nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. If you terminate a Downs pregnancy now, you do so with the intention of preventing the birth of what would, if born, undoubtedly be a person. And if you generally welcome or approve of high rates of termination for Downs pregnancies, that indicates that you are seeking to reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of persons with Downs.

The outcome you would be seeking here, the considerations that motivate you, would not be fewer Downs pregnancies; Downs pregnancies are not, in themselves, any more or less burdensome than non-Downs pregnancies. What you're seeking to achieve is fewer Downs people. And Downs people are bound to notice this, and to react to it.

All of this is true whether or not you regard the foetus as a person.

Please note that I am not expressing any judgment of a pregnant woman who, on getting a diagnosis of Downs, elects to terminate her pregnancy. I entirely understand that choice, and would defend her right to make it. What I am talking about is others welcoming that choice, and regarding it as a good thing that the choice should frequently or generally be made in cases where Downs is diagnosed. That makes a statement about Downs people which must be highly offensive.

But since nobody has advocated repealing the 8th on the grounds that it would be a good thing if there were fewer people with Downs for society to take care of, your claim that anyone in pro choice having as their goal the elimination of a group of people is completely hysterical. You're just making that up.

It is a good thing that women have a choice about their pregnancies.
If women who get a diagnosis of Downs use that choice to end their pregnancies in large numbers, that probably tells us more about how little help families with disabked children get than anything else.

It certainly doesnt mean that anyone who is pro choice wants to elimiate people with Downs. That's a really disgusting lie and you should acknowledge that.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if you generally welcome or approve of high rates of termination for Downs pregnancies, that indicates that you are seeking to reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of persons with Downs.

"Welcome", "approve" and "seek" are not the same thing as "accept".

That's loaded language. I think you will be hard pressed to find many people who "welcome", "approve" or "seek", specifically, the termination of pregnancies diagnosed with Down's.

So you've invented something of a strawman that you're arguing with. Show me the people who are jumping for joy at the specific prospect of all these Down's pregnancies being aborted?

lazygal

People with down syndrome deserve access to abortion if they need it.
There are also people who will not continue a pregnancy regardless of what supports the state might offer. Their choice to have abortions because of a diagnosis of disability are no worse than any other reasons for having abortions. If you oppose all abortion, the reason for the abortion is irrelevant as every single one is equally wrong.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

Maybe come back when you've calmed down a bit? :rolleyes:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps it is you who should calm down

Gentlefolks - while it's cheering to see you both caring about each other's moods, the thread would proceed most gently if one were to be responsible only for one's own moods, and the discussion thereof.

Thanking youze

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. If you terminate a Downs pregnancy now, you do so with the intention of preventing the birth of what would, if born, undoubtedly be a person. And if you generally welcome or approve of high rates of termination for Downs pregnancies, that indicates that you are seeking to reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of persons with Downs.

I think your logic is flawed there P. For example, by your logic, you could suggest that women who have abortions because they cannot afford to raise a child are trying to eliminate poverty. This is clearly false in both cases. The woman having the abortion simply does not wish to become a mother at that point in time, for whatever reason. Your logic suggests an orchestrated attempt to eliminate Downs through the mechanism of abortion which isn't the case. In fact the reason a woman elects to have an abortion is a personal and private choice, and we should respect that privacy. I would argue strongly that it is never an attempt to dictate how others behave or some personal contribution to control the shape of our society.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which means that approbation of the termination of pregnancies where Downs has been diagnosed is not about eliminating Downs. It's about eliminating people with Downs.

Yes, you're right, DS will never go away, it's a cruel incidental of nature, same as any other DISABILITY and is seen as an infliction. That, allied to the responsibility of the parents towards caring for Downs Syndrome children born to her/them and a belief some of them hold that DS children face a future with lesser social treatment afforded them, leads them to see abortion as/is a lesser evil.

There is also the fact that parents may not be able for the task of caring for DS children born to them and they make decisions towards abortion on that basis alone.

In the public debate on TV women from both sides of the debate have talked about having birthed Downs Syndrome children and argued for both sides, similarly with other women who haven't birthed DS children. I can't choose to make up her/their minds for her/them but I can [and will] as a voter give her/them the option of choice.

