WP: Down Syndrome Now Detectable In 1st Trimester

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
How long until the right-wing try to intervene?

Thursday, November 10, 2005; A01

A first-trimester screening test can reliably identify fetuses likely to be born with Down syndrome, providing expectant women with that information much earlier in a pregnancy than current testing allows, according to a major study being released today.

The eagerly awaited study of more than 38,000 U.S. women -- the largest ever conducted -- found that the screening method, which combines a blood test with an ultrasound exam, can pinpoint many fetuses with the common genetic disorder 11 weeks after conception. That allows women to decide sooner whether to undergo the riskier follow-up testing needed to confirm the diagnosis.

"This is a big deal for women. It's going to have a big impact on care for women, not just in the United States but throughout the world," said Fergal D. Malone of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, who led the study published in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic. It also gives those who want to continue the pregnancy more time to prepare emotionally for their child's condition, and provides earlier reassurance to those whose babies are healthy, avoiding weeks of anxiety, Malone and others said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html

Much to the dismay of the radical right, I'm glad that science is progressing. This is why pro-choice is important.
 
This will lead to some excruciatingly difficult decisions for pregnant people who consider themselves pro-life. I don't want to mock the plight that they put themselves in, or their children for that matter.

I'm curious how fiscal conservatives who are also religiously pro-life conservatives will rectify this scenario, as taking care of DS children is very costly. While, as a liberal, I don't mind if egregious expenditures happen if it means taking care of people, that's what makes me a liberal, and not a conservative.

I am also grateful for this technology; I'd be remiss to think that this technology, if pressed, might lead to other, more superficial (e.g., hair color) revelations that might upset parents to be (as few and far between as those scenarios might be). Simply put, while I'm in favor of revealing potential difficulties a child might face, and the earlier detected the better, I also feel that this could create some kind of "slippery slope" scenario that would take us towards a culture of, for want of a better phrase, "designer children."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I am also grateful for this technology; I'd be remiss to think that this technology, if pressed, might lead to other, more superficial (e.g., hair color) revelations that might upset parents to be (as few and far between as those scenarios might be). Simply put, while I'm in favor of revealing potential difficulties a child might face, and the earlier detected the better, I also feel that this could create some kind of "slippery slope" scenario that would take us towards a culture of, for want of a better phrase, "designer children."[/QUOTE]

I agree that this is a great development. My wife and I decided against the later test (AFP I think) simply b/c they are so unreliable. The false positive rate is very high and we had a hard enough time getting pregnant in the first place to worry over anything else.

I do agree about the designer kids thing, though. There are some fertility clinics that are trying to get authorization for allowing parents to choose the sex of their child.

I think that is kind of crazy in the US, but I wish these techniques were used in countries where babies are killed for the sole fact that they are born female.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']How long until the right-wing try to intervene?

Thursday, November 10, 2005; A01

A first-trimester screening test can reliably identify fetuses likely to be born with Down syndrome, providing expectant women with that information much earlier in a pregnancy than current testing allows, according to a major study being released today.

The eagerly awaited study of more than 38,000 U.S. women -- the largest ever conducted -- found that the screening method, which combines a blood test with an ultrasound exam, can pinpoint many fetuses with the common genetic disorder 11 weeks after conception. That allows women to decide sooner whether to undergo the riskier follow-up testing needed to confirm the diagnosis.

"This is a big deal for women. It's going to have a big impact on care for women, not just in the United States but throughout the world," said Fergal D. Malone of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, who led the study published in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic. It also gives those who want to continue the pregnancy more time to prepare emotionally for their child's condition, and provides earlier reassurance to those whose babies are healthy, avoiding weeks of anxiety, Malone and others said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html

Much to the dismay of the radical right, I'm glad that science is progressing. This is why pro-choice is important.[/QUOTE]

That sounds an awful lot like the way hitler thought.
 
[quote name='munch']That sounds an awful lot like the way hitler thought.[/QUOTE]

The Nazis were also pro-life for the "master race", they didn't want to give women the right to choose, because that would mean less workers for the factories, farmers for the field, and soldiers for the fatherland.

