A person with Down Syndrome on Abortion. "Let's pursue answers and not Final Solutions" - General

[media]https://youtu.be/V1x0YNWUvSc[/media] Truly a video that begs a question on moral and ethics.

Nah not really. Bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy. No one should be forced to donate a kidney, and no one should be forced to carry a baby, Downs Syndrome or no.

I think informing people in order to combat prejudice is a good thing. But as far as abortions go, I feel that it should ultimately be a moral choice made by the parents. Is it really something a government should decide for them?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52828459] Truly a video that begs a question on moral and ethics.[/QUOTE] To you, maybe. The rest of us are living in the 21st century.

Honestly if a mother finds out her child will be born with Down Syndrome she should be able to abort it if she wants. The comparison to the holocaust is just ridiculous.

We should be aborting babies with downs syndrome. Yeah, many people born with it can live a fulfilling life, but it is far kinder to all parties if the child is aborted before it gains consciousness. It isn't fair to take a gamble like that.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52828459]Truly a video that begs a question on moral and ethics.[/QUOTE] To someone who equates abortion with eugenics, maybe.

[QUOTE=Noss;52828710]We should be aborting babies with downs syndrome. Yeah, many people born with it can live a fulfilling life, but it is far kinder to all parties if the child is aborted before it gains consciousness. It isn't fair to take a gamble like that.[/QUOTE] I think the better option is to let the parents choose, primarily the mother since she IS the one who has to carry it.

[QUOTE=CatFodder;52828467]Nah not really. Bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy. No one should be forced to donate a kidney, and no one should be forced to carry a baby, Downs Syndrome or no.[/QUOTE] but at what point is it no longer your body? the entire basis of pro life arguments is that a fetus is living being distinct from it's mother and the entire basis of pro choice arguments is that they're not (at least up to a certain point, I'm completely aware that very few would argue that an abortion at 8 months 29 days is fine and dandy in any serious capacity). with such a fundamental difference in viewpoints there's no way for the two sides to see eye to eye.

id abort my unborn baby if it was gonna be downs why would i choose to take on all that extra burden when i could jsut try again

The bundle of cells are derived from both parents. It is a product of both of them and is not a product of its own self. The fetus has made no choices of its own and isn't even self aware. Parents should have the choice to terminate it legally at any point up up to birth.

[QUOTE=butre;52828737]but at what point is it no longer your body? the entire basis of pro life arguments is that a fetus is living being distinct from it's mother and the entire basis of pro choice arguments is that they're not (at least up to a certain point, I'm completely aware that very few would argue that an abortion at 8 months 29 days is fine and dandy in any serious capacity). with such a fundamental difference in viewpoints there's no way for the two sides to see eye to eye.[/QUOTE] well the basis of the bodily autonomy argument (as i heard it) is that EVEN IF the fetus is its own person, it requires the mother to "donate" her body to keep it alive, and Bodily Autonomy would allow the mother to deny this donation by aborting the fetus.

[QUOTE=Karmah;52828757]The bundle of cells are derived from both parents. It is a product of both of them and is not a product of its own self. The fetus has made no choices of its own and isn't even self aware. Parents should have the choice to terminate it legally at any point up conception.[/QUOTE] Conception is when the sperm goes into the egg.

[QUOTE=butre;52828737]but at what point is it no longer your body? the entire basis of pro life arguments is that a fetus is living being distinct from it's mother and the entire basis of pro choice arguments is that they're not (at least up to a certain point, I'm completely aware that very few would argue that an abortion at 8 months 29 days is fine and dandy in any serious capacity). with such a fundamental difference in viewpoints there's no way for the two sides to see eye to eye.[/QUOTE] Nah the argument of pro-choice is that it IS a difficult question and that's why you should leave it up to the person who's carrying it (up to a certain point e.g. roe v. wade) instead of having the government decide for everyone by totally outlawing it.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52828731]To someone who equates abortion with eugenics, maybe.[/QUOTE] Well, not all abortion, but in the case of aborting embryos with Down's Syndrome isn't that eugenics? I don't even consider it a bad thing, but, you are specifically aborting babies to kill off a genetic mutation.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52828459]Truly a video that begs a question on moral and ethics.[/QUOTE] having downs syndrome doesnt make you an expert on abortion plenty of women are against birth control and that doesnt stop them from being utter downies- er, dumbasses

