Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…2425272930…43

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Oh and on topic, Sofia has a message for anyone considering ending the life of a prenate with Down Syndrome.


    https://www.instagram.com/p/BLM3yvwh6RV/

    I assume you are top of the queue to adopt one of the many children with DS and other disabilities currently stuck in our foster care system?


  • Options
    #783
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    January wrote: »
    Just another example of how the anti-choice side use emotional blackmail to try to pull at the heart strings of people who may be on the fence.


    But just as something like that could sway people one way or the other, it's just as likely to entrench people in their positions too. One thing I've certainly found in my experiences is that people aren't nearly as stupid as some people need them to be. They don't need other people explaining things to them, they have minds of their own, so the only thing this "calling out" business really does is focuses the attention on the person doing the "calling out", and more often than not, they're going to shoot the messenger for insulting their intelligence.

    Down's Syndrome can be very scary for some people.


    Undoubtedly, and people with downs syndrome can be scary for some people too, but does that justify the attempt to use the issue of people born with downs syndrome or any number of other conditions in an attempt to scaremonger people and convince them that abortion is the better choice for those people? I'd see that as emotional blackmail myself tbh, I don't see it as any different than what you're attempting to point out are the underhanded tactics of people you disagree with.


  • Options
    #784
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    But just as something like that could sway people one way or the other, it's just as likely to entrench people in their positions too. One thing I've certainly found in my experiences is that people aren't nearly as stupid as some people need them to be. They don't need other people explaining things to them, they have minds of their own, so the only thing this "calling out" business really does is focuses the attention on the person doing the "calling out", and more often than not, they're going to shoot the messenger for insulting their intelligence.





    Undoubtedly, and people with downs syndrome can be scary for some people too, but does that justify the attempt to use the issue of people born with downs syndrome or any number of other conditions in an attempt to scaremonger people and convince them that abortion is the better choice for those people? I'd see that as emotional blackmail myself tbh, I don't see it as any different than what you're attempting to point out are the underhanded tactics of people you disagree with.

    No one is promoting abortion as a better choice, not for a minute. People just want it presented as a choice. Because at the moment there is no choice at all.
    Surely the best person to make this choice is the person most affected by most by it? The parents?

    You make the right choice for yourself. I'll make the right choice for myself. What we both do will have zero bearing on the other and we'll both be in control of our health and our lives.
    I don't see how anyone can possibly disagree with this logic.


  • Options
    #785
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    But just as something like that could sway people one way or the other, it's just as likely to entrench people in their positions too. One thing I've certainly found in my experiences is that people aren't nearly as stupid as some people need them to be. They don't need other people explaining things to them, they have minds of their own, so the only thing this "calling out" business really does is focuses the attention on the person doing the "calling out", and more often than not, they're going to shoot the messenger for insulting their intelligence.





    Undoubtedly, and people with downs syndrome can be scary for some people too, but does that justify the attempt to use the issue of people born with downs syndrome or any number of other conditions in an attempt to scaremonger people and convince them that abortion is the better choice for those people? I'd see that as emotional blackmail myself tbh, I don't see it as any different than what you're attempting to point out are the underhanded tactics of people you disagree with.

    Just as WhiteRoses said, the pro-choice side is not trying to scaremonger and convince people that abortion is a better choice for them. Just that there should be a choice if a woman doesn't feel she is able to raise a child who has been diagnosed with DS in utero. And that they shouldn't be forced to travel if they do make that choice.


  • Options
    #786
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    January wrote: »
    The second picture is actually a video.

    That explains a lot. It appears to present as only a picture to me for whatever reason. Is there a message in it, or is it similar to the link to a guy with DS making a speech to congress we got at the start of the thread?
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    but does that justify the attempt to use the issue of people born with downs syndrome or any number of other conditions in an attempt to scaremonger people and convince them that abortion is the better choice for those people?

    Not sure how many people are actually doing that though? More often I think they are trying to convince people that abortion should be !A! choice for those people. With no value judgement attached as to it being relatively better or worse as a choice.

    And the reality of life as the parent of such a child, sometimes WELL past the usual age of being a child, is a harsh reality not scare mongering.

    EDIT: ooops see not 1 but 3 people got there before me.


  • Options
    #788
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That explains a lot. It appears to present as only a picture to me for whatever reason. Is there a message in it, or is it similar to the link to a guy with DS making a speech to congress we got at the start of the thread?



    The message is DS is not scary.

    I disagree.


  • Options
    #789
    Nollog
    Registered Users Posts: 5,437 ✭✭✭Nollog


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That explains a lot. It appears to present as only a picture to me for whatever reason. Is there a message in it, or is it similar to the link to a guy with DS making a speech to congress we got at the start of the thread?

    It's the usual brainwashed child that liberals use on social media.

    She says she has DS and that it's great, not scary.


  • Options
    #790
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Apologies for the late catch up on the thread! I was called to speak at a conference in Antwerp and only just returned.....

    giphy.gif
    volchitsa wrote: »
    I wouldn't spend time with someone who boasts about how great they and their kids are either, but I don't want that made illegal either.

    I have addressed one rubbish comparison and you just post another?

    The user claims to fully believe in body integrity in the context of a late stage pregnancy but yet would shun a woman who he heard had procured one (despite there being no societal advatages to his life if he did not - as there would be in your drug takers scenario). So therefore there must be another reason why he would shun such women and that can only be because he feels that it is immoral and unethical for women to have such abortions.

    He claims that he doesn't believe there should be legal ramifications for such women (as there was for the likes of Sarah Catt for example) but that doesn't equate to 'fully believing' in body integrity with regards to late stage pregnancies, as while he might not believe such women should be imprisoned, he does however feel they should be punished.

    So while he may claim to disagree with me, he actually does not. We just differ when it comes to what we think would be suitable punishment. Me: prison. Him: banishment. Someone who truly believed in full body integrity wouldn't feel any form of punishment was warranted at all as they would feel the person had done nothing wrong.

    Again:
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Firstly, if you truly believed in bodily integrity in the context of pregnancies, you'd support a woman procuring an elective abortion the week the "fetus" was due to make their appearance, but you wouldn't (no sane person would) and so cut the bodily integrity rubbish.

    Maybe in your world shunning women qualifies as supporting them, but it don't in mine.


  • Options
    #791
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No one is promoting abortion as a better choice, not for a minute.


    Well, that's not accurate at all really, because there are plenty of people who suggest that upon discovering that the child would be born with downs syndrome, it would be better to abort, I dunno, something about wiping out downs syndrome within a generation or something like that. It's not a particularly common perspective I grant you, because the people who espouse it can generally be dismissed as ignorant fcukwits.

    People just want it presented as a choice. Because at the moment there is no choice at all.


    Do you imagine that women aren't aware that they have choices? You must do if you say they have no choice, but that's really not true either. They may lack the resources to have the choices they would like, but that's clearly not the same thing.

    Surely the best person to make this choice is the person most affected by most by it? The parents?


    Given that we lack the means to determine how the unborn feels about the idea, I would suggest that they have no choice in the matter, so the person who is at least in the best position to make the choice on behalf of herself and on behalf of the unborn, is of course the woman who is pregnant. I don't suggest the man who impregnates her is in any position to determine anything if I'm being honest, he's bound to be the least affected by any outcome of the woman's decision.

    You make the right choice for yourself. I'll make the right choice for myself. What we both do will have zero bearing on the other and we'll both be in control of our health and our lives. I don't see how anyone can possibly disagree with this logic.

    I don't disagree with your logic, as it pertains to the individual. Your position is completely illogical however in the broader context of Irish society, and I'm guessing you're likely old enough to vote, as am I, so both of us have an equal say in how we wish Irish society to be run. I'm sure I don't need to insult your intelligence by explaining how our society is governed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    January wrote: »
    The message is DS is not scary.

    I disagree.

    You disagree, so what. You think that makes you right?

    Just because YOU find the thought of having a kid with DS scary, doesn't mean that Down Syndrome is scary.

    As said on other threads, I have been around people with DS my whole life, and continue to be. They are some of the most lovable people I have ever met and they bring just as much joy into their families lives, than so called normal kids, if not more. Of course there are challenges, and they for sure need to be addressed, highlighted a few myself on the other thread, but there are far less now than ever before. Support is there for families like at no other time in history. With respect, your fear is borne of ignorance.

    Just one story, there are millions of others...
    YOUR BABY MAY HAVE DOWN SYNDROME, WOULD YOU LIKE A TERMINATION?

