mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

No, I'm not just talking about inside the womb.
But if there's some big difference between inside and outside the womb, maybe one of you can tell me what it is.
They abort 27-week old down syndrome babies all the time, because they don't find out until that late into the pregnancy.

This is one of the main reasons pro-choicers give in support of abortion, that some of these babies are retarded or will have serious medical problems and will never be able to live a normal life.

So, do you approve of abortion when the fetus will be retarded? What about knowing that most of the time they don't figure out it's retarded untill later in the pregnancy?
And if you support abortion then, what's wrong with euthanizing these babies when they first come out?
Could it be seen as a mercy killing ? As the argument goes: Who's going to take care of all these unwanted people?


Hope this thread is thought provoking

 

Have you anything to support this claim????

 

The test for Down Syndrome is not 100% accurate. This can lead to some fairly complex ethical issues, as there are two types of trade-offs here.

First, the longer the fetus is allowed to develop, the more accurate the test will be.

Second, there are different cut-off criteria that can be used for the same test, depending on the relative importance of sensitivity compared to selectivity. Typically with a test, the criteria can be adjusted to ensure a 99.5 percent chance that there is not a false positive, but the downside is that the criteria will not be able to diagnose a larger number of true positives. Usually it is not a simple linear relationship, so the ideal cut-off avoids either extreme of full sensitivity or full selectivity.

The question is how many healthy babies must be mistakenly killed for every 100 defective babies terminated. There needs to be a cost analysis to determine proper diagnostic criteria.

Here is the sensitivity selectivity curve for screening pregnant mothers for down syndrome babies:



The black dots represent tests on women in the later stage of pregnancy, while the white dots represent the test done in the early stage of pregnancy.

 

Until you provide some proof to back that statement up I am calling BS on it.

Downs can be reliably detected by various tests as early as 13 weeks - http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Downs-syndrome/Pages/Diagnosis.aspx

as to the rest of this, if you need someone to tell you the difference then you are beyond help.

 

post your source, I never trust anything you cherry pick without a link to the source. An image search shows not a single match to your graph.

 

http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=438&np=459&id=2762#how

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a1487/screening-for-downs-syndrome

 

so nothing you posted there actually adheres to your OP statement of

They abort 27-week old down syndrome babies all the time, because they don't find out until that late into the pregnancy.

thank you for showing how dishonest you are.

link to the study please - One study found that about one in four babies born with Down’s syndrome were not detected when screened during pregnancy

 

Fact is, most pro-choicers in this forum seem to support abortion done late in the pregnancy.
Many of them even after 24 weeks. --- If it's retarded, this is especially so.

But if it's okay to terminate the life of a 26 week old retarded baby, why is it so different when it's outside the womb???
That's what I'm asking here.

Plenty of pregnancies are terminated due to retardation at 24 weeks or later.

In the U.K. 99 Down Syndrome babies were aborted after 26 weeks last year. This doesn't count all the other retarded ones.

Here's another one:

 

Think about how much money it saves. These people won't be able to take care of themselves.

This line of reasoning sounds awfully reminiscent of something that happened in germany ...


----------+++

 

even progressive liberals have the right to life. they might learn the error of their ways and reform like Reagan did. it's not likely, but it could happen.

 

I hate to change the topic, but I have reservations about whether and how pro-life Reagan actually was. He did a good job pandering to pro-life groups for votes, however.

 

Look, I don't want to ban abortion, I just want abortion supporters to admit what it is they are actually supporting.

 

Which has nothing to do with your assertion that "They abort 27-week old down syndrome babies all the time," for which you have not provided a single shred of evidence for.

If you need to have that explained to you then there is nothing I can do to help you.

Another statement pulled from your arse, where is your proof please.

Oh come off it, lifesite news known for it misrepresentation of data and research .. BTW where exactly does it state in that report your assertion?

If you mean this - "He added: “Late abortions (post-24 weeks) have risen from 146 to 160, and that 99 of these took place after 26 weeks. Nearly all of these will have been for disability, at least according to the law.”" - where is the McCarthy get his source data from please, and by what method is he concluding that "Nearly all of these will have been for disability, at least according to the law"?

Key word in your item, making an assumption is not proof of anything. Also noted from that report is that more and more pregnant women are choosing to remain pregnant even if they are diagnosed as carrying a DS fetus.

 

money is not the issue, despite you red herring.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone has a right to life, what no one has is the right to life at the expenses of another person.

- - - Updated - - -

I know what I am supporting, do you?

 

....Uh....one is still inside the womb, and the other is not.

One is considered to be something we call a "Baby"....whereas the other is called a Fetus.
One has been designated as a separate "Human Being" by society...the other has not.

 

That's not what other pro-choicers have admitted...

(thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/263132-women-who-seek-abortions-they-just-lazy.html , posts #4, 6 and 7)

That's called Bornism.

x

 

One pro-choice person who is not even here to speak for themselves, where are the others you speak of .. in case you didn't know others is plural meaning more than one.