[QUOTE=butre;52828737]but at what point is it no longer your body? the entire basis of pro life arguments is that a fetus is living being distinct from it's mother and the entire basis of pro choice arguments is that they're not (at least up to a certain point, I'm completely aware that very few would argue that an abortion at 8 months 29 days is fine and dandy in any serious capacity). with such a fundamental difference in viewpoints there's no way for the two sides to see eye to eye.[/QUOTE] it doesn't matter who the life belongs to. the mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. it's nobody's right to force her to carry a child that she doesn't want to, for any reason. and it's her right to abort her own child if she wants to, for any reason. no sides of an argument will ever see eye to eye but the most reasonable solution to the problem should be the victor. in the case of abortion, it's clearly pro choice.

[QUOTE=srobins;52828850]Well, not all abortion, but in the case of aborting embryos with Down's Syndrome isn't that eugenics? I don't even consider it a bad thing, but, you are specifically aborting babies to kill off a genetic mutation.[/QUOTE] Weirdly enough, this is just about the one case (or one of the few cases of genetic mutations) where that's 96-98% not (exactly) the case. Down syndrome is also called trisomy 21, since a whole chromosome is copied instead of a specific gene mutation appearing. I don't think an incidence link other than age of the parents has been discovered so far([editline]edit[/editline], unless one of the parents already has it. There's probably some debate to be had here, though the syndrome already lowers fertility [I]a lot[/I]). The remaining 2-4% are due to Robertsonian translocations according to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=801899598#Translocation"]the wiki page[/URL]. That's hereditary and normally not obvious in the person who [I]first[/I] carries it.

[QUOTE=butre;52828737]but at what point is it no longer your body? the entire basis of pro life arguments is that a fetus is living being distinct from it's mother and the entire basis of pro choice arguments is that they're not (at least up to a certain point, I'm completely aware that very few would argue that an abortion at 8 months 29 days is fine and dandy in any serious capacity). with such a fundamental difference in viewpoints there's no way for the two sides to see eye to eye.[/QUOTE] Let me ask you a question. And Tudd this is for you too. Imagine you're in a burning building. You're on your way to escape and you come into a room, there's a scared 5 year old girl sitting in one corner, and a container that's clearly marked "viable preserved zygotes". This container contains say like 5000 preserved zygotes (As in, fertilised eggs, you know, conception) that are just waiting to be incubated into a full size baby but were preserved in this container. In this hypothetical we have the technology to preserve and incubate them, whatever. You only have time to save one, they both weigh about the same, which do you save? The 5 year old girl or the canister of zygotes? I want an honest answer.

[QUOTE=srobins;52828850]Well, not all abortion, but in the case of aborting embryos with Down's Syndrome isn't that eugenics? I don't even consider it a bad thing, but, you are specifically aborting babies to kill off a genetic mutation.[/QUOTE] would it be wrong to cure somebody of down's syndrome in embryo? it's not a matter of something like race or gender. down's syndrome is literally only a negative mutation to have. calling it a mutation is actually just a nice way of saying deformity. frank stephens is clearly a case of a person with down's syndrome getting along quite well in life, and that's good for him and his family. however, there's no way of knowing if an unborn child will be able to live the life he does, though. there are many, many cases where people with down's syndrome live entirely dependent on others for their entire lives. as much as it sucks to say, they're a burden on the people around them. it's not pleasant, but it's a deformity that nobody should be forced to endure, whether they be somebody with the deformity or somebody related to said person.

People that know their kids have a high chance of having serious issues and then intentionally get pregnant are kinda shitty imo [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] Like, yeah it sucks you can't have healthy kids, but you really wanna have a high chance of fucking up a persons whole life instead of just adopting?

