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

Infini · 10-11-2017 11:11PM

To the poster who wrote that story I'd have nothing but sympathy for your situation and would not fault you in the slightest for the decision you had to make. You did what you considered was best based on the information you had and IMO the only one's who deserve to make any decision about something like this are the ones involved and only the ones involved ie. yourselves.

As far as things go about the subject in my view Down's syndrome is what it is: A genetic disease. Those afflicted in some cases where its mild can have a semblance of a normal life but those cursed by the more severe cases can never even truly live like a normal person. They're basically crippled and trapped in a broken body and I would not wish that on anyone.

While some might try and throw vitriol at those who might choose to abort when they discover it or spout stuff like eugenics with no true comprehension of its real meaning my honest view is that if a person has a right to life then they also have a right to a proper full life and not to just exist crippled with an incurable condition. This is the sad thing with genetic conditions we only have the ability to choose whether proceed to full term or abort, the technology to change an existing person's genes later in life to remove genetic defects (genetic re-engineering) just does not exist. It can only be done when creating life.

10-11-2017 11:22PM

The man also took that risk, why does the moral equation fall onto the womans lap? That's not balanced.

foxatron · 10-11-2017 11:51PM

Tough thread to read through. Powerful stories and views here. I like to think im quite a normal person, educated, rational and quite considerate about all things but i must admit i really struggle with this issue/debate. I wish I could be stronger in my views either way but my moral compass wont settle. I think it comes down to an individuals choice at that point in their lives. But I find it abhorrent that people could vilify someone for making a decision that hard without appreciating the individuals circumstances and recognising that they will live with that decision for the rest of their lives.

Akrasia · 10-11-2017 11:55PM

So the woman needs to take responsibility for having sex.

But if the sex wasn't consensual, then its ok to have an abortion?

SusieBlue · 11-11-2017 12:06AM

A man is also needed to engage in the consensual sex and is equally responsible for any risks taken which you neglected to mention in your post.
Why is the 'risk' solely on her shoulders? It goes back to what another poster said about punishing women for having sex by forcing the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on them.

Jayop · 11-11-2017 12:30AM

Wow wasn't expecting that post. Thanks for sharing what was clearly a hard thing to say to everyone. That should be sent to the letters of the Irish Times for a wider audience just so people can reflect on what it's actually like for people in that situation making a life changing decision with a limited amount of time under the ridiculous set of laws we have here. So sorry you went through that and I'm delighted you now have a child and hope you all lead a happy life.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-11-2017 03:17PM

Honestly have no recollection of every having read, let alone responded to, a post from you before. But happy to take your word for it since you bring it up.

Mousewar wrote: »

our view of the world and of language itself was so fundamentally different that it was literally impossible for us to understand each other.

Yet it was not MY view of language that you are odds with here, but that of the dictionary. So your non-reply here is really just a bit of a cop out. The thing YOU are defining as "eugenics" does not match the meaning of the word "eugenics". That is not MY view of language that is the fault there. It is yours.

The OP himself used the word in the thread title and when it was explained to him A) What the word actually means and

How different it is to the topic of the thread..... he directly requested the mods change the thread title and he admitted his error.

Whether you can be big enough to do the same, is your choice.

Mousewar wrote: »

a viewpoint that isn't seeking to denounce anyone's decision btw.

You called it "troubling" and described it with a word (eugenics) that has a very large load of history and emotion and meaning behind it. So the claim you were not denouncing it at all is...... hard to take seriously.

IT seems to be a both sides of the mouth thing for me, to claim to not be denouncing anything, but to talk about it in rhetoric that communicates that denouncement pretty clearly.

mahamageehad · 11-11-2017 05:01PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, I've thought about this quite a bit, and reflected on why it was my default position. It's also still the most common stance of the majority of my family by the way, but I am working to change that.

