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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Hexagon 08/16/17 5:58:19 PM #151:	@Lorenzo_2003 To be fair, care expenses affect both and last a life time unlike labor pains and gestational periods. If you'll be a poor parent, you'll be a poor family. Also not being in a position to raise a family is also a huge factor especially if you are living by the paycheck and need to work, or going to school. So its not all for selfish convenience. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:884902210] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>@Lorenzo_2003 To be fair, care expenses affect both and last a life time unlike labor pains and gestational periods. If you'll be a poor parent, you'll be a poor family. Also not being in a position to raise a family is also a huge factor especially if you are living by the paycheck and need to work, or going to school. So its not all for selfish convenience.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:10:09 PM #152:	https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2016/05/when-does-an-abortion-become-eugenics/483659/ http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-abortion-be-correlated-to-eugenics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml#h3 Eugenics and gender selection Abortion and eugenics Abortion has been used in the past to stop the growth of population groups, or racial groups regarded as genetically 'inferior'. This is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion has been used in the past to stop people with various genetic defects from having children. When this is done as a matter of public policy it is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion and gender selection In some countries, particularly India there is a major problem with female foeticide - deliberately aborting foetuses that would be born as girls. For sociological and economic reasons parents in some cultures prefer to have boy babies. When parents can discover the gender of the foetus in advance, they sometimes request the termination of a pregnancy solely because the foetus is female. While selective abortion for gender preference is illegal in India, the low proportion of female births relative to male births, together with other evidence, makes it certain that female foeticide is practised on a large scale. but according to Hexagon, the parents can still have a male baby so it is not eugenics --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884902856] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2016/05/when-does-an-abortion-become-eugenics/483659/ http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-abortion-be-correlated-to-eugenics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml#h3 <quote>Eugenics and gender selection Abortion and eugenics Abortion has been used in the past to stop the growth of population groups, or racial groups regarded as genetically 'inferior'. This is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion has been used in the past to stop people with various genetic defects from having children. When this is done as a matter of public policy it is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion and gender selection In some countries, particularly India there is a major problem with female foeticide - deliberately aborting foetuses that would be born as girls. For sociological and economic reasons parents in some cultures prefer to have boy babies. When parents can discover the gender of the foetus in advance, they sometimes request the termination of a pregnancy solely because the foetus is female. While selective abortion for gender preference is illegal in India, the low proportion of female births relative to male births, together with other evidence, makes it certain that female foeticide is practised on a large scale.</quote> but according to Hexagon, the parents can still have a male baby so it is not eugenics</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:16:32 PM #153:	https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-26/eugenic-abortion-is-a-challenge-to-equality-for-people-with-disabilities From the perspective of the disabled and their advocates, we are living in a schizophrenic culture. On the one hand, we are striving to eliminate discrimination and create a society that is welcoming, understanding and inclusive of the largest minority group in the country – a society where having a special need is not a cause for shame and isolation. On the other, we are also a society that goes to great lengths to prevent the birth of the disabled themselves, sharply discriminating against them at their most vulnerable stage. The number of babies born with disabilities such as Down’s Syndrome has dwindled in America, due to what can fairly be called eugenic abortion. Eugenics is a strong term, and we normally associate it with the depredations of the Nazis, who envisioned the creation of a race of strong and healthy people with no genetic defects. We know what that led them to inflict on humanity. Eugenics is the creation or selection of offspring with "desirable" traits, and the elimination of those that are deemed "deficient." Aborting a child with Dwarfism or Down's would certainly qualify as eugenic. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884903187] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-26/eugenic-abortion-is-a-challenge-to-equality-for-people-with-disabilities <quote>From the perspective of the disabled and their advocates, we are living in a schizophrenic culture. On the one hand, we are striving to eliminate discrimination and create a society that is welcoming, understanding and inclusive of the largest minority group in the country – a society where having a special need is not a cause for shame and isolation. On the other, we are also a society that goes to great lengths to prevent the birth of the disabled themselves, sharply discriminating against them at their most vulnerable stage. The number of babies born with disabilities such as Down’s Syndrome has dwindled in America, due to what can fairly be called<cite> eugenic abortion</cite>. Eugenics is a strong term, and we normally associate it with the depredations of the Nazis, who envisioned the creation of a race of strong and healthy people with no genetic defects. We know what that led them to inflict on humanity. Eugenics is the creation or selection of offspring with "desirable" traits, and the elimination of those that are deemed "deficient." Aborting a child with Dwarfism or Down's would certainly qualify as eugenic. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/16/17 6:24:53 PM #154:	darkphoenix181 posted... https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-26/eugenic-abortion-is-a-challenge-to-equality-for-people-with-disabilities So, is abortion a right or not? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884903673] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-26/eugenic-abortion-is-a-challenge-to-equality-for-people-with-disabilities</quote> So, is abortion a right or not?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/16/17 6:26:06 PM #155:	Hexagon posted... 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. People tend to be superstitious. Dumb people tend to rely on superstition to give them their view into how the world since they don't have the capacity to think things through logically. Dumb people are also a reliable voter base though. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884903743] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LittleRoyal posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>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</quote> 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.</quote> 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.</quote> 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.</quote> 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.</quote> People tend to be superstitious. Dumb people tend to rely on superstition to give them their view into how the world since they don't have the capacity to think things through logically. Dumb people are also a reliable voter base though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Feline_Heart 08/16/17 6:27:03 PM #156:	Damn_Underscore posted... it's not a simple yes or no question tbh For me, the answer is yes every time --- Stay woke. <cite>Feline_Heart posted [p:884903790] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>it's not a simple yes or no question tbh</quote> For me, the answer is yes every time</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:28:12 PM #157:	Questionmarktarius posted... darkphoenix181 posted... https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-26/eugenic-abortion-is-a-challenge-to-equality-for-people-with-disabilities So, is abortion a right or not? whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics for one, a woman may decide she can't afford a baby and choose to abort and many would support her and another person might decide their baby has "undesirable traits and those traits must be eliminated and are deficient and the human race needs to be made strong" as cited above the undesirable traits could even be a vagina --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884903852] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-26/eugenic-abortion-is-a-challenge-to-equality-for-people-with-disabilities</quote> So, is abortion a right or not?</quote> whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics for one, a woman may decide she can't afford a baby and choose to abort and many would support her and another person might decide their baby has "undesirable traits and those traits must be eliminated and are deficient and the human race needs to be made strong" as cited above the undesirable traits could even be a vagina</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/16/17 6:31:59 PM #158:	darkphoenix181 posted... whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884904065] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics</quote> If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:35:32 PM #159:	Questionmarktarius posted... darkphoenix181 posted... whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway. like you can cry fire in a crowded theatre? or buy a gun with the intent to kill people? an easy hypothetical could show you why what you said was wrong if for some strange reason all african babies in the U.S. for a current year had been aborted literally none left alive would you say a right well exercised or cry eugenics? yet when done to the disabled that is a-ok? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884904230] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics</quote> If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway.</quote> like you can cry fire in a crowded theatre? or buy a gun with the intent to kill people? an easy hypothetical could show you why what you said was wrong if for some strange reason all african babies in the U.S. for a current year had been aborted literally none left alive would you say a right well exercised or cry eugenics? yet when done to the disabled that is a-ok?