FoxHastings said: ↑ drluggit said: ↑ It's a tad disconcerting here that we see the folks on the left lining up to support this. It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? Back in their comfortable roots? You: """Additionally, Down's Syndrome is not a hereditary condition. It is a mutation and even if you abort a trillion babies with Down's, there will be a trillion more of them in the future. Death is not a cure.""" UH, tell that to the other poster who YOU AGREED WITH when he posted "" It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? "" Can't make up your mind?? UH, you can't go for a "master race" if the issue(Downs here) isn't hereditary....
I won't assume you know what de facto means. Or that you would be able to correctly use it in a sentence let alone apply it to a concept. When liberals applaud the use of abortion to "improve" the species... well, I doubt that "improve" is the right word. The hubris involved would preclude that. So, as noted before, liberals march inexorably to their roots. like salmon. You guys just can't help it. And in this case, it's back towards your eugenics.
Did you READ the last line? """""""""FoxHastings said: ↑ drluggit said: ↑ It's a tad disconcerting here that we see the folks on the left lining up to support this. It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? Back in their comfortable roots? You: """Additionally, Down's Syndrome is not a hereditary condition. It is a mutation and even if you abort a trillion babies with Down's, there will be a trillion more of them in the future. Death is not a cure.""" UH, tell that to the other poster who YOU AGREED WITH when he posted "" It's like they're unaware that adopting this type of an approach is clearly a nod to the master race argument. And isn't that always where liberals end up? "" Can't make up your mind??UH, you can't go for a "master race" if the issue(Downs here) isn't hereditary....""""""""" Here is another way to say it ......YOU agreed with the other poster that liberals were trying to create a "master race".....well , if something IS NOT hereditary then it can't affect any effort to create a "master race" through abortion....or any other way.... ...not to mention that if someone thinks it's wrong to try to eliminate suffering they have something wrong with them....
Utter BS. If it is not hereditary, then it becomes arbitrary. Like liking blond hair and green eyes and eliminating anything else.
What a load of hysterical claptrap......YES, you hate the ideas of women having rights, I know that...
Which clearly isn't the issue, is it? And now, painted into the corner, you hope to escape by darting off in a completely different direction? Does it matter to you that those who abort do so in pursuit of eugenics?
People with Down's syndrome are not suffering! They are people just like you and I. There is absolutely no reason to abort a child with Down's if the argument is "for his/her own good". That is selfish and nothing but a case of "for my own good." We are not talking about babies with aids or other serious conditions here. And no, this is not at all a case of "eliminating Down's" had that been the case, then I would have stood behind it to 100%. This is nothing but selective abortions and that is just objectively gross. With your argument of "eliminate suffering", I suppose you would stand behind forced abortions for poor mothers/couples? Sweden used to have a policy of sterilising the Saamis and NSDAP did the same with Down's patients and cripples - would you say this was a case of "eliminating suffering"? Elimination and extermination are not synonymous.
OK, once more ....an example: If you are breeding a horse to improve the resulting foal, you breed for things that can be PASSED ON( HEREDITARY).....if something isn't hereditary it can not be passed on. YOU said Downs is not hereditary so if horses could have Downs , you wouldn't worry about passing it along because YOU SAID IT ISN'T hereditary. So it does NOT effect any resultant foal and therefore does not enter the picture if you were trying for a "master race " of horses.... Allowing women to abort fetuses with Downs is NOT, as the poster you agreed with said, any part of creating a master race.
HOW would you know what every person with Downs is feeling? You do NOT. And there are varying degrees of Downs so they are not all the same as you think. You know damn well you are not about to trade places with any of them... And it doesn't matter....it does NOT matter....when they are fetuses the only person with a choice to abort or not is the woman it's in.... That does NOT matter....when they are fetuses the only person with a choice to abort or not is the woman it's in.... And YOU want them saved for YOUR OWN GOOD....but , too bad, you don't get to direct other's lives for them Yes, Downs can be quite serious , it has different levels...and who are YOU to decide what a woman can or can't afford or want to do with her life?? How many Down's kids to you support and take care of?? OH! So because WOMEN made the decision it's not OK. If they didn't have your superior and pure motives then how dare they have their own!!! . That conclusion is quite stupid since all along I've only advocated for CHOICE... I think you are getting frustrated and have to lash out. No, UNLIKE YOU I am not advocating FORCING women to gestate or abort... Of course not! . Again you are frustrated and are just saying silly things...sterilizing people ( persons with RIGHTS) is always wrong just like forcing women to give birth is always wrong... Shrug.
Honestly, you're driving a losing race here. Heredity isn't always the issue is it? Nazi Germany was all about making sure that they eliminated the weak or sick within their society, which frankly doesn't deal with exclusively hereditary maladies. Ensuring the "master race" then, is broader and more pervasive than you understand it to be. You still seem perfectly willing though to engage in this form or eugenic behavior and you applaud it as a manifestation of your view of choice. So, you present the condition perfectly to demonstrate the intentional nature of it. You applaud the intentional use of choice to create the eugenic condition.
A choice, for sure. As part of your conservative nature, does that extend to a concerted effort to ensure that certain undesirable traits and or outcomes are accomplished by your acquiescence?
Yes, dear, every woman who aborts, or has aborted, is in on an Evil Plan to create a master race .........and those who fight to preserve women's rights are in on the Evil Plan, too...