How about you realize that this has nothing to do with Nazis - their prime motivation was nationalistic socialism, eugenics was just a side-issue.
 
[quote name='camoor']The Nazis were also pro-life for the "master race", they didn't want to give women the right to choose, because that would mean less workers for the factories, farmers for the field, and soldiers for the fatherland.

How about you realize that this has nothing to do with Nazis - their prime motivation was nationalistic socialism, eugenics was just a side-issue.[/QUOTE]

same ends different means. This is getting rid of the 'weak' and 'inefficient' too.
 
[quote name='munch']same ends different means. This is getting rid of the 'weak' and 'inefficient' too.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not the same ends! Noone is talking about killing people of a certain race or religion in the name of creating a master race that will rule the world.

Seriously - the Nazi accusation is not valid.

The truly compassionate move would be to destroy a sperm-egg combo before it turns into a human being that's in for a lifetime of suffering.
 
[quote name='camoor']No, it's not the same ends! Noone is talking about killing people of a certain race or religion in the name of creating a master race that will rule the world.

Seriously - the Nazi accusation is not valid.

The truly compassionate move would be to destroy a sperm-egg combo before it turns into a human being that's in for a lifetime of suffering.[/QUOTE]

First, I'm working with the anthropologically sound argument that there is no race besides the human race. So in this instance we are creating a master race of humans by killing off of the weak and inefficient? Right? Is that somehow untrue?
With that in mind, yes, we are trying to create a 'Master Race' in a very similar vein as Hitler. So, different means, same ends.
 
Mandatory abortions of children known to have DS would be what you're speaking of, munch. The "choice" part of "pro-choice" invalidates your claims. This technology provides people with the opportunity to decide IF they want to have a child that will certainly have maladies in life, or IF they don't want to.

Do some research on treacher collins syndrome. While far more severe in extreme cases than DS, by your logic, we must force parents to bear and raise these children, and we must force people to live with maladies as well. Anything less would be "working towards the master race," correct?

EDIT: I'll give you one source for free: http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/juliannawetmore.html

As I pointed out, this is a predicament for many people, in particular those who wish to have "healthy" babies but are also pro-life.

You can grouse all you want, but by ignoring the point that this allows people to alleive both themselves and their offspring of the financial, physical, and psychological difficulties of special needs children, you're missing the point entirely and thus trying to reframe the argument in a way that is incongruent with what the true argument is.

Better luck next time.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Mandatory abortions of children known to have DS would be what you're speaking of, munch. The "choice" part of "pro-choice" invalidates your claims. This technology provides people with the opportunity to decide IF they want to have a child that will certainly have maladies in life, or IF they don't want to.
[/QUOTE]

sure, you are right about that; but that is just schematics and does not totally take away from the claim that this could be used to get rid of population the majority view as useless (as hitler and others did). Hitler used mandatory abortions to get rid of mentally challenged youth until the German population created an uproar.

And I agree with you about the problems new technology brings in coorelation with ethics.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']How long until the right-wing try to intervene?

Thursday, November 10, 2005; A01

A first-trimester screening test can reliably identify fetuses likely to be born with Down syndrome, providing expectant women with that information much earlier in a pregnancy than current testing allows, according to a major study being released today.

The eagerly awaited study of more than 38,000 U.S. women -- the largest ever conducted -- found that the screening method, which combines a blood test with an ultrasound exam, can pinpoint many fetuses with the common genetic disorder 11 weeks after conception. That allows women to decide sooner whether to undergo the riskier follow-up testing needed to confirm the diagnosis.

"This is a big deal for women. It's going to have a big impact on care for women, not just in the United States but throughout the world," said Fergal D. Malone of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, who led the study published in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic. It also gives those who want to continue the pregnancy more time to prepare emotionally for their child's condition, and provides earlier reassurance to those whose babies are healthy, avoiding weeks of anxiety, Malone and others said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html

Much to the dismay of the radical right, I'm glad that science is progressing. This is why pro-choice is important.[/QUOTE]

Your implication that children with a serious disease should be killed shocks and disgusts me.
 