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/16/17 6:37:41 PM #160:	Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884904357] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/16/17 6:38:45 PM #161:	darkphoenix181 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... darkphoenix181 posted... whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway. like you can cry fire in a crowded theatre? or buy a gun with the intent to kill people? an easy hypothetical could show you why what you said was wrong if for some strange reason all african babies in the U.S. for a current year had been aborted literally none left alive would you say a right well exercised or cry eugenics? yet when done to the disabled that is a-ok? Let's say, just for fun, we ban abortions "because downs". What, then, prevents any given woman from claiming that she's aborting for financial reasons? If "my body my choice" suddenly become "mandatory incubator, under penalty of law" under certain conditions, then any right to abort has been a meaningless platitude this whole time. P4wn4g3 posted... Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day. This. Eugenics, in the Margaret Sanger and Hitler sense, was not voluntary. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884904411] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>whether it is a right or not is separate from whether aborting the disabled is a form of eugenics</quote> If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway.</quote> like you can cry fire in a crowded theatre? or buy a gun with the intent to kill people? an easy hypothetical could show you why what you said was wrong if for some strange reason all african babies in the U.S. for a current year had been aborted literally none left alive would you say a right well exercised or cry eugenics? yet when done to the disabled that is a-ok?</quote> Let's say, just for fun, we ban abortions "because downs". What, then, prevents any given woman from claiming that she's aborting for financial reasons? If "my body my choice" suddenly become "mandatory incubator, under penalty of law" under certain conditions, then any right to abort has been a meaningless platitude this whole time. <cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day.</quote> This. Eugenics, in the Margaret Sanger and Hitler sense, was not voluntary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:40:41 PM #162:	P4wn4g3 posted... Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day. wrong https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2016/05/when-does-an-abortion-become-eugenics/483659/ http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-abortion-be-correlated-to-eugenics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml#h3 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20494 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884904536] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day.</quote> wrong https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2016/05/when-does-an-abortion-become-eugenics/483659/ http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-abortion-be-correlated-to-eugenics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml#h3 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Euthanasia_programs http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20494 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OpheliaAdenade 08/16/17 6:41:46 PM #163:	is it wrong for a woman to only want to give birth to strong babies? :v --- http://imgur.com/Q6Qj55q <cite>OpheliaAdenade posted [p:884904612] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>is it wrong for a woman to only want to give birth to strong babies? :v</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/16/17 6:43:21 PM #164:	Questionmarktarius posted... If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway. P4wn4g3 posted... Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day. I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:884904715] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote> If abortion is a right, then doing it "because eugenics" is irrelevant and none of your damn business anyway.</quote> <cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>Eugenics is non-sequiter here. Abortion isn't eugenics. I can understand why you'd think that, and it's possible that it could lead to eugenics out of millions of scenarios, but it doesn't apply in the current day.</quote> I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:44:53 PM #165:	OpheliaAdenade posted... is it wrong for a woman to only want to give birth to strong babies? :v whether it is wrong can be debated but that is fundamentally eugenics the thing is eugenics is negatively viewed and that is why these posters don't want to admit that it is what it is --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884904811] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>OpheliaAdenade posted...</cite> <quote>is it wrong for a woman to only want to give birth to strong babies? :v</quote> whether it is wrong can be debated but that is fundamentally eugenics the thing is eugenics is negatively viewed and that is why these posters don't want to admit that it is what it is</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:48:02 PM #166:	http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52172 Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics. While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications. But the IBC added: “Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.” The alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics,” it said. united nations btw @OpheliaAdenade basically saying making strong babies can be eugenics designer babies is a term for engineering a baby with the strongest traits on purpose --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884904987] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52172 <quote> Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics. While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications. But the IBC added: “Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.” The alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and<cite> renew eugenics</cite>,” it said.</quote> united nations btw @OpheliaAdenade basically saying making strong babies can be eugenics designer babies is a term for engineering a baby with the strongest traits on purpose</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Comfy_Pillow 08/16/17 6:51:14 PM #167:	call it what you want but parents shouldn't be forced to keep a child that could easily ruin them financially depending on the disability. good luck getting a disabled kid adopted <cite>Comfy_Pillow posted [p:884905186] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>call it what you want but parents shouldn't be forced to keep a child that could easily ruin them financially depending on the disability. good luck getting a disabled kid adopted</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:54:05 PM #168:	Hexagon posted... I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though. ugh he posts sources! articles! from professionals that support his arguments! UGH SO ANNOYING! meanwhile.... "umm hey guys...dictionary.com didn't specifically say euthanasia is eugenics! I WIN! GUHHAHAHAH" I mean, why don't you debunk all those articles I have been posting? Oh wait...you can't --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884905375] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though.</quote> ugh he posts sources! articles! from professionals that support his arguments! UGH SO ANNOYING! meanwhile.... "umm hey guys...dictionary.com didn't specifically say euthanasia is eugenics! I WIN! GUHHAHAHAH" I mean, why don't you debunk all those articles I have been posting? Oh wait...you can't</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/16/17 6:58:53 PM #169:	@Comfy_Pillow posted... call it what you want but parents shouldn't be forced to keep a child that easily ruin them financially depending on the disability. good luck getting a disabled kid adopted what if we could screen potential for heart disease in a child? would you support aborting to have that child who has 0% risk in heart disease? that is a future many scientists are considering\worried about when it comes to designer babies financial ruin could come later in life, just atm you don't have that luxury to screen for that at what percentage of perfection do you draw the line? or is it only the mentally disabled or physically deformed that are undesirable? if your child would be born with only one workable arm, is that enough to abort them? what about dyslexia? add? something like add could be argued as a difference between having to help your child out financially through their life (like living at home) and them passing college as cum lader getting huge paying job and supporting YOU instead --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884905649] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Comfy_Pillow posted...</cite> <quote>call it what you want but parents shouldn't be forced to keep a child that easily ruin them financially depending on the disability. good luck getting a disabled kid adopted</quote> what if we could screen potential for heart disease in a child? would you support aborting to have that child who has 0% risk in heart disease? that is a future many scientists are considering\worried about when it comes to designer babies financial ruin could come later in life, just atm you don't have that luxury to screen for that at what percentage of perfection do you draw the line? or is it only the mentally disabled or physically deformed that are undesirable? if your child would be born with only one workable arm, is that enough to abort them? what about dyslexia? add? something like add could be argued as a difference between having to help your child out financially through their life (like living at home) and them passing college as cum lader getting huge paying job and supporting YOU instead</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/16/17 9:39:40 PM #170:	And who's saying I don't? If the child is born, of course you support it and give it the best life possible, but also it would be perhaps a kinder thing to simply abort it. You're too involved in the whole morality of abortion. Not every child has to be born. So what about people with down syndrome makes them less deserving of their lives? Why would the world have been better off without them? Potential this, potential that, fact of the matter is nobody knows and nobody would ever know. You get so hung up over what could be you lose sight of what is. If a person is aborted there's literally nothing there. There's no denying anything. Life doesn't work like programming code, where you just cite in a new example to see how things could have been. I still have no idea what your point is. It is completely meaningful to talk about hypothetical lives and people. But instead they don't exist and you don't know any the better. It's all about emotions, right? The morals that you sling around at the mere notion of something happening and it's