Perhaps you’re projecting just a bit.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps so - but consider that I live next to a huge city where despite some of the highest per-pupil costs in the country, only about 59% of the students in the public schools graduate at all. And this is for students who can’t be considered developmentally disabled, frankly.
Aren’t they headed for minimum wages and subsidies of every kind, from housing assistance to WIC?
Now, certainly we can debate these subsidies, as I have talked about above - but we won’t see many people seriously considering that they’d be better off dead. Yet this reasoning creeps in all of the time when discussing this topic - especially in relation to amnio and the “choice” afterward.
It’s downright creepy, it is - especially in a country that had seemingly put a lot of this kind of nastiness behind it not long ago. Let’s remember that states were still sterilizing the mentally retarded within the lifetimes of most of the people posting here.
That’s the point. These parents, for the most part, are NOT taking care of their imperfect children. They can’t afford to, so we all have to pitch whether we want to or not. The point is that there would be no child to take care of if the parents made a different choice. I not suggesting that we have the right to tell the mother to have an abortion, or that society should leave these kids out in the cold, just that the parents’ choice to bring a child into this world that they cannot take care of is irresponsible. Do you care to actually debate that point?
What potential? Many of these people will never contribute anything of objective value to society. All they will do is drain resources. I don’t even mind that so much as this fiction that stating that fact makes you less compassionate.
You are so intent on playing this little semantic game over whether or not the fetus is a person that you are missing my point. My point was regarding the elimination of a disability by ensuring that no one with that disability is ever born. You can’t eliminate it by curing it, so you eliminate it through abortion.
And, in any case, you ARE eliminating a Downs person through abortion. There is an entity, with that condition, that exists. If you don’t abort it, it’s a person. If you do, it’s eliminated. Whether or not you want to call it a person while it’s still in utero is completely irrelevant to that point.
You haven’t demonstrated why. A Downs person doesn’t suffer pain, and there’s no indication to me that they will inherently lead unhappy lives, any more than anyone else. So, explain why it’s unethical to knowingly allow them to be born.
Frankly, I have no earthly idea what the everloving fuck you are going on about here, so I will limit my comments to the above.
Here’s my issue with that. Many problems that children have are not detectable before birth. Autism is a good example, and of course there are many others. You obviously would give a pass to these parents, since they obviously don’t know in time to abort. But say a woman is pregnant with a Down Syndrome child. She wants to keep the baby as much as she would a healthy baby, and you are saying that her obligation is to abort. So, she ethically has to abort a wanted child because she was unlucky enough that her fetus had a detectable problem, but another mother will get to keep hers because her fetus had an undetectable problem. There are many, many people who need all kinds of help from society for all kinds of reasons. Why select one tiny subset, and decide they are the ones who don’t get to ask for it?
Why is it some sort of human obligation to contribute something of objective value?
That argument sails right into “Every Sperm Is Sacred” territory. By that logic, I am “eliminating people” just by not having sex with fertile women as often as I can physically sustain it.
Because it’s unethical to bring into the world someone with limited potential who will always be dependant; someone who will always be highly vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.
And I said “disabled”, not just Down’s Syndrome.
I’m simply pointing out that those who oppose abortion hold a definition of “human” that is extremely dehumanizing. It requires them to hold in contempt everything about being human that makes being human of any value.
Whether or not the thing behing aborted is a person is the point. If we were able to detect in advance whether a particular couple would have disabled kids, and all such couples elected to refrain from having kids, you would have no problem whatsoever with eliminating the potential person that way - despite the fact that if they didn’t abort the process of having sex, it would have resulted in a (disabled) person.
In fact, something like that happens, if not with such certainty. Some people who harbor genetic defects refuse to have children, simply because they don’t wish risk passing them on. Is Sarahfeena willing to condemn them for “eliminating” people ? Do they, as well, mean our society is “immoral” ?
I don’t think knowingly having a disabled child you can’t take of is the end all of irresponsible behavior. As I mentioned before, it’s irresponsible to have a kid you can’t care for regardless of their health or ability. Why do you find this so objectionable? Your analogy doesn’t work because the parents of autistic kids generally don’t have a choice in the matter. Shit happens, but when you decide to opt for something that will burden society, you should be judged based on that.
No, the point is that the severely disabled cannot ever support themselves or contribute in a meaningful way.
Nope. Biologically speaking, there’s no comparison whatsoever.
You keep saying that, but you don’t say why. Being vulnerable is irrelevant. Children are vulnerable for nearly 20years.
This thread is about Down Syndrome, and it IS a disability.
Does the ability to love someone hold value?
Well, I think there’s a quantitative and a qualitative difference between deciding not to bring something into existence, and deciding to eliminate something that already exists. You can call it a person, a fetus, a blob, I don’t really think it matters. It’s still THERE.
But for some people, abortion is not an acceptable option, and it’s not right to impose it upon people (and by that I mean ethically, not legally), because of an unlucky roll of the dice. Many Downs pregnancies are accidents in the first place…it’s no different from someone on welfare who gets pregnant accidentally. Sure, it’s maybe a little unfair that they are going to add another burden onto society, but I don’t think a person in that situation is ethically obligated to make sure the kid is never born.
Again, I ask, is loving others not a contribution? And if you want to make it all about dollars and cents, then I still say: So?
Garbage. If one of my sperm fails to impregnate a woman, it dies, and every sperm is a potential human.
That’s not the same as being vulnerable forever. And at any rate I’m not a big fan of having children at all for just that reason.
Incorrect. It’s long since branched out to disabilities in general.
Some; not much. And at any rate that’s one of the things that your anti-abortion philosophy discounts the importance of, since love requires a mind.
It does matter, otherwise as I said you are right into “Every Sperm Is Sacred” territory. Not to mention every egg cell. And when human cloning comes along, every cell in your body will be a potential person; I guess we should then start disassembling people so each cell can be grown into a person, or we are murdering those potential people. and then they should be disassembled . . .
Well, those kids are better off, aren’t they?
How charming. And you are missing the point; I’m not a fan of anyone having children. Species survival aside, they are vulnerable by nature, and childhood tends to be quite unpleasant.
Oh, I got your point fine - I’ve just gone way past mere disagreement with it.
And so you implied that I’m a child abuser. That’s ever so much more enlightened than arguing against my position.
Well, it was meant just to be a bit of a joke.
In any case - I was joking that you might not be the greatest dad - child abuse never entered my mind. I’m sorry I offended you in this manner.
Still doesn’t mean your views are any less repugnant, but at least we can clear the air over that particular point.
By that argument we should mercy kill Stephen Hawking, who is unquestionably severely disabled - but I don’t think very many people would find that moral or acceptable.
Seriously, you don’t even need a high school level biology class to see the flaw in that argument.
Well, there you go. Might as well let humans die out, so no one ever has to be vulnerable.
Incorrect. I know what the thread is about, because I wrote the OP, and have been active in the thread ever since, and I keep asking you specifically about Downs. The fact that you avoid the issue doesn’t mean the thread has evolved beyond it.
Downs people have minds. I know, because I’ve had conversations with them. Have you?
Again, a short primer in biology might help you a bit, here.