I really have a feeling that a topic like this has the potential to become even more controversial than the abortion issue itself.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Your implication that children with a serious disease should be killed shocks and disgusts me.[/QUOTE]

Why is it wrong to kill something that has never had thought, conscious, brain waves etc?

It's strange, when people say we are superior and separate from other animals because of our intelligence, morality etc. I would assume they believe that being human is more than simply a biological state. But yet, those people who say humans are separate from other animals are often the same ones who argue that it's is extremely wrong to kill something that is human in the biological sense, but not in any other.

I've heard few convincing arguments against early abortion, the best one I've only head once and they've all been religious. More often than not, the basic argument is "you're killing a human!", which is fine, if those people were to define human as simply a biological characteristic, which they rarely do.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Why is it wrong to kill something that has never had thought, conscious, brain waves etc?

It's strange, when people say we are superior and separate from other animals because of our intelligence, morality etc. I would assume they believe that being human is more than simply a biological state. But yet, those people who say humans are separate from other animals are often the same ones who argue that it's is extremely wrong to kill something that is human in the biological sense, but not in any other.

I've heard few convincing arguments against early abortion, the best one I've only head once and they've all been religious. More often than not, the basic argument is "you're killing a human!", which is fine, if those people were to define human as simply a biological characteristic, which they rarely do.[/QUOTE]

I think we've extensively debated this point in previous topics, so I'm not going to get into it again. I think we both stated our positions pretty clearly in those previous topics.

What I do want to talk about is the real topic here, which is sanctioning the elimination of children with severe conditions as if they were somehow unfit to live amongst us "normals."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What I do want to talk about is the real topic here, which is sanctioning the elimination of children with severe conditions as if they were somehow unfit to live amongst us "normals."[/QUOTE]
Is this more or less shocking to you than regular abortion (ie: the elimination of children with NO severe conditions)?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think we've extensively debated this point in previous topics, so I'm not going to get into it again. I think we both stated our positions pretty clearly in those previous topics.

What I do want to talk about is the real topic here, which is sanctioning the elimination of children with severe conditions as if they were somehow unfit to live amongst us "normals."[/QUOTE]

You can't argue it without arguing abortion, and what it is to be human is essential to answering that question. I can't convince myself, if it is assumed that it is fully human in all stages of development, that it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy over a disabled child unless you're talking extreme retardation, lacking brain, or something that will give the child great physical pain or emotional distress by its very nature. If the unborn child is considered a full human, the only way it would be acceptable is if there is only minimal chance of the child being psychologically healthy. Down syndrome does not meet that criteria.
 
Science and rationality rule out over misconceptions

I agree that children with down syndrome should be aborted before they have a level conciousness.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Science and rationality rule out over misconceptions

I agree that children with down syndrome should be aborted before they have a level conciousness.[/QUOTE]

Why? Science and evidence don't seem to favor your position. If anything, your position is the one with the misconceptions here. People with down syndrome can live full, happy, productive lives. People with down syndrome do not live in torture, a terrible fate does no await them and, with the proper family and educational background, many are intelligent enough to be educated in normal classes (not special ed). Many even go on to hold careers, a house and have their own families. They are not the most "normal" people by societies standards, but that would be a horrible condition to decide whether a person should live or die.

Just to be clear, there are some serious health concerns that can be raised, even to the point of early death. And there is a serious argument to be made on the families ability to care for a special needs child. But I cannot see, maybe you want to clarify this, significant enough difference in happiness or needs to make the case that the child is better off dead.

I think elprincipe has misconceptions on what it is to be human but he has not demonstrated any when it comes to the severity of down syndrome.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think we've extensively debated this point in previous topics, so I'm not going to get into it again. I think we both stated our positions pretty clearly in those previous topics.[/QUOTE]

Ever notice that it's almost always the hard-line conservatives that want to shut down the debate on abortion? It's like the Southpark football game, whenever Cartman starts losing he shuts it down by screaming "It's my ball, I'm going home!" Only problem is, in the United States of today, abortion rights are currently not shut down by the conservatives.
 
