Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite wrote: »

True, if they were endangered animals they would be protected, but if you hunt them while they are foetuses they have no rights at all.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Is there a school of emotive misnomers that these people are being churned out from or something?

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

True, if they were endangered animals they would be protected, but if you hunt them while they are foetuses they have no rights at all.

When the last of the Thalidomide victims dies will you be enraged that there are none left? Will you agitate for some pregnant women to be "treated" with Thalidomide so that we can continue to have Thalidomide victims?

Hmmm, well Down's Syndrome has always been a naturally occurring variant of the human condition. They have a different or abnormal chromosomal condition. Perhaps you could say the same of many gender "abnormalities".

Tests have been developed to hunt for the chemical trace of Down's Syndrome people before they are born, so that they can be eradicated.

Thalidomide condition on the other hand was induced by an unnatural chemical interference, and the people will all die off when they reach the end of their natural lifespan.

People with down syndrome deserve access to abortion.
Women deserve prenatal testing if they want it to help them make informed decisions and so early interventions can be planned for. If I hadn't had anatomy scans at 20 and 34 weeks gestation and a plan put in place for early delivery it's likely me and my child wouldn't be here, or we'd have suffered serious injury.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is there a school of emotive misnomers that these people are being churned out from or something?

As a predead woman I find it's like bingo with those opposed to choice.

lazygal wrote: »

People with down syndrome deserve access to abortion.

OK now you have blown my mind. I'm going off to lie down for a while.

recedite wrote: »

OK now you have blown my mind. I'm going off to lie down for a while.

Nothing mind blowing about it. People who have down syndrome and want an abortion should be able to access it, or make informed decisions about their pregnancy should they want to continue it. No one is hunting them down, we want them to have all the same rights everyone will enjoy when a full range of maternity services are available to everyone.

frag420

I think recedite thought you meant people with downs could abort themselves if they so desired...

Pherekydes wrote: »

When the last of the Thalidomide victims dies will you be enraged that there are none left? Will you agitate for some pregnant women to be "treated" with Thalidomide so that we can continue to have Thalidomide victims?

Wonder if he wants us to stop taking folio acid so children with detects which could have been prevented are born?

recedite wrote: »

Hmmm, well Down's Syndrome has always been a naturally occurring variant of the human condition.

So has having children. It has occurred naturally in humans too. But now we have the ability for women who find themselves pregnant to choose not to have a child. And her reasons can be her own.

So what relevance DS has to any of that, is opaque to me and.... I somewhat suspect.... to you too.

recedite wrote: »

Tests have been developed to hunt for the chemical trace of Down's Syndrome people before they are born, so that they can be eradicated.

No, tests have been developed so the parents can be given information upon which to make an informed decision. That the decision is theirs............. not that of the people who made the test, those that perform the test, or those that deliver the result.............. makes a nonsense of your "it was done to eradicate them" narrative.

frag420 wrote: »

I think recedite thought you meant people with downs could abort themselves if they so desired...

Actually I read it as recedite thinking she meant people with down syndrome.... who are themselves pregnant..... should be allowed access to abortion?

Is there three ways to read it that are equally valid?

I was thinking if they have already been terminated before they were born, how could they...
This is getting more confusing than a Terminator movie sequel.

Indeed I think it was just badly phrased is all. Using the super-power of context, I think I can discern what the sentence was meant to mean though.

If they become extinct, they won't have much use for abortion services though?

What do you mean extinct? Not every avails of prenatal testing, and those that do can choose to continue the pregnancy knowing what lies ahead before birth. Those who choose abortion are free to do so.

Check these out.
Short, small breasted women, tall but dumb superfemales, effeminate males, and wife-beating supermales.

They can all be tested for before birth.

Like Down syndrome and other autosomal problems, sex chromosome gross abnormalities can be diagnosed before birth by amniocentesis and chorionic villi sampling.

I'm guessing the wife-beating foetuses will be the first to go.

There is a couple of narratives that seem to exist in your rhetoric here, at the risk of accidentally putting words in your mouth. Let me take them one at a time:

1) You appear to think that given the CHOICE to abort a fetus with a certain condition, that everyone will. This is simply not the case. There are many people who will not bother to test for the condition at all, even if offered free. There are people who even if the test is performed and it comes back positive, will not abort.

2) You appear to think that this will somehow cause the "extinction" of the trait and people with it. This is not so. "Down syndrome is caused by a random error in cell division that results in the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21". "Like trisomy 21, mosaic Down syndrome is not inherited. It occurs as a random event during cell division early in fetal development.". This means even if you flicked a magic button tomorrow that simply deleted all people and fetuses with DS from the planet..... new people with the condition would still arise later.