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52828918]Let me ask you a question. And Tudd this is for you too. Imagine you're in a burning building. You're on your way to escape and you come into a room, there's a scared 5 year old girl sitting in one corner, and a container that's clearly marked "viable preserved zygotes". This container contains say like 5000 preserved zygotes (As in, fertilised eggs, you know, conception) that are just waiting to be incubated into a full size baby but were preserved in this container. In this hypothetical we have the technology to preserve and incubate them, whatever. You only have time to save one, they both weigh about the same, which do you save? The 5 year old girl or the canister of zygotes? I want an honest answer.[/QUOTE] Just to save myself some time from writing out an awesome response on this question, so I am going to defer you to this Ben Shapiro clip since it essentially is what I agree with on questions like these. Starts at 2:48, and don't worry it is not actually the full 50 minutes, it is just tackling this exact question in a small segment of the bigger part of the show. [media]https://youtu.be/zMyEu3hSjX0?t=2m48s[/media] Also my views on abortion are not 1:1 to Ben Shapiro, but I think he does a really good job explaining why this question just sucks and doesn't prove anything.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52828918]Let me ask you a question. And Tudd this is for you too. Imagine you're in a burning building. You're on your way to escape and you come into a room, there's a scared 5 year old girl sitting in one corner, and a container that's clearly marked "viable preserved zygotes". This container contains say like 5000 preserved zygotes (As in, fertilised eggs, you know, conception) that are just waiting to be incubated into a full size baby but were preserved in this container. In this hypothetical we have the technology to preserve and incubate them, whatever. You only have time to save one, they both weigh about the same, which do you save? The 5 year old girl or the canister of zygotes? I want an honest answer.[/QUOTE] the fire hasn't spread to that section of the building, the girl is only scared because in the other corner is a mountain of human flesh staring her down. should I ignore the fact that in a burning building the preserved zygotes won't be viable anymore, and even if they are they won't be viable for long once I take them out of the building? zygotes in particular make the question easy because a zygote is just a fertilized egg that hasn't had time to turn into anything resembling a human. none of the chemical reactions or cellular reproduction has happened yet, a zygote is just the product of gametes touching [QUOTE=Baconator 7;52828896]it doesn't matter who the life belongs to. the mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. it's nobody's right to force her to carry a child that she doesn't want to, for any reason. and it's her right to abort her own child if she wants to, for any reason. no sides of an argument will ever see eye to eye but the most reasonable solution to the problem should be the victor. in the case of abortion, it's clearly pro choice.[/QUOTE] the thing is for the most part the mother hasn't been forced to carry a child. the vast majority of the time it was either an active choice or an acceptable risk. obviously not many people who made an active choice are getting abortions but a not insignificant number of people who considered it an acceptable risk do. abortions in the case of rape or life threatening complications I consider to be just fine (which let it be known is only one step beyond the strictest pro-lifers. I can't think of a single religion that forbids abortion in the case of life threatening circumstances), it's when someone is too much of a dunce to not get knocked up or when they do get knocked up they don't like the results that I start to take issue.

if my parents aborted me my soul would've probably just gone "fuck it i'll get the next one around"

[QUOTE=Tudd;52828966]Just to save myself some time from writing out an awesome response on this question, so I am going to defer you to this Ben Shapiro clip since it essentially is what I agree with on questions like these.[/QUOTE] I like how he got angry about how condescending pro-choicers are and then proceeded to read the entire tweet in the most condescending tone possible. Anyway I only listened through his first point (because he's still on his first point at the 10 minute mark and I have shit to do) and it already falls flat on its face because he's arguing against a fucking straw-man and constantly changing the thought experiment without even answering it. "Let's say that it's my five year old child or 100 screaming adults." No let's not say that, jackass, you're dodging the question. So anyway could you sum up in what ways you agree with him just briefly? I can't make it through his entire explanation if it's going to be this long and poorly thought out.