I mean, I've known people who've had an abortion, "took a boat", so it's not like I didn't think they happened. To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of the reasoning was ingrained. I was in a convent school in both primary and secondary in a more rural part of the country. My parents are good people, but sex was never spoken about, except occasional references to young girls that had gotten themselves knocked up young and how they'd "ruined their lives." Teen pregnancies were rife in my extended family, and even though that was seen as bad, abortion was seen as much worse. I was always hyper-aware of this. I was on the pill early (initially for hormonal reasons rather than pregnancy prevention) and always practised super safe sex, even as a teen. Pill + condoms, only with serious boyfriends. To a certain extent, and I know better now with the benefit of hindsight, I did blame these girls in a way for getting themselves in that situation. I'm not proud of that, and I didn't ever articulate that to myself or others, but there was certainly a bias.

With rape, or where the baby wasn't going to survive, I just couldn't fathom that someone would force a person to continue with their pregnancy against their will. I thought "these girls did nothing wrong, why should they be forced into this situation." I just swallowed the narrative, hook line and sinker. Abortions were for young stupid girls that were being unsafe. I also believed the rumours. I accepted as fact things like "taking the morning after pill twice makes you infertile" and "people who have abortions will have mental health issues".

I've never been pregnant, although it's on the table now. I never considered things like that most abortions are performed on people that already have kids. I never considered the financial hardship and stigma and shame of having to travel. I was never in that situation, so I never had to think about it. I was simply ignorant, I didn't know and I didn't care enough to learn because it didn't affect me.

If I was pregnant tomorrow, I'd be happy about it. I'd still take all the tests offered. If I got a diagnosis that I wasn't expecting, I don't know how I'd react. My partner works with people with special needs every day, and I didn't even know how he'd react in that situation. We all think we know what we'd do, but how can we really be sure unless we're in that position? Women in Ireland are already having these tests. At 8 committee it was testified that 50% of women or so with such a diagnosis travel. The 13th means that they have that choice, the 8th just means we stigmatise them and make them feel like criminals and add a financial burden to what is already probably one of the most difficult decision of their lives, as shown in that story on the last page. These types of tests need to be available, and people can simply chose to not have them. And if they have them, people can simply choose not to abort. If you don't trust someone with a decision, how are you going to trust them with a child? But sadly, as we often see with these things, no-one cares once the child is born, then you're on your own.

Neyite · 11-11-2017 05:41PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

My parents are good people, but sex was never spoken about, except occasional references to young girls that had gotten themselves knocked up young and how they'd "ruined their lives." Teen pregnancies were rife in my extended family, and even though that was seen as bad, abortion was seen as much worse. I was always hyper-aware of this. I was on the pill early (initially for hormonal reasons rather than pregnancy prevention) and always practised super safe sex, even as a teen. Pill + condoms, only with serious boyfriends. To a certain extent, and I know better now with the benefit of hindsight, I did blame these girls in a way for getting themselves in that situation. I'm not proud of that, and I didn't ever articulate that to myself or others, but there was certainly a bias.

That's drummed into young girls, isn't it. We knew from the off, from before puberty even, that if we got "ourselves" into that situation, society and or family would shun and punish us. It was always on the girl. The shame, the blame, the consequences.

Not the lads though. They got off scot free in lots of cases. Back before blood and DNA tests, it was only the word of the girl that named him as the father. And if she could get disbelieved or discredited, well, he was off the hook. And as a mother of a son, the first question I would ask him if he came home to tell me he got someone pregnant would be "are you sure it's yours?" It's a life changing event so you do want to be sure it's as a result of his actions and not being a cuckhold for another lad.

Ireland has always worked off the principle that if something is hidden, then it doesn't exist. Teens having sex. Marriage breakdown. You hid doing it and you hid the consequences of it because that was the social norm of the time. And we see it now with termination. When it's kept secret, when couples go for "a weekend away" or a couple of girls go on a "shopping trip" we can pretend that the reasons termination are required are rare or non existent in Ireland. People, very understandably don't want to talk about something that was traumatic and distressing for them publicly. They get judged by people who've never been in that situation but feel they know better anyway.

