Ok.GrumpyCatFace wrote:It means that some pitifully small minority decided to carry a defective baby and (we hope) care for it for the rest of their lives.
Thanks for reading the article for me and saving me the time.
Ok.GrumpyCatFace wrote:It means that some pitifully small minority decided to carry a defective baby and (we hope) care for it for the rest of their lives.
There appear to be 15% who turn down the test, no one forcing them to kill their child.DBTrek wrote:Well, I'm hardly the language scholar you are, maybe you can explain to me what "close to 100%" means.GrumpyCatFace wrote: So, since they said "Almost 100% made this choice", you're assuming that the 1-2% were forced to abort anyway? That's your fucking analysis?
That's a valid point. But how many more Hawkings would we have, with the additional resources to devote to actually keeping people alive and educating them?Montegriffo wrote:There appear to be 15% who turn down the test, no one forcing them to kill their child.DBTrek wrote:Well, I'm hardly the language scholar you are, maybe you can explain to me what "close to 100%" means.GrumpyCatFace wrote: So, since they said "Almost 100% made this choice", you're assuming that the 1-2% were forced to abort anyway? That's your fucking analysis?
Not that I'm agreeing with Grumps on this one, Downs syndrome people can live a long and happy life. This isn't a Charlie Gard situation here. I call it genetic engineering and would rather have the diversity than a master race. Grumps might have rejected Steven Hawkins in a different life.
You do realize that in the past - defective babies were left out in the woods for animals to eat? All I'm saying, is that maybe terminating a fetus with a known severe genetic defect would not violate the 6th commandment.Speaker to Animals wrote:The whole point of the Eugenic pseudo-scientific theories is that they are to be applied wholesale, by some more sweeping and generalizing money power than the individual husband or wife or household. Eugenics asserts that all men must be so stupid that they cannot manage their own affairs; and also so clever that they can manage each other's.
Zlaxer wrote:You do realize that in the past - defective babies were left out in the woods for animals to eat? All I'm saying, is that maybe terminating a fetus with a known severe genetic defect would not violate the 6th commandment.Speaker to Animals wrote:The whole point of the Eugenic pseudo-scientific theories is that they are to be applied wholesale, by some more sweeping and generalizing money power than the individual husband or wife or household. Eugenics asserts that all men must be so stupid that they cannot manage their own affairs; and also so clever that they can manage each other's.
What did ancient Jews do with defected kids?
Nah you've gone too far along the road towards eugenics there for me. Downs is not the cut of point. Life as a vegetable is nearer to my point of acceptance.GrumpyCatFace wrote:That's a valid point. But how many more Hawkings would we have, with the additional resources to devote to actually keeping people alive and educating them?Montegriffo wrote:There appear to be 15% who turn down the test, no one forcing them to kill their child.DBTrek wrote:
Well, I'm hardly the language scholar you are, maybe you can explain to me what "close to 100%" means.
Not that I'm agreeing with Grumps on this one, Downs syndrome people can live a long and happy life. This isn't a Charlie Gard situation here. I call it genetic engineering and would rather have the diversity than a master race. Grumps might have rejected Steven Hawkins in a different life.
For me personally, I can't imagine a worse fate than being trapped in a swiftly failing body, facing doom every day of my life, with no hope for relief. Or, perhaps even worse, being the parent of such a person, watching my child fade from life.. The thought makes me hurt inside.
Now imagine that you were never given a choice, as that parent. That you had no option, other than abandoning your weakened, dependent child to the state, or suffering through that for the remainder of your life.
You're a human, and that gives you a right to speak on the matter, imo.Montegriffo wrote:Nah you've gone too far along the road towards eugenics there for me. Downs is not the cut of point. Life as a vegetable is nearer to my point of acceptance.GrumpyCatFace wrote:That's a valid point. But how many more Hawkings would we have, with the additional resources to devote to actually keeping people alive and educating them?Montegriffo wrote: There appear to be 15% who turn down the test, no one forcing them to kill their child.
Not that I'm agreeing with Grumps on this one, Downs syndrome people can live a long and happy life. This isn't a Charlie Gard situation here. I call it genetic engineering and would rather have the diversity than a master race. Grumps might have rejected Steven Hawkins in a different life.
For me personally, I can't imagine a worse fate than being trapped in a swiftly failing body, facing doom every day of my life, with no hope for relief. Or, perhaps even worse, being the parent of such a person, watching my child fade from life.. The thought makes me hurt inside.
Now imagine that you were never given a choice, as that parent. That you had no option, other than abandoning your weakened, dependent child to the state, or suffering through that for the remainder of your life.
We might not get another Hawkins along for a century or more, we can't afford to take the risk.
I've got no kids though so you can legitimately play the parent card on me and I'll STFU.
What if the fetus is confirmed to be the sole host of a fast moving super virus that will wipe the entirety of humanity off the globe?GrumpyCatFace wrote:Should the state ever 'mandate' abortion of any kind? Of course not, that's ridiculous.