Why? Science and evidence don't seem to favor your position. If anything, your position is the one with the misconceptions here. People with down syndrome can live full, happy, productive lives. People with down syndrome do not live in torture, a terrible fate does no await them and, with the proper family and educational background, many are intelligent enough to be educated in normal classes (not special ed). Many even go on to hold careers, a house and have their own families. They are not the most "normal" people by societies standards, but that would be a horrible condition to decide whether a person should live or die.

Just to be clear, there are some serious health concerns that can be raised, even to the point of early death. And there is a serious argument to be made on the families ability to care for a special needs child. But I cannot see, maybe you want to clarify this, significant enough difference in happiness or needs to make the case that the child is better off dead.

I think elprincipe has misconceptions on what it is to be human but he has not demonstrated any when it comes to the severity of down syndrome.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Is this more or less shocking to you than regular abortion (ie: the elimination of children with NO severe conditions)?[/QUOTE]

Not more and not less. It's still killing someone whatever reason you give.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You can't argue it without arguing abortion, and what it is to be human is essential to answering that question. I can't convince myself, if it is assumed that it is fully human in all stages of development, that it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy over a disabled child unless you're talking extreme retardation, lacking brain, or something that will give the child great physical pain or emotional distress by its very nature. If the unborn child is considered a full human, the only way it would be acceptable is if there is only minimal chance of the child being psychologically healthy. Down syndrome does not meet that criteria.[/QUOTE]

Well, I would say there is another issue here than abortion, although obviously that is a related issue. The issue I would like to talk about is not the abortion issue since, like I said, we have already talked that one out, you and I, in another topic. Rather, the issue of whether we should choose to have or not to have children based on genetics and disease probabilities is an interesting issue where I think one side promotes a morally bankrupt position.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, I would say there is another issue here than abortion, although obviously that is a related issue. The issue I would like to talk about is not the abortion issue since, like I said, we have already talked that one out, you and I, in another topic. Rather, the issue of whether we should choose to have or not to have children based on genetics and disease probabilities is an interesting issue where I think one side promotes a morally bankrupt position.[/QUOTE]

So if an unborn child has a condition that will likely result in physical or mental suffering, then you believe they should still be born? Isn't that unnecessarily cruel?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So if an unborn child has a condition that will likely result in physical or mental suffering, then you believe they should still be born? Isn't that unnecessarily cruel?[/QUOTE]

Since we obviously are going to disagree on unborn children, what about infants? Who would you suggest make the decision to kill the child?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So if an unborn child has a condition that will likely result in physical or mental suffering, then you believe they should still be born? Isn't that unnecessarily cruel?[/QUOTE]
Lest you forget.
 
Well, terri was just dead. She wasn't suffering.

[quote name='elprincipe']Since we obviously are going to disagree on unborn children, what about infants? Who would you suggest make the decision to kill the child?[/QUOTE]

I believe in euthanasia when a person desires it for themselves. I believe that pets, who are unable to state their choice, should not have to go through extreme suffering just to stay alive for others benefits. I don't suddenly think that it's any more humane to keep a human alive just for the sake of living. If you have an infant that is suffering and unlikely to recover or survive, then it should be the parents choice if the infant should be euthanized. Many doctors reach agreements with families to let infants like that die (by stopping medicine and other things), but they should not have to suffer even that when their fate is inevitable. Forcing anyone to endure suffering, unless they choose to, when their fate is inevitable is cruel and inhumane. A persons body should never override someones mental state, and it's insulting to the persons dignity to force them to suffer just so you can remove any doubt in your mind that they may have survived.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']How long until the right-wing try to intervene?

Thursday, November 10, 2005; A01

A first-trimester screening test can reliably identify fetuses likely to be born with Down syndrome, providing expectant women with that information much earlier in a pregnancy than current testing allows, according to a major study being released today.

The eagerly awaited study of more than 38,000 U.S. women -- the largest ever conducted -- found that the screening method, which combines a blood test with an ultrasound exam, can pinpoint many fetuses with the common genetic disorder 11 weeks after conception. That allows women to decide sooner whether to undergo the riskier follow-up testing needed to confirm the diagnosis.

