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

....... · 10-11-2017 01:07PM

This post has been deleted.

Neyite · 10-11-2017 01:07PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

When a woman suffers a miscarriage why is it described as a miscarriage of a baby & not a miscarriage of a fetus ?

Nope. It's referred to as 'products of conception' or 'foetal tissue' by clinicians who have to refer to refer to the actual foetus, if they don't need to be specific, then it's just 'miscarrying' or 'miscarried'.

Its people who may refer to it as a miscarried baby. And that likely depends on their personal stance. Many are like me and just refer to it as a miscarriage.

If the pro-life folk really want to preserve the baby they claim is there since conception, maybe they can lobby our hospitals to provide ante-natal care and treatment that actively helps a woman prevent miscarrying:

Why do we have to wait until we miscarry three pregnancies before they will give us an appointment to see if they can help prevent it? If human life is so important from the moment of conception, as enshrined in our constitution why don't women get prescribed the likes of Progesterone after the first miscarriage like they do in Poland and other European countries as standard?

Why is it standard hospital policy to interpret the constitutional right to life of the unborn as only applying to the fourth and subsequent pregnancies?

The bottom line is that hospitals don't care. Politicians don't care. Even the pro-life people don't care about the unborn. Pro-lifer's don't care about them a jot. It's all about the comeuppance of the woman, that by forcing a woman who is unable to travel to continue an unwanted pregnancy, they can take translate their hatred of women into a lifelong punishment for them.

We've even got a pro-lifer on this thread who would prevent every woman from aborting, except his girlfriend of course. 'cause, you know, she's not a slut a special case. Abortions for None. Except me. Lol.

CerebralCortex · 10-11-2017 01:08PM

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Your retort seems to focus on my thread title being alarmist & misleading.
I will concede it was a little red top which served to draw the punters in.

Perhaps if I had the power to amend it I would but this message board software wont allow me to do that.

If a mod could do the necessary I suggest a title change to "Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Positive fetus's ".

Say for the sake of a thought experiment, tomorrow people had the choice to screen their fetus for DS and other developmental problems with the fetus and then made a decision to abort. What would be the impact for what you care about most?

In other words why is this such an important issue for you specifically?

henryporter · 10-11-2017 01:14PM

In another few years this will all be a moot point - advanced medical practices at the moment allow for embryo testing before transplantation to determine birth defects and other anomalies. This will become the norm as human reproductivity through the natural method continues to decline due to declining sperm counts and other environmental threats.

In any event there's moral issues on all sides of the equation - is it right to allow a couple who are now elderly to have to care for a severely disabled adult when the alternative is to have given them a choice, is it right to force women to buy spurious drugs on-line in order to carry out an abortion at home when the alternative is to give them access to proper medical care (both physical and mental), do medical advances only work to a certain point in morality - ie it's ok for people to have DS children because we have the science there to let the children be born and live, but we can't go further than that and test whether the foetus (or per my first point embryo) is likely to become DS.

Ultimately it boils down to choice - people can choose to have normal children, DS children, whatever, but in this country that's all they can do - there's no choice not to, according to the Church, Iona and their biased followers and that's ultimately down to their desire to control rather than contribute to a fair and progressive society.

Hooks Golf Handicap · 10-11-2017 01:45PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you keep abusing & overusing that word "troll" it beings to loose all power.

See also:
SJW
Cuck
Snowflake
Beta

Hooks Golf Handicap · 10-11-2017 01:46PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

In other words why is this such an important issue for you specifically?

I have no skin in this game.

I picked up on the Iceland story online, did a bit of research & thought it worthy of discussion, that's all.

....... · 10-11-2017 01:47PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 10-11-2017 01:47PM

This post has been deleted.

MightyMandarin · 10-11-2017 01:48PM

I think this is another example of a question with no right or wrong answer, essentially the same as the abortion debate as a whole.

My mam has worked with people with disablities for 30-somethhing years, most commonly people with down syndrome but also more difficult cases like autism, and I've essentially grown up with them around me when she brings them up to the house for dinner and stuff. I asked her what she thought and she essentially said that no matter how much a parent loves their disabled child, nobody jumps for joy in the hospital when they find out their kid has a disability.

It's a nasty thought to think that people with down syndrome don't get a chance at life simply because of their disability. I suppose there's an argument somewhere that it's a form of eugenics, even in a diluted sense.

But at the same time, I and my mam don't blame anyone for making a decision like this, because I know how difficult and life-consuming raising a child with mental disabilities can be.

