Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions

[stephanie]

WT??

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions
Sarah and Todd Palin's decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.

Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.


read the rest..
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-dow.html

[Abbey Marie]

Well, we can't be having fewer abortions now, can we? Pols llike Hillary with their "safe and rare" mantra should be outraged over this comment. Think they will be? :rolleyes:

Btw, in case anyone doesn't know, there is big money in abortion.

[Immanuel]

Well, we can't be having fewer abortions now, can we? Pols llike Hillary with their "safe and rare" mantra should be outraged over this comment. Think they will be? :rolleyes:

Btw, in case anyone doesn't know, there is big money in abortion.

No, instead they will be talking about giving this doctor a Nobel Peace Prize or something like that. Just think of how well he is serving women by encouraging them to have more abortions.

Immie

[-Cp]

http://www.palinplanet.com/2008/09/11/canadian-doctor-worries-trigg-sends-wrong-message-to-mothers/

[darin]

threads merged.

[avatar4321]

cause not having abortions is so horrible.

[Kathianne]

My older sister had Down's. Unlike the Palin kids, I didn't learn of her until I was 7 years old. She didn't live at home. My parents loved her, but had been counseled that if they wanted other children, healthy children, they should put her in a home. So they did. She got the worst of the gene pool, she was deaf on top of the Down's and her eyesight sucked too. In spite of both, she learned lip reading and basic sign language while in her teens. She hadn't learned language though, then they gave her hearing aids. Speech took off, before the aids her IQ was placed in the 50's, after in the high 80's and that was with certain Down's. She was intellectually higher than 2 of the kids I'm currently 'teaching.'

Loveable? Damn, a sweeter person, (most of the time), one couldn't hope to meet. Seems not the only one, they are inspirational:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903691.html?nav=emailpage


Father Who Died Saving Son Known For Sacrifice

By Jonathan Mummolo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 10, 2008; A01

If you ever ran into Nokesville dad Thomas S. Vander Woude, chances are you would also see his son Joseph. Whether Vander Woude was volunteering at church, coaching basketball or working on his farm, Joseph was often right there with him, pitching in with a smile, friends and neighbors said yesterday.

When Joseph, 20, who has Down syndrome, fell into a septic tank Monday in his back yard, Vander Woude jumped in after him. He saved him. And he died where he spent so much time living: at his son's side.

"That's how he lived," Vander Woude's daughter-in-law and neighbor, Maryan Vander Woude, said yesterday. "He lived sacrificing his life, everything, for his family."

Vander Woude, 66, had gone to Mass at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Gainesville on Monday, just as he did every day, and then worked in the yard with Joseph, the youngest of his seven sons, affectionately known as Josie. Joseph apparently fell through a piece of metal that covered a 2-by-2-foot opening in the septic tank, according to Prince William County police and family members.

Vander Woude rushed to the tank; a workman at the house saw what was happening and told Vander Woude's wife, Mary Ellen, police said. They called 911 about 12 p.m. and tried to help the father and son in the meantime.

At some point, Vander Woude jumped in the tank, submerging himself in sewage so he could push his son up from below and keep his head above the muck, while Joseph's mom and the workman pulled from above.

When rescue workers arrived, they pulled the two out, police said. Vander Woude, who had been in the tank for 15 to 20 minutes, was unconscious. Efforts to revive him were unsuccessful, and he was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead, police said.

Joseph remains in Prince William Hospital with double pneumonia, and doctors are monitoring him for infection, said Erin Vander Woude, Thomas Vander Woude's daughter-in-law. Joseph is in critical condition and on a ventilator, she said.

"He doesn't know that his dad died," she said.

For those who knew him, Vander Woude's sacrifice was in keeping with a lifetime of giving.

"He's the kind of guy who would give you the shirt off his back," said neighbor Lee DeBrish. "And if he didn't have one, he'd buy one for you."

Vander Woude was a pilot in Vietnam, a daughter-in-law said. After the war, he worked as a commercial airline pilot and in the early 1980s moved his family to Prince William from Georgia. In the years to come, he would wear many hats: farmer, athletic director, volunteer coach, parishioner, handy neighbor, grandfather of 24, husband for 43 years.

He divided his Nokesville farm into multiple plots, offering land to all his sons so they could stay close to home if they wanted, the daughter-in-law said. His eldest, Tom, became a priest. Five others -- Steve, Dan, Bob, Chris and Pat -- all married. And there was Joseph, who loved helping with all the odd jobs that filled the retired days of his father.

"He was retired," DeBrish said, "but that was a misnomer, because he was always out crankin' with the backhoe or the tractor."

All of Vander Woude's sons except Joseph attended Seton School in Manassas, where Vander Woude volunteered as coach of the boys' soccer and basketball teams for about 10 years, said the school's director, Anne Carroll.

"He never took a cent for it," she said. Carroll said that Vander Woude was a successful coach, winning multiple championships, but that his greatest strength was his ability to guide kids through challenges off the field.

