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.

 

Comfort or conflict: Earlier Down syndrome test

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Adamanteus
 

You actually brought up a good point. With the advent of the Obama healthcare plan, with government footing the bill, would the potential for "enthusiastic" approaches to abortion in the case of defects become more prevalent?



I don't believe anyone should get themselves into a financial situation they cannot afford, If someone else must foot the bill (even the Government) then they shouldn't "go there". That is precisely why We're in the situation with housing that we're in now. People need to accept responsibility for themselves.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a HUGE sacrifice. You are giving up your entire life, not just a few years like you would for a child who is not disabled, but you're entire life to serve and take care of the person. Forget about date nights and nights out on the town, long road trips with the family, going out to eat will be a challenge depending on the amount of disability, etc. You have to hire a babysitter who has experience with disabled children/people so you can expect that will cost more. My little sister had to have open heart surgery at 6 months, luckily in Canada it was paid for with the health care, but in other places could you afford the 1 million dollar price tag of this? She also had to have special ankle braces made for her to walk in in her first years because her muscle tone was not good enough to support her.

Is it selfish to abort? Yes in a way, but it could also be selfish to have the child if you know you will not be good with the responsibility. I have great respect for people who are able to do this, and do not judge those who would choose not to because they feel they would not be able to handle the burden. Until you live in that persons shoes you cannot know the amount of sacrifice it takes.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Adamanteus
 

You actually brought up a good point. With the advent of the Obama healthcare plan, with government footing the bill, would the potential for "enthusiastic" approaches to abortion in the case of defects become more prevalent?



I don't believe anyone should get themselves into a financial situation they cannot afford, If someone else must foot the bill (even the Government) then they shouldn't "go there". That is precisely why We're in the situation with housing that we're in now. People need to accept responsibility for themselves.


Briliant observation. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanEagle
Can't tell if you guys are either have a low IQ or just trolling.
Stop saying "WELL U SHUD B HAPPY CUZ U DIDNT GET ABORTED"
There is a high number of suicides and the most lines that come out of their mouths are "Buuhuuu I shouldn't even been born" and that is why in this great country abortion exist, so don't give me that bullsh!t.


America is for freedom.
Go back to your caves terrorists.


exactly! but its THEIR decision. they decide if they want to live or not. not their parents. with most, if things had gone differently in their lives, they would probably want to live.

bottom line: no one knows the future, so wouldn't you rather choose your own?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Briliant observation. Thank you.


Are You waivering from Your anti-abortion stance to agree that someone should/can abort a fetus that they cannot provide for adequately?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Maybe it is.
But I love another freedom loving person here on American soil.


Also this discussion has escalated from aborting a fetus into a killing a person.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by beezzer
 





Briliant observation. Thank you.


Are You waivering from Your anti-abortion stance to agree that someone should/can abort a fetus that they cannot provide for adequately?


Nope. But I really liked your stance on personal responsibility. Kinda rings true for anti-abortion.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AmericanEagle
 


medically, it is the same thing.

you love freedom so much, yet you deny it to the unborn? you wouldn't have freedom if you were aborted. its an illogical conclusion.

i honestly do see the argument for aborting someone with downs syndrome. i'm still tentatively against it. at the very least, i wouldn't hold it against someone as much as i would a healthy child being killed.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanEagle
Maybe it is.
But I love another freedom loving person here on American soil.

Also this discussion has escalated from aborting a fetus into a killing a person.

I can come up with a whole list of people I think should've been aborted :X
Since we've all gone into the "killing" debate and away from the original question..

where does it end

doesn't anyone who's diehard anti-abortion want to go back in time and advise say.... Ted Bundys mom to have an abortion? Hitler's mom? Jeffrey Dahmer? Casey Anthony?

Back on topic - if there was a test to predetermine if someone will turn out to be a mass murderer/serial killer/spree killer/etc/etc/etc - would abortion then be ok?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
It is a freedom to have an abortion.
There is nothing more you can do about it.
Suck it, liberals.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forevever

Back on topic - if there was a test to predetermine if someone will turn out to be a mass murderer/serial killer/spree killer/etc/etc/etc - would abortion then be ok?


No. Then you're just pre-judging.

My 2 cents on THAT particular topic.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by AmericanEagle
 


for one, i'm completely not liberal.

secondly, you haven't addressed the flawed logic of your position. you can't logically support freedom for all, and then take it away from some.

its frustrating! you simply cannot hold your position. it doesn't work. you're ignoring the hypocrisy of what you believe.

you cannot both say "freedom for some over others (which isn't freedom)" and "freedom for all". they aren't compatible beliefs!

you're statement is: "it is freedom to take freedom".

edit on 12-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Forevever
 





Originally posted by Forevever Back on topic - if there was a test to predetermine if someone will turn out to be a mass murderer/serial killer/spree killer/etc/etc/etc - would abortion then be ok?