    The doctor strongly urged us to have an amniocentesis and suggested that if we received a positive result we could arrange a termination quite quickly. Quite quickly? I was 21 weeks pregnant. By the time we’d had the amnio, the results and scheduled the termination I’d be what? 24/25 weeks? F*** f***ing that! You know what else? During the scan they’d done 4D imaging, something I was so against because they scared the bejesus out of me. They all look like benjamin button! Turns out it is different when it’s your baby, Bella didn’t look like Benjamin Button, she looked like a baby.

    Thankfully, my husband felt the same. We didn’t need the amnio because it wouldn’t make a difference to us and we didn’t want to risk miscarriage. I mean, they’re urging us to have a termination and we don’t even want to take a 1% risk of miscarriage. Bella was loved from the second the pink lines showed up and a possible diagnosis of Down Syndrome didn’t change that.

    The doctors talked to us in worst case scenarios, she could need heart surgery, her kidneys could fail, her brain function might be limited, etc etc. Okay, I thought, but what if it isn’t? What if she doesn’t need surgery and her kidneys work and her brain is okay? What if she can run and laugh and play and squeal with delight when daddy tickles her tummy? They didn’t mention any of that. They didn’t talk about her in terms of a life, they talked about her in terms of a foetus. She wasn’t a ****ing foetus to us. She was our baby.

    Steven Hawking famously said, “while there’s life there’s hope” and hope we did. Who were we to decide her future before she’d had a chance at life? Well we didn’t think we were, we knew that we would do anything and everything we could to give her the best life possible. So off we went, shell shocked by the news and I’m not going to lie TERRIFIED! I mean, what did it mean? We carried on having scans at the fetal medicine unit, and we had an mri scan 2 days before Christmas at 31 weeks so they could look at her brain in more detail. That was fun and not at all worrying!

    Thankfully by 37 weeks her kidney’s had fixed themselves and her right brain ventricle had gone from abnormal to normal.The left one remained abnormal and her heart still had a hole in it so we weren’t out of the woods. We did however, get some great news when I asked, can I have a natural birth and will I be able to bring my baby home with me? Yes they said, if everything stays the same, she would need some post natal scans but no immediate surgery and she should be fine to come home after a few days. That was the best news we’d had in 4 months. Our baby would come home with us.

    b1.jpg

    In the past year I haven’t told this story very much, I’ve only told family and close friends because I found it so difficult, yet here I am posting it publicly on the world wide web for anyone to read. Why? Because 90% of parents with an antenatal DS diagnosis abort their baby. That’s mass genocide! I just don’t believe that 90% of people are so different from us. I don’t believe that their decisions are made out of love, it has to be out of fear. Of course, if the choice to abort is an informed one having weighed up all the pros and cons then I try my hardest to understand and not judge. It’s not something that I find easy, but none of us are perfect. I just feel that based on our experience the doctors really tried to push us down the amnio/termination route. If we weren’t such strong willed people we could have easily been influenced to have Bella terminated.

    If you are a pregnant mum or dad to be, with an antenatal DS diagnosis then please do not be scared into making a decision you may regret. Baby Bella is the joy in our world. She is the light of our lives. When we decided to try for a baby she is everything we hoped for and more. She is not disposable. She is not 1 in 160. She is one in a ****ing million.


  • Options
    #793
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I assume you are top of the queue to adopt one of the many children with DS and other disabilities currently stuck in our foster care system?

    I would have no problem adopting a kid with DS.

    You speak about such kids as if they were diseased animals, and I see you got a load of back slaps for it too. Colour me surprised.

    Sugar coated eugenics is all this is.

    Who's next on the list in your progressive world when testing permits it? Autistic kids?

    I don't doubt it.


  • Options
    #794
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope, quite the opposite. As I said we DO know what it is. The entire concept of morality and ethics appears to center around the one thing the fetus at 12-16 weeks not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks.

    Which is the faculty of human consciousness and sentience.

    You can pretend that this is about "agenda" all you like, but that will just leave the point unaddressed and not rebutted.

    you don't know. you have just decided because it fits your agend of pro-murder of the unborn.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope. Until such time as you offer arguments for it being morally wrong, there is no onus on anyone to prove it "right".

    yes there is . the people who believe that the taking of the life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances have to prove that is justified and right.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    It does not HAVE to be right. It merely has to be morally neutral.