"He was a mentor," she said. "He wanted them to be good young men, not just good players."

Vander Woude also served as athletic director at Christendom College in Front Royal for about five years, the school's president, Timothy T. O'Donnell, said.

But loved ones said his favorite job was the one he did last: being a good dad.

"They always considered Joseph a wonderful blessing to the family," said Francis Peffley, pastor at Holy Trinity, where Vander Woude served as a sacristan and also trained altar servers. "His whole life was spent serving people and sacrificing himself. . . . He gave the ultimate sacrifice. . . . Giving his life to save his son."

[midcan5]

The same people who praised a veto of child care and think UHC would be too expensive now want women to have downs syndrome children because Palin has made it chic. I think I have entered that parallel universe or a black hole, turn off that damn collider we're all going crazy.




A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.

[Immanuel]

The same people who praised a veto of child care and think UHC would be too expensive now want women to have downs syndrome children because Palin has made it chic. I think I have entered that parallel universe or a black hole, turn off that damn collider we're all going crazy.


I've known several children with Down's Syndrome. They are wonderful loving children. Certainly not deserving of having their lives snuffed out before birth.

Immie

[Kathianne]

The same people who praised a veto of child care and think UHC would be too expensive now want women to have downs syndrome children because Palin has made it chic. I think I have entered that parallel universe or a black hole, turn off that damn collider we're all going crazy.




A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.

Asshole, I just wrote how it was NOT chic, rather something to hide. Luckily for my folks, times changed, they just could not foresee that abortion would have make that window close.

I bet you are all for keeping 'ausperger' kids in a regular classroom. If they find the gene, we'll kill them off too.

[avatar4321]

The same people who praised a veto of child care and think UHC would be too expensive now want women to have downs syndrome children because Palin has made it chic. I think I have entered that parallel universe or a black hole, turn off that damn collider we're all going crazy.




A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.

because naturally its important that we extend "child care" to 25 year olds and kill children who have down syndrome because its "humane".

A vote for Obama will destroy future generations, literally.

[avatar4321]

Asshole, I just wrote how it was NOT chic, rather something to hide. Luckily for my folks, times changed, they just could not foresee that abortion would have make that window close.

I bet you are all for keeping 'ausperger' kids in a regular classroom. If they find the gene, we'll kill them off too.

Of course he does. He thinks all undesirable genetics should be wiped from the gene pool.

[April15]

Considering how many people have defective children now I don't see any change from palins giving birth to a defective child.

[theHawk]

Well, we can't be having fewer abortions now, can we? Pols llike Hillary with their "safe and rare" mantra should be outraged over this comment. Think they will be? :rolleyes:

Btw, in case anyone doesn't know, there is big money in abortion.

Thats something you'll never hear Obammy talk about. Abortion is BIG money, and guess what party the industry contributes to! :coffee:

[midcan5]

I'll repeat this till the cows come home for good but pro life people are almost always the worst hypocrites. Again how do support not needing to have abortions? and do you support living breathing children? NO! triple NO! I have yet to hear one anti abortion hypocrite cry or protest the enormous children deaths caused by our illegal bombing of Iraq. Hypocrites who can only tell another what to do but vote constantly for death.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.

[Kathianne]

I'll repeat this till the cows come home for good but pro life people are almost always the worst hypocrites. Again how do support not needing to have abortions? and do you support living breathing children? NO! triple NO! I have yet to hear one anti abortion hypocrite cry or protest the enormous children deaths caused by our illegal bombing of Iraq. Hypocrites who can only tell another what to do but vote constantly for death.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but my initial reaction is 'try again, in English.'

[April15]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but my initial reaction is 'try again, in English.'All you missed is that a question was asked of the anti abortion people. Is was who in the hell is going to pay for and raise these defective children.
Then he went into a question based in ethics. Is it ethical to force a rape victim to produce the offspring of the offender?
Next was a geo-political question having to do with the legitimacy of our invasion of Iraq and the killing of all the civilians most being women and children. Then he states that a certain air of pompasity is generated by those who are pro-lifers and yet support these deaths.

[Kathianne]

All you missed is that a question was asked of the anti abortion people. Is was who in the hell is going to pay for and raise these defective children.
Then he went into a question based in ethics. Is it ethical to force a rape victim to produce the offspring of the offender?
Next was a geo-political question having to do with the legitimacy of our invasion of Iraq and the killing of all the civilians most being women and children. Then he states that a certain air of pompasity is generated by those who are pro-lifers and yet support these deaths.

Ok, I'm hearing you all correctly? Deficient births are not allowed. If available to know by amnio, they should be aborted. They are less than human, and if anyone differs in opinion they are obviously a red neck fool.

[April15]

Ok, I'm hearing you all correctly? Deficient births are not allowed. If available to know by amnio, they should be aborted. They are less than human, and if anyone differs in opinion they are obviously a red neck fool.Not yet! The red neck fool was not implied or asked for.