because of that you can't seem to understand that there's no use in talking about potentials. If it's born, yes, support it to the ends of the earth, love it, pray for its happy life but if its not then what the fuck do you even know about it? See above No fucking SHIT. I feel like every time you say this you get farther from the point. Yet despite acknowledging this, it is for some reason Ok to selectively abort foetuses on the basis of their having down syndrome, where presumably it would be reprehensible to abort a foetus for being gay, black, or some other category. I think the big problem here is that my philosophy is of course a person can exist happily with down's syndrome, but why should they have to? whereas yours is Everybody should exist without question. To me, the square ends of life are non-existence, a state in which nobody can comprehend. I feel it is better to simply leave a life in such a state rather than give it an existence I know would be hindered, DESPITE the happiness they could find in it. It's all or nothing with creating life, there is no excuse for in-betweens. Might as well abort all babies then, since anybody can have an unhappy or miserable lives. If we actually support and cherish those with down syndrome, they can have a life just like yours or mine. "They might have a bad life" is an indefensible position, unless you think anyone born into difficult circumstances is better off having never existed. Not worthless, because those that exist determine when and how those that don't do (what a cluttered sentence). The onus of life rests on our shoulders and it's irresponsible and as I've been saying, borderline evil to simply mandate that everybody is to be born despite what they may be born with. Your argument was that it's evil because people with down syndrome don't consent to being born with down syndrome. It's a worthless point because nobody consents to being born at all. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:884914864] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><quote>And who's saying I don't? If the child is born, of course you support it and give it the best life possible, but also it would be perhaps a kinder thing to simply abort it. You're too involved in the whole morality of abortion. Not every child has to be born. </quote> So what about people with down syndrome makes them less deserving of their lives? Why would the world have been better off without them? <quote>Potential this, potential that, fact of the matter is nobody knows and nobody would ever know. You get so hung up over what could be you lose sight of what is. If a person is aborted there's literally nothing there. There's no denying anything. Life doesn't work like programming code, where you just cite in a new example to see how things could have been. </quote> I still have no idea what your point is. It is completely meaningful to talk about hypothetical lives and people. <quote>But instead they don't exist and you don't know any the better. It's all about emotions, right? The morals that you sling around at the mere notion of something happening and it's because of that you can't seem to understand that there's no use in talking about potentials. If it's born, yes, support it to the ends of the earth, love it, pray for its happy life but if its not then what the fuck do you even know about it? </quote> See above <quote>No fucking SHIT. I feel like every time you say this you get farther from the point. </quote> Yet despite acknowledging this, it is for some reason Ok to selectively abort foetuses on the basis of their having down syndrome, where presumably it would be reprehensible to abort a foetus for being gay, black, or some other category. <quote>I think the big problem here is that my philosophy is of course a person can exist happily with down's syndrome, but why should they have to? whereas yours is Everybody should exist without question. To me, the square ends of life are non-existence, a state in which nobody can comprehend. I feel it is better to simply leave a life in such a state rather than give it an existence I know would be hindered, DESPITE the happiness they could find in it. It's all or nothing with creating life, there is no excuse for in-betweens. </quote> Might as well abort all babies then, since anybody can have an unhappy or miserable lives. If we actually support and cherish those with down syndrome, they can have a life just like yours or mine. "They might have a bad life" is an indefensible position, unless you think anyone born into difficult circumstances is better off having never existed. <quote>Not worthless, because those that exist determine when and how those that don't do (what a cluttered sentence). The onus of life rests on our shoulders and it's irresponsible and as I've been saying, borderline evil to simply mandate that everybody is to be born despite what they may be born with.</quote> Your argument was that it's evil because people with down syndrome don't consent to being born with down syndrome. It's a worthless point because nobody consents to being born at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sinroth 08/16/17 9:53:13 PM #171:	Yaridovich posted... How is it not selfish? As discussed before, there is no allowance of consent and the whole of it relies on those creating. Also, I am in no way saying that people with down's (or is it just down?) syndrome can't live meaningful, happy lives. So why is it ok to selectively abort those with down syndrome, as if their life was intrinsically worth less than that of someone without? What about having down syndrome means they should be aborted where a normal person otherwise wouldn't. I didn't say they were, it was just an hypothetical situation. I want to be very clear in saying I am not trying to insult, downplay or disparage people with handicaps in any way. This discussion isn't about that. No, you just think people with handicaps were better off not existing. Second, of course nobody chooses and the point of this whole conversation is that IF YOU KNEW your child was going to be afflicted, would you abort it. No? I wouldn't abort the kid, I'd look after it like a normal person that doesn't care solely about my own personal economic convenience. And yeah, those with down syndrome are "afflicted". If it was some horrifying disease that guaranteed a short and miserable existence, like maybe harlequin icthyosis or worse, you might have a case. But it's not. It's down syndrome, and these people are more than capable of leading happy, fulfilling lives. Quit talking about denying existence like it's denying them a meal. They don't know otherwise. Think back to before you were born. What do you know of it? Nothing. What would you know if you weren't born. Nothing. A healthy foetus that wasn't going to be aborted would otherwise become a newborn baby with a life like yours or mine. It is completely sensible to talk about that potential life, that potential existence. --- I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another. <cite>Sinroth posted [p:884915748] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Yaridovich posted...</cite> <quote>How is it not selfish? As discussed before, there is no allowance of consent and the whole of it relies on those creating. Also, I am in no way saying that people with down's (or is it just down?) syndrome can't live meaningful, happy lives. </quote> So why is it ok to selectively abort those with down syndrome, as if their life was intrinsically worth less than that of someone without? What about having down syndrome means they should be aborted where a normal person otherwise wouldn't. <quote>I didn't say they were, it was just an hypothetical situation. I want to be very clear in saying I am not trying to insult, downplay or disparage people with handicaps in any way. This discussion isn't about that. </quote> No, you just think people with handicaps were better off not existing. <quote>Second, of course nobody chooses and the point of this whole conversation is that IF YOU KNEW your child was going to be afflicted, would you abort it. </quote> No? I wouldn't abort the kid, I'd look after it like a normal person that doesn't care solely about my own personal economic convenience. And yeah, those with down syndrome are "afflicted". If it was some horrifying disease that guaranteed a short and miserable existence, like maybe harlequin icthyosis or worse, you might have a case. But it's not. It's down syndrome, and these people are more than capable of leading happy, fulfilling lives. <quote>Quit talking about denying existence like it's denying them a meal. They don't know otherwise. Think back to before you were born. What do you know of it? Nothing. What would you know if you weren't born. Nothing.</quote> A healthy foetus that wasn't going to be aborted would otherwise become a newborn baby with a life like yours or mine. It is completely sensible to talk about that potential life, that potential existence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 08/16/17 10:17:13 PM #172:	A healthy foetus that wasn't going to be aborted would otherwise become a newborn. When will people realize the tautology isn't going to convince anyone? The red car is red, the person that isn't dead is alive, the fetus that isn't aborted will come to term. Clearly if you ignore abortion then it will come to term, that's why people get abortions duh. Yeah, in a situation where no abortions are possible then its sensible to talk about the future of the embryo, but we live in a world where its possible to get one thus the "potential" life is not sensible to talk about because the future life is not assured. People will get an abortion whether its legal or not if they really want to, just to remind you. The situation where an abortion is not a choice is self-imposed, not by nature. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:884917135] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><quote>A healthy foetus that wasn't going to be aborted would otherwise become a newborn.</quote> When will people realize the tautology isn't going to convince anyone? The red car is red, the person that isn't dead is alive, the fetus that isn't aborted will come to term. Clearly if you ignore abortion then it will come to term, that's why people get abortions duh. Yeah, in a situation where no abortions are possible then its sensible to talk about the future of the embryo, but we live in a world where its possible to get one thus the "potential" life is not sensible to talk about because the future life is not assured. People will get an abortion whether its legal or not if they really want to, just to remind you. The situation where an abortion is not a choice is self-imposed, not by nature.