I got handed a leaflet a couple of hours ago outside my local supermarket "here's some information on the 8th Amendment" says the woman. I paused for a second and returned it too her saying "no thanks, I'm pro-choice" and her face turned in an instant. Like I was off to do a bit of baby murdering or something. If it wasn't such a serious issue, it would have been funny.

mahamageehad · 11-11-2017 06:11PM

Neyite wrote: »

That's drummed into young girls, isn't it. We knew from the off, from before puberty even, that if we got "ourselves" into that situation, society and or family would shun and punish us. It was always on the girl. The shame, the blame, the consequences.

Not the lads though. They got off scot free in lots of cases. ...

I completely agree with what you're saying Neyite. One quick point though (and it's miles off topic so I'll make it quick) - often this thought process hurts men too and that's rarely acknowledged. Men "don't know" how to mind children. Men "help out" around the house. The OH's uncle is a stay at home dad for two teens. He got a lot of abuse especially in the early years, 15 years ago - everything from having his masculinity questioned to people being worried about him being left alone with their kids. Ray D'Arcy (and I wouldn't be a fan in general) spoke previously about he was told to leave a family changing room with his kid just because he was a man. Paternity leave is what, 2 weeks? Would a man asking for force majeur leave be questioned on why *he* had to take it. The current thinking about pregnancy and children in general in our country is pretty warped, but slowly getting better. Yet you'll still have some that say how Ireland has a great record of looking after women and kids. From the laundries to mother and baby homes, to having to give up your job when married, to the current homelessness crisis, Irish governments have always treated women as second class citizens.

Back on topic, someone made an interesting point earlier in this thread that I think was glossed over. Everyone, or at least most people, have met people with Down Syndrome or other disabilities and agree that they are lovely people. But if a treatment was to exist tomorrow for some of these syndromes and disabilities (like a gene therapy although we're in sci-fi territory now), would people who have just given birth to these kids give it to them?

Mousewar · 11-11-2017 06:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So your non-reply here is really just a bit of a cop out. The thing YOU are defining as "eugenics" does not match the meaning of the word "eugenics". That is not MY view of language that is the fault there. It is yours.

It's not a cop out. I simply don't want to spend six pages having a pedantic debate with you that would bore everyone else and no doubt include the kind of strawman arguments that characterise both your responses to me already.

I didn't describe any test or decision about DS as eugenics. I quoted a specific post where the poster said he or she would "only go ahead with the pregnancy that would result in the healthiest baby possible."
This seemed like an incredibly far-reaching comment to me, one which if adopted on a large scale would end up with consequences amounting to eugenics, specifically through the widespread screening and elimination of increasingly minor issues. [This obviously would not affect the occurrence rate of DS which is not typically inherited but then again I wasn't talking about DS.]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You called it "troubling" and described it with a word (eugenics) that has a very large load of history and emotion and meaning behind it. So the claim you were not denouncing it at all is...... hard to take seriously.

IT seems to be a both sides of the mouth thing for me, to claim to not be denouncing anything, but to talk about it in rhetoric that communicates that denouncement pretty clearly.

Yes I described what I just outlined above as troubling and I'm allowed to be troubled by it even if you don't think I should be. And I'm allowed to be troubled by it while having not a word of criticism or denouncement for anyone who has, as I have, made a decision in relation to these matters despite your baiting.

Boards is somewhere people can come to experience a range of different responses to an issue. I have given mine for what it's worth.

....... · 12-11-2017 11:21PM

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-11-2017 09:01AM

Mousewar wrote: »

I simply don't want to spend six pages having a pedantic debate with you that would bore everyone else and no doubt include the kind of strawman arguments that characterise both your responses to me already.

Yet no straw man exists in the conversation so far. So you appear to be having a conversation, that you claim not to want to have, to make up falsehoods to explain your not wanting to have it. Weird.