[Kathianne]

Not yet! The red neck fool was not implied or asked for.

Disingenuous you are.

[Gaffer]

They always have to make stupid comparisons and it always involves iraq. I don't care how many were killed in the bombings of iraq. It is not relevant to abortions. By bringing up something else to compare it to you just prove you can't debate the issue. You lose.

[midcan5]

Ok, I'm hearing you all correctly? Deficient births are not allowed. If available to know by amnio, they should be aborted. They are less than human, and if anyone differs in opinion they are obviously a red neck fool.

You made yourself the redneck, I called you and millions like you hypocrites because you protest against a person's personal decision to lead their own life in privacy, but you praise policies that cut back child support or bomb and kill children.

http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[stephanie]

[QUOTE=April15;296542]All you missed is that a question was asked of the anti abortion people. Is was who in the hell is going to pay for and raise these defective children.
QUOTE]

you and your oh so generous liberals will pay for them..isn't that what you all say is your life's work, to take monies from everyone else to care for all the down trodden?

[stephanie]

You made yourself the redneck, I called you and millions like you hypocrites because you protest against a person's personal decision to lead their own life in privacy, but you praise policies that cut back child support or bomb and kill children.

http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.


I don't care if you all suck all your children out of your lives..I just don't want to be forced to pay for it...

now off with you to have a happy abortion..:bye1:

[Yurt]

I don't care if you all suck all your children out of your lives..I just don't want to be forced to pay for it...

now off with you to have a happy abortion..:bye1:

but they would kill you to force you to NOT have an abortion....right?

[avatar4321]

You made yourself the redneck, I called you and millions like you hypocrites because you protest against a person's personal decision to lead their own life in privacy, but you praise policies that cut back child support or bomb and kill children.

http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Actually, you are the hypocrite here.

You defend the lives of terrorists and want to kill little children.

That's why people like you seriously disgust me.

[retiredman]

but they would kill you to force you to NOT have an abortion....right?

the right would kill a woman who had an abortion. clearly. the religiousright supports the death penalty for the crime of murder...the religious right feels abortion is murder... a woman who is raped by her father and decides to abort her pregnancy would be a murderer in the eyes of the religious right. correct?

[stephanie]

the right would kill a woman who had an abortion. clearly. the religious right supports the death penalty for the crime of murder...the religious right feels abortion is murder... a woman who is raped by her father and decides to abort her pregnancy would be a murderer in the eyes of the religious right. correct?

the death penalty is used for ADULTS who made the decision to commit a crime..

the only crime of an aborted baby............being conceived..

you and people like you, make me sick.

[mundame]

He thinks all undesirable genetics should be wiped from the gene pool.


Works for me. Why not? If it's undesirable, it's undesirable. By definition.

This society already sees the grave disadvantages to the free breeding of criminals, mainly black, which then increase and increase the hard-core poor and criminal population.

It's not good for any gene pool or any population to encourage defective genetics. I think that is obvious.

[mundame]

Ok, I'm hearing you all correctly? Deficient births are not allowed. If available to know by amnio, they should be aborted. They are less than human, and if anyone differs in opinion they are obviously a red neck fool.


Now you're catching on.

It's not very patriotic to put the terrible expense of raising these children onto your country, is it?

[Kathianne]

Now you're catching on.

It's not very patriotic to put the terrible expense of raising these children onto your country, is it?

LOL! Ok, let's get rid of all the low gene pool clogging up and draining our school systems. We'll call it, "Cleansing the gene pool after birth abortions."

[Abbey Marie]

LOL! Ok, let's get rid of all the low gene pool clogging up and draining our school systems. We'll call it, "Cleansing the gene pool after birth abortions."

Dr. Mengele would be so proud!

[darin]

Works for me. Why not? If it's undesirable, it's undesirable. By definition.

This society already sees the grave disadvantages to the free breeding of criminals, mainly black, which then increase and increase the hard-core poor and criminal population.

It's not good for any gene pool or any population to encourage defective genetics. I think that is obvious.

You are obviously morally bankrupt.

[Immanuel]

Dr. Mengele would be so proud!

Not to mention Margaret Sanger, that kind of thing is exactly what she was trying to bring about.

Immie

[mundame]

The great, great majority of women who are pregnant agree with me, not with you folks.

If given a chance to abort a defective fetus, 90% or better do so.



And good for them ----- these women are not causing the problem of failing schools with mainstreamed mentally disabled children taking up all the teachers' time.

And the preoccupation of society with DISability rather than with ability and achievement.

[mundame]

Not to mention Margaret Sanger, that kind of thing is exactly what she was trying to bring about.

Immie


Not by infanticide, Immie. That's against the law. Sanger was never for that.

Though certainly infanticide is used in Africa, China, and India as a common way to deal with too many children. Better not to allow the problem to get to such a pass as that!!

[Immanuel]

The great, great majority of women who are pregnant agree with me, not with you folks.

