it condemnable?

Why is anything wrong, unless "sky-daddy", as you refer the LORD our God, is the objective moral standard? Well, you're the atheist, so I'll let you answer that one...

And thanks for the correction

Damn leftist media getting to my head

[Snorri1234]

Was the My Lai massacre wrong, or necessary ativistic barbarity to show the reds our determination? Was it condemnable?

Unnecessary and therefore wrong.

[Napoleon Ier]

Unnecessary

Conjecture.

and therefore wrong.

Why therefore wrong?

Masturbation isn't necessary, yet you defend it.

Is anything "unnecessary" wrong?

How do you define wrong? Where does this concept even come from?

[Snorri1234]

Unnecessary

Conjecture.

I'd say it was pretty unneccesary. But you're right, it doesn't actually matter.

and therefore wrong.

Why therefore wrong?

Masturbation isn't necessary, yet you defend it.

Is anything "unnecessary" wrong?

Yeah, but the problem is that one thing doesn't hurt someone else and the other does.


See, the problem with your view is that you can't seem to grasp another basis for right and wrong. I, for instance, fully agree with the declaration for human rights, but do so on a different basis. Morality doesn't have to come from some invisible authority in the sky, it comes from people themselves.
I have no reason to assume other people are different from me, so I guess they would protest against their death. Futhermore, when they can convey that they don't want to die, I can see no reason to assume my needs are more important than theirs. I use reason to determine that my needs are unimportant to anyone but me, and if I am to remain reasonable then I must not act on them if they interfere with another person's wellbeing.

I don't need a god to not kill people. On the contrary, I think god is often used as an excuse to kill people. The great thing about being a moral relativist is that you also can see that for most "wrong" acts there is no reasonable basis.


Ofcourse, this is overlooking the fact that a society needs to not be hypocritical to function properly. Is it any suprise that the societies that have prospered the most are the ones where human rights are upheld?

[Napoleon Ier]

Surely you cannot use reason to ascertain that a certain action possesses a certain undefined property?
There must be an objective standard to which you compare it.
How can you say something is "wrong"without first knowing what this attribute is?
Why be altruistic? What motivation?

[Neutrino]

Damn leftist media getting to my head

Yes, Napoleon, the leftist media are comming to get you. Only the power of rightist media can save your eternal soul. Their clear, unbiased information will allow you to make the choices that God endorses.

Right = Correct!

Coincidence??? You decide!!!

[Neutrino]

Why be altruistic? What motivation?

Basic human empathy is a big one...

[unriggable]

Why be altruistic? What motivation?

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives ... truism.htm

[Snorri1234]

Why be altruistic? What motivation?

Basic human empathy is a big one...

Yes certainly.

[Snorri1234]

Surely you cannot use reason to ascertain that a certain action possesses a certain undefined property?
There must be an objective standard to which you compare it.

Why?

How can you say something is "wrong"without first knowing what this attribute is?

I know what wrong is. What you don't seem to realise is that "wrong" doesn't have to come from a god or anything.

[Backglass]

Much like abortion in general, this question it is very easy to answer and have a strong opinion on.

Unless of course, YOU or your teenage daughter is the one having the baby in which case the perspective suddenly changes and yet another hypocrite is born.

[suggs]

Much like abortion in general, this question it is very easy to answer and have a strong opinion on.

Unless of course, YOU (or your daughter) is the one having the baby in which case the perspective suddenly changes and yet another hypocrite is born.

And thats why pregnant mothers dont make the laws.
But you're right, abortion is an easy question to answer. It's every womans right, and its nobody elses business.

[Backglass]

It's every womans right, and its nobody elses business.

QFT

[Napoleon Ier]

A woman's right to chose is superseded by the child's right to life.

[unriggable]

A woman's right to chose is superseded by the child's right to life.

...unless the child isn't born yet, in which case its just as much a part of the woman as any other skin cell.

[Neutrino]

A woman's right to chose is superseded by the child's right to life.

Tell me, Napoleon, do you support war? That guy in your avatar looks reasonably General-ish, so I would assume so.

[suggs]

A woman's right to chose is superseded by the child's right to life.

1) Thanks for telling us what rights are, and who should have them.
Why dont you just declare yourself as God and be done with it?
2) It (YAWN) isnt a child its a foetus.
3) Its none of your business.