Current Events > Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome

(+) Yeah! (+)

My sister has down syndrome. You're goddamn right I don't want my kid to have it.

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zikten posted...

CountessRolab posted...

Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.

Speak for yourself. I am disabled. Don't project your opinions on to others. I am personally disturbed that so many people are in favor of killing a baby just cause of a defect

No one is in favor of that.

We are in favor of the right for parents to choose to have abortions because the developing fetus has a birth defect.

That's the same thing I said

Zikten posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zikten posted...

CountessRolab posted...

Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.

Speak for yourself. I am disabled. Don't project your opinions on to others. I am personally disturbed that so many people are in favor of killing a baby just cause of a defect

No one is in favor of that.

We are in favor of the right for parents to choose to have abortions because the developing fetus has a birth defect.

That's the same thing I said

Do a google search on "embryonic development" then look for the terms in bold and educate yourself. You and ChromaticAngel did not say the same thing. What you're suggesting is literally the same thing and crazy as saying if somebody doesn't give you $20 they owed, they need to pay you a new car because you could have invested that money and eventually bought a new car therefore you lost out on a new car.

No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human

Zikten posted...

No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human

A fetus is a human. No one is contesting that, but it's not what you wrote in bold.

According to the poll results 146 people are shitty human beings.
---

i dont think that makes us shitty human beings

so many emotional arguments
---

Capn Circus posted...

To be completely honest, I would say there are some people living with Down-Syndrome that live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives than some people on CE.

The CE example being you, a known Trump shill. So of course they live more productive, successful, and purposeful lives.
---

Illuminoius posted...

CountessRolab posted...

Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.

i was born hemiplegic, my sister was born retarded, my oldest brother has had all sorts of diseases, and another brother of mine was born with internal bleeding in the eyes and has terrible eyesight
i don't think any of us would be better off dead, so fuck off

Your experience isn't going to be universal.

This story here is about rape and not disabilities, but same fundamental principles apply:

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/4j4nei/i_hate_when_people_assume_i_should_be/
---

http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

ElatedVenusaur posted...

http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Down's can't be "eliminated" via abortion. It's a random trisomy mutation.

Questionmarktarius posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Down's can't be "eliminated" via abortion. It's a random trisomy mutation.

It is eliminated in the same way that HIV transmission during birth is eliminated with proper techniques in developed countries, how bacterial and viral diseases are eliminated with vaccines. Now is the time to eliminated down syndrome with genotyping. What is your point really?

Questionmarktarius posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

http://www.snopes.com/iceland-eliminated-syndrome-abortion/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Down's can't be "eliminated" via abortion. It's a random trisomy mutation.

I thought the article was about how Iceland was aborting children with Downs, not that they eradicated the disease itself.
---

Hexagon posted...

how bacterial and viral diseases are eliminated with vaccines

Downs can't be "eliminated" in the same sense as smallpox. There's no transmissible agent, apart from random errors in meiosis.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Hexagon posted...

how bacterial and viral diseases are eliminated with vaccines

Downs can't be "eliminated" in the same sense as smallpox. There's no transmissible agent, apart from random errors in meiosis.

I didn't specifically say smallpox, but if you think bringing up a special case makes your point then be my guest.

FrenchCrunch posted...

My sister has down syndrome. You're goddamn right I don't want my kid to have it.

I'm sure that you love her all the same though, and you are a better person for the experience.
Right?
---

Yaridovich posted...

It's not about deeming a person "good enough". It's also fucking NOT telling people that they should be dead. It's about providing a child the best possible life and creating them with a severe disability goes against that.

It also amazes me how many people can't separate existence from non-existence and the meaning behind both of them. When a child is aborted, miscarried--whatever, the whole notion of their existence becomes this nebulous what-if space when the reality is there is nothing there, just like there wasn't beforehand. If I wasn't ever born, or was aborted or whatever, then you'd never see this post, my family wouldn't know about me, I WOULDN'T FUCKING EXIST and you CANNOT compare existence to that and expect anything meaningful to come of it.

