Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Page 21 of 26 [ 401 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 26 Next

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

11 Mar 2011, 12:34 am

I used to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood.

Most abortions = a woman taking a pill and having a heavy period.

The hysterics over it are the hallmark of people wholly uneducated about the actual SUFFERING occurring in the world.

_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

11 Mar 2011, 10:42 am

Bethie wrote:

Are you referring to any specific suffering?

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

11 Mar 2011, 10:56 am

Vigilans wrote:

Quote:

It is also because I'm not going to put a girl in the situation where they are panicking because I got them pregnant.

Many women take the birth control now, and not just for having sex without pregnancy risk. I'm pretty sure it also helps them with 'that time of the month'. I wonder when a male birth control pill would become available, if possible. Condoms aren't a perfect guarantee

When will a male birth control pill be available? Probably never. I can't imagine there would be a market for it. Birth control pills for women work by altering hormonal balance so ovulation is prevented. Somehow I have the feeling that if a pharma company actually came up with a pill that altered men's hormonal balance enough to prevent sperm from being created, no (or very few) men would take it. Would you? Preventing the production of sperm would require some fairly serious hormonal alteration. Thus the mechanical methods of preventing normally created sperm from reaching its destination will prevail.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Mar 2011, 4:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

11 Mar 2011, 4:53 pm

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

And the truth comes out...

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Mar 2011, 6:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

And the truth comes out...

I pointed this out something like 20 pages ago as a completely consistent stance to take.

There are some conditions that make sense to abort, eg Patau Syndrome. Whether Down Syndrome is one of those can be debated, and yes, whether autism is one of those can also be debated.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

11 Mar 2011, 8:53 pm

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

And the truth comes out...

Agreed.

Also, why is it such a shocking thing to imagine people would not want a child with DS? It wasn't that long ago that it was common place to leave unwanted children (DS, deformed, female, etc.) in the outskirts of cities to die (or were killed) because they were considered a drain on the family and/or the community. The technology to determine whether or not a child has a genetic disorder prior to birth is new, and so the phenomenon of aborting zef's for such reasons is new as well. The overall phenomenon of choosing not to raise such children, however, is not.

Mammals kill their offspring - I'll bet you the nice neighbourhood cat would kill one of its kittens if it had something aking to DS. I've seen mice eat some of their pups because of deformities. In the animal kingdom, it would be a waste of resources to raise such offspring.

And, like it or not, we're all animals. And, like it or not, we do have instincts.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

11 Mar 2011, 9:00 pm

Asides the issues of economic dependence or ability to contribute, DS is also very associated with bad physical manifestations of the syndrome. There are many health risks. The truth is DS is a vulgarization of Human genetic code, and no individual deserves to be born that way. It is unfair to them, more so though in addition to the burden on others who have to care for them.

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

11 Mar 2011, 11:10 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Thirdly, although I know Vexcaliber and Orwell have disagreed with this position in the past on grounds of biodiversity, I am actually in favor of the idea of eugenics. This does not mean that I think a current practice of eugenics would be helpful. Really my position is that we should look into ways to reliably remove certain negative conditions and increase the number of positive qualities. After all, I think that even if we sacrifice genetic diversity, having a population of geniuses is probably worth most costs. Societal advancement will move a lot more rapidly if we can do this. I am actually a fan of transhumanism, the idea of moving past normal humanity and becoming "post-human" in some sense, and that is a matter of creating persons who are by nature beyond the capability of normal human beings.

The problem is not the threat of having a whole population of super humans or geniuses. The issue is that humans have been historically very bad at deciding what trait is better than another. Our metrics are pretty ret*d already. I am not against a world completely inhabited by geniuses, I am against a world full of people with 150 IQ that turn out to be ineffective at creativity, thinking for themselves or solving problems, but we call them an army of geniuses because they do well in IQ tests. And that's just the beginning of it.

And .. . genetic diversity, it is a useful resource because even now we cannot predict for sure what will happen to the environment in which we live. Imagine that we actually did succeed in having a society of geniuses that are very good problem solvers and stuff. Then, I don't know... A supernova explodes and its radiation is directed exactly against earth, destroying all of civilization and only leaving some few human survivor out there. Super geniuses which are for some reason not suitable to making fire with their own hands or hunting and die.

