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.

 

The rights of unborn babies? Do they have any?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
This has nothing to do with the issue because both parents already carried the gene for dwarfism. the parents in question sought to have a deaf child on purpose. two people with dwarfism CAN have a child of normal size, just as two deaf parents can have a hearing child.


So lets say that two parents with the gene for dwarfism could choose a gene therapy to guarantee that their child would not be born a dwarf. They refuse it, because they do not feel that being a dwarf is a disability, and they would like to have a dwarf child if possible.

Would that be wrong? Could they be taken to jail? Who decides who is a disability and who isn't? Who decides that being deaf is something so horrible the parent needs to be in jail?

The technology is here to genetically engineer children, and to correct defects before birth. Are we going to start taking people to jail who allow disabled children to come into the world? If the parent is culpable in one situation, then they are culpable in the other. When having fair skin becomes a disability because skin cancer is more likely, if a mother seeks out a fair skinned mate to have a child because she thinks its beautiful will she be liable, too?

It just never ends.




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
There are no rights in physics. It is concept that is contained in our brains and directed by emotions. We can grant or withdraw so called rights in any instant. No one and nothing intrinsically has 'rights'. The Universe appears to be for all practical purposes amoral. To have an intelligent conversation, we should speak in terms of pragmatics and emotional preferences.
.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
i'm going to say this, and it may be a harsh comparison, but we are speaking of two adults, who sought to guarantee that their child would be born with a disability. that is comparable to a mother who abuses amphetamines an/or alcohol in pregnancy...to guarantee her child has a disability. we are toying with things we shouldn't be toying with here. to have prenatal surgery to fix a heart defect is one thing. to search out certain disability causing genes, in my opinion, is irresponsible on the part of the parent. every normal parent(race,creed,whatever) wants their children to be in the best possible health, without any sensory(sight, hearing, ect.) when they are born. my issue isn't even really with the genetic thing...it's with people who have children to satisfy their own political agenda....which is what it appears these two women did. enough already.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
i'm going to say this, and it may be a harsh comparison, but we are speaking of two adults, who sought to guarantee that their child would be born with a disability.


They might not consider this a disability and might even consider it a blessing. They are not removing genetic material from a zygote or implanting genes, they are using sperm to conceive, and they have chosen a man to donate based on characteristics they feel are desirable. The intent to do harm is not there. They obviously see it as something to value. Who decides what is a disability and what isnt, and what is something to take to court? What would the actual charge be?

Would it be better if she actually looked for a man to sleep with instead of a sperm donor to remove the sciency feel?

Lesbian SWF ISO deaf SWM to father a child.
Must have no involvement and be willing to
terminate parental rights. No compensation
offered. Pls call Debbie 202-456-7890.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
They might not consider this a disability and might even consider it a blessing. They are not removing genetic material from a zygote or implanting genes, they are using sperm to conceive, and they have chosen a man to donate based on characteristics they feel are desirable. The intent to do harm is not there. They obviously see it as something to value. Who decides what is a disability and what isnt, and what is something to take to court? What would the actual charge be?

Would it be better if she actually looked for a man to sleep with instead of a sperm donor to remove the sciency feel?

Lesbian SWF ISO deaf SWM to father a child.
Must have no involvement and be willing to
terminate parental rights. No compensation
offered. Pls call Debbie 202-456-7890.



RedBalloon: you seem to be arguing from all angles. As stated before she chose a sperm donor who WOULD guarantee a baby that would be deaf. She had already proved this in her previous "experiment" - she has a daughter who was born totally deaf. From where I am sitting their choices would appear to be all about them and their fears of inadequacy in raising a hearing baby. Thats a rather a sad indictment on their ability to raise a child. We expect parents who give birth to children with disabilities to deal with them AND they do. Its obvious that they chose the child's genepool not for his benefit but theirs. After all its his life he must live not theirs, are they going to expect him to be homosexual so that it will be easier for them to deal with.

Let's get real selecting to disable your child is wrong. They may have learnt to deal with it, but they can not choose to inflict a handicap, this is a hearing world after all, on an unborn child. There are many things they may choose to do for the child but handicapping him at birth? And two handicapped kids intentionally?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
RedBalloon: you seem to be arguing from all angles. As stated before she chose a sperm donor who WOULD guarantee a baby that would be deaf. She had already proved this in her previous "experiment" - she has a daughter who was born totally deaf. From where I am sitting their choices would appear to be all about them and their fears of inadequacy in raising a hearing baby. Thats a rather a sad indictment on their ability to raise a child. We expect parents who give birth to children with disabilities to deal with them AND they do. Its obvious that they chose the child's genepool not for his benefit but theirs. After all its his life he must live not theirs, are they going to expect him to be homosexual so that it will be easier for them to deal with.