There is nothing wrong with my response so far. ALL I have done is point out that Eugenics has both a dictionary definition, and a lot of historical baggage, and what THIS thread is about does not match up with either.

What is Strawman about that?????

Mousewar wrote: »

end up with consequences amounting to eugenics

AGAIN however eugenics tends to be a centrally run program of enforcement with a singular set of goals. Often, as we saw in places like Germany, based on simply erroneous science.

What it does not tend to be is a distributed to the society level set of subjective CHOICES that not everyone will avail of, and not everyone would make the same way even when they do avail of them.

That simply does not fit the definition of, nor the horrific history of, the word. Even a little. It is simply the wrong word to use.

JupiterKid · 13-11-2017 09:24AM

Limited abortion WILL happen in Ireland, sooner or later. The pro-lifers are deluding themselves.

On the subject of aborting DS foetuses, it's a very difficult one but my sister who lives in Holland told me in no uncertain terms back in 2001 that if her foetus (her first) after tests showed up in tests as DS or Spina Bifida (there was an increased risk due to the meds she was on at the time she conceived) she would not hesitate to terminate. I didn't judge. It was her and her husband's decision alone to make.

Fortunately she had a healthy baby boy. And went on to have a healthy girl later. But I can understand people making the decision to terminate. I can also understand those who chose not to.

The pro-lifers come out with their usual judgemental rhetoric. In reality, they couldn't give a damn once the baby is actually born. All they care about is control over women and their bodies.

Mousewar · 13-11-2017 11:24AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet no straw man exists in the conversation so far. So you appear to be having a conversation, that you claim not to want to have, to make up falsehoods to explain your not wanting to have it. Weird.

There is nothing wrong with my response so far. ALL I have done is point out that Eugenics has both a dictionary definition, and a lot of historical baggage, and what THIS thread is about does not match up with either.

What is Strawman about that?????

The fact that you are responding to what you imagine or are simply pretending to be my point. I was responding to a specific post which went beyond the scope of THIS thread. The poster I replied to has now come back with a relevant response which at least clears up the matter for me. The fact that you want to have some other imaginary discussion where I was commenting on DS or the wider thread is your own prerogative.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

AGAIN however eugenics tends to be a centrally run program of enforcement with a singular set of goals. Often, as we saw in places like Germany, based on simply erroneous science.

Communism tends to have been practiced in eastern countries and comes with its own baggage. It doesn't preclude its use in non-eastern contexts.

Your understanding of the subject is extremely narrow. You're welcome to have that narrow understanding but please don't try to force it on me. The exact definition has been debated since it existed and continues to be so you'll forgive me for not bowing down and accepting your lecture on the matter as gospel. My last post outlines my reasoning for using the term. I won't repeat it.

What I dislike about your approach to conversation is that you actively seek to shut down debate by telling people what they can and can't say. Rather than encouraging discussion, you stifle it.

Anyway, I've gone down your rabbit-hole enough. You may have the last word.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-11-2017 11:32AM

Mousewar wrote: »

The fact that you are responding to what you imagine or are simply pretending to be my point.

Perhaps earlier when you said strawmen would be introduced into the conversation, you meant your own. In retrospect your post parses much more sensibly in that light.

But no, all I was replying to was what I feel is the erroneous use of the word "Eugenics". If you want to pretend I was replying to anything else, feel free. But I was not.

The OP himself had the word in the thread title when starting it, but when it was explained why it does not fit, removed it. I thought that was quite big of them to consider it, realize the error, and withdraw it.

Nothing about the thread topic, or the users post you first replied to, fits the definition or history of the word Eugenics. You might want to shout words like "narrow understanding" at people who are not buying your pumping your own meaning into the word, but it is not likely to help change the word to mean what you want.

topper75 · 14-11-2017 05:59PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Another species are they?

What is their latin name?

DickSwiveller · 14-11-2017 06:03PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's incredible the lengths the abortion mob will go to dehumanize the baby. You realise all humans are a 'bundle of cells'. Can I abort you?

ohnonotgmail · 14-11-2017 06:04PM

topper75 wrote: »

Another species are they?