It's like when people say "Well, what if Edison was aborted? Then we wouldn't have the light bulb!". Well--if he was aborted, then we wouldn't fucking know about him at all and the light bulb would trickle on down to be invented somewhere else (or not at all, who knows that's all just speculation). There's zero point in laboring over what could have been. In this linear existence all that we know is what IS.

Sure, there are a lot of people that live happily with their disabilities, and yay for them, really. But they're not what I'm talking about and what really the discussion at hand shouldn't even be looking at. The real question here is if you know--without a shade of doubt--that your child is going to be disabled in a significant way and within the time frame that abortion is allowed, would you abort it?

To me, knowing full well that a child is going to be born with a disability and carrying it through to term is inherently disgusting. This child cannot provide any consent, knowns nothing but the existence you provide it and has to sustain off the world which you create for it. Having children is incredibly selfish that way--and so to make it so a child is already burdened by no fault of its own, simply so you can reap the emotional benefits of childbirth, is in my opinion, borderline evil if not already so. THAT'S what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I wish people already born to be dead, that's fucking stupid. Nor am I advocating hierarchical standards--I'm strictly thinking about the child.

If somebody forced you to now to live in a way that crippled you physically and emotionally, you'd be against it. Sure--given enough time you'd be able to adjust to it, that's what humans do, but the very concept of being given a sub-optimal condition of living against your will is morally wrong...so why is it okay to create life in the same way?

I just hate the idea of creating life that is inherently harmed simply for the moral fulfillment of the parents. If that's not 'playing god', then I don't know what it.

As someone on the spectrum, this is dumb
---

I don't know too much about down syndrome but raising a kid with certain disabilities can easily bankrupt a family that would have otherwise been able to stay afloat raising a child without disabilities.
---

being proud of eugenics

smh
---

Thrillwell posted...

FrenchCrunch posted...

My sister has down syndrome. You're goddamn right I don't want my kid to have it.

I'm sure that you love her all the same though, and you are a better person for the experience.
Right?

i love her with all my heart, yes

Doe posted...

Yaridovich posted...

It's not about deeming a person "good enough".

As someone on the spectrum, this is dumb

No one cares if you're on the spectrum. If you can use a computer and browse through current events, and write a coherent sentence you're clearly not a prime example of the autism disease/disorder and you know it.
When I was in grade school "autism" referred to the people in the special ed class that needed full walkers to assist them to walk upright, they needed a full dedicated teacher help them to walk in a straight line and do all of their other activities, they became paralyzed and cried if the lights are too strong or if its too loud. They need to point to stickers to say they need to use the restroom or eat, or greet someone. You are clearly not the target of this sort of advancement. I swear this spectrum is so wide anything puts you on the spectrum. You can have deep interest in trains, you're on the spectrum. You excel on an activity, you're on the spectrum.

darkphoenix181 posted...

being proud of eugenics

smh

Do you even know what eugenics means? Because from this post it shows you don't. Eugenics is trying to stop people with undesirable traits from reproducing and to get those with desirable ones to reproduce. A couple deciding to terminate their embryo and try conceiving again because the random segregation of their combined alleles or chromosomes will result in a diseased person or person with a defect is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.

Zikten posted...

No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human

As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Zikten posted...

No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human

As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.

It's definitely not. I'm sorry your disability has made life so bad for you you wish for inexistence but that doesn't mean no kid with disabilities deserves a chance.
---

my cousin can't even talk

she is like 40 now

but she appears to be pretty happy
she lives in a home that caters to people with mental disabilities like her not to far from her mom

@Hexagon posted...

Do you even know what eugenics means? Because from this post it shows you don't. Eugenics is trying to stop people with undesirable traits from reproducing and to get those with desirable ones to reproduce. A couple deciding to terminate their embryo and try conceiving again because the random segregation of their combined alleles or chromosomes will result in a diseased person or person with a defect is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.

oh look a disingenuous person


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Those humans targeted for destruction under Nazi eugenics policies were largely living in private and state-operated institutions, identified as "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including prisoners, degenerate, dissident, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (including feebleminded, epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind) (German: erbkranken), homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while more than 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.[3][4][5][6]

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20494

The Nazis wanted to create a society of healthy and strong individuals that could make Germany the dominant power on the planet. There was no place in this vision for the weak and feeble. Germans that were disabled and could not contribute to society were a burden that had to be removed. More than 100,000 disabled Germans were murdered in the Nazi "Euthanasia"’ program - mercy killings.



