Down's Syndrome...

My wife refused the "in vitro(right?)" test because she didnt know if she could carry a downs child full term...

I have a 75 year old downs uncle in a home right now who developed alzheimers here in the last few years....

Yes, its common enough to refuse, and Down Syndrome is only one of the things we can fidn now.

Still there are those with ones that are certain to be passed on and I am not sure how I feel about people making choices like that to have children and going in knowing they are sentencing them to certain things.

As for your uncle 75 is damn good for someone with Downs Syndrome.

Hell, thats good for a fully functioning healthy person.

Healthy being somewhat relative.

Kamizu wrote:

Jestor wrote:

In the article, it is wrote: He faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight til my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."

So, she choose the "birth it" option...

And I applaud her...

But, that doesnt mean she should get all bent out of shape over Dawkin's opinion...

Her 'identity' is "mother with a downs child", not as "xyz", and would probable tell the mother Dawkin's offered his opinion to, to also birth it...

IN which case, others would fill with rage that she is advising someone else to take on a burden they may not be ready for...

I think that there may be an issue with Prof Dawkin's de-humanizing those with Down's Syndrome. He doesn't come out and say it but I think part of what got under people's skin is how he's very nearly saying that they're not worth keeping alive. Like they're these half-baked cakes to be tossed out because they're not rising.

Like any other abortion issue, I think it's up to the individual's choice, and the Professor was just offering his extremely logical views. Not one I can personally get behind but one I can understand.

But, if he doesnt say that, here anyway, how can it be said that, that is what he meant?

Jestor wrote: But, if he doesnt say that, here anyway, how can it be said that, that is what he meant?

People like to read into things more than what is present. I've seen people get more upset over what was NOT said than what was. Shoot, I've done it too. We're really good at 'filling in the blanks' and when we do it, we tend to fill it with our own biases. Many people who care for disabled people tend to get very defensive.

"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

can read like "It's broken, just toss it and make a new one. You're a bad person if you brought a person with Down's Syndrome into the world."

Abortion is a hot subject to begin with. It's one people like to jump all over it. Add in a disability and we've got a fire!!!

I've spent my career working with people with Down Syndrome. Most of those I've known seem to have happy and fulfilled lives. They are often an example to me on how to enjoy the simple things in life and live in the moment! Having said that I have no problem with Dawkins expressing his opinion, although I don't agree with it, and it is up to the parents to decide whether or not they want to abort of course.

Looks to me he's just making some noise to get attention? I'm pro choice not because I think it's right but it's a womens decision, hopefilly, with support/imput from the father. I don't think it's right, can't say it's wrong for someone else, and couldn't do it myself. Tough call.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Dawkins really gets off demonstrating Jung's assertion that opinion is thought based on feeling and therefore an inferior function of the psyche. He knows he won't get along with most people, I doubt that he cares, and it's so satisfyingly ironic when someone who doesn't realize they are in the cult of Scientism acts in a way that could be described as 'self-righteous.' Delicious.

Down's syndrome is not 'passed on,' rarely if ever do the afflicted produce offspring. Actually, I don't know for certain but they may not even be able to create viable gametes. It's not like the birth of a Down's baby makes it more likely for others to develop Down's.

I have an aunt with Down's who is 65 years old and as happy as a lark (mostly ) She has been very well cared for by her family and a private facility we were able to get her into.

I disagree with Mr Dawkin's opinion. I also happen to believe that as soon as egg and sperm form zygote we have a moral and ethical obligation to help that embryo continue development into a fully mature human adult which it will, like most others, most likely do if it is given the proper environment and resources. That is my opinion, which is also the result of an inferior function of my psyche.

One exception: I wish I could abort Richard Dawkins (Before I get into trouble let me say that I say that tongue-in-cheek...mostly)

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet

Richard Dawkins has apologised for the "feeding frenzy" triggered by his tweet claiming it would be immoral to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down's syndrome.

The geneticist's latest Twitter row broke out after he responded to another user who said she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant with a baby with Down's syndrome.

Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

In a fuller explanation on his website – entitled Abortion & Down Syndrome: Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitterwar – the author tried to set the record straight.

He wrote: "To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."

The backlash for his comment had included one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight until my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma" while Dawkins said accusations of "Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness" and "fireballs of hatred" had been hurled his way.

He wrote: "If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare."

I mean, really, does this dude think he has the ability to read people's minds and souls? How can he know how much suffering someone does or doesn't feel? Does he have visions where the sum total of human suffering is his to observe objectively so he knows what to push for and where to increase the total? His 'logic' is deeply flawed on this issue.

What I mean to say is, IMHO, his apology is a pretty crappy example of what an apology sounds like.

Damned if you do and damned if you dont.

Does not twitter not act like facebook in a way?

I mean Richard Dawkins and his replies are not unknown, so I would think anyone within his contacts would expect a certain response...

Hes not known for being the nicest person in his replies.

Down's syndrome is not 'passed on,' rarely if ever do the afflicted produce offspring. Actually, I don't know for certain but they may not even be able to create viable gametes. It's not like the birth of a Down's baby makes it more likely for others to develop Down's.

No, not in the case of Downs, however there are others with different genetic disorders that knowingly pass on such things, which is where I think it highly irresponsible of the adults in regards to child bearing.

I have an aunt with Down's who is 65 years old and as happy as a lark (mostly ) She has been very well cared for by her family and a private facility we were able to get her into.

