Abortion and children with Down's Syndrome

Lienn said:
Well if they can support the child i'd say let him/her live, but if they cant support the child I'd say they should consider aborting him/her.

Nicole said:
So asking you what you mean by "there is nothing we can do about people with", in this case DS, is derailing in a thread about DS.

Mmm.

TheAutocrat said:


You were very ambiguous. State your questions clearly.

Nicole said:


Governments should help with supporting a child like that.

Nicole said:


I'm pretty sure the quote you just quoted states the question, clear enough.

Filthy_Whore said:
Waste of tax money.

We're in a recession right now and gas prices are through the roof.

TheAutocrat said:
I think the answer to that question is self-evident and easy to see based on my previous comments, try re-reading them.

Nicole said:


Governments should help with supporting a child like that.

Nicole said:


Sorry, apparently I'm a little slow.

Why don't you go ahead and explain it to me.

TheAutocrat said:
There is nothing we can do about people with downsyndrome.

DeathCl0ck said:
There's a lot of insanity in this thread.

Negative-Travis said:
I'm pretty sure there are only two cases, actually.

Negative-Travis said:
Seriously, have you seen to roads and bridges here? I'm surprised it's possible to drive anywhere. Half the bridges I drive over look like they're going to collapse at a moment's notice and any roads that get "repaved" get the shitty tar-and-gravel treatment. If I could choose the use my 9 cents on every dollar I spend to help your optional, defective child pay for college or fill a pothole properly, I'd pick the pothole every time.

Baptism said:
I think you have a dangerously narrow view of value. In my perfect world things like kindness, unselfishness, and politeness would be of high value. There is no reason that people with Down syndrome cannot display these things, and in fact they seem to do so at an above average rate. This article is sensationalist, but it does well to prove the point I am trying to make: If People with Down Syndrome Ruled the World

Edit: I should also note that many people with Down syndrome can and do work. There is no reason to assume that a person with Down syndrome will be a "burden on society," even under your definition.

They are only lesser human beings according to your set of values. There is no reason to assume that your values hold true for anyone else.

I should note that I'm talking about people with Down syndrome who are already born. I said in my first post (I think) that aborting a fetus because the potential child would have Down syndrome is fine and is not a choice that should be criticized.

Nicole said:


Cut spending money on things to kill people with and you'll have fine Bridges and Roads.

This is not a reason to not support those that do need it, it's criminal negligence for a country to not support it's people, that again is not a choice you get to make, that's a duty that a country and government has to it's people.

Nicole said:
And I take it your for letting people die that can't support themselves?

TheAutocrat said:


The fear that this stone cold logicality would hinder the kindness of the human race. That is not true, it's just called being objective. I honesty knew you were a very kind person but I can't see this reply as being anything other than naive. I'll read that article but I can't see anything changing and unless you provide solid reason against me I see no reason to change my views either. And no, my views would not change if I had a disabled child. Kindess and sympathy do not come before the bigger picture, this is a major flaw of any leader. Like all things there must be a balance, but being naive and kind are two different things.




It's simply prejudice needing redefined. Do you seriously think that an appeal to majority definition automatically wins the argument for you? How foolish. There is nothing we can do about people with downsyndrome in today's society, just yet anyway, so kindness is the only possible option.

Yes a retard can maybe function as slave, but not a very competent one, hence it's better to let them rest in peace. There is nothing a retard can do that a normal man or woman cannot.

Anyway, thanks to technology, babies can be identified before birth if they will have downsyndrome hence there would be no living people with this disorder in the future, hopefully.

Clearly it is you who is ignorant, pot.

Alexx_ said:
Knowing that women get abortions because their child was diagnosed with down syndrome made my heart drop...
I'm sure they can live a happy and fulfilling life and even raise a family. I feel as though they do not want to deal with raising a child with down syndrome or may be embarrassed having one...
How would anyone know how the child would be like when they're older? It all depends on the way you raise them.

Zeally said:
Uhhh because almost all men with down syndrome are infertile and females are less fertile. They are more susceptible to miscarriages, difficult labor, and premature children. Why in the hell would you want that. There's also a 50% chance that the child of a person with down syndrome will also have the condition.

Baptism said:
I think this is a myth, but, more importantly, what makes you think that fertility prospects matter? I wouldn't give a single fuck if my theoretical wife couldn't have children.

Baptism said:
Well your retort failed, because lack of fertility does not imply that having a family is impossible, or even difficult. It has to do with my theoretical wife because this thing called adoption exists. Not sure if you've ever heard of it.

