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

captbarnacles wrote: »

This never happened. You might feverishly wish it had happened but nope.

it did happen. check back through the last couple of pages or even the whole thread.

end of the road wrote:

it did happen. check back through the last couple of pages or even the whole thread.

Where did it happen? I've been here the whole time I didn't read that.

Outlaw Pete wrote:

All anyone is asking for is the right to choose based on their personal circumstances? Nope, far from it. They are asking for the 'right to choose' to be available for all women.

Yes, people are asking that all women have the right to choose based on their personal circumstances. I want that right for me, and my countrywomen.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you allow all sorts of nuance in defence of your own point of view, yet at the same time you're arguing as though giving birth to a child with downs syndrome inevitably leads to a life of misery for all involved, like your earlier comments about 'petting zoos'.

You paint a vivid image of a dystopian future that really bears no resemblance to reality. You're doing your own 'argument' no favours because all you're highlighting is the fact that we aren't providing appropriately for those people who need it already.

This is why I said earlier in the thread that all the other tactics haven't worked, so the latest tactic is to use people with special needs to argue that because they're an inconvenience, they shouldn't exist. Outside of the Boards "intelligentsia" echo chamber, that sort of nonsense simply wouldn't be acknowledged, as to do so would lend it legitimacy it doesn't deserve.

How will your life be any worse if women you don't know ( and some you do but most likely won't tell you), have access to abortions in Ireland rather than having to sneak off to the UK and risk their health further ?

end of the road wrote: »

it did happen. check back through the last couple of pages or even the whole thread.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Right, so the last few pages of arguing the certainty of miserable outcomes for people with downs syndrome and their families never happened? These arguments are based upon how those people view the lives of people with downs syndrome as they are now, and they use that to argue for legislating for broadening our laws regarding abortion, and the outcome of abortion is of course that people with downs syndrome wouldn't then exist.

I don't "wish" it had happened, I find their arguments as disgusting as they are ignorant, blatantly myopic and entirely self-centred, as opposed to offering any benefit to society whatsoever. Society is moving more towards an appreciation of diversity, and regressive attitudes towards people who are in any way different are borne of ignorance, rather than any intellectual endeavour.

Literally never happened. People have pointed out that families may not have the financial resources to support a child with special needs, or that they may not feel able to look after a child with special needs along with any existing children, or that they may not be able to cope with a special needs child, but literally no one has says that it would be 'inconvenient'.

I still see nothing from you to justify why a couple who know that they would be unable to look after a child with profound special needs should be forced to do so.

Sure, GreeBo said that the Sanchez family adopted Sofia as they could afford to and then said:

GreeBo wrote: »

.....the Sanchez family had the means to support a family of six and so decided to adopt another child.

Sorry but isn't that all anyone on here is asking for? The right to choose based on your personal circumstances?

But this isn't correct, as prochoicers are not merely looking for the 'right to choose' to be available to women based on their circumstances...... they want the 'right to chose' to be available to women regardless of their personal circumstances. In other words, happy, rich, healthy and in love, prochoicers would still want such a woman, were she pregnant, to have the option of an elective abortion open to her.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahhhh the nobility of suffering

A grand aul thing to bat around at the seminary but absolutely should not be waved around in a debate in 2017 about women's reproductive healthcare.

Why not? 'Pretend it isn't real and it'll go away' is refusing to acknowledge reality. I never suggested btw there was anything noble about suffering, that's the point - it's shìt, and abortion just imposes a different kind of suffering as opposed to actually providing a solution to tackle the actual cause that would cause someone to experience suffering.

kylith wrote: »

Literally never happened. People have pointed out that families may not have the financial resources to support a child with special needs, or that they may not feel able to look after a child with special needs along with any existing children, or that they may not be able to cope with a special needs child, but literally no one has says that it would be 'inconvenient'.

I hope I have now at least addressed this oft repeated trope - address the underlying cause, rather than imply a 'solution' which isn't really a viable solution at all, because abortion is literally only a short-term temporary 'solution' that may (or more times simply doesn't) work to alleviate suffering at an individual level, but it goes nowhere near addressing the underlying societal issue that is the actual cause which may lead them to suffer - a lack of support.

I still see nothing from you to justify why a couple who know that they would be unable to look after a child with profound special needs should be forced to do so.

Nor will you, because it's not an argument I made, so I'm not obliged to defend it.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Tbh its a strange thing to point out, "pro choice people want all women to have choice - SHOCKER!"

Eh, the user suggested otherwise, as did you yourself:

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yes, people are asking that all women have the right to choose based on their personal circumstances.

So in future, instead of saying the above, say:

Yes, people are asking that all women have the right to choose no matter their personal circumstances.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Prochoicers, in the main, want abortion on demand in Ireland.... regardless of personal circumstance.

In 1986, that was a killer line, almost no-one was prepared to come out and say they favoured abortion on demand.

Now many people are "Of course we should have abortion on demand, the question is whether there should be a time limit, and if so, when?".

"Abortion on demand" has lost it's power as a scare line.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sofia's family set up their instagram account precisely for that reason in fact, to show how DS needn't be scary in the hope that it might change some people's mind's who might be considering aborting a baby with DS.

Why do they bother? What does it matter to them if a fetus..... which is little more than a self building blue print for creating a child..... is used to produce a child with DS or not?

They want to ask "What is your beef with DS" but I would ask why would they want MORE people with DS around? What is their agenda to increase the number of such children. What is their need that blue prints for such children are actualized into real actual people?

We are essentially talking about parents with blue prints here, who can choose using modern technology to go with a blue print for a "normal" child or a blue print for a child with a disability. On what possible set of arguments do they think the latter option is the best one to go with?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Prochoicers, in the main, want abortion on demand in Ireland.... regardless of personal circumstance.

Not sure what you are saying here. What is the problem? Yes the majority of pro choicers I have met want choice based abortion to be available (up to a cut off point in the gestation period) and to be available regardless of the reasons each individual might choose to seek it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Our abortion laws have saved thousands upon thousands of lives.

If you mean "lives" as in PERSON lives, rather than just biological ones then it has not "saved" a single "life". It has created them. Big difference. You can not "save" a life that is not yet there.

But the distinction between biological life and a human life as in personhood, is one you contrive not to accept no matter how much the distinction is made.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Our abortion average is nowhere near the average of other European countries, even when you factor in the abortion pill.

Which figures are you using there? Because ACTUAL figures, rather than ones dreamed up, are pretty thin on the ground with this. Not least because we do not have direct access to the required data. They are going outside our jurisdiction and not all of them are registering openly with an irish address. And figures on how many people are obtaining, AND using, such pills are even harder to come by.

So yes, please show your workings here. And sources.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In other words, happy, rich, healthy and in love, prochoicers would still want such a woman, were she pregnant, to have the option of an elective abortion open to her.

Damn right. Why the hell should one person have a right, that another person is denyed, solely because they occupy different social or financial classes?

I certainly do not want to live in a world where people walk into an abortion service and get told "Sorry, you can not have an abortion, you earn too much/little money".

Do you?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Right, so the last few pages of arguing the certainty of miserable outcomes for people with downs syndrome and their families never happened?

Which users in particular have said it is a CERTAINTY or indicated that? Perhaps we can take it up with them together, rather than just imagine it to be so like you seem to be. Because yes, the one useful think Outlaw Pete is pointing out on this entire thread is that it is by no means a "certainty".

What is a certainty however is that having such a child is very often more challenging, more expensive, more stressful and requires more effort than "normal" children generally are. And they are often born with conditions that will cause misery for them, the parents, or both. The key word here being "often".

Not always. Not certainty. Just often.

And what the vast majority of pro choice people appear to be saying on the thread is that GIVEN the paucity of arguments against the morality or ethics of abortion before 16 weeks (non existence in fact, not just paucity) then there is no reason why such parents should not have A) the information about the condition in a timely fashion and the choice to avail of abortion of such a fetus.

So I am not sure of the utility of the witch hunt you are building against a position not many (any?) people are actually espousing here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society is moving more towards an appreciation of diversity, and regressive attitudes towards people who are in any way different are borne of ignorance, rather than any intellectual endeavour.

And I see no conflict between the celebration of diversity, of which I try to place myself at the forefront in everything I do and say, and the points I have made above.

In fact giving people more and more information, and more and more choices they can avail of USING that information, is at it's very heart a creation of, and celebration of, diversity. That is what CHOICE is.

But the celebration of choice is not the same as willfully creating diversity. It does not mean saying anything like "The existence of people with DS means a more diverse set of people, therefore let us make more people with DS!". The celebration of diversity as it arises, and the willful creation of it for the sake of diversity, would be two entirely different things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah, trivialising would be people attempting to use all sorts of scientific and medical jargon to couch reality in terms that better suit them and ignoring the terms that are actually used more commonly both in a social context by ordinary people and by the law as it is already written.

People are generally happy for you to use whatever terms you want, when you want. Let us not pretend (again) otherwise.

The issue only becomes an issue when the misuse of terms (willful, or just because it is socially common to do so) smuggles in a non-point that clouds or distracts from the debate at hand.

People can, for example, call the fetus a "Baby" all they want. But the moment the use of that word "baby" is contrived to manufacture an emotional distaste to the termination of that fetus is the moment we should stand up and use the RIGHT terms for the RIGHT reasons at the RIGHT time.

And that is not "trivializing" anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

what makes it stressful? The lack of support they receive to be able to provide for their child or children, whether they're disabled or not.

As if that is the only thing that makes it stressful. There is a HOST of other things. You can give someone all the support in the world and having a child with certain disabilities can still be stressful.

You moan about "trivializing" things and then try to reduce the entire life long battle such people face to nothing more than how much support they receive.

This thread and the "we had abortions" thread are full of people and links describing the challenges and stresses and worries that having such a child creates. Some of which will not be alleviated no matter how much state support such people get.

So stop your own "trivializing" before you go pretending others have where they have not, simply because they use the right words in the right context for the right reasons.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the logical conclusion of that line of thought is that people should simply stop having children because both they and their children are almost certain to experience suffering at some point in the future.