Which is fine, but I have had to work with people with Downs that have been prone to violent outbursts ,etc. On residents and staff.

Also, not all facilities are created equal, neither are all Downs patients.

Quite true, on all accounts.

This is a tough topic. As previously stated abortion is touchy enough, adding the dehumanizing of people with disabilities and its a wildfire waiting to happen. Part of this is because most people believe that if someone's opinion differs from their own that person must be corrected because they are wrong. This is not the most effective way to handle a differing of opinions.

For my own part I never knew where I'd lie on the abortion debate until my girlfriend and I had a pregnancy scare. She said she'd want to abort it and and right there and then I knew where I stood. That was my child, a person I helped create, and she'd kill it because it would inconvenience her.

But I do believe that it's everyone's choice and I'll respect that.

You see, I'm 100% with dawkins on this one.

And the reason why is simple... Of all the abortions people can have, you can categorize them in two groups:

- Because I don't want it (Or now's not the right time)or because it's my body and I do what I want (yet somehow people aren't quite as keen when it comes to chopping their own legs off: these are actual parts of their body)
- Because there's something wrong with the baby or pregnancy.

It seems kind of obvious to me that, if abortion is to be considered acceptable on occasion, the most acceptable of those occasions is when there is something wrong with the one being killed, just like when it comes to your limbs, the one that makes sense to remove is the one with the disease.

Abortion is a hot subject to begin with. It's one people like to jump all over it. Add in a disability and we've got a fire!!!

Absolutely. The problem is people mistake the mix of feminist propaganda with the whole "don't ever say anything bad about anyone with a disability coz it's wrong" for their hearts and sense of morality. Resulting in things like the twitter response to dawkins, or this very thread. On this very website some people have suggested (at least) one other shuts up because of the way he behaves (mostly a communication style which unlike mine doesn't even contain expletives), and probably have reported many of his posts in the hope of having him banned, a form of "online abortion". Yet this person clearly has traits of someone who has some form of ASD (considered to be a disability).

Seems strange that the same person can believe these three things:
-abortion is a right
-aborting babies just because they're different is a wrong
-You don't do things like me and I don't like your ways: go away!

A dilemma which, interestingly enough, is perfectly represented by the facial expressions of people who are fortunate enough to ride on the same bus as two lads (twins) who have Down's and quite loudly talk about their sexual fantasies. It's "cheesoid" meets "right and wrong" meets "does not compute". (seriously I've witnessed it a couple of times, all the passengers look like they're suffering from acute diarrhoea, it's quite something)

I spent my 4th year of school being best friends with a kid who had it, they were trialing incorporating him into a normal school. I happened to be in the next grade up at the time with a couple of mates, so I guess it was easier for an outcast from the norm to associate with an outcast group. They decided it did not work after that first year of it.... he was rather easy going but wanted to kiss everybody all the time.
:blink:
Even after that experience I really do not think I know enough about it to approach the topic, beyond to say IMO at the end of the day its the mothers choice irregardless of disablement or not. The parent must have been considering it to ask, and to me Dawkin's opinion is just representative of what he would do - nothing more.

ren wrote: Seems strange that the same person can believe these three things:
-abortion is a right
-aborting babies just because they're different is a wrong
-You don't do things like me and I don't like your ways: go away!

I don't think that's strange (or accurate of any view expressed here, but whatever). To me it suggests your initial assertion

ren wrote: Of all the abortions people can have, you can categorize them in two groups:

- Because I don't want it (Or now's not the right time)or because it's my body and I do what I want (yet somehow people aren't quite as keen when it comes to chopping their own legs off: these are actual parts of their body)
- Because there's something wrong with the baby or pregnancy.

is incorrect.

just like when it comes to your limbs, the one that makes sense to remove is the one with the disease.

A poor choice of straw man given most people will do whatever possible to keep a limb, diseased or not.

A poor choice of straw man given most people will do whatever possible to keep a limb, diseased or not.

Straw man would need an opposing argument. There isn't one. My own argument is that people abort healthy babies a lot more than they remove healthy limbs, and people will be happier to remove a cancerous limb than a healthy one. Which isn't even an argument, just putting numbers into words.


BTW, whilst the holier-than-thou crowd pat each other on the back, I can't help but notice TOTJO seems to have aborted the guy with ASD/aspergers, for the grand crime of behaving like a guy with ASD/Aspergers! Hurray!

He's neither aborted nor abandoned, ren ...

He's neither aborted nor abandoned, ren ...

I am sorry, but either we cannot find the requested profile or this account is no longer active. Please contact the site administrator if you believe this is an error.

I'd like to report a problem with the website then!

The website is functioning properly.

He is not 'only' a profile on a website, after all. And it is that which is neither aborted nor abandoned.

In this context

On this very website some people have suggested (at least) one other shuts up because of the way he behaves (mostly a communication style which unlike mine doesn't even contain expletives), and probably have reported many of his posts in the hope of having him banned, a form of "online abortion". Yet this person clearly has traits of someone who has some form of ASD (considered to be a disability).

Seems strange that the same person can believe these three things:
-abortion is a right
-aborting babies just because they're different is a wrong
-You don't do things like me and I don't like your ways: go away!

it is.

I'm not going to suggest banning the lad is the same as killing him before birth, but I do struggle to understand how members here can support the right to abortion yet demonize the aborting of disabled babies whilst constantly complaining and eventually banning a guy because of his disability.

I've complained about the BS going on in here on many occasions before, but I must say totjo seems to be reaching ever lower depths every day.