Choosing to abort your baby because you simply don't want it, is completely different to aborting your baby because ultrasounds show that he/she has Down syndrome. The law states that if the baby shows to have Down syndrome, you can very easily abort, no questions asked, and in most cases, the doctors even push for it. It is widely accepted here and around the world. I feel this is wrong. It is not a good enough reason to abort, based solely on the diagnosis itself. This practice encourages a eugenic society, and until doctors are forced to give the positive aspects (instead of weighing heavily on the negative, which most do) of having a child with the disability, we will continue to prove that society already operates on having that "perfect" child. Those with Down syndrome should not be treated horribly differently than any normal un-born baby, child or adult, except that they do require more care.
Treatment for Down syndrome has come a long way since the days of institutionalizing those w/ the disability. My daughter, for instance has had numerous services given to her for free, and now is under a Medicaid program where she gets additional medical coverage. She is thriving and will be mainstreamed into a normal kindergarten with her peers at the age of 5. (She's 3 now).
I hear of women everywhere who want a baby so badly, but will abort the minute DS comes in the picture. They don't research it, they don't know anyone with it. They only hear what they want to hear, and that's usually that they don't have to keep it if they don't want it. It's about selection.
You're absolutely right.
im not sure i believe that. it is crossing a thin line. but honestly, if i discovered my child had down syndrome, id want to consider. not becos i want a perfect child, but simply becos i dont think id be up to the task of properly caring for a child with special needs, emotionally or financially. i dont really see how that is wholly different from a woman who is 19 and gets pregnant and feels she's not up to the task of properly caring for her child either.
What I think will be interesting is if they do identify a gay gene is how the pro-choice factions will react to people who opt to have abortions based on this. After all in America 90% of pregnancies identified with Downs Syndrome fatus end in abortion and not a peep is said about this.
Perhaps if this gay gene is found to be indentifiable, then the Down syndrome angle will get more light and will finally get more attention.
I know that personally, I wouldn't have a problem w/ my child being gay. At the same time, is it really important enough to need to know ahead of time? I think that's the main absurdity of the original article.
Perhaps if this gay gene is found to be indentifiable, then the Down syndrome angle will get more light and will finally get more attention.
I know that personally, I wouldn't have a problem w/ my child being gay. At the same time, is it really important enough to need to know ahead of time? I think that's the main absurdity of the original article.
for some neocons, they'd no doubt be aborting gay fetuses. which is ironic. i hope they find it. it wil put them in a tough spot: they'll either suddenly change on abortion and admit that being gay is not a choice, or they'll have to cope with some seriously fucked up kids when they attempt to mold them as they grow up to suppress their innate gayness.
i dont see it. it's not like they're aborting the baby becos of its eye or hair color. it's becos they dont feel they're capable of responding to the challenge of raising a child who has special needs. that to me doesn't seem too different from feeling incapable of responding to the challenge of raising a child who has normal needs. in either case, you dont think you're able to give the child the upbringing it deserves, which is the standard abortion argument.
It is different if you were happy about your pregnancy until you found out there could be something possibly wrong with your baby, whether it's DS or something else. It has everything to do w/ the mother's mindframe, whether it's got to do with the child's upbringing or not. Many a times, it has nothing to do with the child's possible upbringing.
I'm trying to see where you're coming from. You're obviously pro-life, correct? You're trying to group the two together based on the "standard" argument you mentioned, but you've got to remember that every woman and every reason is going to be different. It does come down to a choice, not a standard arguement, and it's not always about the welfare of the baby. My stance on the DS issue is from a eugenic and awareness point of view, since I'm an advocate for my daughter.
It is different if you were happy about your pregnancy until you found out there could be something possibly wrong with your baby, whether it's DS or something else. It has everything to do w/ the mother's mindframe, whether it's got to do with the child's upbringing or not. Many a times, it has nothing to do with the child's possible upbringing.
I'm trying to see where you're coming from. You're obviously pro-life, correct? You're trying to group the two together based on the "standard" argument you mentioned, but you've got to remember that every woman and every reason is going to be different. It does come down to a choice, not a standard arguement, and it's not always about the welfare of the baby. My stance on the DS issue is from a eugenic and awareness point of view, since I'm an advocate for my daughter.
no, im pro-choice. im just not seeing how you can make a practical distinction. you're talking about a difference in motivation, but how do you enforce that? you can't know what someone's thinking or why they've decided to abort.
if it means every girl born in america from now on will look like natalie portman, im not going to complain
In the words of Groove Armada -
If everybody looked the same, we'd get tired of looking at each other.
I've often wondered if hot women would still seem hot if there were no ugly women around to compare them to. . .
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Perhaps if this gay gene is found to be indentifiable, then the Down syndrome angle will get more light and will finally get more attention.