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yaridovich 08/16/17 10:22:09 PM #173:	I think I got a little too verbose last night, sorry. Endgame: Down's (down) Syndrome is a disability. There are people with it who live happy lives, yes. That's human nature, it's only nature to adapt and find happiness. My point is that if you know that you're baby is going to have a disability and you carry it to term anyway, you're selfish and it's cruel to the kid. End of story. If you were given a choice between having a disability and not having one, everybody would chose the latter and it's not okay to make the former choice for an existence that has no choice in whether or not to exist. Fuck eugenics, fuck selection fuck all of those terms and everything else, my beef is with making sure the child has the best possible outcome. Non-existence is just that, it's not death. That's it, I'm done. That's my stance. Say what you will, I'm out. --- Talk about backseat fishing http://i.imgur.com/VqWjuCs.png <cite>Yaridovich posted [p:884917413] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>I think I got a little too verbose last night, sorry. Endgame: Down's (down) Syndrome is a disability. There are people with it who live happy lives, yes. That's human nature, it's only nature to adapt and find happiness. My point is that if you know that you're baby is going to have a disability and you carry it to term anyway, you're selfish and it's cruel to the kid. End of story. If you were given a choice between having a disability and not having one, everybody would chose the latter and it's not okay to make the former choice for an existence that has no choice in whether or not to exist. Fuck eugenics, fuck selection fuck all of those terms and everything else, my beef is with making sure the child has the best possible outcome. Non-existence is just that, it's not death. That's it, I'm done. That's my stance. Say what you will, I'm out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/17/17 11:01:44 AM #174:	darkphoenix181 posted... Hexagon posted... I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though. ugh he posts sources! articles! from professionals that support his arguments! UGH SO ANNOYING! meanwhile.... "umm hey guys...dictionary.com didn't specifically say euthanasia is eugenics! I WIN! GUHHAHAHAH" I mean, why don't you debunk all those articles I have been posting? Oh wait...you can't Your "sources" are trash, they don't make any case for abortion being eugenics. They just are op ed, and some had nothing to do with abortion. Eugenics is about genetic manipulation to make preferred humans, not about solving issues regarding disability or known problems. The intent is clearly different, as is the outcome. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884941570] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though.</quote> ugh he posts sources! articles! from professionals that support his arguments! UGH SO ANNOYING! meanwhile.... "umm hey guys...dictionary.com didn't specifically say euthanasia is eugenics! I WIN! GUHHAHAHAH" I mean, why don't you debunk all those articles I have been posting? Oh wait...you can't</quote> Your "sources" are trash, they don't make any case for abortion being eugenics. They just are op ed, and some had nothing to do with abortion. Eugenics is about genetic manipulation to make preferred humans, not about solving issues regarding disability or known problems. The intent is clearly different, as is the outcome.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 11:08:52 AM #175:	@P4wn4g3 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... Hexagon posted... I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though. ugh he posts sources! articles! from professionals that support his arguments! UGH SO ANNOYING! meanwhile.... "umm hey guys...dictionary.com didn't specifically say euthanasia is eugenics! I WIN! GUHHAHAHAH" I mean, why don't you debunk all those articles I have been posting? Oh wait...you can't Your "sources" are trash, they don't make any case for abortion being eugenics. They just are op ed, and some had nothing to do with abortion. Eugenics is about genetic manipulation to make preferred humans, not about solving issues regarding disability or known problems. The intent is clearly different, as is the outcome. no sir they are books from experts on the subject but I think I see why you are being hardheaded not all abortion is eugenics this BOOK (not op-ed) says that https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false hexagon even quoted it SOME abortion is indeed eugenics (so of course, not all abortion) which kind? the kind that seeks to purify a certain person from being born that is, the kind that seeks to eliminate certain kind of person which is the one we are discussing in this thread http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml#h3 Eugenics and gender selection Abortion and eugenics Abortion has been used in the past to stop the growth of population groups, or racial groups regarded as genetically 'inferior'. This is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion has been used in the past to stop people with various genetic defects from having children. When this is done as a matter of public policy it is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion and gender selection In some countries, particularly India there is a major problem with female foeticide - deliberately aborting foetuses that would be born as girls. For sociological and economic reasons parents in some cultures prefer to have boy babies. When parents can discover the gender of the foetus in advance, they sometimes request the termination of a pregnancy solely because the foetus is female. While selective abortion for gender preference is illegal in India, the low proportion of female births relative to male births, together with other evidence, makes it certain that female foeticide is practised on a large scale. Answer me this. If a parent CHOOSES to abort their female baby because she is female, is that ok? Is that simply exercising simple abortion rights? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884941921] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>@P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>I urge you to not bother with that user. Thanks for trying though.</quote> ugh he posts sources! articles! from professionals that support his arguments! UGH SO ANNOYING! meanwhile.... "umm hey guys...dictionary.com didn't specifically say euthanasia is eugenics! I WIN! GUHHAHAHAH" I mean, why don't you debunk all those articles I have been posting? Oh wait...you can't</quote> Your "sources" are trash, they don't make any case for abortion being eugenics. They just are op ed, and some had nothing to do with abortion. Eugenics is about genetic manipulation to make preferred humans, not about solving issues regarding disability or known problems. The intent is clearly different, as is the outcome.</quote> no sir they are books from experts on the subject but I think I see why you are being hardheaded not all abortion is eugenics this BOOK (not op-ed) says that https://books.google.com/books?id=g15rfXUA2i8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false hexagon even quoted it SOME abortion is indeed eugenics (so of course, not all abortion) which kind? the kind that seeks to purify a certain person from being born that is, the kind that seeks to eliminate certain kind of person which is the one we are discussing in this thread http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml#h3 <quote> Eugenics and gender selection Abortion and eugenics Abortion has been used in the past to stop the growth of population groups, or racial groups regarded as genetically 'inferior'. This is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion has been used in the past to stop people with various genetic defects from having children. When this is done as a matter of public policy it is now regarded as a most serious breach of human rights and a criminal act. Abortion and gender selection In some countries, particularly India there is a major problem with female foeticide - deliberately aborting foetuses that would be born as girls. For sociological and economic reasons parents in some cultures prefer to have boy babies. When parents can discover the gender of the foetus in advance, they sometimes request the termination of a pregnancy solely because the foetus is female. While selective abortion for gender preference is illegal in India, the low proportion of female births relative to male births, together with other evidence, makes it certain that female foeticide is practised on a large scale.</quote> Answer me this. If a parent CHOOSES to abort their female baby because she is female, is that ok? Is that simply exercising simple abortion rights?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 11:17:36 AM #176:	Excerpted from "Disability Rights and Selective Abortion," in Abortion Wars, A Half Century of Struggle: 1950 to 2000. Rickie Solinger (ed) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. not an op-ed, a paper What the women with disabilities were trying to do at the Vancouver conference, and what I wish to do in this essay, is explain how selective abortion or eugenic abortion, as some disability activists have called it, oppresses people with disabilities, but additionally hurts all women. Here I will explore a range of objections to eugenic abortion, and I will offer specific suggestions to feminists and disability activists concerning ways we can clarify the issues and work together. Disability Positive Identity Versus Selective Abortion It is clear that some medical professionals and public health officials are promoting prenatal diagnosis and abortion with the intention of eliminating categories of disabled people, people with Down Syndrome and my own disability, spina bifida, for example. For this reason and others that I will consider here, many disability activists and feminists have come to regard selective abortion as "the new eugenics". These people resist the use of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. The resistance to selective abortion in the disability activist community is ultimately related to how we define ourselves. As feminists have transformed women's sense of self, the disability community has reframed the experience of having a disability. In part, through developing a sense of community, we've come to realize that the stereotyped notions of the "tragedy" and "suffering" of "the disabled",result from the isolation of disabled people in society. Disabled people with no connections to others with disabilities in their communities are, indeed, afflicted with the social role assignment of a tragic, burdensome existence. It is true, most disabled people I know have told me with certainty, that the disability, the pain, the need for compensatory devices and assistance can produce considerable inconvenience. But the inconvenience becomes minimal once the disabled person makes the transition to living an everyday life. The fact is, it is discriminatory attitudes and thoughtless behaviors, and the ostracization and lack of accomodation which follow, that make life difficult. The oppression, one way or another, is what's most disabling about disability. Many disabled people have a growing but still precarious sense of pride in an identity as "people with disabilities." With decades of hard work, disability activists have fought institutionalization, discrimination in employment and education, transportation and housing. We have fought for rehabilitation and Independent Living programs, and proven that disabled people can participate in and contribute to society. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884942340] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Excerpted from "Disability Rights and Selective Abortion," in Abortion Wars, A Half Century of Struggle: 1950 to 2000. Rickie Solinger (ed) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998.</cite> not an op-ed, a paper <quote>What the women with disabilities were trying to do at the Vancouver conference, and what I wish to do in this essay, is explain how selective abortion or eugenic abortion, as some disability activists have called it, oppresses people with disabilities, but additionally hurts all women. Here I will explore a range of objections to eugenic abortion, and I will offer specific suggestions to feminists and disability activists concerning ways we can clarify the issues and work together. Disability Positive Identity Versus Selective Abortion It is clear that some medical professionals and public health officials are promoting prenatal diagnosis and abortion with the intention of eliminating categories of disabled people, people with Down Syndrome and my own disability, spina bifida, for example. For this reason and others that I will consider here, many disability activists and feminists have come to regard selective abortion as "the new eugenics". These people resist the use of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. The resistance to selective abortion in the disability activist community is ultimately related to how we define ourselves. As feminists have transformed women's sense of self, the disability community has reframed the experience of having a disability. In part, through developing a sense of community, we've come to realize that the stereotyped notions of the "tragedy" and "suffering" of "the disabled",result from the isolation of disabled people in society. Disabled people with no connections to others with disabilities in their communities are, indeed, afflicted with the social role assignment of a tragic, burdensome existence. It is true, most disabled people I know have told me with certainty, that the disability, the pain, the need for compensatory devices and assistance can produce considerable inconvenience. But the inconvenience becomes minimal once the disabled person makes the transition to living an everyday life. The fact is, it is discriminatory attitudes and thoughtless behaviors, and the ostracization and lack of accomodation which follow, that make life difficult. The oppression, one way or another, is what's most disabling about disability. Many disabled people have a growing but still precarious sense of pride in an identity as "people with disabilities." With decades of hard work, disability activists have fought institutionalization, discrimination in employment and education, transportation and housing. We have fought for rehabilitation and Independent Living programs, and proven that disabled people can participate in and contribute to society. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/17/17 11:20:45 AM #177:	I can see the argument for sex based abortions being a form of eugenics insofar as the fetus is actually developed enough for the sex to be known, and I didn't dispute that. In fact seeing sex as a disability would be a key factor in it being eugenics. So yes in that sense you can argue that some practices of abortion push the envelope of eugenics. You'll always have that. That doesn't equate it to terminating a terminally ill fetus. It's false equivocation, like saying that since doctors took advantage of black men in Tuskegee that we shouldn't let doctors be alone with blacks. Nothing in science or medicine is inherently good or evil, it is just what it is. When people use it for malicious purposes, or otherwise equate normalcy to a deficiency, that's when it becomes a problem. Furthermore I'm not sure I understand the full situation of the china/India female abortions. If they are being aborted due to there being large numbers of women there, or because of legitimate problems with how women are treated there, then that isn't necessarily even sexual profiling. I'd have to know more than what I read in the article you linked to though to really say. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884942525] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>I can see the argument for sex based abortions being a form of eugenics insofar as the fetus is actually developed enough for the sex to be known, and I didn't dispute that. In fact seeing sex as a disability would be a key factor in it being eugenics. So yes in that sense you can argue that some practices of abortion push the envelope of eugenics. You'll always have that. That doesn't equate it to terminating a terminally ill fetus. It's false equivocation, like saying that since doctors took advantage of black men in Tuskegee that we shouldn't let doctors be alone with blacks. Nothing in science or medicine is inherently good or evil, it is just what it is. When people use it for malicious purposes, or otherwise equate normalcy to a deficiency, that's when it becomes a problem. Furthermore I'm not sure I understand the full situation of the china/India female abortions. If they are being aborted due to there being large numbers of women there, or because of legitimate problems with how women are treated there, then that isn't necessarily even sexual profiling. I'd have to know more than what I read in the article you linked to though to really say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/17/17 11:23:19 AM #178:	darkphoenix181 posted... Answer me this. If a parent CHOOSES to abort their female baby because she is female, is that ok? Is that simply exercising simple abortion rights? If abortion is a "right", then yes, because of the bolded part. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884942639] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer me this. If a parent CHOOSES to abort their female baby because she is female, is that ok? Is that simply exercising simple abortion rights?</quote> If abortion is a "right", then yes, because of the bolded part.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
prince_leo 08/17/17 11:25:06 AM #179:	yeah, I may not agree with it but if we accept abortion is something anyone can choose to do for any reason, then yes the gender of the fetus could be a reason for someone to abort and I would defend that right --- https://imgur.com/uHUvpSH http://error1355.com/ce/prince_leo.html <cite>prince_leo posted [p:884942732] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>yeah, I may not agree with it but if we accept abortion is something anyone can choose to do for any reason, then yes the gender of the fetus could be a reason for someone to abort and I would defend that right</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Callixtus 08/17/17 11:28:20 AM #180:	Liberals are all for minority and disabled rights and then turn around to support unlimited, unrestricted abortion which destroys minority and disabled populations. --- KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos <cite>Callixtus posted [p:884942901] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>Liberals are all for minority and disabled rights and then turn around to support unlimited, unrestricted abortion which destroys minority and disabled populations.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 11:34:02 AM #181:	P4wn4g3 posted... I can see the argument for sex based abortions being a form of eugenics insofar as the fetus is actually developed enough for the sex to be known, and I didn't dispute that. In fact seeing sex as a disability would be a key factor in it being eugenics. So yes in that sense you can argue that some practices of abortion push the envelope of eugenics. You'll always have that. That doesn't equate it to terminating a terminally ill fetus. It's false equivocation, like saying that since doctors took advantage of black men in Tuskegee that we shouldn't let doctors be alone with blacks. Nothing in science or medicine is inherently good or evil, it is just what it is. When people use it for malicious purposes, or otherwise equate normalcy to a deficiency, that's when it becomes a problem. Furthermore I'm not sure I understand the full situation of the china/India female abortions. If they are being aborted due to there being large numbers of women there, or because of legitimate problems with how women are treated there, then that isn't necessarily even sexual profiling. I'd have to know more than what I read in the article you linked to though to really say. Well the problem is to many disabled people, they are as much a category of personhood like sex is. When you label them as ill, they take offense to that. Here is an article proving these assertions btw. This person actually isn't against "selective abortion" despite calling it eugenics! They believe the choice should exist. BUT they take offense to be labeled as ill, sick, not living etc. http://nosmag.org/disability-rights-must-be-pro-choice/ The hardest thing about the current framing of the abortion debate for disability justice advocates is that it forces us to choose between two of our core convictions: Inherent human worth and bodily autonomy. As a disabled person, an asexual non-binary person who was assigned female at birth, and an activist, I hate the ideas and circumstances that have put these principles in opposition to each other. Still, the choice is easy for me to make. My nearly absolute belief in bodily autonomy means nothing if I’d support forcing a person to remain pregnant and give birth against their will for any reason because of my own opposition to eugenics. My opposition to eugenics comes as much from the coercion and violence with which it’s been carried out as from the underlying belief that disabled lives aren’t living. Legal or other limits on disability-selective abortion cannot and will not meaningfully address underlying systemic problems such as poverty and structural ableism in healthcare, education and employment that have perpetuated that belief and in doing so pitted disability and reproductive justice against each other in the first place. Their only purpose and effect will be to serve as a first step toward greater and more general restrictions on abortion and other forms of reproductive freedom. the same is echoed from the paper I failed to quote above https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/centers/crrj/zotero/loadfile.php?entity_key=92X3KNF7 http://www.gjga.org/conference.asp?action=item&source=documents&id=17 The medical system, unable to cure or fix us, exaggerates the suffering and burden of disability. The media, especially the movies, distort our lives by using disability as a metaphor for evil, impotence, eternal dependence, or tragedy -- or conversely as a metaphor for courage, inspiration, or sainthood. Disabled people alone can speak to the women facing these tests. Only we can speak about our real lives, our ordinary lives, and the lives of disabled children. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884943183] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>I can see the argument for sex based abortions being a form of eugenics insofar as the fetus is actually developed enough for the sex to be known, and I didn't dispute that. In fact seeing sex as a disability would be a key factor in it being eugenics. So yes in that sense you can argue that some practices of abortion push the envelope of eugenics. You'll always have that. That doesn't equate it to terminating a terminally ill fetus. It's false equivocation, like saying that since doctors took advantage of black men in Tuskegee that we shouldn't let doctors be alone with blacks. Nothing in science or medicine is inherently good or evil, it is just what it is. When people use it for malicious purposes, or otherwise equate normalcy to a deficiency, that's when it becomes a problem. Furthermore I'm not sure I understand the full situation of the china/India female abortions. If they are being aborted due to there being large numbers of women there, or because of legitimate problems with how women are treated there, then that isn't necessarily even sexual profiling. I'd have to know more than what I read in the article you linked to though to really say.</quote> Well the problem is to many disabled people, they are as much a category of personhood like sex is. When you label them as ill, they take offense to that. Here is an article proving these assertions btw. This person actually isn't against "selective abortion" despite calling it eugenics! They believe the choice should exist. BUT they take offense to be labeled as ill, sick, not living etc. http://nosmag.org/disability-rights-must-be-pro-choice/ <quote>The hardest thing about the current framing of the abortion debate for disability justice advocates is that it forces us to choose between two of our core convictions: Inherent human worth and bodily autonomy. As a disabled person, an asexual non-binary person who was assigned female at birth, and an activist, I hate the ideas and circumstances that have put these principles in opposition to each other. Still, the choice is easy for me to make. My nearly absolute belief in bodily autonomy means nothing if I’d support forcing a person to remain pregnant and give birth against their will for any reason because of my own opposition to eugenics. My opposition to eugenics comes as much from the coercion and violence with which it’s been carried out as from the underlying belief that disabled lives aren’t living. Legal or other limits on disability-selective abortion cannot and will not meaningfully address underlying systemic problems such as poverty and structural ableism in healthcare, education and employment that have perpetuated that belief and in doing so pitted disability and reproductive justice against each other in the first place. Their only purpose and effect will be to serve as a first step toward greater and more general restrictions on abortion and other forms of reproductive freedom.</quote> the same is echoed from the paper I failed to quote above https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/centers/crrj/zotero/loadfile.php?entity_key=92X3KNF7 http://www.gjga.org/conference.asp?action=item&source=documents&id=17 <quote> The medical system, unable to cure or fix us, exaggerates the suffering and burden of disability. The media, especially the movies, distort our lives by using disability as a metaphor for evil, impotence, eternal dependence, or tragedy -- or conversely as a metaphor for courage, inspiration, or sainthood. Disabled people alone can speak to the women facing these tests. Only we can speak about our real lives, our ordinary lives, and the lives of disabled children. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/17/17 12:22:32 PM #182:	darkphoenix181 posted... Well the problem is to many disabled people, they are as much a category of personhood like sex is. When you label them as ill, they take offense to that. Ok first as I said before, I'm disabled myself. I understand this argument better than any healthy person, and the real issue is that yes being disabled puts you in a category. You have to accept that and move on, do what you can to overcome and live healthy but understand you have a higher cost of living than everyone else and roadblocks to success in certain careers or ways of life. That's reality, and no amount of pity points changes that. darkphoenix181 posted... http://nosmag.org/disability-rights-must-be-pro-choice/ The hardest thing about the current framing of the abortion debate for disability justice advocates is that it forces us to choose between two of our core convictions: Inherent human worth and bodily autonomy. As a disabled person, an asexual non-binary person who was assigned female at birth, and an activist, I hate the ideas and circumstances that have put these principles in opposition to each other. Still, the choice is easy for me to make. My nearly absolute belief in bodily autonomy means nothing if I’d support forcing a person to remain pregnant and give birth against their will for any reason because of my own opposition to eugenics. My opposition to eugenics comes as much from the coercion and violence with which it’s been carried out as from the underlying belief that disabled lives aren’t living. Legal or other limits on disability-selective abortion cannot and will not meaningfully address underlying systemic problems such as poverty and structural ableism in healthcare, education and employment that have perpetuated that belief and in doing so pitted disability and reproductive justice against each other in the first place. Their only purpose and effect will be to serve as a first step toward greater and more general restrictions on abortion and other forms of reproductive freedom. So first off you are conflating "disabled" with mentally ill. This person clearly assumes their gender crisis would have gotten them terminated as a fetus, which is stupid because that isn't detectable in the womb, it's a psychological problem. Furthermore where it becomes physiological, such as in the case where someone might have both sets of sexual organs, this is either treated at birth (typically the female is kept) or the parents leave the child neglectfully untreated, or sometimes it poses no health problems or complications whatsoever. This example fails. You need to find a clear cut physical disability to platform from, not some stupid progressive left nonsense. darkphoenix181 posted... The medical system, unable to cure or fix us, exaggerates the suffering and burden of disability. This is patently false. Not sure why it's being said. darkphoenix181 posted... The media, especially the movies, distort our lives by using disability as a metaphor for evil, impotence, eternal dependence, or tragedy -- or conversely as a metaphor for courage, inspiration, or sainthood. Sure. darkphoenix181 posted... Disabled people alone can speak to the women facing these tests. Only we can speak about our real lives, our ordinary lives, and the lives of disabled children. Not sure why women are being brought up again. But I've refuted your argument as a disabled person at any rate. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884945750] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>Well the problem is to many disabled people, they are as much a category of personhood like sex is. When you label them as ill, they take offense to that.</quote> Ok first as I said before, I'm disabled myself. I understand this argument better than any healthy person, and the real issue is that yes being disabled puts you in a category. You have to accept that and move on, do what you can to overcome and live healthy but understand you have a higher cost of living than everyone else and roadblocks to success in certain careers or ways of life. That's reality, and no amount of pity points changes that. <cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote> http://nosmag.org/disability-rights-must-be-pro-choice/ The hardest thing about the current framing of the abortion debate for disability justice advocates is that it forces us to choose between two of our core convictions: Inherent human worth and bodily autonomy. As a disabled person, an asexual non-binary person who was assigned female at birth, and an activist, I hate the ideas and circumstances that have put these principles in opposition to each other. Still, the choice is easy for me to make. My nearly absolute belief in bodily autonomy means nothing if I’d support forcing a person to remain pregnant and give birth against their will for any reason because of my own opposition to eugenics. My opposition to eugenics comes as much from the coercion and violence with which it’s been carried out as from the underlying belief that disabled lives aren’t living. Legal or other limits on disability-selective abortion cannot and will not meaningfully address underlying systemic problems such as poverty and structural ableism in healthcare, education and employment that have perpetuated that belief and in doing so pitted disability and reproductive justice against each other in the first place. Their only purpose and effect will be to serve as a first step toward greater and more general restrictions on abortion and other forms of reproductive freedom. </quote> So first off you are conflating "disabled" with mentally ill. This person clearly assumes their gender crisis would have gotten them terminated as a fetus, which is stupid because that isn't detectable in the womb, it's a psychological problem. Furthermore where it becomes physiological, such as in the case where someone might have both sets of sexual organs, this is either treated at birth (typically the female is kept) or the parents leave the child neglectfully untreated, or sometimes it poses no health problems or complications whatsoever. This example fails. You need to find a clear cut physical disability to platform from, not some stupid progressive left nonsense. <cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>The medical system, unable to cure or fix us, exaggerates the suffering and burden of disability. </quote> This is patently false. Not sure why it's being said. <cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>The media, especially the movies, distort our lives by using disability as a metaphor for evil, impotence, eternal dependence, or tragedy -- or conversely as a metaphor for courage, inspiration, or sainthood.</quote> Sure. <cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>Disabled people alone can speak to the women facing these tests. Only we can speak about our real lives, our ordinary lives, and the lives of disabled children. </quote> Not sure why women are being brought up again. But I've refuted your argument as a disabled person at any rate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Roxborough4Ever 08/17/17 12:25:17 PM #183:	not my country, not my business --- You feast on red herring because it is your birthright. <cite>Roxborough4Ever posted [p:884945895] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>not my country, not my business</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#184	Post #184 was unavailable or deleted.