Yes, there's great examples of people who compete in the Special Olympics and I know of one lad who completed a degree in Anthropology and lives in a house a few doors down from me with other down syndrome people. But there's also incredibly difficult cases, like lads who empty the kitchen shelves and smash all the ceramics on the floor in fits of rage, or run down to the village pub and start nicking people's pints until the gards are called, or try to break the locks off kitchen presses so they can drink bleach and windowlene. These are the types of things somebody will have to deal with so long as mental disabilities are a thing, and I think anyone who insists that this is 'genocide' or bedevils someone for choosing to abort a child who will have disabilities, is really looking at this through rose-tinted glasses.

I guess in Ireland the concept is different as abortion is illegal, but with the general concept of this, I don't condemn anyone for choosing to abort a child with a disability, as unfair as it might seem. There's still no right or wrong answer here though.

pickarooney · 10-11-2017 01:49PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Never heard it described as a miscarriage of a baby

More something like " i had 2 miscarriages"

It's hardly miscarriage of a nissan micra ffs

But by the same token you don't hear people saying "we lost the foetus"

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 01:50PM

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Apparently women have gone as far as documenting their procurement of the pills & posted the same on social media, the authorities purposely look the other way.

I think that was me on the other thread?

That is what I think I remember too, but as I said in another post I am not sure. So I hope someone comes up with the links (as I do not have them). But I do SEEM to recall something of that nature was done recently enough.

I may have imagined / dreamed the whole thing. I will find time to check later.

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Your retort seems to focus on my thread title being alarmist & misleading.

Well no, it focuses on the word you used, what the word means, and why the word is not the right one to use. That was the main focus of my "retort".

The rest was more incidental, but yes it was part of it. But that you admit it was essentially click bait at least is honest, and shows you are open to admitting such things, and open to discourse. Which is, itself, commendable. Kudos.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed but as I said to him above that admission is something we should commend him for rather than maybe beat him over the head with. His expression of regret is a lot more honest than many on this topic would be!

I will report his post to the mods, where he has requested his thread title be edited. Perhaps the mods will do it.

GreeBo · 10-11-2017 02:06PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I think this is another example of a question with no right or wrong answer, essentially the same as the abortion debate as a whole.

My mam has worked with people with disablities for 30-somethhing years, most commonly people with down syndrome but also more difficult cases like autism, and I've essentially grown up with them around me when she brings them up to the house for dinner and stuff. I asked her what she thought and she essentially said that no matter how much a parent loves their disabled child, nobody jumps for joy in the hospital when they find out their kid has a disability.

It's a nasty thought to think that people with down syndrome don't get a chance at life simply because of their disability. I suppose there's an argument somewhere that it's a form of eugenics, even in a diluted sense.

But at the same time, I and my mam don't blame anyone for making a decision like this, because I know how difficult and life-consuming raising a child with mental disabilities can be.

Yes, there's great examples of people who compete in the Special Olympics and I know of one lad who completed a degree in Anthropology and lives in a house a few doors down from me with other down syndrome people. But there's also incredibly difficult cases, like lads who empty the kitchen shelves and smash all the ceramics on the floor in fits of rage, or run down to the village pub and start nicking people's pints until the gards are called, or try to break the locks off kitchen presses so they can drink bleach and windowlene. These are the types of things somebody will have to deal with so long as mental disabilities are a thing, and I think anyone who insists that this is 'genocide' or bedevils someone for choosing to abort a child who will have disabilities, is really looking at this through rose-tinted glasses.

I guess in Ireland the concept is different as abortion is illegal, but with the general concept of this, I don't condemn anyone for choosing to abort a child with a disability, as unfair as it might seem. There's still no right or wrong answer here though.

The problem with your post (imo) is that you are comparing abortion with a real, living person no longer existing. Thats not a fair comparison.

Any such debate is ALWAYS going to come out on the answer of "well of course I wouldnt want X to not exist"
Thats whole point of the test, to allow people to make an informed decision without the extra burden of imagining the person their fetus *might* become.

If its fair to compare aborting a DS fetus to a living person,why not bring in the fact that the person might also become a murderer or terrorist? You cant have it both ways and only look at the best possible outcome for a DS person (such as a highly functioning person such as a in the video earlier)

There is no right or wrong answer to "Should we abort if DS is determined?"
However, I strongly believe there is a right answer to "Should the test for DS be freely available?"

mahamageehad · 10-11-2017 02:08PM

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I said this too over in the repeal thread but it was pointed out to me that the opposite is true.
Apparently women have gone as far as documenting their procurement of the pills & posted the same on social media, the authorities purposely look the other way.
The customs stop 100's of pills coming in but nobody follows up the person who ordered them.

