Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

gctest50 wrote: »

That's nothin, have you seen my unmade Ferrari ?

Some on here would surely look to tax and insure their unmade car.

pickarooney wrote: »

I wonder who are the parents who get the test done and decide to go ahead with the pregnancy anyway. Seems a bit pointless.

Forewarned is forearmed I suppose. If you can know in advance, then you can educate the sh1t out of yourself on what to expect.

It's not an easy decision in any case. Someone who may have said before pregnancy that they would abort in the case of DS may have a change of heart when they actually become pregnant, but get the test anyway.

end of the road wrote: »

no just the act of killing an unborn child. has no place in this country bar very extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is under threat. something which is facilitated for now. anything outside that, you are able to go to the uk.

But why should they go to the UK? Whether it happens here or abroad there is the same outcome.

You are so concerned with these unborn children, what about when they are born to unfit parents or born disabled to parents who cannot cope?
What would be your advice to people in these circumstances?

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

The Genocide of Down Syndrome children in Nothern Europe, perhaps coming soon

Some of these tests are done in the first trimester. Calling these things "children" is where your error lies, and is just an attempt to be emotive where there is no cause to be.

At that point you can look at the fetus as being a blue print for the child you are planning to create and build. And I think the onus is on parents to study that blue print as closely as our science allows and decide FOR THEMSELVES (generally, I can imagine exceptions) whether they believe it is ethical, or personally right for them, to build the child the blue print is for.

c_man wrote: »

Eugenics and abortion hand in hand? Colour me shocked.

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

It's the targeted termination of a subset of people who share a common trait.

Interesting that the first definition of Eugenics that google offers up when asked is "the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."

Your alarmist and emotive reference to it seems to fall on a few counts.

First the dark history of Eugenics was based in a government FORCING certain programs on the populace. What is being talked about HERE is giving parents the knowledge AND the choice about what kind of baby they want to produce. Fail number 1 from you.

Second the definition says it is to "increase the occurrence of desirable characteristics". What is being discussed here is the termination of a condition/disease. So rather than the increase of desirable characteristics, it is the termination of a negative and detrimental condition. So double fail from you there really.

But hooks adds a third fail over the other users first two. Calling a fetus "people". What definition and meaning of "people" or "person" are you using here? This is a FETUS. It has no sentience, no consciousness, no faculty for either, its cellular and organ functionality is barely differentiated, it is essentially a soulless meat based blue print for building a person. That is HARDLY comparable to the mass murders that were performed in the name of "Eugenics" in our past.

Three outright fails in one point though, is in itself rather impressive.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Some people in the west, all things being equal, don't want to raise a DS kid just as some people in the east, given the option don't want to raise a female kid.

Sure and at that point it becomes useful between questioning peoples rights to do X and peoples motivations for doing X.

I would happily question their motivation not to have a girl baby, and to terminate an early stage pregnancy on that basis. I would investigate with them the flaws in their society and culture and religions and their own conditioning that might have led to their choice.

I would not see it as an argument against their RIGHT to do so however.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That is where the focus should be, not on making excuses for ending their lives just as they have begun. We should not have the right to kill someone because of a non-fatal birth defect or a disability (unless the mother's life is at risk).

Why "should" we not exactly? I see no argument, other than the mere assertion of it here, that we should not have such a right. Specifically the right to terminate a fetus up to 16 weeks once the "defect" in question has been identified.

I absolutely think we should have that right. I see no argument why we should not. At that stage the fetus is little more than a meat based blue print for a person to be constructed. I see no reason to hold moral and ethical concern for it, let alone to the degree that it overrides the choices of the parent(s) to continue to feed materials and personal resources into developing that blue print into a person.

What, precisely, is the issue with trying to screen for a terrible, debilitating condition? Is there some virtue in having DS children?

For a lot of parents and families who have children with disabilities, the concern is when the parents get older or become unwell themselves and unable to care for their grown up children. In Ireland we may have a record as being very accepting of young children with disabilities but I see grown ups with disabilities not being treated with the same care and kindness as young children.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I get that. On the other hand your view that everything about a DS person is suffering is completely untrue.

So no person with DS suffers, ever?

MrP

Its a highly emotive issue, made more so by sensationalist verbiage, on both sides.

Giving examples of born people with DS does nothing for the debate, the decision to abort is irrelevant here, its not an option. If we were talking about the removal of DS from society "right now" by preventing the birth of a chile with DS AND the rounding up already born DS sufferers, then and only then is it relevant. Thats not the case, so lets forget about people in society who have DS.

Now, the argument about when is a fetus a person and when does it have consciousness, when can it feel pain, etc are all moot. If thats the defining line, then we would all be annoying vegans.

Forcing abortion is probably over the line, you can easily make arguments for that approach (better for everyone in the long run, etc) but I personally think its a step too far, today.
Giving the ability to know in advance and allowing abortion seems like a very logical place to make a stand.
Avoiding abortion because of worries of inflicting pain on the fetus make no sense. Life is pain. Life with DS is incredibly more painful again; and for more people.