Callixtus 08/17/17 12:31:24 PM #185:	Asherlee10 posted... Let's pretend for a moment that abortion is absolutely a form a eugenics. If that is the case, there is a line that needs to be drawn in the sand. Eugenics: is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals. It is often related to picking out desirable traits and focusing breeding on that. This leads me to think that abortion cannot be eugenics until someone has aborted a fetus based on specific traits that are not impactful to a way of life. EX: Hair color, eye color, etc. This would seem to be very different than aborting a fetus that has a mental or physical disability. Desirable trait = not having downs syndrome Breeding focus = producing children without downs syndrome Boy, that was easy. --- KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos <cite>Callixtus posted [p:884946225] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's pretend for a moment that abortion is absolutely a form a eugenics. If that is the case, there is a line that needs to be drawn in the sand. Eugenics: is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals. It is often related to picking out desirable traits and focusing breeding on that. This leads me to think that abortion cannot be eugenics until someone has aborted a fetus based on specific traits that are not impactful to a way of life. EX: Hair color, eye color, etc. This would seem to be very different than aborting a fetus that has a mental or physical disability.</quote> Desirable trait = not having downs syndrome Breeding focus = producing children without downs syndrome Boy, that was easy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 12:38:56 PM #186:	Asherlee10 posted... Let's pretend for a moment that abortion is absolutely a form a eugenics. If that is the case, there is a line that needs to be drawn in the sand. Eugenics: is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals. It is often related to picking out desirable traits and focusing breeding on that. This leads me to think that abortion cannot be eugenics until someone has aborted a fetus based on specific traits that are not impactful to a way of life. EX: Hair color, eye color, etc. This would seem to be very different than aborting a fetus that has a mental or physical disability. everything is impactful to life if you had the ability to see if your embryo would develop a.d.d. is that worthy to abort it over that? blondes have more fun as they say and in some cultures having a male is a less financial burden so if you could screen for sex that early, simply being a woman could be an undesirable trait You cited EYE color, but look here! it can impact your child's life, so why not abort until you have the baby with the best traits? that is the idea behind eugenics NOT that you are changing what is not impactful, but what is this is the worry of the designer baby being the new eugenics, not just via genetic manipulation but if you could have a powerful genetic test and just keep aborting until you get what you wanted https://www.goodeyes.com/blog/people-with-light-blue-green-eyes-likely-develop-cataracts/ There are several possible risk factors for developing cataracts, but eye color is perhaps one of the most surprising. Evidence suggests that adults with darker rather than lighter irises are at greater risk for developing certain types of cataracts in late middle age. Increasingly, experts recommend that those with brown or black eyes should more carefully follow cataract prevention measures. That’s not to say eye color is the most significant factor in developing cataracts, far from it, but let’s explore how it is thought to change the risk. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884946657] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's pretend for a moment that abortion is absolutely a form a eugenics. If that is the case, there is a line that needs to be drawn in the sand. Eugenics: is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals. It is often related to picking out desirable traits and focusing breeding on that. This leads me to think that abortion cannot be eugenics until someone has aborted a fetus based on specific traits that are not impactful to a way of life. EX: Hair color, eye color, etc. This would seem to be very different than aborting a fetus that has a mental or physical disability.</quote> everything is impactful to life if you had the ability to see if your embryo would develop a.d.d. is that worthy to abort it over that? blondes have more fun as they say and in some cultures having a male is a less financial burden so if you could screen for sex that early, simply being a woman could be an undesirable trait You cited EYE color, but look here! it can impact your child's life, so why not abort until you have the baby with the best traits? that is the idea behind eugenics NOT that you are changing what is not impactful, but what is this is the worry of the designer baby being the new eugenics, not just via genetic manipulation but if you could have a powerful genetic test and just keep aborting until you get what you wanted https://www.goodeyes.com/blog/people-with-light-blue-green-eyes-likely-develop-cataracts/ <quote>There are several possible risk factors for developing cataracts, but eye color is perhaps one of the most surprising. Evidence suggests that adults with darker rather than lighter irises are at greater risk for developing certain types of cataracts in late middle age. Increasingly, experts recommend that those with brown or black eyes should more carefully follow cataract prevention measures. That’s not to say eye color is the most significant factor in developing cataracts, far from it, but let’s explore how it is thought to change the risk.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 12:42:53 PM #187:	P4wn4g3 posted... But I've refuted your argument as a disabled person at any rate. If that is what you want to believe. You as a disabled person were quoting arguments from an article written by another disabled person and a paper also written by another disabled person and saying they were wrong. Sorry but I have to defer to the actually published articles over you. If you want to feel like you rekt those people who wrote the articles though, go ahead. In addition there is more literature than these two that stand with their side. So yea, anecdotes don't win the day. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884946869] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>But I've refuted your argument as a disabled person at any rate.</quote> If that is what you want to believe. You as a disabled person were quoting arguments from an article written by another disabled person and a paper also written by another disabled person and saying they were wrong. Sorry but I have to defer to the actually published articles over you. If you want to feel like you rekt those people who wrote the articles though, go ahead. In addition there is more literature than these two that stand with their side. So yea, anecdotes don't win the day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#188	Post #188 was unavailable or deleted.
#189	Post #189 was unavailable or deleted.
NibeIungsnarf 08/17/17 12:49:34 PM #190:	CountessRolab posted... Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that. Personally I think judging a woman for not having an abortion is as bad as judging her for having one. <cite>NibeIungsnarf posted [p:884947250] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>CountessRolab posted...</cite> <quote>Personally, I think it is unethical to let a child be born disabled. Nobody should be forced to live like that.</quote> Personally I think judging a woman for not having an abortion is as bad as judging her for having one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 12:51:03 PM #191:	Asherlee10 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... everything is impactful to life No, there are degrees. See my post above. so if a parent was worried about cataracts and could tell what eye color the fetus would have would you fault them for aborting based on a higher percentage of having cataracts? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884947328] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>everything is impactful to life</quote> No, there are degrees. See my post above.</quote> so if a parent was worried about cataracts and could tell what eye color the fetus would have would you fault them for aborting based on a higher percentage of having cataracts?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OpheliaAdenade 08/17/17 12:53:04 PM #192:	if we're not supposed to abort ds babies because God doesn't like it, why does God let babies have ds to begin with? I mean, I get the whole "God only lets you fall so you can learn to fly" thing. But err... there isn't much you can do when you're missing chromosomes from the get go. --- http://imgur.com/Q6Qj55q <cite>OpheliaAdenade posted [p:884947431] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>if we're not supposed to abort ds babies because God doesn't like it, why does God let babies have ds to begin with? I mean, I get the whole "God only lets you fall so you can learn to fly" thing. But err... there isn't much you can do when you're missing chromosomes from the get go.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#193	Post #193 was unavailable or deleted.
