It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the serverely handicapped be spared by abortion?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I'd like to know what you pro-lifers have to say. Surely you believe it merciful to prevent the birth of a child doomed only to suffer and cause endless heartache to his family?

If so, you have conceded that the abortion debate is conditional to circumstances.

Statistics show, many unwanted children are abused, neglected abandoned or even killed. So shouldn't these unfortunates be spared a life of pain as well?




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Thats difficult. I am very pro choice.. but I also have a sibling sho is severly handicapped and I'll probably end up being his carer for life because the resources aren't there.. th8is has led to me making many sacrifices. Parents would need to weigh up how dependent they'll be.. it's not fair to just hope for the best when the parents die and let the other kids take up the burden.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
This is a difficult topic. I understand the feeling of wanting to spare someone pain and heartache. However, we never know what a child will become after birth. Perhaps a disabled child will lead the cure for an illness, or become a great teacher. Even children of abuse have risen up and become wonderful people that have helped others. I still struggle with whether I am pro-life or pro-choice as although I might not choose to abort as an option does not mean I have the right to decide another womans life. I just think on this subject that to make decisions based on thinking the child does not stand a chance when born may not always be the case. A persons potential is always unlimited and you may be surprised what one can do regardless of personal handicaps.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
As the mother of a severely, disabled daughter (who died earlier this year), I believe I can comment with a certain authority. Kayla couldn't speak, sit up, see well, hear well or even turn herself over...epilepsy, static encephalopathy, cerebral palsy.

Okay....I've tried to figure out what I want to say, but can't. I'm not a pro-lifer...just an average woman. I believe in a Higher Power. I hope and pray that an afterlife exists...lots of evidence points toward it existing.

With that said, I feel extreme happiness at the thought of my daughter running and playing in an afterlife. Not suffering anymore...able to enjoy herself.

No afterlife means she's nowhere doing nothing...not suffering, though, is she?

She had some good times, early in her life...very few at the end. She taught many children to be thankful. She taught at least one boy not to be afraid of people like her...maybe more people also learned that from her...I know I did.

No...let's not abort these children. If they're not meant to live, then I believe the Higher Power will step in at that point, or let the parent(s) make the decision, I suppose, if one must be made.

However, I will say this: If I had been approached by the doctors with the knowledge that my child would've been born with so many problems, I feel sure that I would have chosen abortion at that point.

So there you have it......I dunno.....and I have a "certain authority". HAH!

I think I'm going to go have a breakdown now.........

[edit on 9/6/05 by FibroKat]

P.S. Not sure if she would've been born with all of her problems she ended up with...I've stated before that the immunization shots may have played a part in her damages. But I do believe she had some brain damage at birth, and mild epilepsy...maybe the cerebral palsy.

[edit on 9/6/05 by FibroKat]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Do you recall the old fable where the old were all sent off to be killed or removed because they didn't contribute as much physical labor as those in their prime? How did that turn out for the town?

I actually heard something very interesting on the radio this morning. Apparently downs syndrome sufferers have a much lower rate of most cancers. It has just been released that one of the genes, chromosome 21, has three copies in downs syndrome patients whereas those without only have two copies. It is believed this extra chromosome may play a role in their development of non-lukemia cancers being 50% less than those in people without downs syndrome.

Had we just been "merciful" and killed them so they wouldn't have to "suffer" so (many mentally handicapped people I know are extremely happy -- ignorance can be bliss), this research never would have been able to be conducted.

So no, I don't believe the severely handicapped should be killed before or durring their trek through this world.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster

Statistics show, many unwanted children are abused, neglected abandoned or even killed. So shouldn't these unfortunates be spared a life of pain as well?


And many of these unwanted children are perfectly normal, physically and mentally. I'm not sure which point you're trying to make here?

And in terms of handicap - are you just talking about those conditions present from birth?

What about those which don't manifest until months, or years, after birth?

Should the likes of Stephen Hawking have been aborted?

I'm not sure there's even a possibility for a yes/no answer on this one; the original question was just far too ambiguous...perhaps if it's clarified or narrowed down, we'd be able to understand more about what the original poster is asking?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I honestly can't believe anyone in a civilized society could even ask this question.

You can't answer this question in the affirmative and have it end there. Then where do you draw the line?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
Surely you believe it merciful to prevent the birth of a child doomed
only to suffer and cause endless heartache to his family?

Then why did God make them? You say the child causes endless
heartache to the family. The child doesn't cause anything. He or
she is innocent. Perhaps the child was sent to the family to help it
remember that taking care of others is one of the most important
things on this planet to do. Perhaps the child is there to remind
the family, and those around the family, that how we take care of
'the least' in society reflects upon what is really in our souls and
hearts. To kill him or her off because it's inconvienent is selfish.
Perhaps God sent the child as a gift ... a difficult gift but still
a gift ... to remind everyone what is important in life. Even if that
child's life is only for a few hours or days that child could be a soul
that brings people outside of themselves and helps them along
the road to the eternal. Who are we to take that gift away from
others?

Who knows the mind of God? Not us.
If the child shouldn't be here, God will take him/her home.


Statistics show, many unwanted children are abused, neglected abandoned or even killed.

Show some of these stats please. Got any for the Western world?
Thank you.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Statistics show, many unwanted children are abused, neglected abandoned or even killed.

Show some of these stats please. Got any for the Western world?
Thank you.



With all due respect...are you serious?

You want statistics to prove that unwanted children are abused and neglected?!



We read about such things on a near-daily basis...

(Or am I misunderstanding your question?)



