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

I don't want a kid with downs or other diseases and that's my fucking right.

[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] that's just his voice, don't read too much about that part. he was criticizing a single person for being condescending, not the entirety of pro-choicers the gist of the first point is that there's a difference between a dilemma and an impetus, that on the fly moral decisions aren't necessarily the right decision. the second is attacking the appeal to emotion used by the argument, where there's a terrified screaming 5 year old girl and a jar of embryos just sitting there. he modifies the argument to add a similar emotional response to the embryos (using the example that it's you're infertile, they're your embryos, and these embryos are the only chance for you to have a child of your own) and states that many if not most would save the embryos at this point, looking back to the first point. the third point is criticizing that the argument makes it a black and white binary decision, that it suggests that if you'd save the 5 year old you must think embryos are worthless, when all it means is that you think they have less worth than the 5 year old. he also clears up a misconception about pro-life stances, pro-choice people think that a pro-lifer considers an embryo to be every bit as important as human life, and that's just not the case, we just happen to think they're more important than pro-choicers do. he gives an example from catholic doctrine where the life of the mother always takes precedent over the life of the unborn, such as in the case of a pregnant woman with uterine cancer who's only way to survive involves the chemo and the death of the unborn child, and neither the mother nor the doctor have done anything wrong in the eyes of the catholic church.

[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] Do you actually have the ability to formulate your own arguments? You seem to rely on video clips any time you're pushed for an answer.

[QUOTE=butre;52828971] 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.[/QUOTE] imo allowing abortions in the case of rape while not allowing them otherwise is pretty hypocritical. You are taking the position that from the moment of conception the zygote/embryo is it's own living being with it's own right to life but you would deny that being it's right to life because it's mother was raped, which is putting the right of the mother over the "child". At least with the life threatening part you can make the argument that you are sacrificing one life for another, with the "in case of rape" one you are making an exception to the cornerstone of your argument.

[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52829017] 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] I didn't ask the question and I don't care about the specific scenario it presents, what I [I]do[/I] care about is how valuable Tudd (or anyone who is agreeing with him) finds unborn fetuses compared to living children or adults.

[QUOTE=butre;52829072] the third point is criticizing that the argument makes it a black and white binary decision, that it suggests that if you'd save the 5 year old you must think embryos are worthless, when all it means is that you think they have less worth than the 5 year old. [/QUOTE] Oh making a morally grey decision into a black and white binary one? Sort of like saying that abortion is always wrong and that it should be outright banned no matter what? You see my point yet?

[QUOTE=butre;52829072] the gist of the first point is that there's a difference between a dilemma and an impetus, that on the fly moral decisions aren't necessarily the right decision. the second is attacking the appeal to emotion used by the argument, where there's a terrified screaming 5 year old girl and a jar of embryos just sitting there. [B]he modifies the argument to add a similar emotional response to the embryos (using the example that it's you're infertile, they're your embryos, and these embryos are the only chance for you to have a child of your own) and states that many if not most would save the embryos at this point, looking back to the first point.[/B] [/Quote] And this is already where I have to question this mans moral integrity; he assumes that most people would allow a child to die to save some embryos, but only if those embryos are their own? Yikes. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post though -- any pro-lifer is obviously going to attach a different amount of worth to an embryo. That's something that just has to be taken on a case by case basis depending on who you're talking to.

I'll even give you a list of legitimate topics to answer me on here to help you out with actually debating the right way: 1. Do we allow abortion for rape victims? Why or why not? 2. If carrying the baby to term would kill the mother and/or the child, is abortion wrong then? 3. Where exactly in the development process does it go from being a pile of cells to a living baby that we must oh so exclusively protect over all else if we do? This has to be a quantifiable point based on solid facts, it can't be subjective, you can't arbitrarily decide what point something is precious and worth saving vs. not. To make that assessment think of a similar quantification we face with criminals and their threat to society? (At what point do crimes become too heinous for the person to be released back into society? At what point does that escalate to them deserving death, if at all?) 4. Do we allow for the abortion of those who would grow up and probably suffer for their entire life? IE. those with severe birth defects or hereditary diseases, etc? 5. What social programs should we enact to help provide for and care for these children who would otherwise possibly have been aborted?