Since the consensus is that becoming a serial killer requires both being born with the gene and being in an environment conducive to becoming a serial killer (neglect,abuse etc..) Then if parents had said test and then abused/neglected said child and then the child grew up to be a serial killer would the parents be charged with the crimes (or held financially liable)since they in fact created the situation?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Forevever

Back on topic - if there was a test to predetermine if someone will turn out to be a mass murderer/serial killer/spree killer/etc/etc/etc - would abortion then be ok?


No. Then you're just pre-judging.

My 2 cents on THAT particular topic.


not sure I understand how its prejudging... please elaborate

maybe I'm not clear..... if mental illness or brain defects (2 of the most common reasons to go around killing people) can be detected - why should they be permitted to come to term?

... like is there any reason we shouldn't judge Gacy? he killed at least 33 people....

its very popular opinion these days that mental illness are genetic - and Henry Lucas definitely had brain damage, though its also popular opinion that it was inflicted AFTER birth

based on that information - why are we letting any idiot in the world go get pregnant in the first place?

so now I guess my question comes down to Abortion VS the Right to conceive

most of the parents I know, wouldn't be permitted to adopt if their lives depended on it (or the kids life for that matter) but they can go breed all they want on their own, without reprecussion - at least until the kids grow up to be the Menendez brothers....



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
Then if parents had said test and then abused/neglected said child and then the child grew up to be a serial killer would the parents be charged with the crimes (or held financially liable)since they in fact created the situation?

My point exactly

see above post.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Forevever
 


Gacey was an adult when he killed. Would you want to kill an infant Gacey before he killed? Just on the assumption that he might?
I wouldn't.

It comes down to personal responsibility.

If you're going to commit an act that might result in a child, then you should accept the consequences.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, then you've also commited an act that you should also be responsibe and accept the consequences for.

For one you get a pass. For the other, the law says you have to take responsibility.

Hmmm.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


It comes down to personal responsibility.

.


Yes it certainly does!

And might I suggest allowing others to exercise their taking of responsibility or lack thereof and suffer the consequences or benefits. Let those that want the test have it. And let those that want to act on the test make their own decisions as to what they want to do about it.

And might I add that unless you have adopted bunch of orphaned or disabled kids; you have no right to tell others how to parent or make a decision not to parent. Put your time and money where your mouth is or shut up.

Legislating morality is a slippery slope.

Best we mind our own business, eh!
edit on 12-6-2011 by whaaa because: code 33



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


You are absolutely right! Legislating morality can't be done. If we're going to make any changes, it has to start at the home, the school, society at large. Just making laws doesn't solve the problem. Though this is a topic for another thread, teaching morality would eliminate more abortions than legislating it.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Forevever
 


Gacey was an adult when he killed. Would you want to kill an infant Gacey before he killed? Just on the assumption that he might?
I wouldn't.

It comes down to personal responsibility.

If you're going to commit an act that might result in a child, then you should accept the consequences.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, then you've also commited an act that you should also be responsibe and accept the consequences for.

For one you get a pass. For the other, the law says you have to take responsibility.

Hmmm.


Gacy was just one example - what about Jeffrey Dahmer - from all accounts he had a pretty good life growing up and yet, he tortured and murdered animals that eventually lead to the murdering of 17 young men - he himself requested that upon his death his brain be removed and studied to find out what was wrong with him

its also reasonable to assume that these "adults" who got caught - didn't start their killing as an adult - just because we didn't catch them... doesn't mean they didn't do it - a little girl from like England comes to mind but I dont remember her name offhand - she murdered a 3 year old when she was only 8 - surely if HER MOM had been aborted it would've prevented the abuse of this child - to inevitably prevent the murder of an innocent 3 year old

you could argue that they should've taken the child away, but who's to say she would've ended up in better hands? who's to say she wasn't predisposed to murder already? like dude said above (can't remember you name cause i fail) - if you're a psycho and genetic testing shows the "gene" is present in your unborn for this behavior and you don't abort, do abuse, and your child goes on to be Charles Starkweather - you should be punished

In all these scenarios I come back to the same conclusion - STOP LETTING ANY MORON GET PREGNANT - that would settle all the arguments in the long run

Also I think laws are a little more stricter in the drunk driver sense than you perceive - of course they can't be charged with 1st degree by definition of the law, but definitely vehicular manslaughter - if we start getting into the punishments for each of those crimes, then you might have a point - but then there are just as many murderers guilty of 1st degree as there are vehicular manslaughter that get off and do no time

I'm running on and on and on

My original point to your original question still stands.
They already are genetically picking what children look like.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forevever

My original point to your original question still stands.
They already are genetically picking what children look like.


And it's a damned shame. Though thanks for providing to the thread.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join