Edit for anyone reading my original I've deleted ILLNESS and replaced it with DISBILITY. Ta for that word, lazygal.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I'm not saying a pregnancy is a person. Perhaps it is you who should calm down, and address what I actually say rather that what you have decided to impute to me.

I'm saying that terminating a pregnancy where Downs has been diagnosed does not eliminate Downs, the condition, for the reason pointed out by Hotblack. However many Downs pregnancies you terminate, this will not reduce the future incidence of Downs at all.

What terminating Downs pregnancies does do is to reduce or eliminate entirely the number of people in the community who suffer from Downs, because those people will never be born. This, I think, is an outcome that is implicitly sought and/or welcomed by those who express approval for high rates of termination where Downs is diagnosed.

And you can see, can't you, why people in the community who suffer from Downs would find this attitude highly offensive? It may not be a direct threat to them personally or individually, but they are likely to see it as a condemnation or dismissal of who they are. Advocating policies that aim to reduce the number of Downs people in society is likely to strike Downs people in much the way that advocating policies that aim to reduce the number of gay people, or policies that aim to reduce the number of black people, is likely to strike gay people, or black people.

Being gay or black is not a condition for which people will need lifelong care, often by increasingly elderly carers. Being black or gay does not come with a raft of other medical conditions which may be life threatening on their own.

I am a 35 year old woman. I honestly do not know what I would do if DS was discovered in my pregnancy. what I do know is that I don't want a child with DS. I don't want to spend the rest of my life caring for someone and worrying what will happen to them when I die. I know enough to know that the nice girl with DS packing bags in Tesco is at the extremely mild end of a spectrum of which the other end can be incontinent, non verbal, uncomprehending, and violent. I do not think that any life, no matter how bad, is better than no life.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

What I am talking about is others welcoming that choice, and regarding it as a good thing that the choice should frequently or generally be made in cases where Downs is diagnosed.

Who, precisely, is doing that?

I want all women to have choice, I have no opinion on what choice they should make. To say or do otherwise would defeat the point of giving women choice. It is simply not my place, and not the place of any other person, to judge her and her circumstances and conceitedly think that I know what's best for her.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who, precisely, is doing that?

I want all women to have choice, I have no opinion on what choice they should make. To say or do otherwise would defeat the point of giving women choice. It is simply not my place, and not the place of any other person, to judge her and her circumstances and conceitedly think that I know what's best for her.

society already has an opinion on what choice they should make via the laws of the land, which women are not exempt from. to truely give women choice we would have to exempt them from all the laws of the land.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

society already has an opinion on what choice they should make via the laws of the land, which women are not exempt from. to truely give women choice we would have to exempt them from all the laws of the land.

Or change the constitutional law of the land under which all our legislated laws come to be, as it were, constituted so that exemptions would be made, similar to the way that Irish doctors and other medical personnel here have been granted exemptions to perform abortions within the legislated law of the land. That is the point of referendums in general where it comes to our constitution.

In any case, if I understand things correctly, the upcoming referendum on deletion of the 8th would ONLY allow women a greater chance of being allowed an abortion on request ONLY IF THE SECOND PART of the referendum paper mentioned by the AG is also passed by us allowing the Oireachtas to legislate for abortions beyond the present legal scope.

Hotblack Desiato

Second part of the referendum paper?!

We will be asked one question. Retain the status quo or else permit the Oireachtas to legislate for abortion under circumstances it sees fit.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

society already has an opinion on what choice they should make via the laws of the land, which women are not exempt from. to truely give women choice we would have to exempt them from all the laws of the land.

Worth remembering that laws change as society evolves. This country has come a long way from the ultra-conservative mono-cultural Ireland of the 80s where for example it was still illegal to be gay and recently legalised contraceptives required a doctors prescription. I talk to my kids about it and they're shocked and disbelieving of the relative barbarism. This is the culture that gave us the eighth amendment and thankfully that culture is largely dead or dying.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who, precisely, is doing that?