[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] Is this the same Ben Shapiro that said that more than half of all Muslims on Earth were radicals?

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52829095]Oh making a morally grey decision into a black and white binary one? Sort of like saying that abortion is always wrong and that it should be outright banned no matter what? You see my point yet?[/QUOTE] yeah sure do. would be great for your point if I ever said that

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52829080]I didn't ask the question and I don't care about the specific scenario it presents, what I [I]do[/I] care about is how valuable Tudd (or anyone who is agreeing with him) finds unborn fetuses compared to living children or adults.[/QUOTE] and the point is that that question is one of the worst ways possible to try and learn what their views are, because they just need to point out all the flaws that butre pointed out 3 posts ago

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52829106]I'll even give you a list of legitimate topics to answer me on here to help you out with actually debating the right way: 1. Do we allow abortion for rape victims? Why or why not? 2. If carrying the baby to term would kill the mother and/or the child, is abortion wrong then? 3. Where exactly in the development process does it go from being a pile of cells to a living baby that we must oh so exclusively protect over all else if we do? 4. Do we allow for the abortion of those who would grow up and probably suffer for their entire life? IE. those with severe birth defects or hereditary diseases, etc? 5. What social programs should we enact to help provide for and care for these children who would otherwise possibly have been aborted?[/QUOTE] yes, it's a case where the mother didn't actively or passively choose to carry a child no, even catholics agree on this point that's the whole point of the argument. that falls under my "doesn't like the results" point earlier incentivize adoption programs. not foster care, because that's a garbage fire on it's own. proper adoption programs. if you don't want the kid, give it to someone who does.

[QUOTE=butre;52829072]that's just his voice, don't read too much about that part. he was criticizing a single person for being condescending, not the entirety of pro-choicers[/QUOTE] It's a tangent but it's not "just his voice", he is genuinely pretty condescending, especially outside of debates. Can't say I didn't get a kick out of him complaining about someone else "dripping with condescension and disdain". [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52829075]Do you actually have the ability to formulate your own arguments? You seem to rely on video clips any time you're pushed for an answer.[/QUOTE] In fairness it was a direct reply to what he was asked. The questions are remarkably similar. [editline]27th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;52829072] he also clears up a misconception about pro-life stances, pro-choice people think that a pro-lifer considers an embryo to be every bit as important as human life, and that's just not the case, we just happen to think they're more important than pro-choicers do. [/QUOTE] This is totally fair and disagreements like these are fine as long as they remain within the realm of personal choices, opinions, and agency. The problem comes in when one side (Shapiro's, yours, presumably Tudds) wants to use the power of the state to enforce their opinion.

[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] I watched for ten minutes. Does he ever actually get to his point? Next time write out the response. An hour long video with this sanctimonious prick isn't an answer. Especially when you append some bullshit like "these aren't REAALLLLLLY my opinions, buuuut"

[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52829109]and the point is that that question is one of the worst ways possible to try and learn what their views are, because they just need to point out all the flaws that butre pointed out 3 posts ago[/QUOTE] someone asked specifically for those flaws when they requested a synopsis of tudd's video. I didn't just need to point anything out, if it was up to me I would've just left it at the snarky smartass comment I left earlier

[QUOTE=butre;52829121] that's the whole point of the argument. [/QUOTE] So where does life start for you because I'm trying to understand why you are against abortion in general, but for it when it comes to cases of rape, but against again it when it comes to cases of severe birth defects or hereditary defects.