    It seems the sole argument you have to offer as to it being morally wrong....... is merely to ASSERT it is morally wrong and leave it at that? You got anything better than that to offer or is that literally to be it from you?

    it does have to be right. it isn't right, it's wrong. so that's it
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I do not think I have seen a SINGLE person question that reality however. What they are questioning is the moral relevance of it. Something people like yourself appear unwilling or unable to address.

    it's very relevant, and it has effectively been questioned by the pro-abortion on demand brigade.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    People have already taken you up on your disgusting, egregious and entirely misogynistic comparison of women to children who do not know what is good for them. So I will reply to other stuff than that horror.

    the only people claiming that such was ever stated, and who make such comparison are the abortion on demand supporters.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Sure, and your simple dislike of it does not mean it is WRONG either. So rather than tell us what things do NOT mean it is "right" or "wrong" perhaps you might get around to telling us what things do?

    the fact it is wrong means it's wrong.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #795
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No one is promoting abortion as a better choice, not for a minute. People just want it presented as a choice. Because at the moment there is no choice at all.
    Surely the best person to make this choice is the person most affected by most by it? The parents?

    You make the right choice for yourself. I'll make the right choice for myself. What we both do will have zero bearing on the other and we'll both be in control of our health and our lives.
    I don't see how anyone can possibly disagree with this logic.

    you have the choice. you have control. it's up to you to use it.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #796
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    giphy.gif



    I have addressed one rubbish comparison and you just post another?

    The user claims to fully believe in body integrity in the context of a late stage pregnancy but yet would shun a woman who he heard had procured one (despite there being no societal advatages to his life if he did not - as there would be in your drug takers scenario). So therefore there must be another reason why he would shun such women and that can only be because he feels that it is immoral and unethical for women to have such abortions.

    He claims that he doesn't believe there should be legal ramifications for such women (as there was for the likes of Sarah Catt for example) but that doesn't equate to 'fully believing' in body integrity with regards to late stage pregnancies, as while he might not believe such women should be imprisoned, he does however feel they should be punished.

    So while he may claim to disagree with me, he actually does not. We just differ when it comes to what we think would be suitable punishment. Me: prison. Him: banishment. Someone who truly believed in full body integrity wouldn't feel any form of punishment was warranted at all as they would feel the person had done nothing wrong.

    Again:



    Maybe in your world shunning women qualifies as supporting them, but it don't in mine.

    Too much rubbish in this post to know where to start:

    Here is what I said:
    I am one of the insane according to Pete.

    I fully believe in whole bodily integrity and would not force any woman to continue a pregnancy she didn't want for any reason.

    But do I approve of late term abortions? no....they make me feel sick. Pre 16 weeks I would be utterly indifferent. If someone made a decision to abort a healthy baby, that could be delivered immediately, for social reasons I doubt i would associate with that person.

    Still won't legally force someone to give birth though.

    And from this you say I demand banishment for such a woman as punishment?

    You post dishonestly. it's kind of pathetic.

    You are being deliberately obtuse pretending not to understand that sometimes moral judgements should not be legal judgements.


  • Options
    #797
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You disagree, so what. You think that makes you right?

    Just because YOU find the thought of having a kid with DS scary, doesn't mean that Down Syndrome is scary.

    As said on other threads, I have been around people with DS my whole life, and continue to be. They are some of the most lovable people I have ever met and they bring just as much joy into their families lives, than so called normal kids, if not more. Of course there are challenges, and they for sure need to be addressed, highlighted a few myself on the other thread, but there are far less now than ever before. Support is there for families like at no other time in history. With respect, your fear is borne of ignorance.

    Just one story, there are millions of others...

    I childmind kids with DS, I have family members with DS, friends with kids with DS, i love every single one of those people with all of my heart. Don't you assume that just because I find it scary it's because I have no experience of it. It's because I have experience with DS that I find it scary.

    You show the cute side of DS all you like. I don't see you posting videos of people with ds who have been left bed ridden, ones who cannot communicate with anyone else, ones who have endless heart operations, ones who lash out at the people who care for them and love them the most because of the frustration of having a life limiting condition. Ones who are put in care homes because their parents have died and there's no one else to look after them because they cannot lead an independent life or just because their parents couldn't cope with them.

    People need to be given the choice whether they want to raise a child with severe medical and intellectual needs. Whether that be DS or any other syndrome.


  • Options
    #798
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    January wrote: »
    Just another example of how the anti-choice side use emotional blackmail to try to pull at the heart strings of people who may be on the fence.

    Yeah, cause you'd never try and appeal to people's emotions I suppose. What's this? Scotch mist?
    January wrote: »
    The 8th amendment killed Savita.

