It is currently Sun Oct 27, 2024 4:18 am



Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Babies aborted for not being perfect 
Author Message
King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm
Posts: 1976
Location: Sexy Town
Reply with quote
Post Babies aborted for not being perfect
I think I may or may not have discussed this outcome before regaurding abortion. I cant remember. Just another reason why abortion is and always will be wrong. If you dont believe that statement then you need to read up on eugenics and go rent the movie Gattaca. This is where abortion is leading us. Regulations are not going to fix this cause there will always be doctors willing to do abortions for money.

Quote:
Link

Babies aborted for not being perfect
20:32pm 28th May 2006

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers.

Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy.

Details of the terminations emerged as new figures revealed an alarming rise in the use of an abortion pill that has been linked to 10 deaths.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.

However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.

'It is entirely treatable. I can only think it is lack of information.'

Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery.

Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain.

In 2004 it emerged a baby was aborted at 28 weeks after scans showed it had a cleft palate. Curate Joanna Jepson tried to ensure criminal charges were brought against the two doctors involved but the authorities last year decided against prosecution.

She however vowed to continue in her fight to make terminations illegal after 24 weeks and to ensure cleft palates were not included within the term 'serious handicap' and used to justify late abortions.

Ms Jepson reacted angrily to news of the club foot abortions.

'The law was not designed for this,' she said. 'Actions like these are fostering a disposable attitude to human life and I'm extremely concerned it is going on.

'I am appalled that the medical profession is allowing or even suggesting abortions for these conditions.'

Sue Banton, founder of the group Steps for parents of children with foot disorders, said last year one couple decided to terminate a pregnancy at 25 weeks after discovering their baby would have a section of foot missing.

'We gave them other families to talk to, but they just didn't want to know,' she said. 'It is terrible.

'I know lots of perfectly nice people with this condition and you just can't imagine them not being here.'

Pippa Spriggs from Cambridge, whose son Isaac is celebrating his second birthday in July, was dismayed when as scan showed her baby had a club foot.

'Abortion certainly was not openly advised but it was made clear to me it was available,' she said.

'In fact he has been treated and the condition has now slowed him down at all.'

Julia Millington, of the Alive and Kicking Campaign, said: 'It is all about our perceptions of perfection.

'Increasingly things are moving along the lines where nothing is good enough.

'It seems we can no longer tolerate any imperfection.

'Babies are at the mercy of ultrasound scans and what they may disclose.'

Michaela Aston, from the pro-life group LIFE, said: 'One sympathises for many of the parents of these unborn children aborted after disability has been detected.

'What information are they being given by healthcare professionals so that they can make a truly informed choice?

'We suspect that many parents make the decision to opt for abortion in complete ignorance of the help and support available to children with disabilities and their families.

'For this, health care professionals must shoulder a large part of the blame.

'If, as a society, we are truly committed to equality for people with disabilities then such blatant discrimination against the disabled unborn must stop.'

But Jane Fisher of the charity Antenatal Results and Choices defended the right of parents to terminate pregnancies when defects are found. 'This is not part of a move towards designer babies,' she said.

'These are difficult and painful issues.'

_________________
Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
Image


Mon May 29, 2006 8:25 am
Profile ICQ YIM
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 7721
Location: Centre of the sun
Reply with quote
Post 
Ive got no beef with abortion.

_________________
"Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson


Mon May 29, 2006 9:28 am
Profile
Count
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 810
Reply with quote
Post 
I would rather abort a child for not being "perfect" than bring into the world some thing that has no future of contrbuting to society. If you think that is un christian than I am not christian so I do not need to conform to your beliefs of morality. I also believe that if we have worthless bumbs who do nothing for society we should shoot them too. So abortion for a child known to be fucked up is not a bad thing. Obviously I am not talking abortion for a child that may be a little slow, or have 11 fingers, but come on. Technology gives you the rights to know the health of a child then it should not be shunned. Additionally, if I knew the child I were carring would kill me I would kill it. I am not being selfish but who would be hurt by my lack of a child? maybe the father or myself. But who would be hurt by the loss of me? Countless people and animals. Therefore the benefits are overwhelming. Regardless it is my body and my choice. So stop trying to force all this damn religion down our damn throats all the time. We already have a religious thread going and people already said they were not interested in debating it at the moment.

