(August 23, 2014 at 5:02 am)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: I was going to comment on this but then I thought it's better if I don't go near this can of worms! Oh yeah, you guys "handicap" is really rude. That hasn't been used since the nineties.

Sorry, if I offended you BQ, but handicap is definitely still used where I live. It is the only "PC" term I know.

---

(August 23, 2014 at 12:17 am)Aractus Wrote:

(August 22, 2014 at 10:26 pm)Losty Wrote: I completely agree with you. I do not, however, agree that a fetus is a person.

So? If a ferrous is "defective" under somebody's definition because it may have Down's then by that same definition a human being with Down's is "defective". It's still saying that you don't think a person with Down's has the same value as someone who doesn't.

Absolutely not true.


On a side note if your use of offensive terms over and over is supposed to be to prove some kind of point, once would have been sufficient. Now it's just annoying and immature.

As a disabled person (spina bifida; look it up [but spell it right]), I'm sort of sorry BQ didn't weigh in with her thoughts on this whole convo. As for terms to call us, I have no clue what to say. I grew up with "disabled". Nowadays, it seems like "person-first") language rules the day. "Person with a disability" is kind of unweildy, so "PWD" is used a lot now. Personally, disabled, handicapped, and PWD are fine. But certain other language, like "cripple" seem to me equivalent to "negro" for a black person (or African-american, if you prefer that).

As for eugenics, I confess I still need to read what the prominent Atheist said, so I may weigh in on this again later (I probably should). I don't wish I hadn't been born. I do sometimes with AB's (able-bodies) were less harsh on us. That is, instead of passing me on the street and saying "Boy, I wouldn't wish your situation on anybody", just maybe say "Hello,", or "Good afternoon", or nothing at all, if you wish. Fine. You feel like superior to the disabled (not any of you, per se, just certain AB's I run across). I get it. But I don't look up to AB's strictly for being able-bodied. It takes a lot more. Hitler was able-bodied. Hussein was able-bodied. A former mayor of Vancouver (and now, IIRC, a Minister of the Legislative Assembly of BC) is a quadriplegic. To me, that's a pretty high quality life, even if he needs assistants for certain tasks.

Granted, I don't know too much about mental disability, which includes Downs. As far as QOL issues, well, my assumption as that most Downs people don't really realize that they are behaviorally difficult. Parents do the parent thing, maybe send them off to special ed classes at the behavioral institute during the day, or to a social program for a Padre or Charger game or something to give themselves some rest, etc. Granted, those families are not planning the next trip to the Wall of China or to the Emmy's or other things, but folks in that boat often find a community within the disability they are affected by. I know that every year, across the country, folks with CF (not a cognitive condition, but still relevant to this, I think) have community fundraisers called Great Strides walks, which also remind people of the community that exists.

Et cetera, et cetera. As for me, I just don't care for kids, plus, I fear interference from my parents or in-laws (though I found an old childhood spina bifida friend on FB, and he is married to an AB woman and they produced a kid). So, I am childless. I do, however, find parenting interesting to observe. As for me, I would not want to raise a potentially difficult kid. But that includes plenty of able-bodied kids. I would only want to raise the star quarterback or head cheerleader. But that's a lot to want, so I'm content without kids, because I, myself, would do a miserable job. But for the reasons implied in the previous paragraph, I can't fault somebody taking a Downs kid (or spina bifida, or CF) to term, as long as that family tries to think outside the box and try to find the relevant community, and support services, etc.

I don't think I'm superior to any other people, but I do think I'm superior to a fetus or at least my rights are/should be superior to the rights of a fetus.

Not you in particular. I meant some AB's in general. And indeed, a fetus isn't a person. But I can't automatically take issue with parents who find they are OK with raising a disabled kid. If the would-be parents do their research and know it will be difficult in certain ways, and take advantage of community resources, then fine. But if that balll of wax is too much, then fine, too. Abort.

