Conquer Club

I feel that nobody had a right to be against abortion unless they are prepared to adopt a child, or two or three... if they are not willing to take an unwanted child into their home, or in this case a child with Downs Syndrome, then they should not be against abortion.

lalaland wrote:I feel that nobody had a right to be against abortion unless they are prepared to adopt a child, or two or three... if they are not willing to take an unwanted child into their home, or in this case a child with Downs Syndrome, then they should not be against abortion.

That wasn't very funny.

Frigidus wrote:

lalaland wrote:I feel that nobody had a right to be against abortion unless they are prepared to adopt a child, or two or three... if they are not willing to take an unwanted child into their home, or in this case a child with Downs Syndrome, then they should not be against abortion.

That wasn't very funny.

It wasn't meant to be funny.

lalaland wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

lalaland wrote:I feel that nobody had a right to be against abortion unless they are prepared to adopt a child, or two or three... if they are not willing to take an unwanted child into their home, or in this case a child with Downs Syndrome, then they should not be against abortion.

That wasn't very funny.

It wasn't meant to be funny.

In his last post he asked for dead baby jokes, so what do you expect he thought it was meant to be?

[quote="lalaland"]I feel that nobody had a right to be against abortion unless they are prepared to adopt a child, or two or three... if they are not willing to take an unwanted child into their home, or in this case a child with Downs Syndrome, then they should not be against abortion.[/quote

1) Someone's own moral commitment does not affect the morality of an action in ipse.
2) Institutions do exist, some private, that take care of these people. The Roman Catholic Church is a leading charity involoved with this.

Frigidus wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:at first i thought this thread read "would you shoot a downsindrone foetus"

dunno why but i did

What did you vote?

well yes because if the down sydrome dude was...i dunno, ing sum1, i wouldnt stop just cos they are a "downer". i would do it to anyone, otherwise i see no reason to shoot them obviously

Napoleon Ier wrote:1) Someone's own moral commitment does not affect the morality of an action in ipse.

Bullshit. It makes you feel better about your inaction to say that, but it holds no water. You scream and point, yet you do nothing.

Again I ask, "how many babies have you taken into YOUR home" hypocrite?

Napoleon Ier wrote:2) Institutions do exist, some private, that take care of these people. The Roman Catholic Church is a leading charity involoved with this.

Bullshit. Please show some verifiable stats to the number of Catholics who have taken saved abortion babies into their homes and raised them until they are 18.

Your do-gooder image is just as delusional as your magical gods.

...and learn to quote properly.

MeDeFe wrote:

lalaland wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

lalaland wrote:I feel that nobody had a right to be against abortion unless they are prepared to adopt a child, or two or three... if they are not willing to take an unwanted child into their home, or in this case a child with Downs Syndrome, then they should not be against abortion.

That wasn't very funny.

It wasn't meant to be funny.

In his last post he asked for dead baby jokes, so what do you expect he thought it was meant to be?

Oh, it must have been fastposted...

u know...i can't say this without sounding harsh and calluse and cruel and the such, but it is the truth and any scientist worth his salt knows this, but by letting them live, we are weakening the already "weak" human gene pool. in nature an animal with a disorder dies. period. someone had to say it.

Bavarian Raven wrote:u know...i can't say this without sounding harsh and calluse and cruel and the such, but it is the truth and any scientist worth his salt knows this, but by letting them live, we are weakening the already "weak" human gene pool. in nature an animal with a disorder dies. period. someone had to say it.

Well they aren't in the gene pool because they are infertile. They're like lifeguards, only they don't really help. They're just there.

are they?

yes.

unriggable wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:u know...i can't say this without sounding harsh and calluse and cruel and the such, but it is the truth and any scientist worth his salt knows this, but by letting them live, we are weakening the already "weak" human gene pool. in nature an animal with a disorder dies. period. someone had to say it.

Well they aren't in the gene pool because they are infertile. They're like lifeguards, only they don't really help. They're just there.