The Nazi mass murder of disabled people can be traced to a field of science called Eugenics. Eugenics was very popular in the late 19th century. It was also quite popular in the United States until the Second World War. The central idea is that healthy individuals should be allowed to have families and "unhealthy" individuals should be prevented from doing so. Allowing unhealthy people to have children would weaken societies. This approach has also been called "Social Darwinism" – survival of the fittest in society. Tens of thousands in the United States were sterilized in the first part of the 20th century in such programs.

killing people is part of eugenics if you are being an honest person

besides, you probably don't think these are people anyways, you think they are just things to be purged smh
---

@darkphoenix181 thinks he/she is making a point and calling me disingenuous.

is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.

Literally from your quote

More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will,

Please try harder and don't bold parts that literally call it euthanasia not eugenics.

Also look up what "traced" means.

@Hexagon posted...

darkphoenix181 thinks he/she is making a point and calling me disingenuous.

is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.

Literally from your quote

More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will,

Please try harder and don't bold parts that literally call it euthanasia not eugenics.

Also look up what "traced" means.

so you are a dishonest person

"oh it says people were killed BECAUSE of eugenics! I am going to ignore that and cite where it says other were sterilized!!!"
---

@Hexagon posted...

call it euthanasia not eugenics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs


how can you rectify your beliefs?

either you must apologize and admit you are wrong or you will become a cartoon character representing disingenuity.

Euthanasia programs

Edwin Black wrote that one of the methods that was suggested to get rid of "defective germ-plasm in the human population" was euthanasia.[7] A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes, and method number eight was euthanasia.[7] The most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers.[7] However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions.[7] For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30–40% annual death rates.[7] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[7]

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives.[72] The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[73]

Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[7]

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@Hexagon posted...

darkphoenix181 thinks he/she is making a point and calling me disingenuous.

is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.

Literally from your quote

More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will,

Please try harder and don't bold parts that literally call it euthanasia not eugenics.

Also look up what "traced" means.

so you are a dishonest person

"oh it says people were killed BECAUSE of eugenics! I am going to ignore that and cite where it says other were sterilized!!!"

"This article has the word eugenics in it, therefore any phrase, clause, or sentence fragment must be unequivocally refer to eugenics even if it literally it says it was part of another program because wikipedia is written by professional writers and historians."

@Hexagon posted...

"This article has the word eugenics in it, therefore any phrase, clause, or sentence fragment must be unequivocally refer to eugenics even if it literally it says it was part of another program because wikipedia is written by professional writers and historians."

the entire article is about eugenics
the killing part is also eugenics

again:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs

Euthanasia programs

Edwin Black wrote that one of the methods that was suggested to get rid of "defective germ-plasm in the human population" was euthanasia.[7] A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes, and method number eight was euthanasia.[7] The most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers.[7] However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions.[7] For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30–40% annual death rates.[7] Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[7]

In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic "mercy killings" in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize "imbeciles" and other defectives.[72] The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[73]

Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the "unfit" from reproducing.[7]

It is very easy to understand.

Not sure what weird bias is getting between you and basic reading.


Do you somehow believe that admitting this is eugenics means you cannot justify aborting babies anymore?

I mean what is the ultimate sterilization? The ultimate way to make sure a person doesn't reproduce?
by killing them
---

@darkphoenix181

No, my mistake was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you had an actual defense for calling this advancement eugenics. At first I thought you meant the health care system is committing eugenics by forcing the parents to conceive only healthy embryos. Now I realize you're incredibly daft and think the parents are committing eugenics for aborting their own embryo. An embryo is not a person and no person is being killed and certainly no one is being denied the right to reproduce. With your s***** logic, anyone who turns you down must also be committing eugenics because they are not willing to start a family with you. Absolute nonsense.

@Hexagon posted...