 

This has been explained to you before. Context is everything. Repeat this hogwash, and someone here can and will repeat the explanation.

http://livelydust.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-margaret-sanger-really-said-about.html

To find out, I read the whole chapter in which the sentence appears (V: "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families"), and what Sanger was thinking became clear. Excessively large families, she argues, are the root cause of all kinds of evils: prostitution, low wages, child labor, war, the oppression of women, ill health, mental dejection, spiritual hopelessness, malnutrition, inadequate medical attention, crime, feeble-mindedness, insanity, child abuse, unchastity, and - especially - infant and child mortality. She quotes research showing that the likelihood of death before the first birthday rises with each additional child, reaching 60% by child number twelve - and, as she points out, many of the children who survive to age one will not make it to age five. Sanger is by no means advocating infanticide: she is using hyperbole to underline the unimaginably squalid conditions of the large working-class families she encountered in her daily work as a visiting nurse in New York tenements. "Let the day perish wherein I was born," wailed the suffering Job. "Why died I not from the womb?" The families Sanger served were equally miserable.

How can I know she is not advocating infanticide? Her second chapter is a history of infanticide - an extremely common practice from ancient times right up to the present day, though tending in modern times to be replaced by abortion. Frequently lumping abortion, infanticide, and child abandonment together, she calls them "abhorrent practices." "It is apparent," she writes, "that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide" [loc. 202]

 

Thank you for posting that.

But Anti-Choicers hate the truth and will dishonestly claim crap as the truth no matter how many times they are proven wrong.

A poster in here even admitted Anti-Choicers HAD to be dishonest to get their way !

 

Couldn't it be argued that the most merciful thing that can be done for a poor child is to have sterilized the mother before he could be conceived?

Well contraception has not put an end to the horrors of abortion, even after all that sex education and bags of free condoms.
What's it going to take??

 

Contraceptives work well, if they're accessible and affordable, most of the most effective ones are the most expensive.

Contraceptives, including condoms, have failures.

Not everyone can use contraceptives.

Not everyone does use contraceptives.


Your neocon Utopia does not, and never will, exist.

 

Oh please not this old chestnut again, this has been refuted, debunked and blown apart so many times before . .tell you what why don't you post the WHOLE quote so that your out of context cherry pick can be seen for the BS it is.

Ah I see someone has already provided the necessary REAL context of the quote .. must be sad for you to be proven wrong yet again.

 

Talk about twisted logic, just how would it be merciful to a child when there would be no child if the woman were sterilized before conception

33 states have no legal requirement for comprehensive sex education to be provided in schools - that is 63.46% of schools
6 of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancies are states with abstinence sex education only.
Condoms have a typical usage failure of 15%, where as an IUD has a typical usage failure rate of 0.8%
Typical condom cost is $0.75, Americans have sex on average 103 times a year, assuming that a condom is used everytime that equates to a cost of $77.25 per year, over ten years that is a total cost of $772.50. An IUD cost around $700.00 and last for approx ten years. None of the above includes the welfare cost and children in care cost increases to the tax payer should abortion be banned in all but few cases.

The cost for free at source IUD contraception to the US tax payer over the longer term is less ($72.50) than the cost of supplying condoms over the same period, and would reduce unintended pregnancy by 14.2% ergo also reducing abortions. In fact this study - http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...ng_Unintended_Pregnancies_by_Providing.7.aspx or http://www.livescience.com/23726-birth-control-abortion-rate.html - proved that offering long term use and forget contraception free at source reduced unintended pregnancy and abortions by a very significant amount.

100% full coverage of comprehensive sex education in all states, along the lines of the following;

1. Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life

2. Teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV

3. Provides values-based education and offers students the opportunity to explore and define their individual values as well as the values of their families and communities

4. Includes a wide variety of sexuality related topics, such as human development, relationships, interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, and society and culture

5. Includes accurate, factual information on abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation

6. Provides positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence

7. Teaches that proper use of latex condoms, along with water-based lubricants, can greatly reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including HIV

8. Teaches that consistent use of modern methods of contraception can greatly reduce a couple's risk for unintended pregnancy

9. Includes accurate medical information about STDs, including HIV; teaches that individuals can avoid STDs

10. Teaches that religious values can play an important role in an individual's decisions about sexual expression; offers students the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values

11. Teaches that a woman faced with an unintended pregnancy has options: carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the baby, or carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption, or ending the pregnancy with an abortion

As you can see there is an emphasis placed on abstinence, values and religious beliefs.

Include "use and forget" contraception as part of the free at source mandate for all women regardless of income, but especially for those on or below the poverty threshold, this would lead to a long term (10 years) saving of approx $77.00 to the taxpayer, and reduce quite substantially unintended pregnancies and abortions.

Do those things and you will see a dramatic fall in abortions.

 

Well we certainly seem to be living in an Anti-life gynotopia.