If given a chance to abort a defective fetus, 90% or better do so.



And good for them ----- these women are not causing the problem of failing schools with mainstreamed mentally disabled children taking up all the teachers' time.

And the preoccupation of society with DISability rather than with ability and achievement.

That is your clouded opinion and I have never seen you provide a link to prove it.

Maybe 90% of the women who belong to NOW, but not 90% of American women.

Immie

[Kathianne]

Not by infanticide, Immie. That's against the law. Sanger was never for that.

Though certainly infanticide is used in Africa, China, and India as a common way to deal with too many children. Better not to allow the problem to get to such a pass as that!!

Why not? Normal logic from your stance would lead to that, also euthanizing those with severe health problems and dementia type ailments. It will be a prettier world.

[Abbey Marie]

The great, great majority of women who are pregnant agree with me, not with you folks.

If given a chance to abort a defective fetus, 90% or better do so.



And good for them ----- these women are not causing the problem of failing schools with mainstreamed mentally disabled children taking up all the teachers' time.

And the preoccupation of society with DISability rather than with ability and achievement.

If these children are disrupting the classroom, or inhibiting teaching, then it is the school's responsibility to deal with it. It could be as simple a solution as reversing the inclusion trend. Killing them for being annoying seems a little extreme, don't you think?

[mundame]

If these children are disrupting the classroom, or inhibiting teaching, then it is the school's responsibility to deal with it.


The schools don't, though ------ they just include more and more and it disrupts more and more.

Because that's cheaper.

[Immanuel]

Not by infanticide, Immie. That's against the law. Sanger was never for that.

Though certainly infanticide is used in Africa, China, and India as a common way to deal with too many children. Better not to allow the problem to get to such a pass as that!!

Sanger was for whatever it took to clean the gene pool. I believe she felt we should start with blacks, but I would have to check that again to be sure.

Well according to some, I am right...

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

http://www.lifeadvocate.org/1_98/feature.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html


What is most clear about Sanger, as will be shown from the excerpts that follow, is that she was an elitist bigot who believed in eugenics (which means, literally, “well born”), a popular pseudo-science that claimed to be able to blame societal ills on the heredity of the people who suffered those same ills. Eugenics designated some types of people “unfit” (generally, the poor and the disabled) and attempted to discourage or forcibly prevent those people from reproducing


http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm


Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

This is a woman you look up to and admire?

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

The schools don't, though ------ they just include more and more and it disrupts more and more.

Because that's cheaper.

I would argue that they don't for fear of laws suits. At least, that fear is what drove many of the policies at the District where I worked for a while.

All the more need for choice and competition through vouchers.

[Kathianne]

The schools don't, though ------ they just include more and more and it disrupts more and more.

Because that's cheaper.

It's mandated, haven't you been clued into 'inclusion'?

[mundame]

That is your clouded opinion and I have never seen you provide a link to prove it.

Maybe 90% of the women who belong to NOW, but not 90% of American women.

Immie



Nope, 90% of American women. Because 90% of American women are not damn fools.



Palin's Pitch to Parents of Disabled
Raises Some Doubts (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122083992345509015.html)

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 8, 2008

Up to 90% of women who receive Down syndrome diagnoses for their fetuses have abortions, says Brian Skotko, whose practice and research at Children's Hospital Boston centers on Down syndrome. The number could rise as simple blood tests for abnormalities head to market.

That is leading to rifts in the Down syndrome community, which the National Down Syndrome Society estimates includes about 400,000 people nationally with the condition. Many parents fear that Down syndrome is on the leading edge of a eugenics movement to eliminate children with abnormalities. Others are wary of being labeled as social conservatives if they choose to have a child knowing it will have a cognitive disability.
Those concerns are likely to move into the mainstream now, along with questions about what either party is likely to do for children with disabilities. The federal government's major program for such children is the $12 billion-a-year IDEA special-education law that serves about seven million children.

IDEA mandates schooling and therapy from birth through age 21 for children with disabilities, but picks up only 12% of the bill. With local budgets tight, special-needs programs are "stretched very thin," said Ms. Hutzel, adding that her son receives only monthly therapy.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, then Mundame, I guess I am a damn fool.

I refused to have an amnio done at all. I asked if they could fix any problem they spotted during the amnio, and was told they could not. So, the real purpose of the test is to give you a heads up to abort. I left it in God's hands. I was totally at peace I was with the decision from that day on.

[Immanuel]

Nope, 90% of American women. Because 90% of American women are not damn fools.



Palin's Pitch to Parents of Disabled
Raises Some Doubts (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122083992345509015.html)

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 8, 2008

Up to 90% of women who receive Down syndrome diagnoses for their fetuses have abortions, says Brian Skotko, whose practice and research at Children's Hospital Boston centers on Down syndrome. The number could rise as simple blood tests for abnormalities head to market.

