Register to Comment
Page 1712 of 1721 FirstFirst ... 712121216121662170217101711171217131714 ... LastLast
Results 17,111 to 17,120 of 17206
Like Tree5411Likes
  1. #17111
    Sailor Sailor is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    57,532

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    You should have read the link then, before leaping to disagree with me. That's what the cure is. So if Downs disappears through treatment (genetic manipulation, for the slow of understanding like yourself) how is that less of a eugenics approach to the syndrome than allowing couples to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy after a diagnosis of Downs?
    A cure requires that the the child survives. Abortion is not a cure.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #17112
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23,034

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    A cure requires that the the child survives. Abortion is not a cure.
    I never said it was.

    I was querying whether the hysterical cries of "It's eugenics!" and pictures of cute kids with DS amounted to anything more than a thinly disguised attempt to exploit the term, with all its connotations, in support of restraining women by force (or medication, perhaps) and not a genuine support for genetic diversity or for Down syndrome.

    Clearly my suspicion was well founded.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #17113
    Sailor Sailor is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    57,532

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    I never said it was.

    I was querying whether the hysterical cries of "It's eugenics!" and pictures of cute kids with DS amounted to anything more than a thinly disguised attempt to exploit the term, with all its connotations, in support of restraining women by force (or medication, perhaps) and not a genuine support for genetic diversity or for Down syndrome.

    Clearly my suspicion was well founded.
    Clearly your suspicion was not well founded - the issue is one of supporting or opposing abortion on grounds of DS. You tried to confuse the issue but you didn't fool anyone. Of course the opportunity to cure DS would be wonderful, but how that can be used as an argument for aborting DS babies completely escapes me.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #17114
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23,034

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Clearly your suspicion was not well founded - the issue is one of supporting or opposing abortion on grounds of DS. You tried to confuse the issue but you didn't fool anyone. Of course the opportunity to cure DS would be wonderful, but how that can be used as an argument for aborting DS babies completely escapes me.
    The poster claimed that allowing couples to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after a diagnosis of Down Syndrome was "nothing less" than eugenics. Clearly that's nonsense.

    And no, it's not about "supporting or opposing" abortion on those grounds, it's about letting the families concerned make their own decision.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #17115
    Sailor Sailor is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    57,532

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    The poster claimed that allowing couples to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after a diagnosis of Down Syndrome was "nothing less" than eugenics. Clearly that's nonsense.
    That is exactly what it is - the extermination of those with a defect. And a society that permits that choice is guilty of facilitating eugenics.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #17116
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23,034

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    That is exactly what it is - the extermination of those with a defect. And a society that permits that choice is guilty of facilitating eugenics.
    Allowing couples to choose whether or not to bring a disabled child into the world is not eugenics, except from a religious point of view.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #17117
    Lumpy Talbot Lumpy Talbot is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    15,704
    Twitter
    @

    I wouldn't mind but the same small strident faction in Irish public life would tell you that abstinence is a valid form of contraception before marriage.

    As if 'abstinence' wasn't a choice. If Bab-beh was to be properly revered you would imagine the same people would be advocating pregnancy wherever possible and never mind yer 'oul marriage.

    So abstinence- which also prevents children with disabilities from being born- is okay for them despite its ability to prevent DS babies being born. That form of 'choice' is actually a mainstay of the strident loon faction in Irish life. But any other form of choice is of course wrong.

    Seems to me that they don't object to choice per se. But they do object to choices they don't approve of.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #17118
    Sailor Sailor is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    57,532

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Allowing couples to choose whether or not to bring a disabled child into the world is not eugenics, except from a religious point of view.
    Nothing to do with religion, that little diversion is getting very old and tired.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #17119
    Romuald Romuald is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1

    The Danish ambassador didn't mention how many were aborted. Well, 133 out of 137, which is 97%. Only 4 out of 137 were born after a DS diagnosis. Terrible.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #17120
    MsDaisyC MsDaisyC is offline
    MsDaisyC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    423

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Allowing couples to choose whether or not to bring a disabled child into the world is not eugenics, except from a religious point of view.
    From a religious point of view god hates the disabled and they shouldn't be allowed near his places of worship.
    For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. (Lev. 20:16-20, NIV)
    (From the same book of the bible that says gay people are an abomination, so no cherry picking please!)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment