Down syndrome woman blasts abortion genocide in UN speech, gets a standing ovation

a reply to: TobyFlenderson


The reasons why women choose abortions are not up for legal consideration. There is no questionnaire that women have to answer to determine their motives for choosing an abortion.

And, we're not talking about "designer babies". We're talking about congenital birth defects and diseases that will affect, not only the potential life of the fetus, but the mother, her family and inevitably society's burden. Altruism is one thing, forcing altruistic births on unwilling mothers is quite another.

a reply to: windword

Yes, but at this point we are not talking about law, we are talking about morality. And aborting a child because they have a birth defect is, by definition, eugenics. The difference between choosing to kill a baby based on one gene over another is what we are talking about. Morally, I don't see the difference if that gene codes down syndrome or blue eyes. It's still a gene.

To conclude that you know how difficult a person's life is going to be, or how much a burden they will be on society is ignorant. All life is beset with adversity. The lives of the people we hero-worship are beset by greater adversity than the norm. Just because life is hard isn't a reason to kill a living soul. Just my opinion. You obviously disagree. We have different moral compasses. I accept that.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

We're talking about the subjectivity of morality being abused in an attempt to infringe upon the objectivity of liberty. Yes it was just a moral presentation, but motivated by politcal activism.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I believe you make two false points. Number one, morality always enters into politics and law. Always. Number two, you disregard the question of liberty for the child. Objectively, there is no way of knowing scientifically, at least at present, of when a person becomes a person. The law has defined it in one way. I disagree with that way. The law also used to define blacks and women as less than full humans. So the law is ever evolving.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes. Morality has been used to motivate legal change since law existed. The first laws were all based upon a moral code. Cold logic, separated from morality, lead to the Nazis beginning their eugenics campaign by first eliminating the mentally handicapped. I don't think it is right to use cold logic when it comes to the life of a human being.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Just my opinion. You obviously disagree. We have different moral compasses. I accept that.

You're trying to argue that altruism should be a moral responsibility. I'm all for altruism, and support altruistic efforts. But I'm opposed to forcing those who haven't freely offered, to make an altruistic choice.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Considering most abortions are performed on healthy normal cells, I don't see how this makes much difference.

And if abortion is not the killing of a person who cares.

Since it is a person, a lot of people care.

If it was a person then we would not be doing abortions, since, you know, murder is illegal. Now, I agree with you, merely pointing out the hypocrisy. They cheer to save autistic people from abortion ... while claiming it's not a person.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: windword

Yes, but at this point we are not talking about law, we are talking about morality. And aborting a child because they have a birth defect is, by definition, eugenics. The difference between choosing to kill a baby based on one gene over another is what we are talking about. Morally, I don't see the difference if that gene codes down syndrome or blue eyes. It's still a gene.

To conclude that you know how difficult a person's life is going to be, or how much a burden they will be on society is ignorant. All life is beset with adversity. The lives of the people we hero-worship are beset by greater adversity than the norm. Just because life is hard isn't a reason to kill a living soul. Just my opinion. You obviously disagree. We have different moral compasses. I accept that.

I think you're looking at this through very rosy glasses when the reality is not as simple as some genetically disabled people merely looking & acting a little different.

I don't think you have any clear idea what it's really like for families of the severely disabled. And that's what's wrong with your opinion, it's only partial & doesn't include acknowledging & understanding the real price for the caregivers.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

You have two major fallacies in your rhetoric.

1) You assume that morality has a place in a liberty bases legal system. Morality is an abstract concept. It is shaped by the will and perception of the individial. Liberty on the other hand is much more solid.

2) You assume (based on your morals, not mine) that a fetus has a consciousness, and therefore rights. This has yet to be proven, and should not be entertained in a legal system where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Defense of liberty is far more virtuous than the defense of imagined morality.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes. Morality has been used to motivate legal change since law existed. The first laws were all based upon a moral code. Cold logic, separated from morality, lead to the Nazis beginning their eugenics campaign by first eliminating the mentally handicapped. I don't think it is right to use cold logic when it comes to the life of a human being.

This doesn't even relate to our discussion. The Nazis had their own version of morality, but their actions are all condemned under the law of liberty.

a reply to: windword

I disagree that it is altruistic to protect your own child. It goes to the most root instinct of any parent.

a reply to: Nyiah

Please help me to understand this because the way you talk is so foreign to me. You're argument is that because a person's life is going to be harder on the parents and care givers, we should give them the chance to end that life. THAT IS EUGENICS. Doing away with people who are perceived to be a burden on society is what the Nazis believed.

Raising any kid is hard enough. I don't wish this upon anybody. But everyone is dealt different cards. You can't just kill the people in your life who cause you difficulty. It's absurd.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: windword

I disagree that it is altruistic to protect your own child. It goes to the most root instinct of any parent.