    Oh and labeling the posting of a video of a young girl with DS as 'emotional blackmail' is laughable. THESE are the kids you are advocating the killing of ffs!! And posting proof of how they have just as much potential to have a happy and fulfilling life as anyone else, is emotional blackmail to you?
    Down's Syndrome can be very scary for some people.

    Ah well, lets kill them so. Brilliant answer.

    What a society we live in. Getting more and more narcissistic by the fcuking second.


  • Options
    #799
    Lia_lia
    Registered Users Posts: 6,691 ✭✭✭Lia_lia


    My aunt has DS. She only has a few words and cannot really communicate very well. She has had many other health issues. And she has been in a care home full time for the last 20 odd years as my grandmother is in her 90's and cannot take care of her.

    I wouldn't have any issues with people getting abortions because of DS though. Same as I wouldn't have issues with people getting an abortion for any other reason. I guess I just don't see it as "killing babies".. :rolleyes: Would I get an abortion the DS test came out as positive? No idea really. Have never been in that position before.


  • Options
    #800
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I would have no problem adopting a kid with DS.

    You speak about such kids as if they were diseased animals, and I see you got a load of back slaps for it too. Colour me surprised.

    Sugar coated eugenics is all this is.

    Who's next on the list in your progressive world when testing permits it? Autistic kids?

    I don't doubt it.

    You are misinterpreting my position entirely, but then again what should I expect when the majority of your posts are emotional blackmail.

    I am simply someone who has walked the walk, growing up with a disabled sibling. I know the struggles and will not sugar coat it and will not apologise for it either.
    That does not mean I hate disabled people, that does not mean I don't love my brother, that does not mean I want the world eradicated of everyone with a disability. Yes I know disabilities have varying degrees of severity and other children might not be as badly affected as my brother etc. My point remains.

    I see you saying that you have met people with DS and they are the most lovable, happiest people etc etc. I don't doubt it. But the reality of looking after someone with a disability like that for the duration of a lifetime is not all sunshine and roses. To pretend otherwise is just pure ignorance.

    However none of that matters to you. Sure they're loveable and happy and so on. All grand. Everyone should be able to cope with it.


  • Options
    #801
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    January wrote: »
    People need to be given the choice whether they want to raise a child with severe medical and intellectual needs. Whether that be DS or any other syndrome.


    They already have that choice though, and because people with disabilities are a normalised part of our society, there's no reason to suggest that other people wouldn't share your experiences, but that they would have experiences and perspectives of their own. All of the things you point out as negatives are from another perspective areas where society needs to improve the ways it cares for people with disabilities.

    This is why if you're going down the route of using the fear of disability as a reason to broaden our abortion laws, you're going to struggle, and you're going to meet a lot of resistance, not least because of the fact that people can relate a lot closer to people with disabilities than women who would want an abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    You are misinterpreting my position entirely, but then again what should I expect when the majority of your posts are emotional blackmail. 



    Why is it if anyone disagrees with you that what they say must be emotional blackmail or some lunacy of pure emotion, they just disagree with you on a very divisive topic.


  • Options
    #803
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,178 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    [IMG]https://media.giphy.com/medi I have addressed one rubbish comparison and you just post another? The user[/img]claims to fully believe in body integrity in the context of a late stage pregnancy but yet would shun a woman who he heard had procured one (despite there being no societal advatages to his life if he did not - as there would be in your drug takers scenario). So therefore there must be another reason why he would shun such women and that can only be because he feels that it is immoral and unethical for women to have such abortions.

    He claims that he doesn't believe there should be legal ramifications for such women (as there was for the likes of Sarah Catt for example) but that doesn't equate to 'fully believing' in body integrity with regards to late stage pregnancies, as while he might not believe such women should be imprisoned, he does however feel they should be punished.

    So while he may claim to disagree with me, he actually does not. We just differ when it comes to what we think would be suitable punishment. Me: prison. Him: banishment. Someone who truly believed in full body integrity wouldn't feel any form of punishment was warranted at all as they would feel the person had done nothing wrong.

    Again:



    Maybe in your world shunning women qualifies as supporting them, but it don't in mine.

    No. You've decided what he must believe, just because you say so, and then you blame him for not acting in accordance with what you believe his beliefs require.

    I suspect you're well aware of how stupid such an assertion is. Lots of countries have abortion for non medical reasons, and I'm not aware of the masses of ranked feminists in those countries all screaming about how their rights are being appallingly refused because they can't have abortions up to their due dates.