ETA: I did go back and read this. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." No. Not in all cases. It was not immoral for my parents to bring me into this world. I have a viable QOL. I get along with my extended family overall quite well. I travel here and there. I follow soccer and other olympic sports, including attending events. I have an interest in politics as it relates to atheism and infrastructural issues, attending my local district councilmeeting most every month.

My life is different from yours (all of yours), and yours is different from mine. But mine is just as valid, thanks to family and community.

Hey so I guess I'll jump into the pool yay! The way I see it I'm always Alaina (don't call me Laney or else!) first. The geek. Bow down to the queen bitches!

I'm not sure how to comment on intellectual disability since I have none. However I want to make this point, if you are planning for a child and the fetus happens to be disabled unless you can't afford to take care of a disabled child there is something a little unsavory about choosing abort because a pre-planned kid because it's not going to be the way you want. And I do know taking care of a disabled kid is freaking expensive. So I totally understand aborting the disabled fetus cost wise.

I don't know what I understand. I don't know how I feel about it. I try not to think about it, because honestly it's none of my business and it's really hard to form non-biased opinions. All I know is I would not abort a planned pregnancy because of any sort of fetal defect unless it would mean my future child would suffer and/or die. In other words is there's no likely QOL.
Whatever other people would do, I assume they're making the best decision for themselves and their families.

(August 23, 2014 at 12:52 pm)c172 Wrote: ETA: I did go back and read this. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." No. Not in all cases. It was not immoral for my parents to bring me into this world. I have a viable QOL. I get along with my extended family overall quite well. I travel here and there. I follow soccer and other olympic sports, including attending events. I have an interest in politics as it relates to atheism and infrastructural issues, attending my local district councilmeeting most every month.

My life is different from yours (all of yours), and yours is different from mine. But mine is just as valid, thanks to family and community.

Of course your life is valid, and all the reasons you listed are great. None of them were an issue before you became a person, though. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: human beings have inherent worth that is not impacted by outside factors. But that worth comes from their humanity, not the physical container they inhabit.

When a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. I bet some of you hesitated when you read that, but it's true; there's no person in there, no soul, no life before a certain point. Get rid of it and nothing changes. That's a simple fact of biology, and any pro-lifer out there who wants to argue differently has a hell of a big burden of proof to shoulder for all their talk of souls.

I do get why this conversation would make some people uncomfortable, but from the perspective I have, where personhood doesn't begin at conception, it doesn't make sense for me to be discomfited by Dawkins' conclusion. It only makes sense if you believe that there's some specific identity floating out there somewhere, waiting to inhabit that one and only specific body, that is cheated out of it and has to vacate when that fetus is aborted.

But that's not true, and trying again for a physically healthy kid later doesn't mean that this is some second human soul who gets to live where its predecessor didn't. It just means that the kid who gets born does so without whatever disability the previous fetus would have had. Same parents, same environment during childhood, same everything but for that one thing.

That belief doesn't invalidate anyone currently living, nor does it necessarily make it immoral to choose to continue any given pregnancy unless the diagnosis is so severe that the resultant child would have no hope of a decent quality of life. But from a pragmatic standpoint I can see that the reasoning behind it is valid and sound.

Quote:At 21 weeks a baby can be delivered put into an incubator and has the potential to survive.

And are you offering to care for it?


Didn't think so.

(August 23, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: When a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. I bet some of you hesitated when you read that, but it's true; there's no person in there, no soul, no life before a certain point. Get rid of it and nothing changes. That's a simple fact of biology, and any pro-lifer out there who wants to argue differently has a hell of a big burden of proof to shoulder for all their talk of souls.

Fucking this.


I'd just like to respond to BrokenQuill if I may. What is it exactly that's unsavoury about wanting to have the healthiest child possible? Why should someone feel guilty about that?

Quote:there is something a little unsavory about choosing abort because a pre-planned kid because it's not going to be the way you want.

People who have pre-planned have done so for a reason. If things don't go to plan then that's precisely enough reason to abort a foetus.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus_(band)