People shouldnt be forced into being martyrs, having a child with DS often means an inability to have further children (not medically, financially, emotionally, etc). Is this not denying the rights of these "unborn" children?
Is there that much of a difference between planning on having kids and being a couple of weeks pregnant, from a social point of view? Obviously its totally different on a number of levels, just ask anyone who cant have children, but from the point of view of making laws, the intent is the exact same. To bring life into the world. Forcing people to raise DS children is often denying them the right to bring other life into the world.

A person with DS is just as much a person as someone without DS. They have all the same rights in the world as anyone else.
The whole point of this test is to allow a decision to be made *before* its too late. A born baby is too late, its impossible to make a decision at that stage.

Also, why should FFA being the defining line? Everyone dies at some stage. FFA babies die very soon. Babies with CF die later but sooner than normal. DS babies die later than CF but sooner than normal. Babies with genetic heart defects die someone where in the middle. If you start drawing lines based on life expectancy you are immediately in trouble. Japanese people are living much longer than the rest of us. Should only Japanese babies be allowed to be born now?

Hardlining on choices is a very backward approach to life.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do it matter at all that such love of life and enjoyment of activity is only possible on the backs of others who have to be stressed, sick and worried to facilitate that happiness?

Yes of course, which was kinda the message in the bits I wrote in my post AFTER the small bit you just quoted from me here

The exact distinction I am drawing is the same as yours, between the joy of having such people in the world, and the individual rights and choices of a parent who has been informed that is the blue print they have developing inside them.

The point being that the users idea that people who want this test, or choice based abortion, just want a world without DS people in it.... is a fantasy strawman THEY have invented for us.

mahamageehad wrote: »

Yeah, I mean I agree but I do think it's still an important issue to talk through because it's one of the foundations of the anti-choice campaign.

Its an important issue in general, because, as a society, we are going to have to decide on something that impacts everyone.
That fact that the thread was started by a nutter is irrelevant. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

GreeBo wrote: »

Its an important issue in general, because, as a society, we are going to have to decide on something that impacts everyone.
That fact that the thread was started by a nutter is irrelevant. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Sure, but it is worth noting that Down's Syndrome is the latest "battleground" for the anti-choice brigade in Iona.

And in that regard you have to consider where they're coming from: It would be the Catholic assertion that a Down's Syndrome child is a blessing in the same way that a permanent disability is; because Catholicism values suffering and hardship as the highest form of virtue.

Catholics don't oppose abortion of Down's Syndrome on the basis that they cherish DS children. They oppose it because they see it as a form of "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" rather than embracing and enduring a hardship that God has passed down to test you.

And before people start hopping up and down with, "I'm Catholic and I don't believe that" - your church does. And that's who I'm talking about.

DS like many chromosomal disorders falls outside any eugenics argument. DS people as a rule are typically non-reproductive (both due to infertility and incapability), and DS is not a heritable or detectable disorder for those without it. Therefore allowing the abortion of DS foetuses does not "purify" the gene pool, and does not lend itself to arguments that, "People will be aborting based on hair colour next".

People abort DS foetuses because it's a hard life for the person with DS and their family. Not because they're attempting to achieve genetic purity or have a "perfect family".
Those who choose to proceed should be respected and assisted as much as possible. Those who choose to not proceed, do not deserve to be demonised.

seamus wrote: »

Sure, but it is worth noting that Down's Syndrome is the latest "battleground" for the anti-choice brigade in Iona.

And in that regard you have to consider where they're coming from: It would be the Catholic assertion that a Down's Syndrome child is a blessing in the same way that a permanent disability is; because Catholicism values suffering and hardship as the highest form of virtue.

Catholics don't oppose abortion of Down's Syndrome on the basis that they cherish DS children. They oppose it because they see it as a form of "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" rather than embracing and enduring a hardship that God has passed down to test you.

And before people start hopping up and down with, "I'm Catholic and I don't believe that" - your church does. And that's who I'm talking about.

DS like many chromosomal disorders falls outside any eugenics argument. DS people as a rule are typically non-reproductive (both due to infertility and incapability), and DS is not a heritable or detectable disorder for those without it. Therefore allowing the abortion of DS foetuses does not "purify" the gene pool, and does not lend itself to arguments that, "People will be aborting based on hair colour next".

People abort DS foetuses because it's a hard life for the person with DS and their family. Not because they're attempting to achieve genetic purity or have a "perfect family".
Those who choose to proceed should be respected and assisted as much as possible. Those who choose to not proceed, do not deserve to be demonised.

Which is why we have to separate the choice over this test from the choice to be Catholic. They should be two unrelated choices.

Being Catholic is a choice.
Making this test readily available, is a choice.

As a society we have an opinion and can make a decision on the test. Being Catcholic is a personal choice, just like *availing* of the test would be.

Making its *available* is not availing of the test.