I think it was probably wrong to laugh at this for as long as i did.

heavycola wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:u know...i can't say this without sounding harsh and calluse and cruel and the such, but it is the truth and any scientist worth his salt knows this, but by letting them live, we are weakening the already "weak" human gene pool. in nature an animal with a disorder dies. period. someone had to say it.

Well they aren't in the gene pool because they are infertile. They're like lifeguards, only they don't really help. They're just there.

I think it was probably wrong to laugh at this for as long as i did.

well then we are both sinners

actually if there is something wrong with an embryo the bodies defense will generally (not always) abort said embryo by itself

apey wrote:actually if there is something wrong with an embryo the bodies defense will generally (not always) abort said embryo by itself

Quite clearly not true. Handicaped, down, spazzos etc

suggs wrote:

apey wrote:actually if there is something wrong with an embryo the bodies defense will generally (not always) abort said embryo by itself

Quite clearly not true. Handicaped, down, spazzos etc

read it again I said generally but not always

Your caveat renders your generalization meaningless.
Yo should have said "it sometimes, randomly and ineffectively aborts the foetus itself.

Chromosomal abnormalities are found in more than half of embryos miscarried in the first 13 weeks. A pregnancy with a genetic problem has a 95% chance of ending in miscarriage. Most chromosomal problems happen by chance, have nothing to do with the parents, and are unlikely to recur.[10] Genetic problems are more likely to occur with older parents; this may account for the higher miscarriage rates observed in older women.[11] thank you wikipedia

it sounds crude and harsh, but, we humans are ruining natural selection and what made us what we are...

Bavarian Raven wrote:it sounds crude and harsh, but, we humans are ruining natural selection and what made us what we are...

Bah. Natural selection is for fruit flies. We are above that now.

Bavarian Raven wrote:it sounds crude and harsh, but, we humans are ruining natural selection and what made us what we are...

I would prefer to think we've expanded on it. If we abort a baby who is going to have severe problems, it is culling out the weaker people in the world who won't be able to rely on themselves.

I have nothing against those people - and it may seem heartless - but they do not belong in a world like this, where it is already overpopulated and full of problems. We need to settle the problems of the living before adding in more problems with newborn babies.

Bavarian Raven wrote:it sounds crude and harsh, but, we humans are ruining natural selection and what made us what we are...

thats what I was trying to say. No one listens, I guess I'll go back into my corner and just be an observer.

One quick point. No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, I think we can all agree that abortion is NOT birth control. Even those who take precautions can have accidents and abortion is a last resort to unwanted pregnancy. I think, abortion is a womans' right, but a right that should NEVER be abused.

...one more thing...

No one, NO ONE wants an unhealthy, unfit baby. I don't see what is wrong with terminating a fetus that is unhealthy and will always be a burden on it's family.

Yes burden, even if they are loved and happy, they are still a burden.

....ok, that was two points WHAT EVER GUY!

viperbitex wrote:One quick point. No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, I think we can all agree that abortion is NOT birth control.

I wish we could. I've seen way too many crazy people claiming abortion is now the primary method of birth control (yeah right).

Sometimes I just wish everyone looked at my country to see what a benefit actual liberal teachings are. We have one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world and also one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, despite it being totally legal here.

For viperbitex to show that comments are not unlistened to, but often dismissed.

I think you tried to say that abortion should not become an accepted substitute for contraception. Abortion is, of course, birth control. Deciding on an abortion means that you control whether the birth happens or not.

We're in agreement that abortion is a last resort, but that's the nature of abortion.

We're also in agreement that abortion is a woman's right, but I don't know what you mean by abuse.

Of course everyone wants a healthy perfect baby who grows up to be brilliant and a world leader, but unfotunately, there are very few who get that. The rest of us enjoy what we get.

Finally, and the reason why people might dismiss your posts, all children are a burden in some way. Financially, emotionally, physically..., there are times when these burdens can outweigh the benefits, certainly.

You're right that a fetus can be terminated if it will be too great a burden on a family. You're wrong to make the leap that a child with Down's is always such a burden. I suggest that you go back and read some of the posts and links from people who have lived or worked with people with Down's. I also suggest that you say "his/her" instead of "it's"(sic).