_________________
I LUV everybody until they piss me off.


Mon May 29, 2006 9:44 am
Profile
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 16661
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post 
I don't get it..... abortion is legal. What makes it ok to abort in some cases and not ok to abort in others? It's legal. If I were pregnant (heh) then it would be my legal right to get an abortion any time I wanted for any reason I wanted.

Besides, the problem with Gattaca wasn't eugenics, it was discrimination. Eugenics is fine.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Mon May 29, 2006 11:09 am
Profile WWW
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:43 am
Posts: 4316
Reply with quote
Post 
as you all know, I don't mind abortion. But I do think it needs to be for a 'good' reason (i.e. we're too poor, the mother is a known child-murderer...) but just coz "oh, its not perfect"... well thats the crappest excuse you could possibly think of. Now if the issue was "well its probably never going to live past 3 unless you get that 0.00001% chance" I could understand that too, but when its just something like having some kind of mental or physical disability... so what? if they're going to be able to lead a perfectly normal (or nearly normal) and full life... gah i hate complicated issues like this.

_________________
Image


Mon May 29, 2006 4:52 pm
Profile WWW
King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm
Posts: 1976
Location: Sexy Town
Reply with quote
Post 
Satis wrote:
I don't get it..... abortion is legal. What makes it ok to abort in some cases and not ok to abort in others? It's legal. If I were pregnant (heh) then it would be my legal right to get an abortion any time I wanted for any reason I wanted.

Besides, the problem with Gattaca wasn't eugenics, it was discrimination. Eugenics is fine.


Gattaca was both. Getting to pick and choose which babies you want and which ones you dont leads to discrimination. Lets say you have a school fool of children that where hand picked for birth. Then you have the few that werent. Your already creating a discrimination factor.


Im glad you said this "Eugenics is fine". So you dont believe in evolution then?

also

Quote:
Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs which ran under the banner of "racial hygiene." Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the more ghastly experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit", an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that 'the Germans are beating us at our own game."[8] The Nazis went further however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "euthanasia" programs.[9]

Your fine with this?

_________________
Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
Image


Mon May 29, 2006 6:19 pm
Profile ICQ YIM
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 16661
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post 
I do believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. But as a race, humanity has almost destroyed the natural process of evolution. Most kids, regardless of how screwed up, make it to child-bearing age. So, if we're going to continue to evolve constructively and have lost natural death as a selector, why not control it manually?

And I'm fine with ethical eugenics. Grabbing random jews/muslims/catholics off the street and doing genetic experiments on them isn't ethical. But doing it ethically is fine for me. Aborting kids that have a predisposition toward stupidity/cancer/etc is fine by me too. Webbed fingers are not a genetic trait we really want to be passing on to the future of the race...it doesn't serve much of a purpose unless you plan on evolving back into sea dwellers.

However, I think matching DNA for higher intelligence, faster reflexes, a more robust immune system, stronger muscles, and longer age is great. In fact, it's absolutely awesome. It's what evolution is all about, but we'd be able to accomplish it in significantly less time. W00t science!

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Mon May 29, 2006 8:38 pm
Profile WWW
King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm
Posts: 1976
Location: Sexy Town
Reply with quote
Post 
Im not going to get into the technicals of this issue. Im justing going say that any kind of human manipulation in genetics and natural birth/natural selections undermines and could seriously hurt human evolution. Eugenics of any kinda is always going to lead to discrimination. There is no way around it. Your always going to have poor people who cant effort genetic altering or people who want to have natural babies (IE Gattica) and those babies will be out of the "genetic/eugenics" loop. You cant skip the work of evolution. Its dangerous.

What happens when everyone wants their children to be altered as intelligent? Are they going to take jobs as janitors? Laborers? No, so youll have to breed some babies to altered to be laborers.

I would have thought you of all people Satis would not want to mess with natural selection.

Also, by selective breeding and geneitc altering your taking away babies/childrens free will. But then again, if your for abortion, you never believed in their free will to begin with. I mean, if its a womens right to "choice" to have or not have her babies then its her right , using eugentics/genetics, to alter what her baby is and isnt good at in life. Thus destorying any freedom of choices for the baby.