I want all women to have choice, I have no opinion on what choice they should make. To say or do otherwise would defeat the point of giving women choice. It is simply not my place, and not the place of any other person, to judge her and her circumstances and conceitedly think that I know what's best for her.[/QUOTE]
I have not suggested that you, Hotblack, have adopted or expressed the view I am talking about. I haven't said that anybody in this discussion has done so.

Just to recap, I came into this thread to respond to your point that choosing to terminate a pregnancy when Downs is diagnosed is not an instance of eugenics in action. To which my response was, I agree; you're quite right; it's not. But that doesn't necessarily dispose of the problematic ethical questions that can arise in this context. And then I introduced the issue of favouring abortion as a means of reducing or eliminating the number of people with Downs.

While, as I said, I am certainly not accusing you or anyone else in this discussion of holding that view, that the view exists is undeniable. Here, for instance, is a report from Denmark on the extremely low, and still falling, incidence of Downs people in Denmark, attributed to pre-natal screening and abortion. The report mentions that a majority of Danes regards this as "a positive development . . . 60 percent believed it was good there were considerably fewer kids with DS being born". The report quotes the head of the midwives association, who comments on the phenomenon (without expressing approval for it). The report doesn't quote anybody with Downs on the phenomenon, or anybody representing advocates for those with Downs. There's no suggestion in the report that their views were even sought.

Here's a report of Richard Dawkins expressing the view that not aborting a pregnancy where Downs is diagnosed is immoral. OK, Richard's not the most tactful person in the world, but quite a lot of people seem to take his views on many matters quite seriously, and he's certainly influential.

So, this view exists, and is held. It's not a negligible view. To somebody who finds this view concerning or worse, it's no consolation to be told that Hotblack doesn't hold it; others do. And therefore this is a concern which the pro-choice movement needs to recognise, and needs to have some response to. "It's not eugenics!", while perfectly true, is obviously not a sufficient response, or one likely to allay the concerns that people feel, or to soothe the offence they take when such views are expressed about them, or about people they know and care about.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Well, ask yourself this. If I brought forward proposals to reduce the number of gay people in society (without, of course, harming any now-living gay person) and this met with general acclaim, would you expect gay people to be offended? To be concerned? Or if I brought forward similar proposals with respect to black people? Would you think their offence or their concern was legitimate? Or people with cystic fibrosis?

What's offensive and concerning is the judgment implied about, and the attitude manifested towards, people with Downs syndrome, and their place in society. "We'd all be better off if people like you were never born" is not a message you can expect anyone to hear with equanimity.

Hotblack Desiato

So Peregrinus you admit nobody in this country never mind this forum is advocating that position but you thought you'd lob the grenade in there anyway.

FUD of the lowest order.

The rest of your post is just self serving waffle.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So Peregrinus you admit nobody in this country never mind this forum is advocating that position but you thought you'd lob the grenade in there anyway.

Why do people keep making stuff up and pretending I said it?

I haven't "admitted" that nobody in this country or this forum holds this position. I have just not said that they do. That doesn't mean they don't. I have no idea whether they do or not.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The rest of your post is just self serving waffle.

"Self-serving"? You think I have Downs?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So? You expect people with Downs to find that a comforting thought, in this context? That it's OK to dismiss people like them because the characteristic that bothers you is a medical condition rather than a sexual orientation?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obviously, it would be better not to be born that way. It would be to be born without cystic fibrosis, or without Downs.

But that's not what people are welcoming here. What they are welcoming is the prospect of people who would have cystic fibrosis, or Downs, or whatever not being born at all, rather than being born with that condition. And that obviously implies a judgment about people with the condition concerned, their place in, their contribution to society. And it will be experienced as a very negative judgment. I don't think we can hand-wave this away.

....... wrote: »

Again, you are misinterpreting the attitude. It is not: We'd all be better off if people like you were never born

It is: It would be better for an individual not to have to suffer with a medical condition and a reduced quality of life. By terminating the pregnancy we prevent that person from coming into being at all. They never exist.

I'm genuinely not seeing the distinction. They never exist because they never get born; their birth is averted by the decision to abort. If we welcome their non-existence, we're welcoming the fact that they don't get born. We're welcoming the fact that people choose to stop them being born.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't bring it in. I was responding to a post of Hotblack's on the subject. Though I don't think he was the one who brought it in either.