"This is a big deal for women. It's going to have a big impact on care for women, not just in the United States but throughout the world," said Fergal D. Malone of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, who led the study published in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic. It also gives those who want to continue the pregnancy more time to prepare emotionally for their child's condition, and provides earlier reassurance to those whose babies are healthy, avoiding weeks of anxiety, Malone and others said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html

Much to the dismay of the radical right, I'm glad that science is progressing. This is why pro-choice is important.[/QUOTE]

Watch this film when you get a chance:
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=1655
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I believe in euthanasia when a person desires it for themselves. I believe that pets, who are unable to state their choice, should not have to go through extreme suffering just to stay alive for others benefits. I don't suddenly think that it's any more humane to keep a human alive just for the sake of living. If you have an infant that is suffering and unlikely to recover or survive, then it should be the parents choice if the infant should be euthanized. Many doctors reach agreements with families to let infants like that die (by stopping medicine and other things), but they should not have to suffer even that when their fate is inevitable. Forcing anyone to endure suffering, unless they choose to, when their fate is inevitable is cruel and inhumane. A persons body should never override someones mental state, and it's insulting to the persons dignity to force them to suffer just so you can remove any doubt in your mind that they may have survived.[/QUOTE]

So you liken children to pets? Wow. And you would allow parents to authorize infanticide as "the parents' choice"? Double wow and double thank God most of society doesn't think this way.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wow, presenting evidence in the form of a sci fi movie. What's next, ya gonna quote captain piccard?[/QUOTE]

:lol: - that or join the scientologists.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So you liken children to pets? Wow. And you would allow parents to authorize infanticide as "the parents' choice"? Double wow and double thank God most of society doesn't think this way.[/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is that infant should have to suffer through a very physically or emotionally painful disease or illness, while a pet should not? That an infant, which most would agree is more important than a pet, should be forced to suffer? Why is it cruel to force a pet to suffer a painful and inhumane fate, yet it's not cruel to keep the infant alive just to suffer?

I'm not sure if you actually read what I said properly, since your quote of mine is unclear. I said that it should be their option if the child is suffering severe emotional or physical pain when, in all likelihood, the child will never recover or die from the illness.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So what you're saying is that infant should have to suffer through a very physically or emotionally painful disease or illness, while a pet should not? That an infant, which most would agree is more important than a pet, should be forced to suffer? Why is it cruel to force a pet to suffer a painful and inhumane fate, yet it's not cruel to keep the infant alive just to suffer?

I'm not sure if you actually read what I said properly, since your quote of mine is unclear. I said that it should be their option if the child is suffering severe emotional or physical pain when, in all likelihood, the child will never recover or die from the illness.[/QUOTE]

I think my position can be summed up as I don't feel that people should be allowed to kill other people. Therefore, I am against the following: abortion, the death penalty, suicide bombings, infanticide.

A pet is just an animal and its owner can do what he/she wants with it, within the bounds of humane treatment of course. Dogs can't choose whether they should be put out of their misery. You might argue, hey, neither can human children. Perhaps this is true to a point, but there is a large difference between the value of a human life and the value of a dog's life, and if you leave that human alone he/she will be able to make their own decisions.

I frankly feel that your viewpoint promotes a culture that emphasizes the negative aspects of life over the positive, and therefore logically results in more suicide and death. I don't feel kids with serious conditions like down syndrome deserve to die or would want to die. After all, I've been in serious pain before and not wanted to die. I know plenty of people who are in serious pain every day and don't want to die. I don't think any person can make such a decision for another.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think my position can be summed up as I don't feel that people should be allowed to kill other people. Therefore, I am against the following: abortion, the death penalty, suicide bombings, infanticide.[/QUOTE]

Who is for infanticide, was that really necessary. Oh wait - you're a bomb-throwing christian, so it was.
 
Well, abortion isn't killing a person, it's extracting a little jumble of cells that create a human from a womans womb, thats not concious or in any kind of state of feeling...


Your position is misinformed.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think my position can be summed up as I don't feel that people should be allowed to kill other people. Therefore, I am against the following: abortion, the death penalty, suicide bombings, infanticide.