I know that personally, I wouldn't have a problem w/ my child being gay. At the same time, is it really important enough to need to know ahead of time? I think that's the main absurdity of the original article.
From memory Down's syndrome is caused by an abnormal number of chromosomes, rather than a mulfunctioning gene.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
1998 Brisbane night 2
2003 Brisbane night 1
2006 Brisbane night 1
2009 Brisbane Nov 25
2014 Brisbane January 19 BDO
*DISCLAIMER* I suck at typing, sorry for the illegibility of posts
Somewhat off topic, but a few months ago we were having our local elections, so there were a lot of political signs everywhere. I saw two signs driving to work one day, one that said, 'Stop Abortion' and one that said 'Stop Gay Marriage' right below it. My brain interpreted it as one sign that said 'Stop Gay Abortion'. It confused me so much that I damn near ran off the road.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not sure if you're directing this to me or not, but I'm going to answer anyway. No! Really, this is all very absurd.
I wasn't directing it towards anyone in general, it was just the first question that came to my head when I read the original article.
If abortions are all about choice and the woman has sole rights to her body to make whatever choice she wants, she should be able to abort a fetus because it's going to be gay (if she doesn't want a gay child). The bottom line is, it's her body, it's her choice, she can abort the fetus for WHATEVER reason she wants, including if it's going to turn out to be gay.
I wasn't directing it towards anyone in general, it was just the first question that came to my head when I read the original article.
If abortions are all about choice and the woman has sole rights to her body to make whatever choice she wants, she should be able to abort a fetus because it's going to be gay (if she doesn't want a gay child). The bottom line is, it's her body, it's her choice, she can abort the fetus for WHATEVER reason she wants, including if it's going to turn out to be gay.
Comments
im not sure i believe that. it is crossing a thin line. but honestly, if i discovered my child had down syndrome, id want to consider. not becos i want a perfect child, but simply becos i dont think id be up to the task of properly caring for a child with special needs, emotionally or financially. i dont really see how that is wholly different from a woman who is 19 and gets pregnant and feels she's not up to the task of properly caring for her child either.
I know that personally, I wouldn't have a problem w/ my child being gay. At the same time, is it really important enough to need to know ahead of time? I think that's the main absurdity of the original article.
for some neocons, they'd no doubt be aborting gay fetuses. which is ironic. i hope they find it. it wil put them in a tough spot: they'll either suddenly change on abortion and admit that being gay is not a choice, or they'll have to cope with some seriously fucked up kids when they attempt to mold them as they grow up to suppress their innate gayness.
I'm trying to see where you're coming from. You're obviously pro-life, correct? You're trying to group the two together based on the "standard" argument you mentioned, but you've got to remember that every woman and every reason is going to be different. It does come down to a choice, not a standard arguement, and it's not always about the welfare of the baby. My stance on the DS issue is from a eugenic and awareness point of view, since I'm an advocate for my daughter.
and here i was thinking i was the only person thinking this.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no, im pro-choice. im just not seeing how you can make a practical distinction. you're talking about a difference in motivation, but how do you enforce that? you can't know what someone's thinking or why they've decided to abort.
i recall a time when i could have been described as somewhat of a republican. but then i got a pill for that ailment and now i'm all better.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Is that one of those magic "stupid" pills?
Any fetus that's a democrat is suicidal.
any fetus that's a republican is a murderer
No offense, but that doesn't really match-up.
Maybe if you would have said ...'self-hating', or something along those lines....
i think i misread the intent. now i get it. im a bit distracted by purity balls.
nope. but it countered the effects of the delusion i was under which made me think in the beginning reagan was a stand up guy.
and you're right, babies that self abort are suicidal.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
In the words of Groove Armada -
If everybody looked the same, we'd get tired of looking at each other.
I've often wondered if hot women would still seem hot if there were no ugly women around to compare them to. . .
-C Addison
From memory Down's syndrome is caused by an abnormal number of chromosomes, rather than a mulfunctioning gene.
-C Addison
2003 Brisbane night 1
2006 Brisbane night 1
2009 Brisbane Nov 25
2014 Brisbane January 19 BDO
*DISCLAIMER* I suck at typing, sorry for the illegibility of posts
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
For some reason, your post reminded me of a saying, can't remember who said it but here it is:
"The average girl would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think."
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I wasn't directing it towards anyone in general, it was just the first question that came to my head when I read the original article.
If abortions are all about choice and the woman has sole rights to her body to make whatever choice she wants, she should be able to abort a fetus because it's going to be gay (if she doesn't want a gay child). The bottom line is, it's her body, it's her choice, she can abort the fetus for WHATEVER reason she wants, including if it's going to turn out to be gay.
that's kinda what occurred to me.