Reductio ad absurdum much? That is not the "logical conclusion" at all. And no one espousing points on this thread has even REMOTELY come to that conclusion. You are whole sale inventing it for them, and pretending it is somehow "logical".

We try to reduce and avoid suffering in life all the time. I guess the "Logical conclusion" of that too, by your "logical" lights, is that we would all be better off not living at all because, you know, life is inevitable suffering. So logically we would all be better off committing suicide tomorrow right?

Nah I think it better we tell you the logical conclusions of our own argument, rather than have you Reductio ad absurdum manufacture them vicariously on our behalf.

Suffering might be "an inevitability of the human condition" but that does not preclude arguments that doing all we can to REDUCE that suffering where possible and where ethical is the best path to take. You list the benefits of suffering, all of which I 100% agree with you on, but that does not mean we should allow (or even manufacture or increase) suffering for sufferings sake.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abortion is merely a trivial and simplistic answer to a more complex problem , which means we don't have to trouble ourselves to come up with alternative solutions.

I corrected you on this error already but alas it was in one of the posts you chose to ignore. So I will do it again. Abortion is not an answer it is a CHOICE. And the difference and distinction there is an important one.

And thankfully while you worry about no one coming up with alternative solutions, our medical and biological sciences are in fact working on all kinds of solutions to human medical issues all the time. So I do not share your concern.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll live in a society in which it is easier to pretend problems don't exist than actually being obliged to face them and come up with viable alternative solutions.

OR you might end up living in a society where the problem.... wait for it...... ACTUALLY..... does not exist. Would that not be better than EITHER of your options?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd rather not live in a society where abortion is seen a viable alternative to actually providing the help that people need.

Who is suggesting that? We all want to help people in need here it seems. Not just you.

What some people (like me) want is that we have the capability to look at the blue print for the NEW people we are about to create and not go about creating MORE people in need.

Just for the sake of having people in need so we can all glory in the nobility of suffering, and the celebration of diversity, and pat ourselves on the back for how wonderful we are to do so and what an enlightened and accepting society we must be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why not? 'Pretend it isn't real and it'll go away' is refusing to acknowledge reality. I never suggested btw there was anything noble about suffering, that's the point - it's shìt, and abortion just imposes a different kind of suffering as opposed to actually providing a solution to tackle the actual cause that would cause someone to experience suffering.

Practically though, what I see of your description of the approach in Ireland is mostly the "it's sh1t" part. If we cared about these babies you'd be able to tell us how much better Ireland cares for its disabled children than countries where abortion is, according to you, seen as a better solution.

Where are all the paediatric palliative care centres built since 1983, after we decided that abortion wasn't going to be a solution? Child care for disabled children? Hell, let's not just blame the institutions, where are the couples lining up to adopt disabled kids?

It's hypocrisy to pretend the ban on abortion is because Ireland cares about them. That's not what it's about, and we all know it really. Some people are still in denial, that's all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How the hell could the fact that she has DS be irrelevant when the point of posting her video is to show how DS doesn't have to be scary.

Whats scary got to do with the right to choose?
For the sack of a balanced argument, why arent you posting the many scenarios when it is indeed scary and restraints and drugs are involved?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, that was not my point, nor anywhere close to it. Sofia's family's message has nothing to do with means and when I initially posted the video I said Sofia had a message. That was, and still is, being referred to as emotional blackmail.

No, you see the point you keep missing is that her adoptive parents had a choice to adopt her. No one turned up on their door one day and handed them a Downs baby. Thats what you are arguing for, people to be forced into looking after a disabled person for the rest of their lives. At that point they are then handed over to the state where people like you wring their hands and wonder "wont something be done about all this poverty!" completely oblivious to the fact that you are causing all this poverty and heartache because of some ancient Catholic guilt nonsense.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

My point (a simple one) was that if users are going to appeal to people's emotions on one side, then they are in no position to whinge when someone appeals to people's emotions on the other.

Yeah, that would be a wonderful point if it wasnt for the fact that only the pro-lifers are posting images an videos of happy little children.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All anyone is asking for is the right to choose based on their personal circumstances? Nope, far from it. They are asking for the 'right to choose' to be available for all women.

Yeah, you cant give the right to choose to only certain people....unless you think some people deserve the right and others dont? Is that where we are at now?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Abortion in Ireland is already legal for certain personal circumstances though. But no, I don't think poverty should be one of them. As a country we certainly need to do more for people in poverty though, especially so for those who have children with special needs. Spoke of that on the other thread with regards to autism, care facilities and schooling. Just don't thinking killing our developing young is necessarily the best way to address those issues, real and all as they are.

Well, to be frank, those issues would all eventually go away if we had the right to choose and people choose to terminate the pregnancy, wouldn't it?

Why doesnt your "need to do more for people in charity" extend to allowing them to choose *not* to bring another hungry mouth into the world? Irrespective of the child having special needs. It should be a basic human right to decide to have a child or not, you have somehow convinced yourself that its perfectly ok for *you* to hold the power over someone elses body.