That is leading to rifts in the Down syndrome community, which the National Down Syndrome Society estimates includes about 400,000 people nationally with the condition. Many parents fear that Down syndrome is on the leading edge of a eugenics movement to eliminate children with abnormalities. Others are wary of being labeled as social conservatives if they choose to have a child knowing it will have a cognitive disability.
Those concerns are likely to move into the mainstream now, along with questions about what either party is likely to do for children with disabilities. The federal government's major program for such children is the $12 billion-a-year IDEA special-education law that serves about seven million children.

IDEA mandates schooling and therapy from birth through age 21 for children with disabilities, but picks up only 12% of the bill. With local budgets tight, special-needs programs are "stretched very thin," said Ms. Hutzel, adding that her son receives only monthly therapy.

That is not 90% of women no matter how you spin it.

Immie

[mundame]

I asked if they could fix any problem they spotted during the amnio, and was told they could not. So, the real purpose of the test is to give you a heads up to abort.


Of course it is.

[Abbey Marie]

Of course it is.

That is absolutely not how it is represented to women. It is described as a rather routine test, that every woman would of course choose to have. It's a money-maker, and women are being shuttled into it like cattle. Funny, how the truth is hidden, isn't it?

[mundame]

That is not 90% of women no matter how you spin it.

Immie


Not sure what you mean here.

Of the women who get sonograms at all, 90% of those whose fetuses are Downs abort.

(And there are many, many other severe issues of compromised births, from red measles to superfetation to obvious physical deformities to genetic flaws other than Downs that the various procedures pick up, and these are also counselled to be aborted, of course. Presumably they are aborted at the same rate, but the best data is on Downs Syndrome, because it is so clear and so many.)

So if 90% of women who get both sonograms and have a fetus with Downs abort, that is one very good statistical sample ------- I don't see how you can get past that one.

Now, you'll have people who slip through and don't get sonograms for one reason or another -- people opposing it, illegal aliens, poor people who don't go for prenatal care, etc. But as you know from the baby shower cards you get with the sonogram photo right in it, this is a very common procedure in modern American life.

There are of course many birth disabilities that cannot be picked up this way. Nothing to be done about those.

[mundame]

That is absolutely not how it is represented to women. It is described as a rather routine test, that every woman would of course choose to have. It's a money-maker, and women are being shuttled into it like cattle. Funny, how the truth is hidden, isn't it?


Well said. You are right, of course.

And there is so much of this sort of thing going on!

[Immanuel]

Not sure what you mean here.

Of the women who get sonograms at all, 90% of those whose fetuses are Downs abort.

(And there are many, many other severe issues of compromised births, from red measles to superfetation to obvious physical deformities to genetic flaws other than Downs that the various procedures pick up, and these are also counselled to be aborted, of course. Presumably they are aborted at the same rate, but the best data is on Downs Syndrome, because it is so clear and so many.)

So if 90% of women who get both sonograms and have a fetus with Downs abort, that is one very good statistical sample ------- I don't see how you can get past that one.

Now, you'll have people who slip through and don't get sonograms for one reason or another -- people opposing it, illegal aliens, poor people who don't go for prenatal care, etc. But as you know from the baby shower cards you get with the sonogram photo right in it, this is a very common procedure in modern American life.

There are of course many birth disabilities that cannot be picked up this way. Nothing to be done about those.

Everything I have ever read from you implies that 90% women are pro-choice. That is preposterous!

Are you trying to adjust what you have always implied here?

Immie

[retiredman]

the death penalty is used for ADULTS who made the decision to commit a crime..

the only crime of an aborted baby............being conceived..

you and people like you, make me sick.


do you and your cronies in the religious right consider a woman who aborts her fetus to be a murderer? yes or no

[Immanuel]

do you and your cronies in the religious right consider a woman who aborts her fetus to be a murderer? yes or no

No. It cannot now be murder because murder is the illegal and premeditated killing of a human being. Seeing as how abortion is legal it cannot fit the definition.

As for if it suddenly became illegal, I don't believe even then it should be considered murder. We have defined the term murder. We can define a new term describing the illegal killing of a fetus and we can assign whatever we as a nation feel is reasonable as the punishment for such a crime.

Immie

[Missileman]

Well, then Mundame, I guess I am a damn fool.

I refused to have an amnio done at all. I asked if they could fix any problem they spotted during the amnio, and was told they could not. So, the real purpose of the test is to give you a heads up to abort. I left it in God's hands. I was totally at peace I was with the decision from that day on.

Do you take that same approach with other potential medical problems with your children? Assuming the answer is no, why not? Did you have them immunized? Why not just leave THAT in God's hands also?

Why is it so sinister to abort a fetus that has no chance at leading a normal life? Why are people so loathe to take quality of life into consideration in these types of matters?

[mundame]

Everything I have ever read from you implies that 90% women are pro-choice. That is preposterous!

Are you trying to adjust what you have always implied here?

Immie


Interesting analysis you are making.............I hadn't really worked it out that far!!