Let's get real selecting to disable your child is wrong. They may have learnt to deal with it, but they can not choose to inflict a handicap, this is a hearing world after all, on an unborn child. There are many things they may choose to do for the child but handicapping him at birth? And two handicapped kids intentionally?


Well let me clarify again, and please read this carefully -->*** I THINK TRYING TO HAVE A DISABLED CHILD IS WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!***



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
it's dangerous to restrict reproduction? in all people, yes....in some, no. there are women out there with a track record for abusing drugs during pregnancy and have 2, 3, 4 addicted babies, babies with all kinds of horrible defects. i say this as someone who has cared for these children. it is heart-wrenching and it angers me that people have children with NO regards to the meaning of that. so, what, you can be gay and raise a child. big freaking deal. but let's add to our own ease and agenda by having a child puposefully with our same disability...so that it's not TOO hard. if a normal person has a disabled child....take care of them. if a disabled person has a normal child...take care of them. genetic tampering and searching for the exact perfect gene so that our child is just like us so it'll be easy to raise is B.S. people like these two women...with their hidden agendas...and their attitude of it's ok to have a baby as long as it's not different from us...make me livid. i am grateful for my two healthy,intelligent children, but i was prepared to raise them no matter the circumstances. and i would NEVER consider tampering with someone's right to be born an individual....with no gene matching and genetic interferance......but of course...that's just MY opinion.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
it's dangerous to restrict reproduction? in all people, yes....in some, no. there are women out there with a track record for abusing drugs during pregnancy and have 2, 3, 4 addicted babies, babies with all kinds of horrible defects. i say this as someone who has cared for these children. it is heart-wrenching and it angers me that people have children with NO regards to the meaning of that.


Well who gets to decide who can reproduce and who can't? I wish I could personally sterilize all the crack ho's that live in DC down the road from me, and give their 8 kids good homes, but I can't and she will still have them. Yes, it is heart wrenching, it is expensive, it is tragic, and it is madening, but as a society we can't start making restrictions like that.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
People keep quoting me and telling me it's wrong. For the love of god, I AGREE. It's just not something a law can be written for, and the implications of such a law would be far greater than keeping two women from having a deaf child.


I totaly disagree! 200%!

These people should be tried in a court of law. First of all, to see if they are even compotent to raise children. Second of all, to see if a jury of thier peers or a judge would see any wrong doing in this case.

You cannot stand back and watch this happen cause you are "afraid of the implications"... Thats a crime in itself IMO.

I think that just from what I've read about these mothers that there is definatly a case for them being incompotent parents, and also for them intentionaly disableing their child.

... Basically, I feel like those women should be ripped of their reproductive organs, jail will do nothing, but this way they cant mess with anyone else's life.

... I would love to get close enough to ram a Q-Tip down one of their ears and see how they like it when I play GOD. God damned Lesbian incomopent mothers.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I guess I shouldn't be shooked

but I am,I mean if you wanted to help children they could have adoubed two children, But no...they had to made sure that they had more of a chance at being deaf, than heaing and I think that that was a selfish choses to make.


I still get amazed everyday at how selfish people can be,
I guess my husband is right ooooooooooooooooooo I don't like saying that.
and I hope he doesn't see this post or he will never let me forget.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by freespirit]

[edit on 12-9-2004 by freespirit]



posted on Sep, 19 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   


IMO, society's penchant to sue for anything and everything is a real problem. What's this lawsuit going to accomplish? 18 years down the road after being raised by these people, the child is going to take them to the cleaner's? To what end? It just seems too "after the fact" for me.

I also don't believe it governments place to legislate morality. They can't. If you're a moral turd, no law is gonna change that. Our prisons are filled with folks who fit this bill.

Whether they consider deafness a blessing or not, it is a publically recognized handicap. Intentionally breeding a life to start out handicapped is morally wrong. If these two can do it, why not start breaking the legs of newborns so the crippled couple can be on equal ground with their new child? For crying out loud, what are we coming to?! I realise in one situation we're talking genetics while the other is pure barbary, but the outcome is the same. Some folks just want to hinder others to make themselves feel better about themselves. Selfishness in the extreme. Sad...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join