    Maybe you should put them right on what they should be insisting on? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #804
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Why is it if anyone disagrees with you that what they say must be emotional blackmail or some lunacy of pure emotion, they just disagree with you on a very divisive topic.

    I don't care if he disagrees with me. I also don't care if he has a difference of opinion.

    I do care that he's implying that I treat/speak of disabled people like diseased animals. Because it isn't true and it isn't fair.

    The emotional blackmail I was referring to was the several pictures and stories of DS children he has posted.


  • Options
    #805
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    ...but then again what should I expect when the majority of your posts are emotional blackmail.

    You used your story of how difficult it was for your parents to explain just what has informed your pro choice views, how come that's fine, but yet when someone else's experiences leads them to have a so called "pro life" view, then all of sudden it's emotional blackmail?
    I am simply someone who has walked the walk, growing up with a disabled sibling. I know the struggles and will not sugar coat it and will not apologise for it either.

    That does not mean I hate disabled people, that does not mean I don't love my brother, that does not mean I want the world eradicated of everyone with a disability. Yes I know disabilities have varying degrees of severity and other children might not be as badly affected as my brother etc. My point remains.

    I see you saying that you have met people with DS and they are the most lovable, happiest people etc etc. I don't doubt it. But the reality of looking after someone with a disability like that for the duration of a lifetime is not all sunshine and roses. To pretend otherwise is just pure ignorance.

    However none of that matters to you. Sure they're loveable and happy and so on. All grand. Everyone should be able to cope with it.

    Excuse me? I think what?

    It's quite clear to me now that you did not read my reply to you on the other thread and nor did you read my first post on this one (reposted below) as if you had, you'd know that I too have 'walked the walk' and it's far from 'sunshine and roses' as to how I see the life of looking after someone with special needs.

    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Grew up knowing a quite a few families that had children with Down Syndrome given that my own sister is Autistic (or "mentally handicapped" as she was referred to at the time) and such children tended to be rounded up and schooled together (St. Michael's House for those lucky enough to get their child placed). My parents did not cope so well and at 16 my sister was put into care, where she still is today in her late 30's. In that community care facility there are many adults with Down Syndrome, some of whom she has grown up with given that they too went to St. Michael's House and one who is even from the town we grew up in.

    Some of those adults with Down Syndrome that I regularly see have very productive and happy lives and a few even hold down jobs in the local community. While I do my best, and try and take my sister for one day a week (since my father no longer can) it is very difficult and becoming increasingly so given that her mobility is in decline.

    I say all this to give a little context as many are saying that the life of someone with Down Syndrome is difficult, for them and their families, which is true, it is, but many adults with autism have lives which can be even more difficult. So, are they next? Should it be okay to extinguish their lives as they are developing in the womb too? Just because their life will be difficult? Some of you point out many potential pitfalls that could lay ahead for an adult with down syndrome, and their families also, and then suggest this as justification for stilling their heartbeats. About as illogical and morally bankrupt as it gets.

    Yes, it's true society needs to do much much more for those with special needs, and of course their families too, to ensure things are not nearly as difficult as they currently are. 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). Human beings are not products, to be binned when we spot a defective one. Yet this is the mindset being promoted at an alarming rate these days.


  • Options
    #806
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Every abortion debate I've seen on boards has included what to me is a rather strange viewpoint - that abortion will somehow kill children or adults who are alive today by somehow erasing them from time, like some kind of science fiction movie where the action of some time traveller causes someone to start fading out of a photograph.

    I can understand the emotional attachment people have to living children and adults, or to themselves, and the idea of that person, with their personality and traits, having never been born feels a little bit like that person is being taken away from them - like a murder in fact.

    But this is a completely unfounded and confused way to look at it. If someone was never born, they cannot be missed in the way that an actual person can be.

    How often do you wonder about the twin you never had? Or the other siblings you might have had, if your parents had had more children? If you do, do you give them names and faces and personalities? More than likely not.

    Anyone who is appalled at the idea of some living person (perhaps themselves, perhaps someone else) having never had the chance to live, needs to realise that you can only feel that way if that person has actually lived in the first place. If they never became a person in the first place they simply wouldn't be around for you to miss. And there are gazillions of people who might have lived but didn't. You might as well be appalled at the fact that because your sibling is a brother this means that there a sister who might have been born instead but wasn't, because a different sperm happened to fertilize the egg.

    It seems to be a hard concept to explain and I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well here. But I think it's an important point.