Obviously, that's not true, since so many women have opted to abort, and considering how many parents are proud to send their sons off to fight in wars.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Morality is an abstract concept. It is shaped by the will and perception of the individial. Liberty on the other hand is much more solid.

You're saying that it is more solid does not make it so. If the liberty to terminate a child's life is so solid, then why did it take until 1973 to establish it? Perhaps it took so long because of the changing morality of the society. Please tell me how the term "liberty" is not abstract?

You assume (based on your morals, not mine) that a fetus has a consciousness, and therefore rights. This has yet to be proven, and should not be entertained in a legal system where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I make no such assumption, not sure where you get that from. Relative to your second point, it makes no sense. Wether or not we have a right has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a person and therefore the presumption of innocence is not implicated. The question here is whether or not it is proper, and therefore wether or not it should be a legally protected right, to decide to kill your kid because it is not physically perfect. It is not, as far as I understand her statement, asking that anyone be prosecuted criminally.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You may say their actions are all condemned, but you are supporting one of their actions, the killing of innocent people because they do not meet some standard of physical perfection. The Nazis killed the mentally ill and mentally retarded first. Their reasoning is that they were a burden on German society. Your reasoning is that a parent should have the right to kill a baby that is mentally or physically disabled because it would be a burden on that parent. There is a one to one equivalent there that you can not logically get around despite all of our misguided contortions regarding what "liberty" may or may not mean.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Nyiah

Please help me to understand this because the way you talk is so foreign to me. You're argument is that because a person's life is going to be harder on the parents and care givers, we should give them the chance to end that life. THAT IS EUGENICS. Doing away with people who are perceived to be a burden on society is what the Nazis believed.

Raising any kid is hard enough. I don't wish this upon anybody. But everyone is dealt different cards. You can't just kill the people in your life who cause you difficulty. It's absurd.

Refer to my previous post here. If you can't understand that, then perhaps you need to step up & put your money where your mouth is.

Adopt disabled children given up at birth for severe medical problems. THEN I might think your opinion marginally valid. As it stands, you're an outsider looking in, and judging for a choice regarding a much more serious & lifelong commitment than you've ever done yourself.

a reply to: Nyiah

I don't have any disabled children and I thank God for that. I had a son who died during child birth due to medical malpractice. At one point a doctor came and told me that the resuscitation efforts were not going well and asked if he should continue because if he did and the efforts were successful, the child would likely be severely brain damaged due to the lack of oxygen. I asked him to continue. He did fruitlessly. I would give anything to have my first son with me today, regardless of what handicaps he would have. He would be 19 years old now if he'd survived.

For each of my three children, my wife was given the option of doing testing to determine whether or not the baby would have any of the birth defects. She declined each time because she wanted to have her child regardless of how perfect they were or weren't.

I don't wish hardship upon anyone. I do not envy those with handicapped children. However, I don't believe I need to suffer from a particular situation to have an opinion about it. Do I need to get lung cancer to think that smoking is bad?

You are reacting emotionally to a situation because you have no logical defense. I understand that and wish you the best of luck. But my opinion is as valid as yours.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Nyiah
You are reacting emotionally to a situation because you have no logical defense. I understand that and wish you the best of luck. But my opinion is as valid as yours.

No offense, but I don't care about the whys or why nots of your own family make-up. That choice is yours to make like it is for anyone else, so the heartstrings attempt is as emotional as you accuse me of (does this mean you have no logical defense either?)

My point is you sure are fond of "Do as I say" without ever having done so yourself. If you had the opportunity, you likely would understand those hard choices acutely & not get pissy about it.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

The Nazis violated the liberty of conscious human beings by ending their existence as conscious entities bound in flesh. That is murder and it is the most severe infringement upon liberty.

Science has yet to observe the existence of a consciousness within a fetus therefore, any attempt at classifying abortion as any form of manslaughter is completely unfounded. You can say that abortion might or might not be murder, but you can't charge someone for maybe or maybe not commiting murder.

So the parallel that you are attempting to draw with the Nazis is nothing more than a distortion designed to pull emotional strings. When an argument lacks objective content, people will often revert to emotional appeal, which is pathetic. Its on the same level as that of a crooked politician.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: windword

Yes, but at this point we are not talking about law, we are talking about morality. And aborting a child because they have a birth defect is, by definition, eugenics. The difference between choosing to kill a baby based on one gene over another is what we are talking about. Morally, I don't see the difference if that gene codes down syndrome or blue eyes. It's still a gene.

The feigned outrage of another's morality which is not your problem.

A 'child' is not being aborted ....

A 'baby' is not being killed ....

a fetus with a defect is being stopped from developing.....

Maybe even being saved from 'a life' worse than a living death? and

as I pointed out in an earlier thread what happens to the now adult

child who depends entirely on the parents for everything

when the parents die or are too old and infirm to care for them.

Are you or other anti abortionists prepared to do so?


Obviously not!....just seen this from your post ....not your problem?

I don't wish hardship upon anyone. I do not envy those with handicapped children.