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 1:02:54 PM #194:	Asherlee10 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... Asherlee10 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... everything is impactful to life No, there are degrees. See my post above. so if a parent was worried about cataracts and could tell what eye color the fetus would have would you fault them for aborting based on a higher percentage of having cataracts? First of all, I have no issues with abortion for whatever the reasons are. I'm specifically talking about abortion related to eugenics. Cataracts are not even remotely as debilitating and financially taxing as a mentally or physically disabled person. It's almost offensive that you would compare the two. the argument from being offended is the most baseless and disgusting one of all I hate it when people cannot come up with a logical point so they go I AM OFFENDED THAT YOU JUST COMPARED no maam, no one did but you in your head wanting it to be done so you have an edge in the conversation (now I am not so much mad at you as I am how common people fall into this fallacious trap) eye color was brought up by you as a frivilous thing that had no impact to life and thus if someone aborted a child because of that, it is eugenics (because no impact) so I cited that you are incorrect, it has an impact on health and subtly brought up the idea of where should the line be drawn? that is, you wanted to claim it is only eugenics when the trait has no impact but cataracts is an impact, so then by your logic aborting for eye color should not be eugenics correct? no where did I say cataracts is as bad as whatever the comparison is through your definition of eugenics needing an impact and just because I say it has an impact doesn't equate it with something else that does have an impact what is important though is that by it having an impact, do you consider it eugenics? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884947993] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>everything is impactful to life</quote> No, there are degrees. See my post above.</quote> so if a parent was worried about cataracts and could tell what eye color the fetus would have would you fault them for aborting based on a higher percentage of having cataracts?</quote> First of all, I have no issues with abortion for whatever the reasons are. I'm specifically talking about abortion related to eugenics. Cataracts are not even remotely as debilitating and financially taxing as a mentally or physically disabled person. It's almost offensive that you would compare the two.</quote> the argument from being offended is the most baseless and disgusting one of all I hate it when people cannot come up with a logical point so they go I AM OFFENDED THAT YOU JUST COMPARED no maam, no one did but you in your head wanting it to be done so you have an edge in the conversation (now I am not so much mad at you as I am how common people fall into this fallacious trap) eye color was brought up by you as a frivilous thing that had no impact to life and thus if someone aborted a child because of that, it is eugenics (because no impact) so I cited that you are incorrect, it has an impact on health and subtly brought up the idea of where should the line be drawn? that is, you wanted to claim it is only eugenics when the trait has no impact but cataracts is an impact, so then by your logic aborting for eye color should not be eugenics correct? no where did I say cataracts is as bad as whatever the comparison is through your definition of eugenics needing an impact and just because I say it has an impact doesn't equate it with something else that does have an impact what is important though is that by it having an impact, do you consider it eugenics?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#195	Post #195 was unavailable or deleted.
P4wn4g3 08/17/17 1:18:12 PM #196:	darkphoenix181 posted... P4wn4g3 posted... But I've refuted your argument as a disabled person at any rate. If that is what you want to believe. You as a disabled person were quoting arguments from an article written by another disabled person and a paper also written by another disabled person and saying they were wrong. Sorry but I have to defer to the actually published articles over you. If you want to feel like you rekt those people who wrote the articles though, go ahead. In addition there is more literature than these two that stand with their side. So yea, anecdotes don't win the day. Your problem is you are putting too much faith in your sources. Academic articles are just as prone to bullshit as any others, especially when there is no scientific method or if there is mostly qualitative data (i.e. the psych debate). You are drawing from people with a clear agenda, not objective individuals. Psychological disabilities are certainly still disabilities, but they aren't there at birth for the most part unless they have some physical mental aspect. If you want to see these articles as objective fact then go for it, but it only makes you an advocate for an opinion and armchair acedemic at best, not a well informed expert on the subject. Having both psych and physical disabilities I'd say I am pretty well versed on this subject, and I've found similar views in everyone with a similar situation. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:884948896] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>But I've refuted your argument as a disabled person at any rate.</quote> If that is what you want to believe. You as a disabled person were quoting arguments from an article written by another disabled person and a paper also written by another disabled person and saying they were wrong. Sorry but I have to defer to the actually published articles over you. If you want to feel like you rekt those people who wrote the articles though, go ahead. In addition there is more literature than these two that stand with their side. So yea, anecdotes don't win the day.</quote> Your problem is you are putting too much faith in your sources. Academic articles are just as prone to bullshit as any others, especially when there is no scientific method or if there is mostly qualitative data (i.e. the psych debate). You are drawing from people with a clear agenda, not objective individuals. Psychological disabilities are certainly still disabilities, but they aren't there at birth for the most part unless they have some physical mental aspect. If you want to see these articles as objective fact then go for it, but it only makes you an advocate for an opinion and armchair acedemic at best, not a well informed expert on the subject. Having both psych and physical disabilities I'd say I am pretty well versed on this subject, and I've found similar views in everyone with a similar situation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Callixtus 08/17/17 1:18:59 PM #197:	Asherlee10 posted... Callixtus posted... Asherlee10 posted... Let's pretend for a moment that abortion is absolutely a form a eugenics. If that is the case, there is a line that needs to be drawn in the sand. Eugenics: is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals. It is often related to picking out desirable traits and focusing breeding on that. This leads me to think that abortion cannot be eugenics until someone has aborted a fetus based on specific traits that are not impactful to a way of life. EX: Hair color, eye color, etc. This would seem to be very different than aborting a fetus that has a mental or physical disability. Desirable trait = not having downs syndrome Breeding focus = producing children without downs syndrome Boy, that was easy. You ignored the sentence following what you highlighted in my post. There is a large difference between not wanting a child with brown eyes vs not wanting a child with mental or physical disability. Except no one defines eugenics that way. A huge part of the Nazi eugenics program was killing the disabled. Ignore that reality at your own peril. No onw has ever said eugenics means choosing traits that dont have an arbitrarily defined "impact". --- KhanofKhans, KhanJohnson, Saloonist, Basileos <cite>Callixtus posted [p:884948940] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Callixtus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's pretend for a moment that abortion is absolutely a form a eugenics. If that is the case, there is a line that needs to be drawn in the sand. Eugenics: is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals. It is often related to picking out desirable traits and focusing breeding on that. This leads me to think that abortion cannot be eugenics until someone has aborted a fetus based on specific traits that are not impactful to a way of life. EX: Hair color, eye color, etc. This would seem to be very different than aborting a fetus that has a mental or physical disability.</quote> Desirable trait = not having downs syndrome Breeding focus = producing children without downs syndrome Boy, that was easy.</quote> You ignored the sentence following what you highlighted in my post. There is a large difference between not wanting a child with brown eyes vs not wanting a child with mental or physical disability.</quote> Except no one defines eugenics that way. A huge part of the Nazi eugenics program was killing the disabled. Ignore that reality at your own peril. No onw has ever said eugenics means choosing traits that dont have an arbitrarily defined "impact".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/17/17 1:19:34 PM #198:	the only one being disingenuous now is you ashlee and I won't argue with you when this is the best you can come up Asherlee10 posted... I'm not even sure I can take you seriously if you are actually arguing that cataracts is a comparable impact on raising a child that a mental or physical disability like down syndrome. You should be ashamed of yourself. That is totally dishonest and it makes me angry that you stoop so low. but what should I expect? I posted tons of literature and people still wanting to argue "this is not eugenics" probably aren't going to be very honest. unfortunately though for you taking this stance, the future is asking of us the question whether we want to not have babies with a certain eye color and the U.N. has already labeled this as eugenics http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52172 Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics. While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications. But the IBC added: “Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.” The alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics,” it said. So it was never a debate to compare them. They are compared. Not on comparable impact, but that both are eugenics. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884948978] in Iceland ap... [t:75675253]...</cite> <quote>the only one being disingenuous now is you ashlee and I won't argue with you when this is the best you can come up <cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not even sure I can take you seriously if you are actually arguing that cataracts is a comparable impact on raising a child that a mental or physical disability like down syndrome. You should be ashamed of yourself.</quote> That is totally dishonest and it makes me angry that you stoop so low. but what should I expect? I posted tons of literature and people still wanting to argue "this is not eugenics" probably aren't going to be very honest. unfortunately though for you taking this stance, the future is asking of us the question whether we want to not have babies with a certain eye color and the U.N. has already labeled this as eugenics http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52172 <quote> Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics. While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications. But the IBC added: “Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.” The alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics,” it said. </quote> So it was never a debate to compare them. They are compared. Not on comparable impact, but that both are eugenics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#199	Post #199 was unavailable or deleted.
#200	Post #200 was unavailable or deleted.
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Current Events > Iceland approaches 100% abortion rate for down syndrome (+) Yeah! (+)

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