_________________
Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
Image


Tue May 30, 2006 1:22 pm
Profile ICQ YIM
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 16661
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post 
I disagree. Just because someone is more intelligent that someone else doesn't mean they won't be a janitor. I knew a guy in the Army that scored outlandishly high on his ASVAB, but what a lazy SOB who loved to ride on medical disability. That kind of person will be a janitor.

There are also people that aren't genetically predisposed toward certain activities that do them anyway, and still become good through perseverance.

IMO, through eugenics you're only improving that child's ability to do whatever he wants in life. Making him stronger/smarter/faster won't lock him into being a truck driver...but wouldn't keep him from it either. I'm not advocating a Skinner-like indoctrination farm.

Besides, once the genie is out of the bottle, there's not putting it back in. Even if the US bans eugenics, and every other first world country does too, someone, somewhere will gladly sell eugenics to the highest bidder. Rich people from the US and other first world countries will flock to Bolivia/Thailand/Mexico/Kuwait to have their children genetically enhanced without anyone's knowledge. Which will make it so only the rich and powerful will be able to afford it, further locking them and their progeny into world control. At least if it's readily and cheaply available, everyone has a better chance of making it happen.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Tue May 30, 2006 1:46 pm
Profile WWW
King
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:17 am
Posts: 1717
Location: The Plateaus of Insanity
Reply with quote
Post 
TBH I side slightly with 11b.
The principle is that abortions are taking place because of a defect that can be corrected, this is designer babies kind of mentality and we know that pure chance is perhaps better for us than anything else because of mutations and random effects. I agree that abortion can take place but this is abusing it.

_________________
I think drugs have done some really good things. If you don't believe me, go home tonight, take all your cassettes, CDs, etc and burn them. Because those artists that have made that music were real fucking high- Bill Hicks


Tue May 30, 2006 2:41 pm
Profile
Count
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 810
Reply with quote
Post 
I am glad none of you will have to make that choice then. If I don't want to have a child I don't have to- and if I knew I was having a fucked up child I would definately not want to have it.

_________________
I LUV everybody until they piss me off.


Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:01 am
Profile
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 16661
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post 
damnit, if I get Shiny preggie and the kid ends up not being blonde haired and blue eye, that sucker's going down the toilet!

j/k :P

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:48 am
Profile WWW
King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm
Posts: 1976
Location: Sexy Town
Reply with quote
Post 
Shiny wrote:
I am glad none of you will have to make that choice then. If I don't want to have a child I don't have to- and if I knew I was having a fucked up child I would definately not want to have it.


That doesnt surprise me.

My wife is currently pregnant. I was thinking last night about the argument "its a women choice" and I thought "BULLSHIT IT IS". Its my choice as well. That babies is "OURS" not hers or mine. If she wanted to get rid of it (not that she would)I dont think its her right to make that decision without my consent.

My wife and I have also discuss what we would do if the baby was born retared. We agreed we would still have it.

I think giving up a baby because it "fucked up" is being selfish and self centered. Your not at a grocery store picking fruit.

_________________
Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
Image


Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:05 am
Profile ICQ YIM
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:43 am
Posts: 4316
Reply with quote
Post 
i do have to agree with 11b's point of it being 'ours', not the woman or the mans. Of course, that said, from a womans point of view if i didn't want it and the guy did, well.. i think the deciding vote would have to go to the female, since she's the one who goes through the pain of birth. And of course if she wanted it and the guy didn't, well then thats fine, the guy can just have no responsibility or contact with the child once born.

_________________
Image


Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:38 am
Profile WWW
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 16661
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post 
bah, that's not the way it works. If the guy didn't want it and she had it anyway, he'd still be liable for child support. And if he did want it and she didn't, you say the woman should have the deciding vote....so basically, if she wants it, she'll have it, if not, she won't, and it doesn't matter what the guy wants.

We just need to develop technology to allow a man to be pregnant and move the fetus over if the guy wants it and the chick doesn't.

As far as retarded kids...I wouldn't want one. That kid would have a horrible life and never amount to anything. And beyond that, it would be a burden on the parents and the whole extended family until it died.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.