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
We may read about them and hear about them on a daily basis, but how often does the news report good news? We hear about the doom and gloom of everyday life constantly. We're innundated with it. If we just accept what's on the news as the state of humanity, we should have killed ourselves off about 40 years ago.

I think what Flyers Fan is looking for, and what I'd be curious to see, is percentages and statistics for that. Unfortunately, I doubt they're out there because many people who have unwanted children end up loving them deeply after having them. I know several people, including a cousin of mine, who were unwanted children, meaning accidental, where the family didn't think they were ready for them but then loved and cherished their children after they either had them or got to know their personality.

Don't let the sensationalist reporting of news agencies skew you're perspecive of the world
It's not that bad



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
We may read about them and hear about them on a daily basis, but how often does the news report good news?


That wasn't my point




I think what Flyers Fan is looking for, and what I'd be curious to see, is percentages and statistics for that.


I'm just genuinely curious as to what such statistics would prove, if anything.


Don't let the sensationalist reporting of news agencies skew you're perspecive of the world
It's not that bad


Aw you know me better'n that....I'm the eternal hippie optimist



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I think is a fair question, I am pro choices, and that means the right to chose what you will like to do with your body and that means to chose if you know that your unborn child is going to be disable what to do.

I have a friend that after two boys her third pregnancy was the awaited girl.

But an ultrasound showed that she had an enlarge head, a test point out to spinal bifida. [ sorry for the misspelling]

She was given the choices to decide.

She chose to have her daughter and even when the child is severely disable she loves her and cares for her with not problem at all.

I think that a women and husband both can chose to have a disable child if they are prepared to care for it. Even a single mother can chose to care for her disable child when is born also.

It should be their choices not body else.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
I'd like to know what you pro-lifers have to say. Surely you believe it merciful to prevent the birth of a child doomed only to suffer and cause endless heartache to his family?

If so, you have conceded that the abortion debate is conditional to circumstances.

Statistics show, many unwanted children are abused, neglected abandoned or even killed. So shouldn't these unfortunates be spared a life of pain as well?


i find this question very offensive, why,are we doomed to suffer or cause a family endless heart ache? and how can you imply we are unwanted because of a disability? are you suggesting we be aborted so we dont expierence abuse, hate, pain, etc?

example of how this sounds to me:

should blacks be aborted to spare them pain and hatred?

statistics show blacks are abused and unwanted by society and blacks only contribute to crime and are destined to be a criminal.


Mod edit:

Please be a bit nicer in the future.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by parrhesia]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
[edit on 19-9-2005 by namehere]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

as posted by dollmonster
Should the serverely handicapped be spared by abortion?

I'd like to know what you pro-lifers have to say. Surely you believe it merciful to prevent the birth of a child doomed only to suffer and cause endless heartache to his family?


I am not sure what the deal is with your continued references with "pro-lifers", but your use of handicapped in the same sentence with being "spared" and "abortion" is a bit hilarious.

Impairment: the loss or reduced function of a body part or organ
Disability: exists when an impairment limits the ability to perform certain tasks.
Handicap: a problem encountered by those who have impairments or disabilities when interacting with the environment.

Hope that clears up your question...







seekerof

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
and that is how it should remain imo.

The decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy in which abnormalities are found is a very difficult and personal decision. No government, no clergy, no one should have a say in a matter such as this. I have seen people come to regret a decision to end a pregnancy and others who regretted not doing so. I have also seen those who felt they made the right choice in either case. But regardless of choice or anyone peceptions or opinion as to its morality - the decision was theirs and theirs alone.

Sometimes being pro-choice is a very good thing...think about that.



Bleys

[edit on 9/19/05 by Bleys]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
[edit on 19-9-2005 by namehere]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I think what Flyers Fan is looking for, and what I'd
be curious to see, is percentages and statistics for that.

Yep. That's it. Also, I'd like to see the numbers of 'unexpected'
births and violence put up against 'unexpected' births and happy
lives. Also - EXPECTED births and violence.

Being unexpected doesn't automatically equate with a miserable life.
Being expected doesn't automatically equate with a happy one.

I'd just like to see some hard stats ... NOT from agenda groups
like Planned Parenthood or the like ... that show extreme violence
against expected/unexpected children.

[edit on 9/20/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Being unexpected doesn't automatically equate with a miserable life.
Being expected doesn't automatically equate with a happy one.

I'd just like to see some hard stats ... NOT from agenda groups
like Planned Parenthood or the like ... that show extreme violence
against expected/unexpected children.

It isn't difficult to imagine a fifteen year old mother abusing her child because she was unprepared or too immature for motherhood. If you want facts.. a good place to start would be infanticide.. that is not exactly a rare thing. In regards to abuse and domestic violence.. I don't see how it's relevent as there a high levels of abuse in the foster care sytems by people who supposedly want these unwanted children.. how to they end up there? Because most were being abused or neglected because they were not wanted. Of course some [some] willing to take these kids in may just want the money the child brings in and not the child itself.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
I'd like to know what you pro-lifers have to say.


I hope you don't mind f I respond, even though I'm not a 'pro-lifer'. I am pro-choice and I don't really have much respect for what anti-choice people have to say in this matter, or any other considering my choice, my uterus, or the personal choices in my life. I respect the people, mind you, but not their assumption that they know better than me or anyone else the best choices for everyone.

If a woman doesn't want to have a 'handicapped' or otherwise unwanted or unexpected child, it's her business and no one else's.

Bless those who have and love and care for these children, but it isn't for everyone and I applaud women who realize that they simply couldn't (or don't want to) handle it or deal with it.

Bleys said it better than I could. I agree wholeheartedly.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join