Ah stop. We're talking about 3 - 5 women a day taking these pills in their house. Over the last two years that's an estimated 1,095 - 1,825 women. Have 1 or 2 come forward about their experiences? Sure. But the majority are too scared, either because they know they've committed an illegal act and are afraid of the consequences, or because they've afraid of the moral judgement others would bestow on them for committing an illegal act. The law has a chilling effect on these women both in terms of admitting they've done it and for seeking help afterwards. Yes, the authorities look the other way, because the alternative is some girl drinking bleach or throwing herself down a flight of stairs because she can't afford to travel.

Hooks Golf Handicap · 10-11-2017 02:24PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Say this conversation was happening in a pub, I think we'd be in opposite corners where you wouldn't have to listen to me & I wouldn't have to listen to you.
In fact, I'd probably be in a different pub.

FishOnABike · 10-11-2017 02:43PM

January wrote: »

Terminology is so important here. The man in your family has Down Syndrome. He is not a Down Syndrome man.

Both terms are interchangeably / commonly used and understood. It's not as if it's a book or something he has and can give to someone else. It's as much part of his genetic make up as him being a man. I have blue eyes / I am a blue eyed person. Why treat any other genetic characteristic differently?

Neyite · 10-11-2017 02:49PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

Both terms are interchangeably / commonly used and understood. It's not as if it's a book or something he has and can give to someone else. It's as much part of his genetic make up as him being a man. I have blue eyes / I am a blue eyed person. Why treat any other genetic characteristic differently?

It's considered derogatory these days. You are defining them by their disability rather than recognising they are a person who happens to have that disability. That's why we say "a person with DS" or "a person with ASD" or wheelchair user.

....... · 10-11-2017 02:52PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 10-11-2017 03:19PM

Neyite wrote: »

Nope. It's referred to as 'products of conception' or 'foetal tissue' by clinicians who have to refer to refer to the actual foetus, if they don't need to be specific, then it's just 'miscarrying' or 'miscarried'.

Its people who may refer to it as a miscarried baby. And that likely depends on their personal stance. Many are like me and just refer to it as a miscarriage.

If the pro-life folk really want to preserve the baby they claim is there since conception, maybe they can lobby our hospitals to provide ante-natal care and treatment that actively helps a woman prevent miscarrying:

Why do we have to wait until we miscarry three pregnancies before they will give us an appointment to see if they can help prevent it? If human life is so important from the moment of conception, as enshrined in our constitution why don't women get prescribed the likes of Progesterone after the first miscarriage like they do in Poland and other European countries as standard?

Why is it standard hospital policy to interpret the constitutional right to life of the unborn as only applying to the fourth and subsequent pregnancies?

The bottom line is that hospitals don't care. Politicians don't care. Even the pro-life people don't care about the unborn. Pro-lifer's don't care about them a jot. It's all about the comeuppance of the woman, that by forcing a woman who is unable to travel to continue an unwanted pregnancy, they can take translate their hatred of women into a lifelong punishment for them.

We've even got a pro-lifer on this thread who would prevent every woman from aborting, except his girlfriend of course. 'cause, you know, she's not a slut a special case. Abortions for None. Except me. Lol.

sensationalist hysterical mistruths with no basis in fact.

Outlaw Pete · 10-11-2017 03:20PM

pwurple wrote: »

I wouldn't wish being DS on my worst enemy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOwDfnoek6E

MightyMandarin · 10-11-2017 03:32PM

GreeBo wrote: »

There is no right or wrong answer to "Should we abort if DS is determined?"
However, I strongly believe there is a right answer to "Should the test for DS be freely available?"

Oh yeah, I don't personally have an issue with a pre-natal test for disabilities being freely available. I think at the very least, it might help parents prepare for having a child with disabilities, which is most relevant in this country anyway.

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter and one which, given my own personal beliefs on abortion in general, I can't say I really agree with and if I were a parent in that scenario I don't think I would proceed with if it were legal anyway.

I think at the moment, there are far more urgent and serious cases where an exception should be allowed and is not, like fatal fetal abnormality and rape for example, and that's where Art.40.3.3 should be amended, but that's for another thread I think.