No, my mistake was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you had an actual defense for calling this advancement eugenics. At first I thought you meant the health care system is committing eugenics by forcing the parents to conceive only healthy embryos. Now I realize you're incredibly daft and think the parents are committing eugenics for aborting their own embryo. An embryo is not a person and no person is being killed and certainly no one is being denied the right to reproduce. With your s***** logic, anyone who turns you down must also be committing eugenics because they are not willing to start a family with you. Absolute nonsense.

literally 3 articles saying killing the disabled was eugenics and you stubbornly cling to your weird bias

should we welcome the living cartoon parody of himself known as mr.not honest?

let us all be reminded of the ACTUAL DEFENSE that was indeed given by me
as opposed to you just arguing your feelings about the issue from a weird bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs

a one

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20494

a two!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

a three!


sad when a guy can't admit he is wrong amidst overwhelming evidence when he can't even find one outside source to support his weak view

shame
---

>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence

I'm dying.

Yes
---

Hexagon posted...

>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence

I'm dying.

where is your source?

oh yeah

"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"
---

I personally believe it's unethical to have any abortion, aside from one that prevents the mother's death. So no, I wouldn't abort my child just because they were disabled. With assistance, most disabled children can experience many joys in life. In fact from what I've seen, people with Down syndrome are treated well in society and are generally very happy.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Hexagon posted...

>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence

I'm dying.

where is your source?

oh yeah

"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics?s=t


eugenics
noun, (used with a singular verb)
1.
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

darkphoenix181 posted...

Hexagon posted...

>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence

I'm dying.

where is your source?

oh yeah

"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"

People are hiveminded.


"A Wikipedia article was had they're all jokes LOL"

Each one now has many sources in itself.

Wikipedia is overseen and edited now. People can't really just go in and lie on it
---

LittleRoyal posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Hexagon posted...

>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence

I'm dying.

where is your source?

oh yeah

"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"

People are hiveminded.


"A Wikipedia article was had they're all jokes LOL"

Each one now has many sources in itself.

Wikipedia is overseen and edited now. People can't really just go in and lie on it

Then quote the source itself, don't expect others to do your research for you. Wikipedia is written by anonymous people therefore there is no reason to believe that anything there is factually correct.

LittleRoyal posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Hexagon posted...

>wikipedia
>cites it twice
>overwhelming evidence

I'm dying.

where is your source?

oh yeah

"I feel that killing babies is not eugenics because I want to, and that justifies me or something"

People are hiveminded.


"A Wikipedia article was had they're all jokes LOL"

Each one now has many sources in itself.

Wikipedia is overseen and edited now. People can't really just go in and lie on it

you are correct

all he had to do is go to wiki and see what sources they cite


since he wants to continue being hardheaded, I will just cite the sources they use that says mercy killing was used to promote eugenics as method of eugenics


Edwin Black (9 November 2003). "Eugenics and the Nazis – the California connection". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2 February 2017.



Pernick, Martin (1999). The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures since 1915. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 161. ISBN 978-0195135398.

Pernick, 2009: p. 161.

"Close-up of Richard Jenne, the last child killed by the head nurse at the Kaufbeuren-Irsee euthanasia facility.". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved July 29, 2011.

Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Profile in Power, Chapter VI, first section (London, 1991, rev. 2001)

Snyder, S. & D. Mitchell. Cultural Locations of Disability. University of Michigan Press. 2006.

Proctor, Robert (1988-01-01). Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674745780.



DER HERR JUST 2 WIKI ARTICLES!!!!
---

Meh. I'm okay with people aborting for any and every reason.

the oxford handbook on the history of eugenics

https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false


@Hexagon
---

@darkphoenix181

What do you tag me? You already think wikipedia is a good source and think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not going to converse with all day until you "get me".

But just because I felt in the mood. Are you talking about this book?

"The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics
edited by Alison Bashford, Philippa Levine"

The book that on page one, describe what eugenics is? The book that literally on the first page has the phrase "prevent life" and abortion as an example?

"Eugenics practices sometimes aimed to prevent life (sterilization, contraception, segregation, abortion in some cases);..."

Not only is your argument that the original post is the same as eugenics is wrong, abortion in itself is not a form of killing in eugenics by your very own source.

Great job.

Don't even bother replying to me.

@Hexagon posted...

