Steep rise in Down's syndrome pregnancies

I remember bringing this up in another thread a while back. It's actually quite sad when we can simply kill others because they're be a "drain" on their parents, so to speak. The ironic thing about it, though, is that because fewer children are being born with Down's Syndrome, there is much less funding being given to Down's Syndrome research, which has the negative effect of adversely affecting not only those who are already born with the disease, but those who will be born with the disease in the future. Go figure, right?

So, if a parent has a child that becomes disabled and they want to abandon it, they should be allowed to do so and anyone who disagrees with their "choice" to do so is being self-righteous and ignorant? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't extend that train of thought to the above situation. So why should it be any different here? Just because a child is going to be born with Down's Syndrome is no reason its life should be ended.

In general, those who are born with Down's Syndrome do not have children, and the majority of people with Down's Syndrome are born to healthy parents, so the whole passing on their genes in a non-factor. But, beyond that, I find the notion that we should kill those who are born with birth defects or genetic disease to be absolutely, downright sickening. If I could, I'd invoke Godwin's Law right about now, but I don't feel like having a post of my zapped into oblivion at the moment. Point being, is that unless you're born with some disease which is going to kill you in a painful manner hours upon being born, it's hard to rationalize killing someone who would live an otherwise meaningful life. I have a question: Do you look down upon those with Down's, or even Turner's, Syndrome?

Also, you kind of missed the point I was getting at. When I say abandon, I mean "leave-the-child-on-the-street-and-drive-off" abandon. If it's okay for a parent to do what amounts to the same with their unborn child, then why shouldn't they be able to do the same with their born child? Saying because one is born begs the question.

*says something about his stupid internet*

Oct 27, 2009 -- 2:38PM, Kwinters wrote:

You pretend as if these things happen in a vacuum.

Let's take the example of a couple in the US with minimal private health care and low paying jobs who have three kids already.

The woman finds out she's pregnant and the child has Downs, what about the fact that they are worried about their health care and the financial demands of raising this child would have on the rest of their family?

This is why you overhaul the system and make it easier and more affordable to get assistance for those who need it. an... That question was easy to answer. I can't believe you actually asked if. If your argument as to why woman should be allowed to abort their children with *enter birth defect here* boils down to not being able to afford the care associated with it, then you make the care associated with it cheaper. Quite simple, if I do say so myself.

Should their kids not get support to go to college?  Should they blow any retirement funds and live in poverty?  Should they have to spend their elderly lives caring for a child who live outlive them and still need full time care?

To jump ahead of myself here, speaking of false dichotoies, the above is a good exapmle of a modified one. Taking care of someone with Down's Syndrome, nay any serious disease, wouldn't require you to spend your child's entire college fund, or blow your retirement fund or live in poverty (In many cases, it doesn't even currently). Why would it?

How thick does one have to be to see that the issue of abortion is made in the context of the GREATER GOOD for the women and her family.

I know I've said this elsewhere, but utilitarianism is insanely stupid. What if a woman currently has six children, and the greater good for the woman and her family would be to kill the two youngest children. Should she do that? Or, a better would be should she be allowed to do that? From a strictly utilitarian sense, you would have to say "yes". Of course, I'm sure you wouldn't agree with such a proposition, but this makes e wonder why you would oppose it if it brought out the "greatest good". The "greater", or even "greatest", good derived isn't often achieved through the best means an, contrary to what some may say, the ends don't always justify the means.

Of course, reducing it to woman vs baby certainly allows you to depict women as intellectually, morally and emotionally incompetent.

Okay. I'm a generous fellow. Let's try this again-- Only this time, let's try it without the straw man.

And when the state regards women as completely deficient then YOU get to decide what's best for others, right?

Who's viewing women as-- How did you put it?-- "Deficient"? Seriously now. The only one to refer to woman as such thus far, is you. No one else has. Funny, isn't it?

The arrogance is astounding, not to mention that the utter insensitivity to context brought about by an irrationally simplistic moral dichotomy is laughable, if it weren't so sad.

I swear this is like the second time you've written something like this out in the past two weeks. It wasn't true, nor did it make any sense, the first tie you wrote it out, and it most certainly isn't true, nor does it make any sense, now-- Especially considering the fact that I'm not all "Ban abortion in every circumstance!" like you someone insinuate. Now, what I am, is ban abortion in cases where the woman siply wants it or because she doesn't want to be a parent or because she doesn't think she can afford a child. Of course, that translates to something like 93%'ish of all abortions, so I could see how that would trouble you :P

Question: Who is this "they" you speak of? 'Cuz, you know... "They"-- Especially how you're using it-- Doesn't necessarily correlate to PL'ers.

...Oh, and thank God every single PC'er -- Every last single one of them-- Does all of those things you listed above. Otherwise, you might have been in trouble there <_<