Peregrinus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Reread the thread. i'm not talking about a woman who makes this choice in relation to her own pregnancy. I have already supported and defended her right to make this choice.

I am talking about the view that it's a good and welcome thing for society if the number of people with Downs is reduced by aborting pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reread the thread. i'm not talking about a woman who makes this choice in relation to her own pregnancy. I have already supported and defended her right to make this choice.

I am talking about the view that it's a good and welcome thing for society if the number of people with Downs is reduced by aborting pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed.

When I'm pregnant, I'm not thinking about society to be quite honest. I'm thinking about what's best for me and my family. Having grown up in a family where a genetic condition can cause significant distress over many years, I will do my best to avoid bringing that stress on my family. It is not my job to be a teachable moment for society, nor is it the job of any other family or pregnant person. Being pregnant and having a baby is risky enough without having to be forced to birth a child when you would have chosen an abortion otherwise because somehow this is good for society regardless of the impact it has on me.
That you feel the need to bring people who are gay into a debate on abortion rights shows what you think of pregnant people. We're not to be trusted with choice because given the option we'll have abortions if we get any information that shows possible 'flaws'.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reread the thread. i'm not talking about a woman who makes this choice in relation to her own pregnancy. I have already supported and defended her right to make this choice.

I am talking about the view that it's a good and welcome thing for society if the number of people with Downs is reduced by aborting pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed.

How exactly is there being a lower number of people with a severe life limiting condition a bad thing?

Yes, of course it would be better to be born without Downs, but since there's no cure for it then that is moot, isn't it? Currently the choice is Downs or abortion.

lazygal

Most people having abortions are not doing so because they don't want a baby with down syndrome.
They just don't want to be pregnant. Down syndrome is an obsession of the anti choice side. There are a host of other chromosone disorders which can show up and mean someone chooses an abortion.
And Down Syndrome Ireland have asked everyone to stop focusing on their children. I don't speak for LGBTQI people but I'd imagine their various representative groups wouldn't take kindly to the notion that we remove choice from pregnant people in their name.

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

In any case, if I understand things correctly, the upcoming referendum on deletion of the 8th would ONLY allow women a greater chance of being allowed an abortion on request ONLY IF THE SECOND PART of the referendum paper mentioned by the AG is also passed by us allowing the Oireachtas to legislate for abortions beyond the present legal scope.

Yeah, just to clarify - the requirement of any constitutional referendum is to ask voters whether they approve a proposal to amend the constitution with only "Yes" or "No" answers in response to it.

It's not possible to have multiple-choice referendums, or "Yes, if the other one passes" type questions.

The ballot paper will say:

"Do you approve of the proposal to amend the constitution contained in the undermentioned bill?

Thirty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018

[] Yes [] No"

And that's it.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, it would be better not to be born that way. It would be to be born without cystic fibrosis, or without Downs.

But that's not what people are welcoming here. What they are welcoming is the prospect of people who would have cystic fibrosis, or Downs, or whatever not being born at all, rather than being born with that condition. And that obviously implies a judgment about people with the condition concerned, their place in, their contribution to society. And it will be experienced as a very negative judgment. I don't think we can hand-wave this away.

Again, I'd question your logic here, maybe look at it another way. Those born with a serious disability and their parents would typically much rather they not have that disability. It is not the child carrying the disability being judged, it is the undesirable nature of that disability. People who plan when to have children will plan to have a certain number of children, so aborting a fetus carrying such disability child does not mean fewer children, it means fewer disabilities.

Ask yourself this, if there was a pill you could take that would safely cure a serious disability for a certain percentage of those with that condition, how many of those with the condition would not take the pill? By taking such a pill are they judging those that the pill does not work for?

When I was growing up there were still quite a few people suffering polio related disabilities. By your logic, we should abandon the polio vaccine, as not doing so is judging those who have been disabled thus.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

I am talking about the view that it's a good and welcome thing for society if the number of people with Downs is reduced by aborting pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed.

Whose view is this?

Second time of asking.