_________________
.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

12 Mar 2011, 12:07 am

How do you evaluate what is a good trait with the uncertainty of nature as part of the equation?(This is addressed to AwesomeelyGlorious)

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,098

12 Mar 2011, 12:48 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Many of us survive today because of advancements in material comfort and technology. Proper sewage and sanitation above and beyond all other variables. As a result of this we are a weaker species as a whole in our ability to survive as other animals do in the wild. It won't take a Super Nova to make it apparent the extent to which we depend on the infrastructure of culture that we have accumulated over thousands of years.

Whatever man made or natural disaster that might precede chaos and the law of the jungle, genius may not be the valued trait for survival.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Mar 2011, 2:33 am

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

And the truth comes out...

I also said, I think in my first post in this thread, that I personally would abort my zef if I found out that it had Down syndrome. How is this new statment worse (or more truthful) than that?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Mar 2011, 2:55 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

I can see your point. I don't think it to be of extreme power. It works somewhat, but I think that even with ret*d metrics, there are a lot of ways to work things around.

Quote:

And .. . genetic diversity, it is a useful resource because even now we cannot predict for sure what will happen to the environment in which we live. Imagine that we actually did succeed in having a society of geniuses that are very good problem solvers and stuff. Then, I don't know... A supernova explodes and its radiation is directed exactly against earth, destroying all of civilization and only leaving some few human survivor out there. Super geniuses which are for some reason not suitable to making fire with their own hands or hunting and die.

Well, the issue is that genius isn't a trait incompatible with those features either. The "suitability" issues really go back more to learned characteristics. I think the real fear is that a lack of variation can increase the problems due to disease. If some bug comes out, and all people have the same vulnerabilities, then this could be a problem. The issue is whether variability would be that greatly suppressed, and whether a loss in variability is likely to wipe us out.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Mar 2011, 3:00 am

ikorack wrote:

How do you evaluate what is a good trait with the uncertainty of nature as part of the equation?(This is addressed to AwesomeelyGlorious)

Nature isn't that uncertain. There is some variability, even destructive variation, but certain things are just of benefit, and certain elements of our environment are not likely to change, especially given that we are in control over much of our environment.

I mean, the only thing off the top of my head that really seems to fit into what you talk about would be personality characteristics, but I think that talents are good traits, and I think it is reasonable to say that talents do not seem to compete with one another for space, in as much as a person could be both mathematical and artistic, creative and logical, and so on and so forth.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

12 Mar 2011, 1:58 pm

LKL wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

And the truth comes out...

I also said, I think in my first post in this thread, that I personally would abort my zef if I found out that it had Down syndrome. How is this new statment worse (or more truthful) than that?

Then why is it not okay for people to simply abort the child because tests show they have Autism. Or maybe their IQ may be below 130?

Seriously, this is turning into a rationalization for eugenics.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Mar 2011, 2:16 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We blindly shrug it off at our own peril, look at the situation concerning Down Syndrome wasn't the stat somewhere around 90% are aborted.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

And the truth comes out...

I also said, I think in my first post in this thread, that I personally would abort my zef if I found out that it had Down syndrome. How is this new statment worse (or more truthful) than that?

Then why is it not okay for people to simply abort the child because tests show they have Autism. Or maybe their IQ may be below 130?

Seriously, this is turning into a rationalization for eugenics.

No its not. DS is a vulgarization that no individual should be cursed with. Autism is not nearly as well understood and finding it in the womb seems unlikely for the time being, in addition to the fact that it is more of a 'difference' in function. Look at people with DS, outside of the mental disabilities they often have other physical deformities that are often debilitating, in addition to risks later in their life from things associated with DS. It is a big difference, it is not eugenics, it is the preservation of dignity
My hope is someday they will simply be able to do gene therapy in utero to repair damaged code that could lead to DS or other serious malformations. As is there is only one humane thing to do

Page 21 of 26 [ 401 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 26 Next

Jump to:

Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits? Post Reply New Topic

Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?