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

a reply to: Nyiah

The part of my own life was to explain that I was faced with the choice. It didn't work out, but that was the choice I made.

I'm not saying do as I say. I'm saying that what you are doing is eugenics and is morally wrong in my perspective. But again, you refuse to address the main point. Killing someone based on their genetic profile is eugenics, is Nazism, is wrong.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I disagree. First of all, how does one exactly establish consciousness? You keep saying that a fetus doesn't have this mythical quality. Is is somehow bestowed upon the exiting of the birth canal? Is it when brain waves start. The brain starts forming at 8 weeks, should we stop killing babies then? The baby can react to external stimuli after about the 14th week. Is that when we can't kill unborn humans anymore?

And if it is not conscious, then we should be able to kill it for any reason, right? So if I want a baby with blue eyes and the genetic testing says brown, no problem killing it in your opinion, right? What if I want a baby boy and it is a girl, no problem nix this baby and start over again, no moral problem there, right?

a reply to: eletheia

You can use semantics, you call it a fetus because if you believe it to be a baby, then you know it is murder. When does a fetus become a baby?

I don't believe in pre-judging someone's quality of life. I'm certain the woman in the video wouldn't say her life is a living hell. Again, everyone has obstacles and some are greater than others. I don't believe it is a valid reason for denying the someone the right to live.

I have a nephew who was born severely handicapped mentally and physically. He lives in group home paid for by the state. I believe in a social safety net. I don't think I should be personally responsible for every person who is born mentally handicapped however.

But again, you and all the other supporters refuse to address how intentionally aborting of an otherwise wanted child because of the babies genetic makeup is not eugenics. You take any questioning of any abortion as an attack on the entire institution. The case this woman makes is very specific and Downs Syndrome, like other defects that are tested for, are not always debilitating leading to a life a misery.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

My personal belief is that the human soul takes residence in the body upon taking its first breath at birth, but my personal belief is no more relevant than yours. What is relevant is the fact that we have yet to determine whether or not a fetus possesses a consciousness. Its a gigantic QUESTION MARK.

So when you claim that abortion is murder, I say prove it! What you choose to believe matters only to you. Don't approach me with your manifactured "moral" dilemmas, because it means nothing to me or anyone else but you. As far as I'm concerned, a woman can have as many abortions as her body can survive, for whatever stupid reason she can fathom. Its her body.

Go take your "morals" to your local Baptist church, where you can murmur with the rest of the Biblically illiterate Zealots. I'm not interested in your moral opinion. I side with the objective principles of Liberty as it is the foundation of America's highest form of law, the Bill of Rights. As a Christian, I am obligated to respect the authority vested in the Bill of Rights.

The day you can prove that a fetus has a soul/consciousness, then, and only then will I admit I am wrong.

Did I miss anything? Do we have to keep repeating the same arguments yet again? Or are you going to substantiate your bizarre claims by proving that a fetus has a consciousness?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'm not sure what you mean by consciousness. To me, the reaction to external stimuli seems to be a conscious act. Regardless, you are right that my morals only mean something to me. I am not a Baptist, nor a Christian for that matter.

I also don't understand what you mean by liberty, but it is certainly not objective. The protections afforded to pregnant woman in Roe v. Wade are not based on an objective reading of the Bill of Rights. If they were, then they would have been protected long before 1973. The Court that decided Roe believed in a "living" constitution, meaning it would evolve with the changing ethic of the nation. The decision itself was a logical abortion based purely on politics and emotional arguments and not on any language in the constitution.

Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine and the young lady who spoke to the UN is entitled to hers.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: eletheia
You can use semantics, you call it a fetus because if you believe it to be a baby, then you know it is murder. When does a fetus become a baby?

When it has the ability to survive on its own.

The chance of survival at fewer than 23 weeks is close to zero, while at 23 weeks it is 15%, 24 weeks 55% and 25 weeks about 80%. The chances of survival without long term difficulties are lower.

Before that it is entirely dependent on another ... in point of fact a parasite.

Parasite an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and
benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

I don't believe in pre-judging someone's quality of life.

And yet you do!!

I have a nephew who was born severely handicapped mentally and physically. He lives in group home paid for by the state. I believe in a social safety net.

The state purse is not finite it is already over burdened. And yet you expect

it to support more and more. The elderly and handicapped in many instances

already in the system are in many cases inadequately cared for.