RandomChampion said:



lol

first of all, youre some 18 year old kid who sits on the computer and comes up with poor arguments while trying to sound like an intellectual on an anime forum. what makes you think your ass is more valuable (to society) than even a hard working, mentally retarded slave's? I am smarter than you, so what if I decide that youre commoner genes are no good for the gene pool and decide that you dont deserve to live? see the problems with what youre claiming as objective?

you use the term "objective", but fail to realize that your views are nothing but subjective and far from grounded in stand-alone logic. Sure your views are logical if a designated (subjective ) code of ethics is used, but who says that such a designated code of ethics is the one that is "objectively good"? Tell me, who says that humans must act for the good of society? etc

get your head outta your ass, man. you dont have the answers that you think you do, especially with such superficial analysis of the subject . Take this as good advice, since i have a feeling that you'd get chewed up real bad in the real world if you think and act like you do on the internet

Baptism said:
Well your retort failed, because lack of fertility does not imply that having a family is impossible, or even difficult. That's because this magical thing exists called ~adoption~. Not sure if you've ever heard of it.

Zeally said:


sure a person with down syndrome that can barely support him/herself adopting a kid sounds logical.

Negative-Travis said:
So do you plan on marrying a broad with Down's or adopting a Down's kid?

Zeally said:
sure a person with down syndrome that can barely support him/herself adopting a kid sounds logical. I bet it can give great sound advice to the child

Zeally said:


sure a person with down syndrome that can barely support him/herself adopting a kid sounds logical. I bet it can give great sound advice to the child

Negative-Travis said:
Welfare needs to be completely abolished.

Baptism said:
No, but if that's what you thought my point was then maybe the other dude is confused for the same reason. My point was that infertile people can have families (thanks to adoption) and therefore, "people with Down syndrome can't have kids," does not retort "people with Down syndrome can have families." I simply used myself as an example of a person who does think fertility is an important characteristic in a potential partner.

InfiniteRyvius said:

Now that's a topic worthy of a thread itself. Surprised that you have such a right wing view.

Negative-Travis said:
Except government agencies make damn-sure they can't have children/families. They can get married, sure, but unless one party is a fully-functioning adult, there will be no adoptions today.

TheAutocrat said:
.

Negative-Travis said:
I have both left and right leanings depending on the subject.

Baptism said:
There you go then.

Thanks, but you don't need to defend me, haha. Especially considering our views on this do seem to differ quite a bit.

InfiniteRyvius said:
Now that's a topic worthy of a thread itself. Surprised that you have such a right wing view.

Zeally said:
What is there to defend? You are defending yourself from your own stupid comments. The response wasn't even directed at you.

Zeally said:
Now you narrowed yourself down to the assumption that the dad doesn't have down syndrome.

Baptism said:
Thanks, but you don't need to defend me, haha. Especially considering our views on this do seem to differ quite a bit.

InfiniteRyvius said:
Hence view rather than views. I'd love to discuss it, but it'd be off topic, and sleep. Talking of which, it must be 04:15 for Auto too.

Zeally said:


What is there to defend? You are defending yourself from your own stupid comments. The response wasn't even directed at you. Now you narrowed yourself down to the assumption that the dad doesn't have down syndrome

TheAutocrat said:


I wasn't just defending you for the sake of it, this other poster is blatantly wrong and I was simply aiding in his/her correction.

Our views have differed but I very much so would like us to reach mutual understanding. So please make a point that you disagree with and I'll try my best to understand.

Baptism said:
I think that's absolutely absurd, but not irrational, per say. I respect Travis' opinions, except when it come to aesthetics (clothes, women, etc.).

Zeally said:
Blatantly wrong about what? The fact that the government won't let you have a baby if you don't meet the qualifications? SURE i'm very wrong

Negative-Travis said:
Is that because they're clearly superior to yours and you're jelly?

Baptism said:
Your taste is too mechanical for me.

TheAutocrat said:

2.You are most definitely not smarter than me, I've read your posts and you most certainly are dumb-stupid relative to myself and many others on this forum.
3.Why am I more valuable to society? I don't feel the need to answer that. Actions speak louder than words.

Tachii said:
TheAutocrat. The implication you assume objectivity as a holy grail is a troubling matter (or are you implying something else?). When it comes to making decisions on human beings, objectivity should never be the sole, or even primary perspective. Something such as empathy, respect, and compassion all comes from subjectivity. A cold-calculated rational creature that don't consider emotions and rely on fact and quantifiable data will not understand human beings and hence forth, should not make decisions on human life.

But then again, it seems you have a stance on pro-autocracy, so meh. This is probably falling on deaf ears. But don't even autocrats incorporate subjectivity to persuade others? They may be able to make the cold-calculated rational optimal choices, but they would require a thorough understanding of subjectivity and must have their own value system to proscribe to their goals.

2. He stated that as a hypothetical statement to point out the flaw of your statement. Notice the "what if". To think you took him literally speaks volume to what you define as intelligence.
3. Uh-huhm. This is a forum. We can't really observe action unless you erm, actually wrote something or linked us something to your actions. And from the rather flowery yet troublesome statements you've decided to share yourself with the rest of us, it's not particularly erm, a persuasive statement.

TheAutocrat said:
I will achieve much is the near future, all you can do is watch. There is nothing stopping me.

Filthy_Whore said:


Ok I think you've gone off the deep end, like officially now.

Illusions of grandeur and shit.

You OD on adderall or somethin?