BF2S Forums Virgina about to pass law that may force vaginal probe for abortion

My point being that Down Syndrome (or any other number of genetic abnormalities) is not really that different, in the grand scheme. And I clearly wasn't referring to hair color when I made that statement. Thanks for your own strawman, AR.

I wrote:

...the attitude you guys are taking toward something like Down Syndrome.

That's pretty clearly not related to hair or eye color. I guess grasping that concept requires reading a post before you respond, as well.

I find it hard to believe that even the people who are on this forum would be so base as to abort a child that didn't have the right hair color...hence why it wasn't even considered as part of my point.

FEOS wrote:

It's not in my mind...it's based on posts in this thread. Hence the quotation marks.

It's not a strawman. Again, it's based on posts in this thread.

To be fair, from what I've seen it was really only Shahter who said these comments. I too read those posts and thought it was denigrating and ignorant.

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-08-26 03:45:09)

As I said, there is a spectrum of disability associated with Down Syndrome. Just as there is a spectrum for "normal people." Some "normal people" can't contribute to society any more than the person with Down Syndrome that you mention. The only difference is that "normal person"--who is contributing as much (or less) than many with Down Syndrome--wasn't judged in utero to be unfit to be given the chance to show his ability (or lack thereof).

If my wife were to get pregnant, we would certainly do genetic testing to make sure the child didn't have the same thing my oldest son does. If it did, we have agreed we would abort. Not because we feel the child wouldn't contribute to or be a burden on society, but because we would be saving our child from a lifetime of struggle and pain. And we would have to deal with the consequences of that decision. I don't give two shits about society--I care about the child.

I'll gladly trade my eternal soul (if it were to come to that) to prevent suffering for my child. I would trade my life right now to make the lives of any of my children better. Lord knows I've asked for that enough times...particularly when my oldest is having his worst days.

But I wouldn't trade him or the joy he's brought to our lives and so many others for anything. Even if some of you would call him a drooling freak who should've been aborted.

FEOS wrote:

As I said, there is a spectrum of disability associated with Down Syndrome. Just as there is a spectrum for "normal people." Some "normal people" can't contribute to society any more than the person with Down Syndrome that you mention. The only difference is that "normal person"--who is contributing as much (or less) than many with Down Syndrome--wasn't judged in utero to be unfit to be given the chance to show his ability (or lack thereof).

If my wife were to get pregnant, we would certainly do genetic testing to make sure the child didn't have the same thing my oldest son does. If it did, we have agreed we would abort. Not because we feel the child wouldn't contribute to or be a burden on society, but because we would be saving our child from a lifetime of struggle and pain. And we would have to deal with the consequences of that decision. I don't give two shits about society--I care about the child.

I'll gladly trade my eternal soul (if it were to come to that) to prevent suffering for my child. I would trade my life right now to make the lives of any of my children better. Lord knows I've asked for that enough times...particularly when my oldest is having his worst days.

But I wouldn't trade him or the joy he's brought to our lives and so many others for anything. Even if some of you would call him a drooling freak who should've been aborted.

I don't condone the drooling freak comments and I realise that as with anything there is a spectrum to consider, hence I said 'in extreme cases', I have met people with downs who, to my surprise, spoke completely fluently and could otherwise be considered 'normal'. I'm also not trying to tell you that abortion is the right course of action to take if a foetus is diagnosed with down's syndrome. Not at all, don't push me in that corner. I believe people have their own choices to make when it comes to this matter. What I am doing is explaining what would probably be my choice were I ever confronted with this reality.

The purpose of my comment about functioning in and contributing to society isn't one of putting society above the welfare of the child but about what you outline yourself: a lifetime of struggle for the child. The other part of the reason is undeniably egoism. Yes, you are preventing a foetus from having a chance at life because you are personally not prepared to take care of the baby. Abortion is definitely not an altruistic operation. In a sense you are choosing yourself above the foetus were you to opt for abortion. Though however much people insist others look at the 'big picture', as in a foetus being a life with potential I don't see how that should prevent me from looking at this life at the stage it is in. It has no ego or consciousness to speak of, it can't contemplate anything. Any 'hurt' caused to the foetus is simply people projecting things unto one that didn't exist, potential or not. Ending a life in this stage doesn't strike me as a crime.

uh, I did say I don't condone the freak comment.

And yes, I do feel the 'murderer' comment is a little ridiculous (though I don't think feos stated this either).

Last edited by Shocking (2012-08-27 04:55:25)

Shocking wrote:

uh, I did say I don't condone the freak comment.

i don't too. i used that particular agrument as a way of giving certain, you know, believers some of their own medicine to try.

And yes, I do feel the 'murderer' comment is a little ridiculous (though I don't think feos stated this either).

"a little"? more like totally if you ask me. these pro-lifers destroy more "life" every time they clash their teeth in anger than gets "ended" during most abortion procedures, but it doesn't seem to bother them one bit, you know.

Fawking hell
New law in Arizona states 'pregnancy begins two weeks before conception'
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-law … conception

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Fawking hell
New law in Arizona states 'pregnancy begins two weeks before conception'
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-law … conception

Sorry...but that's just a bucket of dumbass.

If she is putting pin holes in a condom to get pregnant you think she eill turn around and get an abortion? Lol.

Don't fuck poor skanks. Problem solved.

It wasn't my finest moment. Dont think somebody else should be forced to suffer it for the rest of their life tho.

P.s. condom split in this instance, sometimes shit happens.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-08-27 14:16:48)

You pretty much proved Burnzz' point there...

Like we ever listened to that advice.  In crazy, I mean.



Fond memories.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Don't fuck poor skanks. Problem solved.

You were a poor skank once.

Never a skank