But I guess you are right, jeepers: If a fair sample of all women is showing that fully 90% who come up with defective fetuses are aborting defective fetuses ---- that DOES mean fully 90% of the population of women in America is in favor of abortion of defective fetuses, yes.

It does not necessarily mean that such a high proportion is pro-choice EVERY possibility of abortion, of course. We already know that the majority of women as well as men and women are pro-choice generally, because they poll that way repeatedly.

It seems to be only as high as 90% when it's a case of deciding, right now, do you spend your life caring for a retarded child, or do you reboot and start over?

I bet the proportion of women who make that decision about rape and incest pregnancies is very, very high also ---- IF-IF-IF it's the person deciding who actually is in the situation.

When people have a decision in the abstract, they may say this, they may say that; but when they are right up against a major life problem, they can generally be counted on to make the sensible decision whatever blue-sky theory they may have held earlier.

Neat. I never followed the stats through quite that far, Immie.

[Kathianne]

Do you take that same approach with other potential medical problems with your children? Assuming the answer is no, why not? Did you have them immunized? Why not just leave THAT in God's hands also?

Why is it so sinister to abort a fetus that has no chance at leading a normal life? Why are people so loathe to take quality of life into consideration in these types of matters?

Do you not think that Down's children can have a high quality of life and more importantly contribute to the quality of life of others?

I will say that my sister who had Down's, not only made contributions to our society, she had a lasting impact on both myself and my brother. I think our interactions with her made both of us more cognizant and reactive to those dealt a less than fair hand. Considering we both chose fields that serve others, her 'handicap' led us to help many more with far less disabilities.

[Missileman]

Do you not think that Down's children can have a high quality of life and more importantly contribute to the quality of life of others?

I will say that my sister who had Down's, not only made contributions to our society, she had a lasting impact on both myself and my brother. I think our interactions with her made both of us more cognizant and reactive to those dealt a less than fair hand. Considering we both chose fields that serve others, her 'handicap' led us to help many more with far less disabilities.

No, I don't think Down's people have even remotely the same quality of life as someone without.

[Immanuel]

Interesting analysis you are making.............I hadn't really worked it out that far!!

But I guess you are right, jeepers: If a fair sample of all women is showing that fully 90% who come up with defective fetuses are aborting defective fetuses ---- that DOES mean fully 90% of the population of women in America is in favor of abortion of defective fetuses, yes.

It does not necessarily mean that such a high proportion is pro-choice EVERY possibility of abortion, of course. We already know that the majority of women as well as men and women are pro-choice generally, because they poll that way repeatedly.

It seems to be only as high as 90% when it's a case of deciding, right now, do you spend your life caring for a retarded child, or do you reboot and start over?

I bet the proportion of women who make that decision about rape and incest pregnancies is very, very high also ---- IF-IF-IF it's the person deciding who actually is in the situation.

When people have a decision in the abstract, they may say this, they may say that; but when they are right up against a major life problem, they can generally be counted on to make the sensible decision whatever blue-sky theory they may have held earlier.

Neat. I never followed the stats through quite that far, Immie.

You would of course be wrong in your BIG IF's.

First, you are assuming you are correct in the "90% of women who get sonograms...". I can't remember if you have actually ever provided a reliable source for that. Have you?

I would say that would be the first place one might look. Where does that figure come from, AGI? Women polled from inside a PP clinic?

Only women who have been counselled by PP? I mean lied to by PP? Women who have been prevented from actually investigating what kind of life a Down Syndrome child can have? Women who have been run through an abortion clinic like it was a slaughter house?

Of course, if you present the information the way PP does, you will scare the hell out of a mother who may be suffering from this upcoming problem. Once PP has their hooks in them, it is all over.

Not all potential parents travel through PP's doors... thank God.

Immie

[Kathianne]

No, I don't think Down's people have even remotely the same quality of life as someone without.

I can only assume you haven't known any Down's people. My sister, afflicted with Down's and perhaps more importantly deaf, to a more significant degree than myself, was able to learn to lip read, read Braille, comfort friends and relatives, reassure family when the end was coming, have a boyfriend, work in an important position, unless you consider Crayolas less than important to children? She brought love, laughter, and a mandate of understanding to the table. Do you?

[mundame]

You would of course be wrong in your BIG IF's.

Why, because you say so? The implication of these stats is that the women actually confronted with disastrous pregnancies do overwhelmingly abort them. Duh.




First, you are assuming you are correct in the "90% of women who get sonograms...". I can't remember if you have actually ever provided a reliable source for that. Have you?



Yes. As you well know. You've lost the argument, Immie. Going back and trying to discredit the sources after you've earlier accepted them and failed to win your point is a common but poor-quality tactic on these types of forums.

Okay, I get it that you oppose abortion. But you are way out in right field with that and the majority of men and women in America do not agree with you. Hey, it happens.

You can still oppose abortion. You just have to accept that you are holding a minority opinion.