[QUOTE=butre;52829121]that falls under my "doesn't like the results" point earlier[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Baconator 7;52829017]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.[/QUOTE] whats your response to that then

[QUOTE=butre;52829121]yes, it's a case where the mother didn't actively or passively choose to carry a child no, even catholics agree on this point that's the whole point of the argument. that falls under my "doesn't like the results" point earlier incentivize adoption programs. not foster care, because that's a garbage fire on it's own. proper adoption programs. if you don't want the kid, give it to someone who does.[/QUOTE] Thank you. Now I think we find a lot of common ground on the last point there so lets talk about that. The thing is pro life people, and maybe this is your opinion too, are often in my experience very anti-contraception. I personally think that doing what we can, such as providing subsidised or free contraception is important to this problem. It makes sense that avoiding the situation as much as possible where we have to make these morally uncomfortable decisions would be the right thing to do, but a lot of pro choice people seem to be so against it. What do you think?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52829144]So where does life start for you because I'm trying to understand why you are against abortion in general, but for it when it comes to cases of rape, but against again it when it comes to cases of severe birth defects or hereditary defects.[/QUOTE] at 22 days after conception it's heart starts beating and it has sufficient brain function to be it's own life, even if it still requires the support of another. I'm not particularly concerned with it's intelligence, sentience, or anything like that, because newborn babies barely have any intelligence or sentience and I'm damn sure not gonna advocate infanticide. before the 22 days, go ahead with the abortion. the thing about birth defects is that even the most severe ones are usually something you can lead a happy healthy life with, even if it's aided by prosthetics, medicine, etc. short of something severely debilitating that you won't live more than a few days with anyway like anencephaly there's no reason to abort your kid just because they're not normal. if it's something that the kid isn't going to survive anyway then yes, go ahead with the abortion

all babies should be aborted before birth and save the planet

[QUOTE=butre;52829186]it's heart starts beating and it has sufficient brain function to be it's own life[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=butre;52829186]it still requires the support of another[/QUOTE] if it will die without the support of another person then clearly it's not it's own life now is it? even an intestinal worm relies on another organism to live, but they can also live on their own for at least a little while. if you take a fetus out of the womb prematurely, it's very unlikely to survive (though there are some cases of premature births/c-sections/etc surviving). calling a fetus its own life is a very, very long stretch at best. [quote]the thing about birth defects is that even the most severe ones are usually something you can lead a happy healthy life with, even if it's aided by prosthetics, medicine, etc. short of something severely debilitating that you won't live more than a few days with anyway like anencephaly there's no reason to abort your kid just because they're not normal.[/quote] birth defects aren't just about the life of the afflicted person. sure, they are capable of living some pretty long lives depending on the condition, but they'll also be a burden on the people around them. abortion doesn't only affect the life being aborted, you know.

When I was being born the doctor told my parents I had a high chance of having downs and my parents had to decide whether they were going to abort me or not Obviously they didn't and luckily I didn't have downs. It doesn't mean anything but if I actually did have downs I'd rather have been aborted than be a burden to my family. Like I'm not trying to apply this view to anybody else or anything, it's just this thread reminded me of it and I just felt like sharing.

[QUOTE=butre;52829186]at 22 days after conception it's heart starts beating and it has sufficient brain function to be it's own life[/QUOTE] I need a source on sufficient brain function at 22 days because literally everything I've studied in terms of child psychology has said that the brain only makes the neural connections needed to actually function as a brain way later than 22 days Usually it's said that the neurons start making connections to become synapses about 2 months in

can't people just let other people do what they want with their body and just keep their nose out of it? no one should be forced to raise and support a child with a serious developmental issue, but if someone wants to keep the child for what ever reason they have then i dont care, it's their life. if the same person wanted to abort the fetus, for what ever reason, i don't care, it's their life.

Ugh I hate this topic so fucking much. It's so split. People on both sides are trying to be good people, but just in different ways. Pro Choice is looking at the practicality of it, and dismissing the supposed morality and looking at the pros for a mother who isn't ready for motherhood, and the problems that come with having a baby. Pro Life is looking at the overall morality of it, and keep thinking about the baby that is being killed. They think about the little balls of joy that they see around them and they correlate that with the baby. They look at it as a huge moral conundrum and think that when you kill a baby, it's akin to murdering a potential person. Both of them are trying to do right, but with different views about the problem. Both have pros and both have cons. And people just persecute the other views as they see fit because you're either a baby killer or a backwards bible thumping redneck.