What is their latin name?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's incredible the lengths the abortion mob will go to dehumanize the baby. You realise all humans are a 'bundle of cells'. Can I abort you?

you could get very dizzy going around in these circles.

srsly78 · 14-11-2017 06:09PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's incredible the lengths the abortion mob will go to dehumanize the baby. You realise all humans are a 'bundle of cells'. Can I abort you?

Don't read this, you really won't like it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-beauty-of-ldquo-mini-brains-rdquo/

DickSwiveller · 14-11-2017 06:10PM

srsly78 wrote: »

Don't read this, you really won't like it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-beauty-of-ldquo-mini-brains-rdquo/

Ok, I won't.

topper75 · 14-11-2017 06:12PM

kylith wrote: »

How isn't it?

The parents won't have do deal with the struggle of a child with a severe disability. The other children in the family, either present or future, won't have their care limited by their parents' need to give so much time and care to a disabled sibling. The aborted foetus will never know the difference.

But if after your last day of work at 65 years a govt agent put a double tap into the back of your head without you even seeing him, wouldn't that also be 'best for all concerned'. No impact on state coffers as your pension is saved, and your offspring don't have to pay for home for you in old age. And you will never know the difference.

kylith · 14-11-2017 06:29PM

topper75 wrote: »

But if after your last day of work at 65 years a govt agent put a double tap into the back of your head without you even seeing him, wouldn't that also be 'best for all concerned'. No impact on state coffers as your pension is saved, and your offspring don't have to pay for home for you in old age. And you will never know the difference.

An undeveloped fetus is not the same as an adult and you know it. It's not the same as a baby, and you know it. It is a potential life. It is not capable of living outside the womb. It does not have a functional brain. It cannot feel pain.

....... · 14-11-2017 06:29PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 14-11-2017 06:31PM

This post has been deleted.

Tigger · 14-11-2017 06:34PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

id equivicate a day old baby with the fetus it was last saturday
the crux of the matter is and will always be how far back in the gestation we go before we definatly dont have a being that deserves rights
i used to play music and sing to my fetus son before he was born and he reacted. that was probably at 30 weeks onwards
so he could hear and react to what he herd
looking it up it can happennas early as 22 weeks
so whats that all about

....... · 14-11-2017 06:49PM

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding · 14-11-2017 06:52PM

Tigger wrote: »

id equivicate a day old baby with the fetus it was last saturday
the crux of the matter is and will always be how far back in the gestation we go before we definatly dont have a being that deserves rights
i used to play music and sing to my fetus son before he was born and he reacted. that was probably at 30 weeks onwards
so he could hear and react to what he herd
looking it up it can happennas early as 22 weeks
so whats that all about

And most pro-choice people that I have spoken to would consider 22 weeks, or there abouts, to be the limit for abortions, expect where there is a FFA or risk to the life or serious risk to the health of the mother.

So what is your point? Who is advocating the destruction of 39 week foetus for sh1ts and giggles?? No one that I have seen in this thread.

MrP

14-11-2017 06:55PM

I'd consider anything up to twenty five or six years based on some of the little bollixes about

uck51js9zml2yt · 14-11-2017 07:14PM

kylith wrote: »

An undeveloped fetus is not the same as an adult and you know it. It's not the same as a baby, and you know it. It is a potential life. It is not capable of living outside the womb. It does not have a functional brain. It cannot feel pain.

At 6 weeks it has a heartbeat...just like everyone else has. It's alive.

But it's the old argument again. If we say its not a baby then we have the right to kill it. After all, killing a human being is murder and we're not murderers...are we?

I've no doubt abortion will come in in some form. I might be "pro life" but I'm not stupid. But making it legal doesn't make it morally right.

Since this is a DS discussion. I know a number of parents with DS kids. I know the struggles they've had. I also know the impact those kids have had on those of us who've had the privilege of knowing them.

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

Comments