[Missileman]

I can only assume you haven't known any Down's people. My sister, afflicted with Down's and perhaps more importantly deaf, to a more significant degree than myself, was able to learn to lip read, read Braille, comfort friends and relatives, reassure family when the end was coming, have a boyfriend, work in an important position, unless you consider Crayolas less than important to children? She brought love, laughter, and a mandate of understanding to the table. Do you?

You assume incorrectly.

As wonderfully as your sister did with her handicap, her life was limited by it.

[Kathianne]

You assume incorrectly.

As wonderfully as your sister did with her handicap, her life was limited by it.

And who are you to say such? Why am I unable to say differently, knowing her and her life?

[Missileman]

And who are you to say such? Why am I unable to say differently, knowing her and her life?

Are you really arguing that your sister wasn't negatively affected by her handicap at all? That had she desired to, she could have gotten a degree, had a career, married, bought a house, had and raised children of her own?

[Kathianne]

Are you really arguing that your sister wasn't negatively affected by her handicap at all? That had she desired to, she could have gotten a degree, had a career, married, bought a house, had and raised children of her own?

Considering that degrees and careers were not the 'norm' from 1960's and before, ?. Owning a house, even fewer. She certainly could have raised children, with support, not on her own.

At the same time, how many 'normal folk' do you find fitting your parameters?

[Abbey Marie]

Do you take that same approach with other potential medical problems with your children? Assuming the answer is no, why not? Did you have them immunized? Why not just leave THAT in God's hands also?

Why is it so sinister to abort a fetus that has no chance at leading a normal life? Why are people so loathe to take quality of life into consideration in these types of matters?

I'll explain it the best I can. If the reason for the amnio is to gain knowledge to abort, and you do not believe in abortion, why subject yourself and your baby to the medical risks of the amnio? (Btw, when I asked the question, I was told that the risks of very serious problems from the amnio, were higher than having a child with DS).

I am not avoiding a medical procedure that will help me or my child medically, such as immunizations. I am doing the opposite.

In a nutshell, I believe that children are a blessing from God. He said even before you were in the womb, he knew you. That's powerful stuff. If the baby has DS, it is my understanding that it has a decent chance at an almost-normal life. The question is harder when it comes to severe abnormalities, such that the child is 100% bed-ridden, hooked up to machines all the time, and has no real awareness. If such a damaged child makes it to term, and cannot be helped, I think they generally don't have a long life span anyway. Though I am not an expert on the subject.

[Immanuel]

In a nutshell, I believe that children are a blessing from God. He said even before you were in the womb, he knew you. That's powerful stuff. If the baby has DS, it is my understanding that it has a decent chance at an almost-normal life. The question is harder when it comes to severe abnormalities, such that the child is 100% bed-ridden, hooked up to machines all the time, and has no real awareness. If such a damaged child makes it to term, and cannot be helped, I think they generally don't have a long life span anyway. Though I am not an expert on the subject.

I have known several families that have a child who is afflicted with Down Syndrome and everyone of those families have felt that the child was a gift from God. Sure, things are difficult for the family, but the child is a wonderful child and they love the child regardless of his/her physical/mental handicap.

I imagine that they would be just as happy if the child were so-called "normal", but they feel that the child they have been given is a true blessing.

Immie

[Kathianne]

Are you really arguing that your sister wasn't negatively affected by her handicap at all? That had she desired to, she could have gotten a degree, had a career, married, bought a house, had and raised children of her own?

Considering this a bit more, cannot an argument be made that many 'average' folk cannot accomplish what you said? 25% of 'normal' can earn a BA/BS. Thanks to Fannie/Freddie more can buy a home, but in the long run, keep it? Should anyone with less than a college degree have children? What say you?

[mundame]

Protest:

Why was my thread moved, which DID have a considerable political content, and yet this thread is still here in 2008 elections?

Can someone explain to me the nature of the prejudice that has made this seem like a GOOD idea?

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=17619) --------- this is the title for this thread we are in.

Clearly it doesn't have political content, and though a very interesting thread, it developed without political content.

My thread, which was about a topic that has affected this race since Palin was chosen, the unmarried pregnancy of her daughter, has been moved, even though it was an active thread.

I think that stinks and I think this one should be moved out too.



What a choice, mods ----------------

move away to some dark corner all the stuff people actually want to talk about. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/mad.gif http://macg.net/emoticons/angry2.gif http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/eyebrow2.gif

[Kathianne]

Protest:

Why was my thread moved, which DID have a considerable political content, and yet this thread is still here in 2008 elections?

Can someone explain to me the nature of the prejudice that has made this seem like a GOOD idea?

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=17619) --------- this is the title for this thread we are in.

Clearly it doesn't have political content, and though a very interesting thread, it developed without political content.

My thread, which was about a topic that has affected this race since Palin was chosen, the unmarried pregnancy of her daughter, has been moved, even though it was an active thread.

I think that stinks and I think this one should be moved out too.