Number one leading cause of death in the AA community in the US since 1973. Makes your comments dangerously close to out right racism....
Ohhh, the draaaaama...and dishonesty... No, my comments applied to "women" and you can twist them to suit your silly purpose but in no way could the following be construed as racist: (sarcasm alert) FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, dear, every woman who aborts, or has aborted, is in on an Evil Plan to create a master race .........and those who fight to preserve women's rights are in on the Evil Plan, too..."""""
In the USA, both conservative women and liberal women almost always abort a Down Syndrome pregnancy. Over 90% will do so. This thread is just a display of conservative hypocrisy and dishonesty. They do the same things as liberals, but they choose to lie about it. They're all for the sanctity of life, right up until the problem affects them personally, in which case off to the abortion clinic they go.
You are 100% right. The majority of those claiming to be pro-life sing a different tune if it requires effort on their part. It reminds me of when I hear a Dem claiming to care about the less fortunate.
Evidence for the above lie? The real figure is less than 60%, probably less than half. https://lozierinstitute.org/new-stu...es-down-syndrome-community-by-thirty-percent/ Also, based on talking with other conservative pro-life people, most that I know well enough to discuss this with didn't even have the pre-natal diagnosis for Downs. I know in both of my wife's pregnancies, we elected to not screen for Downs or other chromosome abnormalities. It's a personal issue with my wife, who was diagnosed as having Downs in utero. Her parents are pro-life, so there was no question about keeping her. The test (early 1970s) was wrong. She is typical, not Downs.
This is a stupid argument. Okay....And? Are you about to trade places with any of the aborted fetuses you speak so highly of? No, because this too, is a stupid argument. "How can you know? You don't know ALL women on Earth?" I don't want anyone saved because I don't care about the lives of others - you do you, I do me. However, I find abortion to be very troubling from a moral point of view and even more troubling is selective abortion. Jack and Jill dream of becoming parents. One day, they finally get the good news - Jill is pregnant! Happiness and joy is on top. But, only until an ultra sound reveals their baby has Down's syndrome. "Ew. It wasn't someone like that we wanted! Remove it!" Jack and Jill agrees to abort the child and try until they get the kind of baby they want. Obviously, the italics above are simplified and exaggerated, but it - in a very good way - serves to prove how disturbed and distasteful this really is. When pushed in absurdum, "Down's" can be changed to anything from crippled to gender - "Yeah, I wanted a child... But not a friggen girl!" etc etc. If you cannot see how this is problematic then you must stand completely without empathy. I understand that the reason for abortion is completely irrelevant to you, to you abortion is an undisputable and fundamental human right. And that is fine. I like principled people. However, it is quite scary if you see no problem at all in a scenario where abortion becomes selective and targets a certain type of baby (or fetus, if you prefer). If aborting ill babies really is to be seen as a form of "illness elimination", then why draw the line at Down's? Why not re ove babies with allergies, deafness, blindness, disfiguration? "Eliminating suffering" is good so while we are at it, let's write a law making abortion compulsory for every mother who carries anything but an Aryan master-child. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! #curingcancer#womensrights#proachoice#progressivefuture How many aborted fetuses do you take care of? Again, a nonsense argument. I have always suspected it and now I am certain about it; you are a troll. A (no-lifer) Pro-Life troll who is trying to play devil's advocate to make the opposition look foolish. No one can be this autistically dogmatic. . You cannot answer it because you are not prepared to stay behind your notion in absurdum. Thus, it is only a preference and not a principle. My exagerrated example served to convince you that your position is wrong. Whatever, Mr.Troll. Your dogmatic "misogyny"-argument is getting really tiresome, ya know...
Is it? So you claim you know how every Downs person feels....well, everyone's entitled to their fantasies as long as they don't try to force them on others. It's only stupid to you because like several things you don't "get it". I am NOT the one claiming they can speak for others, I never claimed I could speak for fetuses... I don't have to know all the women on earth to know they all should have equal rights with all other persons on earth... Ridiculous sentence... So don't have one....you have NO right to force your morals on to others. There is no other kind. "Jack and Jill" ? Gee, is that a real story that proves something ? Then YOU have all the babies you want but your opinion shouldn't rule what others do with their reproductive lives. Here's the simple concept that you don't get. A woman has a right to an abortion for ANY reason...there is no criteria, no permision from you needed...if she doesn't want it she doesn't have to have it....YOU don't own women, you can't control them and that's basically what's really bothering you. I hope you're just pouting in frustration and don't really want to do that... you go from forcing women to give birth to forcing them to abort...force and women...hmmmmm... How totally illogical. You want women forced to have kids but YOU don't want to help them financially or adopt one, you don't mind if that woman is buried under expense and stress and YOU wouldn't care for someone who needs special care 24/7. . You have no sensible answers so I'm a troll ?? WHERE have you convinced me I'm wrong? That conclusion is quite stupid since all along I've only advocated for CHOICE... I think you are getting frustrated and have to lash out. No, UNLIKE YOU I am not advocating FORCING women to gestate or abort... OOOh, snappy comeback... WHAT misogyny argument? Where do you get this crap?? This is the sentence you are referring to: "" . Again you are frustrated and are just saying silly things...sterilizing people ( persons with RIGHTS) is always wrong just like forcing women to give birth is always wrong...""" WHERE is the mention of misogyny??? I could conclude that because if you want to take away women's rights you certainly can't like them but that sentence never touched on misogyny.