A pet is just an animal and its owner can do what he/she wants with it, within the bounds of humane treatment of course. Dogs can't choose whether they should be put out of their misery. You might argue, hey, neither can human children. Perhaps this is true to a point, but there is a large difference between the value of a human life and the value of a dog's life, and if you leave that human alone he/she will be able to make their own decisions.

I frankly feel that your viewpoint promotes a culture that emphasizes the negative aspects of life over the positive, and therefore logically results in more suicide and death. I don't feel kids with serious conditions like down syndrome deserve to die or would want to die. After all, I've been in serious pain before and not wanted to die. I know plenty of people who are in serious pain every day and don't want to die. I don't think any person can make such a decision for another.[/QUOTE]

If you read up a few posts I strongly denounced that down syndrome is an acceptable reason.

The way I see it is no one should have to suffer when it's almost certain the end result is death or, if death is not certain, that suffer with near certainty of a very low quality of life is, then it's cruel to subject a human to that fate. Responsible pet owners do not euthanize a pet because they do not want it or because it is convenient (which should be illegal), they do it because its fate is all but certain and there's no need to subject it to pointless suffering. In that respect, I feel we treat our pets better than humans since we do not afford people, or those responsible for them if they cannot make their wishes known, that option. For whatever reason, it's usually based on some abstract concept of morality or selfish holding on to a tiny bit of hope more than it is based on the well being of the individual who is suffering. What benefit to the child is there to let it suffer 6 months of torment with the all but certain fate of death? The only benefit I can see is to the parents. It's better if it is euthanized when its future become obvious.

You said you've been in serious pain before, but there was still so much more to your life, and I'm pretty sure you knew it was only temporary. There are people who cannot say that.

You mentioned what my viewpoint promotes. My viewpoint is not one that devalues life, its one that cherishes the joys and pleasures that life brings with it. It does not cling to the belief that in the end it belongs to god, or to something else that insists we must live. It acknowledges that sometimes suffering is too great and irreversable, it acknowledges that, since there are things that make life great, the absence of those things (whatever they are, and they differ by the person) can make life unbearable. It is based on the essential principle that everyone has a right to personal choice in regards to their own body (or whoever speaks for them if they cannot speak for themselves) and their own life, as long as they are not inflicting harm upon others. Life is to be cherished because it is so fragile, because our very decisions (and the decisions of those around us) effect the quality of that life.

Though it's surprising to see you're against the death penalty, most pro life people suddenly become pro death when it turns to criminals.

Who is for infanticide, was that really necessary. Oh wait - you're a bomb-throwing christian, so it was.
Click to expand...

It's killing an infant, technically it could apply to my view. I don't agree that the connotation of that word accurately reflects my limited use of it though, since it's usually much more sinister.

Well, abortion isn't killing a person, it's extracting a little jumble of cells that create a human from a womans womb, thats not concious or in any kind of state of feeling...


Your position is misinformed.
Click to expand...

So then, I assume you oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions? It's well beyond a jumble of cells at that point.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
So then, I assume you oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions? It's well beyond a jumble of cells at that point.[/QUOTE]


They're just a bigger jumble of cells, I think it's up to a woman & maybe her significant other to decide that, I just think it's excessive to call it "killing".
 
Obviously the abortion argument isn't going to be changed here.

If you're in favor of abortion, you probably think that this is a good thing, less people have to suffer through this disease. I don't like the designer baby situation, but this is completely different. Its not because of gender, hair or eye color, race, physical strength, or intelligence, down syndrome is a very serious genetic disorder, and 11 weeks is quite early in the pregnancy, we're not getting into late term abortions here, either. No one is saying that you must abort fetuses with down syndrome, but the option is there. Many people with Down Syndrome can live productive lives, and thats a valid point, but no one is advocating that people with Down Syndrome be euthanized or sterilized.