What a choice, mods ----------------

move away to some dark corner all the stuff people actually want to talk about. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/mad.gif http://macg.net/emoticons/angry2.gif http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/eyebrow2.gif

Contact the mod that moved, wasn't me. I'm just the one that keeps responding to you. ;)

[Immanuel]

Protest:

Why was my thread moved, which DID have a considerable political content, and yet this thread is still here in 2008 elections?

Can someone explain to me the nature of the prejudice that has made this seem like a GOOD idea?

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=17619) --------- this is the title for this thread we are in.

Clearly it doesn't have political content, and though a very interesting thread, it developed without political content.

My thread, which was about a topic that has affected this race since Palin was chosen, the unmarried pregnancy of her daughter, has been moved, even though it was an active thread.

I think that stinks and I think this one should be moved out too.



What a choice, mods ----------------

move away to some dark corner all the stuff people actually want to talk about. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/mad.gif http://macg.net/emoticons/angry2.gif http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/eyebrow2.gif

I agree this one should be moved as well.

Contact a mod. If you point it out, I'm sure they will accommodate you.

Personally, I don't know what difference it makes anyway. When I log on the first thing I hit is "New Posts" and I go from there. Rarely do I even bother going to the individual forums because everything that is "happening" happens in the "New Posts" link anyway.

If a thread that I'm not interested in doesn't appear in the "New Posts", I hit the "My Posts" link because everyone knows that I tend to stick my nose in anything that interests me. So, I'll find the interesting things there, if not in "New Posts". :p

Immie

[Kathianne]

I'm confused. Do you all want THIS thread moved to Lounge? I can do that, but how do I justify it?

[Immanuel]

I'm confused. Do you all want THIS thread moved to Lounge? I can do that, but how do I justify it?

Me? I don't care, but if it makes Mundame happy, well, we don't want another rampaging liberal complaining about unfair treatment on the site, do we? :lol: {prepares to be cussed out}

Immie

[Yurt]

Protest:

Why was my thread moved, which DID have a considerable political content, and yet this thread is still here in 2008 elections?

Can someone explain to me the nature of the prejudice that has made this seem like a GOOD idea?

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=17619) --------- this is the title for this thread we are in.

Clearly it doesn't have political content, and though a very interesting thread, it developed without political content.

My thread, which was about a topic that has affected this race since Palin was chosen, the unmarried pregnancy of her daughter, has been moved, even though it was an active thread.

I think that stinks and I think this one should be moved out too.



What a choice, mods ----------------

move away to some dark corner all the stuff people actually want to talk about. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/mad.gif http://macg.net/emoticons/angry2.gif http://www.powwows.com/gathering/images/smilies/eyebrow2.gif

i am getting dizzy with all the moved threads, merged threads, yada yada, seems stifling

[Kathianne]

i am getting dizzy with all the moved threads, merged threads, yada yada, seems stifling

My take too. Won't move unless I can see the justification.

[Immanuel]

And now that I think about it, this thread did start out having much to do about the 2008 Election. The fact that this doctor thinks Gov Palin's choice will affect the choices made my other women most definitely fits in this category.

Immie

[Missileman]

Considering this a bit more, cannot an argument be made that many 'average' folk cannot accomplish what you said? 25% of 'normal' can earn a BA/BS. Thanks to Fannie/Freddie more can buy a home, but in the long run, keep it? Should anyone with less than a college degree have children? What say you?

Cannot an argument be made that God gave doctors the ability to run an amnio test to prevent the birth of DS babies?

And the list I presented wasn't a statement that anyone who can't manage ALL of them is abnormal. I was just tossing out a few of the "normal" things in life that were beyond your sister's reach. And I'm not bringing them up to be mean, but for illustration.

If they came up with a shot that removed Down's syndrome, would you be for or against giving it to your sister? Do you think your sister would be for or against?

[Kathianne]

...

If they came up with a shot that removed Down's syndrome, would you be for or against giving it to your sister? Do you think your sister would be for or against?I deleted all but the last. You know, I haven't a clue.

When I found out about her, I was 7. She never lived in 'our home.' She was a ward of the state from the time my parents found out they could make her such, with many misgivings, but the knowledge that if they somehow died, my brother and I would not be responsible for her. Different times, young ones.

When we found out 'about her,' we wanted her home more, which my parents agreed with. That's when we all realized she was really deaf, more than myself or my mom, that hearing aids somewhat helped. For Mary Beth, they let her know of 'sound' but not words. Still she was able after getting aids to pick up sign language very quickly and for the first time at the age of 15 to 'talk.' Yes, a deaf, Down's person at the age of 15 stopped being mute, gain full language through sign and significant verbal communication once able to identify sounds.

MM, I would never think you were cruel, too many posts to think that. I can't imagine that Mary Beth would choose to be us, with our sins and questions, than what she was: innocent, loving, hard working, and with a quest for being her best. I wish I could be as true to those things as she was.