What do you tag me? You already think wikipedia is a good source and think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not going to converse with all day until you "get me".

that is 7 books you are saying aren't a good source

yeah, it is fruitless to try to convince you when the only argument you got is that 7 books are stupid and not correct!

Hexagon posted...

The book that on page one, describe what eugenics is? The book that literally on the first page has the phrase "prevent life" and abortion as an example.

are you being real?


it says literally:

Eugenic practice sometime is aimed to prevent life (strilizatiom, contraception, segregation, abortion in some instances); it aimed to bring about fitter life.

And at its most extreme, it ended life the so-called euthanasia of the disable, the non-treatment of neonates)

You just said the opposite of what the first page actually says!

It says ABORTION in some instances IS INDEED eugenics!



HOLY SHIT

https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false


It also says euthanasia of the disabled is eugenics
---

Hexagon posted...

Do you even know what eugenics means? Because from this post it shows you don't. Eugenics is trying to stop people with undesirable traits from reproducing and to get those with desirable ones to reproduce. A couple deciding to terminate their embryo and try conceiving again because the random segregation of their combined alleles or chromosomes will result in a diseased person or person with a defect is not eugenics because no one's right to reproduce is suppressed here.

Hexagon posted...

"Eugenics practices sometimes aimed to prevent life (sterilization, contraception, segregation, abortion in some cases);..."

Remember, you originally said abortion wasn't eugenics.

Now you are trying to use the first page to argue that abortion isn't killing but perhaps conceding it is eugenics to have some weird mental gymnastics?

But we can all read the statement.

Abortion in some cases is indeed eugenics.

That goes against what you said before.

Also:

And at its most extreme, it ended life the so-called euthanasia of the disable, the non-treatment of neonates)

I won't be surprised if you leave this thread forever.

You have been proven wrong. There isn't much for you to do now other than admit being wrong. But are you man enough to do that?
---

LittleRoyal posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Zikten posted...

No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human

As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.

It's definitely not. I'm sorry your disability has made life so bad for you you wish for inexistence but that doesn't mean no kid with disabilities deserves a chance.

It's not wishing for inexistance. It's knowing and accepting the fact that I have it harder than a healthy person, and that if I could give that easier life to a child rather than the alternative I would. Pretty straightforward.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Zikten posted...

No amount of research will change my mind
I believe that a fetus is a human that isn't born yet. You guys try to rationalize that it isn't human yet. I don't. That's the difference. If it will become human given time and growth than it is already human. Sperm or eggs are not human because they are just ingredients but the moment it combines, it's human

As someone with a disability I fully understand why parents would want to do this. I don't really want to have kids due to the fact they might be disabled. If my parents had been able to choose and they decided I should live with a disability, assuming they still didn't really treat it until later in my life (they didn't know for years) then I'd have plenty of reason to hate them. I see no problem with aborting a fetus that has a known disability, it's the moral high ground here.

It's definitely not. I'm sorry your disability has made life so bad for you you wish for inexistence but that doesn't mean no kid with disabilities deserves a chance.

It's not wishing for inexistance. It's knowing and accepting the fact that I have it harder than a healthy person, and that if I could give that easier life to a child rather than the alternative I would. Pretty straightforward.

It is straightforward. People can't get over the fact or don't understand that embryos, blastocysts, and even fetuses to a certain extent don't have a perception of their existence that "you're taking away" or "not giving a chance". Its literally a bag of chemicals with no consciousness. Apparently we live in a world still where fertilization is some sort of magic jump that gives two smaller bags of chemicals a soul or some supernatural precognition as they become a bigger bag of chemicals.

ThePrinceFish posted...

After that I came to the conclusion that most abortions are done to protect the parents, not the child.

Wait, that took you a while to figure out? Come on, bruh. Abortion has pretty much always been about convenience, barring the small percentage of pregnancies where a woman's life was legitimately threatened. There is a lengthy gestational period, labor pains, various birthing and child care expenses, and many other costs spread over the lifetime of a growing child, almost all of which can be conveniently sidestepped with an abortion. It is also more convenient for society because an abortion generally means you don't have to spend taxes on the kid. (Keep in mind that I'm not for or against abortion, and would just like to keep these discussions open and honest.)
---