[QUOTE=butre;52828971]the thing is for the most part the mother hasn't been forced to carry a child.[/QUOTE] she wants to have an abortion but the government makes abortion illegal = forced to carry a child. don't blame the mother. if she gets knocked up for whatever reason and she should not have, then abortion provides a reasonable solution to the mistake. pregnancy doesn't always happen on purpose, you know, and it's pretty dickish to blame the mother for having a child she doesn't want. it's not just "not liking the results". you're saying that as if women are just gonna start getting pregnant and running on over to the clinic and starting over left and right. we're not talking about having a baby with brown eyes instead of blue here. there are dozens and dozens of valid reasons a woman could have to need or want an abortion. abortion is by no means something to take lightly, but i think you'd be incredibly hard pressed to find a woman who just has abortions for agreeably stupid or wanton reasons. [editline]27th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52828999]I like how he got angry about how condescending pro-choicers are and then proceeded to read the entire tweet in the most condescending tone possible. Anyway I only listened through his first point (because he's still on his first point at the 10 minute mark and I have shit to do) and it already falls flat on its face because he's arguing against a fucking straw-man and constantly changing the thought experiment without even answering it. "Let's say that it's my five year old child or 100 screaming adults." No let's not say that, jackass, you're dodging the question. So anyway could you sum up in what ways you agree with him just briefly? I can't make it through his entire explanation if it's going to be this long and poorly thought out.[/QUOTE] i agree with you that he and tudd are both ignorant conservative fucks, but that question really is completely fucking retarded. it's real, [i]real[/i] fucking dumb to compare a woman having an abortion to a burning building.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52828966]Just to save myself some time from writing out an awesome response on this question, so I am going to defer you to this Ben Shapiro clip since it essentially is what I agree with on questions like these. Starts at 2:48, and don't worry it is not actually the full 50 minutes, it is just tackling this exact question in a small segment of the bigger part of the show. [media]https://youtu.be/zMyEu3hSjX0?t=2m48s[/media] Also my views on abortion are not 1:1 to Ben Shapiro, but I think he does a really good job explaining why this question just sucks and doesn't prove anything.[/QUOTE] There's something ironic about you backing up your trash opinions with a video of a trash source.

"i'm gonna defer to this ben shapiro clip" is the most tudd sounding tudd post i've ever read

i want to know why anybody still even bothers trying to engage with tudd like imagine if everybody collectively pretended he didnt exist what a beatufiul world that be but trump is president and i know we are living in hell

It's also really fucking dumb to constantly shift goalposts and appeal to emotion to try and say that an unborn, barely conceived pile of cells at best is worth just as much, if not more than fully formed human life to the point that no one should be able to decide if it should fully develop or not, regardless of the moral and ethical implications of allowing it to finish forming. IE. if it would kill the mother, if it is going to live a very low quality of life due to being permanently disabled due to some horrible disease or defect, etc. It's a stupid straw man question because that's all that's needed to prove the point that the entire conversation is so obviously flawed right down to the foundation because there isn't even actually a debate to be had, it's just you trying to force your beliefs, which are composed of cherry-picked, misinterpreted facts at best and completely irrelevant emotionally driven arguments at worst. It's the exact same tactic your side of the argument bases their entire argument on, but when it's used against you you're suddenly so against such an argument being presented? The actual brilliance of that question, in it's completely stupid and nonsensical situation, isn't that it proves whatever stupid point that tweet is actually trying to be about, but that it completely unmasks the actual reality of the entire "debate". In your answer you literally shifted goal posts, threw pointless statements poking holes in the hypothetical to avoid the question and to try and undermine the situation instead of actually answering it, in the very first few sentences. You always shift away from the real issues that have to be asked when such a debate would actually take place. But real issues like, who takes care of an unwanted baby, what social services do we provide to care for unwanted children, or to prevent conception in the first place, do we take? And to that your side literally offers no answer usually, occasionally people will say "oh if you don't want pregnant just don't have sex!" as if that's somehow a solution. Seriously, if you want to debate like a big boy on big boy problems then sure lets actually debate and stop running circles. But to do that you'll have to stop hiding behind disingenuity and "I don't want to outright say my opinion so here's a shitty video by Ben Shapiro".