[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52829217]if it will die without the support of another person then clearly it's not it's own life now is it?[/QUOTE] If you're in a car accident and are in a coma from which you may awake and are on life support, and you're a huge financial and emotional burden to your family dealing with your situation - can I come and shoot you in the head? I mean after all, you'll die without the support of the nurses and the machine so clearly you're not your own life anymore. At what point do you consider something not life-worthy? When it can't breathe on its own? When it can't survive on its own? According to you, I can kill babies after they're born because they can't live on their own. Hell, a lot of adults can't even live on their own without support for medical reasons. I understand your argument, but my point is that when you start drawing lines that aren't at conception, you also draw a line that can be applied to grown humans as well.

*rudesnip*

my mother considered aborting me i wish she had

[QUOTE=Blazyd;52829313]If you're in a car accident and are in a coma from which you may awake and are on life support, can I come and shoot you in the head? I mean after all, you'll die without the support of the nurses and the machine so clearly you're not your own life anymore. At what point do you consider something not life-worthy? When it can't breathe on its own? When it can't survive on its own? According to you, I can kill babies after they're born because they can't live on their own. Hell, a lot of adults can't even live on their own without support for medical reasons. I understand your argument, but my point is that when you start drawing lines that aren't at conception, you also draw a line that can be applied to grown humans as well. And adding to my example: you're in a coma from which you may awake and are on life support. You're not sentient in a coma, and you're not even technically your own life anymore according to you. In addition, you're financially and emotionally burdening your family members who are dealing with your situation. Remember that you may awake from your coma. Why can't I kill you in that case?[/QUOTE] well to be quite frank, you're assuming that i said you can't euthanize grown people under the proper circumstances. you can draw whatever lines you want, but there's a huge difference between an unborn child and a grown adult. and personally, if i was in a coma for more than a few days i'd be okay with being euthanized, but that's a different matter entirely. comparing a person in a coma to a fetus in the womb is like comparing a burning building to abortion. anyway, i never said it's okay to abort a child because it can't live on its own. the point is that butre brought up a completely garbage point which i refuted by saying that contrary to what he/she/they/it said, no, a developing fetus at 22 days cannot in fact live on its own and is thus not "its own life." i never said it's okay to kill non-self-reliant people, which is why [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1583686&p=52828924&viewfull=1#post52828924]earlier when that one dude was talking about eugenics[/url] i only said that people with down's syndrome should be aborted, not that children and adults with down's syndrome should be euthanized. frank stephen's holocaust comparison would be much more apt if he were talking about the topic of exterminating adults with down's syndrome, not when he's talking about a technically-but-not-really living clump of cells inside of a woman. there's also a difference between a prospective special child being a burden on their family and a person in a coma being a burden on their family. you're right, the person in a coma may wake up from it. a person with down's syndrome will never "wake up from it." they might live a happy life, but they will never be fully independent, and imo it's enabling suffering for both the afflicted child and the people around them if a mother [i]doesn't[/i] abort said child (though of course it's her choice whether or not she does, and neither you nor i can tell her otherwise). and so going back to the topic of abortion, what's the point in having the child if they're never going to be normal? why not abort it and try again? got a condition where any child you have will be special? try adopting one instead! EDIT: and as an amendment to this, the point of saying that the child isn't "alive" is that it doesn't have the capacity to choose whether or not it will be born (it has no capacity to do anything, really), and that it is part of the mother's body and so the mother is rightfully the one to choose whether or not to go through with its' birth.

You know I think there are some legitimate arguments on the Pro-Life side but people like Ben Shapiro are just so shit at articulating them that the guy with literal down syndrome makes a more convincing argument.