Money does not ... is not able to buy CARE.

Care is given and there is not enough to go around.

But again, you and all the other supporters refuse to address how intentionally aborting of an otherwise wanted child because of the babies genetic makeup is not eugenics.

That is a contradiction in terms ..... a wanted child does not get

aborted.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

To me, the reaction to external stimuli seems to be a conscious act.

Water reacts to external stimuli.

I also don't understand what you mean by liberty, but it is certainly not objective.

Of course not. There is no such thing as objective liberty, constraints are a part of reality. There is no such thing as objective truth or morality either.

The protections afforded to pregnant woman in Roe v. Wade are not based on an objective reading of the Bill of Rights. If they were, then they would have been protected long before 1973. The Court that decided Roe believed in a "living" constitution, meaning it would evolve with the changing ethic of the nation.

By that line of thinking, then freeing the slaves, granting women voting rights, inter-racial and inter-faith marriages are not in line with an objective reading of the Bill of Rights either, since they took so long to be claimed!

The fact is, SCOTUS ruled that a fetus is NOT a "person born" and therefore, not entitled to Constitutional rights.

originally posted by: windword
The fact is, SCOTUS ruled that a fetus is NOT a "person born" and therefore, not entitled to Constitutional rights.

So why is anyone cheering and agreeing with not terminating a DS pregnancy. No one is being killed, seems hypocritical.

a reply to: eletheia

So as medical science progresses, and the viability of a baby outside of it's mother's womb occurs at a shorter and shorter period of time, a woman's right's will be limited? That doesn't make sense to me.

You calling a baby a parasite shows exactly what type of person you are. This point is further driven home by the fact that you think people should be killed because of the expense of keeping them alive. And yet you don't think it's eugenics. Stunning, absolutely stunning.

We will never be of the same mind because I cannot fathom the lack of empathy you have for the mentally challenged.

a reply to: windword

I have objections to your most recent reply, however we seem to be spinning in circles. I will not change your mind, you will not change mind. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: eletheia

You calling a baby a parasite shows exactly what type of person you are.

Definition of a parasite. An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Someone who calls a spade a spade.

Someone, if you had any sense, you would rather have your back than a sjw with

all their hysteria and *big hugs* attitude. Someone who gets rid of *fancy words and

wrappings* and actually gets things done.

This point is further driven home by the fact that you think people should be killed because of the expense of keeping them alive.

Did I say that?

Or is that your overactive, hysterical perception of *reality* Do you

actually do anything or just stand by wringing your hands and demanding the

state to pick up the pieces? ..... or is it a case of "empty vessels make the most

noise.

And yet you don't think it's eugenics. Stunning, absolutely stunning.

Abortion is one persons personal choice? it is not forced on them in the name

of eugenics.

Generally people dont or wont look after their own aged or ageing parents they

absolve themselves from that responsibility, yet you expect to foist responsibility

on a prospective parent of a life time of care because they are unfortunate

enough to have a fetus with multiple problems. Its their individual *choice* and

they have to live with it ..... not you and those of a like mind.

We will never be of the same mind because I cannot fathom the lack of empathy

you have for the mentally challenged.

Empathy is a salve it doesn't achieve actual action and getting things done.

a reply to: eletheia

My oldest daughter just decided few weeks ago to have her gynae remove the 2 parasites she had inside her.She even gave them names,Jason and Jayden.Cute lil buggers too.Though i did point out that she should have rather kept that tapeworm she used to have,tapeworms are so much cheaper,babies cost a lot to raise.But that girl,she has her mind made up.Says that she feels a bond with Those 2 specific lil parasites.What can you do,eh?

a reply to: Bluntone22
Because 90-100% of regular babies aren’t being targeted for extermination like babies with DS are. It’s eugenics what’s happening to DS.

a reply to: Raxoxane
Stupid as babies aren’t parasites. Parasites are always a different species to their host.

Another cretin that slept during year 6 biology class. Parasites are NEVER the same species as their host. Therefore a foetus isn’t a parasite.

a reply to: eletheia

What requires even more work is having a child that is a drug addict or alcoholic.

a reply to: blueman12

a reply to: seasonal
What’s normal? Is being a murderer normal? What about being a rapist, child abuser, racist, meth addict normal? None of these issues are problems within my community. Maybe it’s you 46 chromosomers who are the abnormal ones.