If you don't like abortion, you probably still think its murder, no matter how deformed or diseased the fetus is, and this isn't going to change your mind. Thats fine, its consistent with your point of view, and I'm not going to argue the point.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']They're just a bigger jumble of cells, I think it's up to a woman & maybe her significant other to decide that, I just think it's excessive to call it "killing".[/QUOTE]

While I agree with the end result, your evidence is wrong. Something that has brain waves, a heartbeat and can survive outside the womb is a little beyond a clump of cells.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']While I agree with the end result, your evidence is wrong. Something that has brain waves, a heartbeat and can survive outside the womb is a little beyond a clump of cells.[/QUOTE]

Survive in a specially controlled environment you mean, kinda like a fertilized egg before insemination.... OMFG!!! let's pass a law to protect those too.
 
Well, every living thing on earth is a big clump of cells. but at that stage a potential human just don't have a conscious, the realization of mortality is not there.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss'] the realization of mortality is not there.[/QUOTE]

So then it's not a crime to kill that fucking 2 year old next door who won't stop crying?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Survive in a specially controlled environment you mean, kinda like a fertilized egg before insemination.... OMFG!!! let's pass a law to protect those too.[/QUOTE]

If it is viable outside the womb it already has the basic elements of humanity and is aware on some level. They don't magically awaken upon birth, it's a gradual process.

Well, every living thing on earth is a big clump of cells. but at that stage a potential human just don't have a concious, the realization of mortality is not there.
Click to expand...

Well, biologically there is no such thing as a conscience. Unless you throw god into the mix, it is simply something that exists based on our thought and how we as a species have evolved to think, we just apply a name to it. Unless you mean they are not conscious, which is not the case after a certain point, even if there's no absolute point. I also think you overestimate the intelligence of newborns if you think an infant has a sense of mortality.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If it is viable outside the womb it already has the basic elements of humanity and is aware on some level. They don't magically awaken upon birth, it's a gradual process.
[/QUOTE]

Or one could alternatively say they don't actually "awaken" until after birth, but few people like to consider that option.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Or one could alternatively say they don't actually "awaken" until after birth, but few people like to consider that option.[/QUOTE]

Children prefer their parents (particularly the mother) voice upon birth, and react to their voice. While there is some validity to the concept that children are not as advanced as people think, they are aware.

Look, I think abortion is always the mothers choice, since the mother is always more important and should not be forced to keep the baby. In the end, it's part of her body and, even if it is sometimes unfortunate, she should always maintain control over it. She can't put her womb up for adoption like you can a baby. But, there's a difference between that and saying the baby is worthless in late pregnancy.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, biologically there is no such thing as a conscience. Unless you throw god into the mix, it is simply something that exists based on our thought and how we as a species have evolved to think, we just apply a name to it. Unless you mean they are not conscious, which is not the case after a certain point, even if there's no absolute point. I also think you overestimate the intelligence of newborns if you think an infant has a sense of mortality.[/QUOTE]
I didn't want to get into this, but...

There isn't a 'conscience' but there is 'consciousness', the state of being self aware and sentient. We're somewhat close to an absolute point, the part of the brain that controls consciousness doesn't start developing until the 6th month, and is not active until the 7th. The 7th month or 28th week area is where cognitive awareness is generally thought to begin. This is also where a fetus is usually able to survive if born prematurely. Because of those factors, this is around where I believe a fetus becomes a human being, or 'alive'.

Other people have different viewpoints, and thats fine, I'm not arguing the point here. I'm just clarifying my position in regards to the Down Syndrome argument.
 
Ya, I wasn't certain how he meant it. The phrasing indicated one word, but the word itself indicated another. I agree with you though but you added to what I said.

Though I know the cerebrum is the largest section of the brain from early in development, I'm not sure how the frontal lobe develops. Did you see that online or in class? If online, where? Not that it has an effect on my opinion on abortion, but it does have an effect on when I think an unborn child has worth.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Children prefer their parents (particularly the mother) voice upon birth, and react to their voice. While there is some validity to the concept that children are not as advanced as people think, they are aware.[/quote]
A dog can also recognize voices, it's not a question of a lack of response but what level of intelligence is actually nessasary before one can be called fully human.

But, there's a difference between that and saying the baby is worthless in late pregnancy.
Click to expand...

There is also a vast difference between a baby and something still in the womb.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top