    Abortion is simply preventing a life getting started. It's similar to not having sex, or using contraception, or having a miscarriage, it's just the process stops at a slightly different point before the proto-person was even able to have a single thought. Abortion is not and has never been about killing a child or adult, or even about killing babies. It's about the process of creating a baby being terminated (usually as early as possible).

    And someone else having an abortion, no matter what the reason, will not make you or anyone living you know cease to exist.


  • Options
    #807
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    swampgas wrote: »
    Every abortion debate I've seen on boards has included what to me is a rather strange viewpoint - that abortion will somehow kill children or adults who are alive today by somehow erasing them from time, like some kind of science fiction movie where the action of some time traveller causes someone to start fading out of a photograph.

    I can understand the emotional attachment people have to living children and adults, or to themselves, and the idea of that person, with their personality and traits, having never been born feels a little bit like that person is being taken away from them - like a murder in fact.

    But this is a completely unfounded and confused way to look at it. If someone was never born, they cannot be missed in the way that an actual person can be.

    How often do you wonder about the twin you never had? Or the other siblings you might have had, if your parents had had more children? If you do, do you give them names and faces and personalities? More than likely not.

    Anyone who is appalled at the idea of some living person (perhaps themselves, perhaps someone else) having never had the chance to live, needs to realise that you can only feel that way if that person has actually lived in the first place. If they never became a person in the first place they simply wouldn't be around for you to miss. And there are gazillions of people who might have lived but didn't. You might as well be appalled at the fact that because your sibling is a brother this means that there a sister who might have been born instead but wasn't, because a different sperm happened to fertilize the egg.

    It seems to be a hard concept to explain and I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well here. But I think it's an important point.

    Abortion is simply preventing a life getting started. It's similar to not having sex, or using contraception, or having a miscarriage, it's just the process stops at a slightly different point before the proto-person was even able to have a single thought. Abortion is not and has never been about killing a child or adult, or even about killing babies. It's about the process of creating a baby being terminated (usually as early as possible).

    And someone else having an abortion, no matter what the reason, will not make you or anyone living you know cease to exist.


    you aren't explaining yourself at all, just telling people what they do and don't feel, should and shouldn't feel. in short, a form of whataboutery.
    to those who want and support it, abortion on demand is certainly similar to not having sex, or using contraception, as it's being used as a form of contraception. however in reality, it's about killing the unborn because the pregnancy is inconvenient.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #808
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭swampgas


    end of the road wrote: »
    you aren't explaining yourself at all, just telling people what they do and don't feel, should and shouldn't feel. in short, a form of whataboutery.

    Well, I was trying to address a specific point, where people show pictures of living children with DS and (as I see it) try to suggest that abortion could have meant that that person would no longer exist, and that somehow that person would have been murdered as there is an actual person there who would somehow no longer exist.
    to those who want and support it, abortion on demand is certainly similar to not having sex, or using contraception, as it's being used as a form of contraception. however in reality it's about killing the unborn because the pregnancy is inconvenient.

    If you were faced with a pregnancy that you felt, for whatever reason, that you could not cope with, and that you really didn't want to progress, who do you want to decide whether it's okay to have that abortion, or to decide if it's just you not wanting to be inconvenienced, so tough cheese, get on with it? You? Or the previous generation of voters who gave us the 8th amendment? Really it's a decision that you and you alone should be able to make.


  • Options
    #809
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    This is why if you're going down the route of using the fear of disability as a reason to broaden our abortion laws, you're going to struggle, and you're going to meet a lot of resistance, not least because of the fact that people can relate a lot closer to people with disabilities than women who would want an abortion.

    Can you point to where anyone is advocating broadening abortion laws on the basis of eradicating people with disabilities?

    People are advocating the broadening of abortion laws, full stop.

    People with disabilities have come into the discussion as the op asked if people in Ireland were likely to terminate pregnancies where DS was diagnosed in utero.

    If you think you're having a discussion where people are proposing to abort all pregnancies where there is a diagnoses of DS, you're not. That's not what is happening here.


  • Options
    #810
    Virgil°
    Registered Users Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    end of the road wrote: »
    the fact it is wrong means it's wrong.
    end of the road wrote: »
    you aren't explaining yourself at all

    You don't see how you're being massively hypocritical no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Virgil° wrote: »
    You don't see how you're being massively hypocritical no?

    no as i'm not. i explained the facts a plenty already.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



Advertisement