3) You appear to think that that somehow if DS did disappear as a condition in our species that this is somehow a bad thing. The tone of your posts, and the context in which you bring DS up, seems to suggest you would find the passing of this trait as somehow a bad thing to be mourned or regretted somehow. Yet I can not think of why it would be a bad thing at all.

All three of these lines of reasoning seem poorly thought out, fallacious, or both.

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

If they become extinct, they won't have much use for abortion services though?

Is it testing in utero for Downs Syndrome etc that you have an ethical issue with, or is it abortion? To me the issues are entirely separate. Is it reasonable that a woman who needs an abortion for another reason, be legally prevented from accessing same, just because other women might choose to abort after testing positive for chromosomal abnormalities? Could it be that the issue that forms the basis of this particular argument is actually the testing, but pro lifers have reframed it as being about abortion to suit their own agenda?

recedite wrote: »

It looks like Down's Syndrome people will soon be eradicated from many parts of Europe.
Ireland will be one of the few places left where they can still roam freely?

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/the-eighth-amendment-protected-my-son-3217231-Feb2017/
https://www.thelocal.no/20170301/norway-oks-pre-natal-blood-tests-to-detect-down-syndrome

I'm curious as to why you put the ? at the end above. Nature will always get one past us humans, you need not worry about Downs Syndrome ever becoming a thing of the past.

recedite wrote: »

Check these out.
Short, small breasted women, tall but dumb superfemales, effeminate males, and wife-beating supermales.

They can all be tested for before birth.
I'm guessing the wife-beating foetuses will be the first to go.

I'll take your last bit was sarcasm. Wife-beating could cause an accidental abortion and you wouldn't want that to happen now, would you?

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Check these out.
Short, small breasted women, tall but dumb superfemales, effeminate males, and wife-beating supermales.

They can all be tested for before birth.
I'm guessing the wife-beating foetuses will be the first to go.

an obvious quibble I'd have with that is that personality types and the effeminacy or not of progeny is not randomly distributed but are inherited to a good extent "apple not falling far from the tree" and what not . So for example the average low T male working for Buzzfeed if they ever get around to procreating is unlikely to be told their son is going to turn out to be awfully similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger

.......

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But every person with every abonormality is brilliant and exactly the same! And creates teachable moments for society! And presents no burden whatsoever to families who may be unable to cope! And sure they can be given up for adoption and there are queues of people lining up to adopt the children in state car with complex needs!

Kiwi in IE

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is not really relevant to the wider issue of abortion. If the person has an issue with testing for chromosomal abnormalities, on the basis that people may choose to abort in the event of a positive result, should they not be protesting the use of amniocentesis, etc rather than abortion? It is a bit bizarre to say that a victim of sexual assault, for example, should be prevented from accessing a safe, legal abortion in her own country, because if she has access
others may terminate due to chromosomal abnormalities.

This whole 'people with Down's syndrome have a right to life' tactic from 'pro lifers' is nothing but a red herring.

Loafing Oaf

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Which is not really relevant to the wider issue of abortion. If the person has an issue with testing for chromosomal abnormalities, on the basis that people may choose to abort in the event of a positive result, should they not be protesting the use of amniocentesis, etc rather than abortion? It is a bit bizarre to say that a victim of sexual assault, for example, should be prevented from accessing a safe, legal abortion in her own country, because if she has access
others may terminate due to chromosomal abnormalities.

This whole 'people with Down's syndrome have a right to life' tactic from 'pro lifers' is nothing but a red herring.

Yeah if a medication was developed that prevented DS from arising in the first place, would the pro-lifers be calling for it to be banned? I doubt it, even though that would presumably be a far more effective method of eliminating the condition.

Hotblack Desiato

I blame Trump. It seems everyone now has licence to share with the world every half-baked notion that crosses their neuron.

#abortthe45th :pac:

oh and welcome back Kiwi - long time!

So, in anyway the Abortion Committee will meet this afteroon to decide by way of vote on three modules. The 1st is to decide on whether to recommend to the Oirechtas deletion of sub-section 3 of section 3 of article 40 from the constitution via a referendum or to retain the section intact.

The other two modules will cover [afaik] if retention is chosen whether the present wording of 40.3.3 should be further amended by the people by referendum.

The outcome of the meeting should be known later today. It doesn't end the committee's work, another meeting on the 20th on any amendment [if voted for by the committee] for recommendation by the committee to the Oireachtas.

Edit:Ta, HD. Whe I saw your's above, I thought I had posted in the DT debate..................