....... · 10-11-2017 03:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Neyite · 10-11-2017 03:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

sensationalist hysterical mistruths with no basis in fact.

No, based on my personal experience of the hospital system and multiple miscarriages.

Thanks for denigrating my direct first hand experiences of my losses by calling me a hysterical liar.

But it also demonstrates my point beautifully at the way pregnant women are treated by the pro-life people.

circadian · 10-11-2017 03:36PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter and one which, given my own personal beliefs on abortion in general, I can't say I really agree with and if I were a parent in that scenario I don't think I would proceed with if it were legal anyway.

So, even if it were available you wouldn't, which you are well within your right to do so. Do you think that option should be available for those who may want to/need to?

weldoninhio · 10-11-2017 03:39PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Quick question to people who support choice to abort a down syndrome unborn baby, what are your thoughts on people being put on death row for the death penalty, do you support or disagree with such laws ? I ll explain why I asked this question in this context based on answers I receive .

I agree with abortion and I agree with the death sentence.

10-11-2017 03:41PM

seamus wrote: »

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.

A person who is close to me, had a child with quite severe disabilities in recent years. This person is from a small community of church going Catholics. When they were still trying to come to terms with their child's diagnoses and all the hardship that may come with it, a number of people from their community made a point of letting them know that their child's disability was a punishment from God for engaging in sex outside of marriage. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

jimmycrackcorm · 10-11-2017 03:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A person who is close to me, had a child with quite severe disabilities in recent years. This person is from a small community of church going Catholics. When they were still trying to come to terms with their child's diagnoses and all the hardship that may come with it, a number of people from their community made a point of letting them know that their child's disability was a punishment from God for engaging in sex outside of marriage. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

I believe you, thousands wouldn't

10-11-2017 03:53PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I believe you, thousands wouldn't

Aw well thank you so much for believing me. That means so much

GreeBo · 10-11-2017 03:55PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Oh yeah, I don't personally have an issue with a pre-natal test for disabilities being freely available. I think at the very least, it might help parents prepare for having a child with disabilities, which is most relevant in this country anyway.

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter and one which, given my own personal beliefs on abortion in general, I can't say I really agree with and if I were a parent in that scenario I don't think I would proceed with if it were legal anyway.

I think at the moment, there are far more urgent and serious cases where an exception should be allowed and is not, like fatal fetal abnormality and rape for example, and that's where Art.40.3.3 should be amended, but that's for another thread I think.

But that's why we need to separate the two test from the possible actions taken based on the results.

Personally, I think the far more urgent cases are the best reason to give the choice back to people involved rather than try to come up with arbitrary rules which will invariable lead to issues.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 03:58PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

YOwDfnoek6E

A lovely video and all but I am not seeing it's relevance to the post you are replying to. Especially as you pasted in the video without anything from yourself.

Showing someone who has over come their challenges in life is nice, but it does not negate someone saying they would not wish those challenges on anyone.

For example: Maybe I could find a video, if I looked, of someone with AIDS who has achieved something wonderful. That does not negate the fact I would not wish AIDS on anyone.

Which is, you will note, all the user actually said.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 03:59PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter

Given there are no moral arguments on offer here as to why there is a problem with abortion at that stage of pregnancy in the first place, I am not sure why you think an "exception" would be required in such cases. It would not be an exception, it would be just another patient in the door.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

like fatal fetal abnormality and rape for example

A lot of people mention rape, who I am sure mean well, but I have yet to meet a person who has thought that one through. Perhaps you have so you can help me with two issues I have with it.

Firstly if there is something wrong with abortion in your mind because a fetus has a right to life, or some such, then why should it LOSE that right because of a rape? Are there many other cases where X loses rights (especially the very right to life) because Y committed a crime on Z? In the mind of someone who is anti abortion choice.... why is the death penalty visited on someone who was neither the victim of, nor the perpetrator of, a crime?

Secondly how would it work functionally? How do you establish rape?

Is a conviction required.... and if so do you realize how many fail or how long they take to secure given abortion is time sensitive?

Or is merely a formal accusation to the police enough? Would this not incentivize false accusations?

Or do we simply take the woman's word for it? If so how is that FUNCTIONALLY different than simply implementing full abortion by choice.... when all a woman would have to do is rock up to the door and claim she was raped?

So I wonder about the rape angle.... it does not seem to be morally, ethically or even functionally coherent to me.

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

Comments