Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Page 4 of 26 [ 401 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 26 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 6:41 pm

Philologos wrote:

Awesomely Glorious:

Avoid slips:

"as long as the opinion is informed" ?!

Informed by what, by whom? The door lies open, the camel's various body parts are all too near.

Cover thy soft spots, compagnon.

This is not really a slip. The vagueness is somewhat intentional, as I am simply avoiding the issue of what "informed" means. "Informed" could refer to a large set of possible things, such as economic calculations, medical evaluations, ethical procedures, psychological assessments, etc. The issue is just that this can't be an arbitrary opinion.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 6:43 pm

Orwell wrote:

Studies have found that autism has higher heritability (that is, the variation is more attributable to genetic factors) than any other psychological condition in the DSM. Obviously the environment plays some role, as it does for every human trait, but generally speaking if one person is autistic and another is not, it is because they are genetically different, not because they grew up in different environments.

Can you find that study too?

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 6:47 pm

Orwell wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

The solution I propose is to forbid abortions after genetic screening. If you do a genetic screening, let it be for fun and because you want the kid. Besides, genetic screenings are horribly ineffective at this moment anyway.

That seems reasonable. A genetic screening can be valuable so that the parents know what to expect and can prepare, but selective abortion could set a bad precedent.

It seems reasonable to me, as well, but what if, say, the bill to investigate all miscarriages is also passed, and a woman miscarries a baby after the genetic screening showed her her baby would have Downs Syndrome. What if they take legal action against her because they believe she intentionally miscarried to avoid the Downs Syndrome? Hypothetically speaking. Couldn't such a policy also lead to a widespread passing of miscarriage investigation bills, potentially? There is a lot of potential for injustice

_________________
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

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 6:50 pm

AG: I'll try, but I'm not sure how much luck I'll have. I got that bit of information from a talk by a researcher at my university's autism research lab (the largest of its kind in the country, so I assume they have some idea what they're talking about).

visagrunt wrote:

In answer to your question, Inuyasha, no Autistics whom (sic) are Pro-Abortion are not hypocrits (sic).

That's been bugging me, but I wasn't going to say anything.

Inuyasha, you make me [sic].

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

04 Mar 2011, 6:51 pm

visagrunt wrote:

In answer to your question, Inuyasha, no Autistics whom (sic) are Pro-Abortion are not hypocrits (sic).

Hypocrisy is "the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations." (OED)

My pro-choice position is based upon a judgement that a woman is the sole source of authority over her own person. This is not a false appearance of virtue or goodness, this is an honest statement of my true beliefs. I do not approve of abortion because I believe that it is a tool for eugenics. I am not hiding some nefarious purpose behind my belief in a woman's right to security of the person.

Eugenics is an ugly. I find the practice of aborting female fetuses for no other reason than their sex reprehensible. I am less categorical about DS because I have no experience to suggest to me that I have a competent opinion to offer. Frankly, I am no fan of abortion when you come right down to it. But as ugly as eugenics or sex selection are, as much as I would prefer a world in which abortion was not necessary, I am not prepared to see these as excuses to infringe on the more fundamental principle of a woman's self determination.

I am no hypocrite. My position disguises nothing.

I think people commonly assume the word "Hypocrite" is synonymous with "Contradictory" when contradictory doesn't necessarily have to mean pretentious. Kinda like how "prejudice", "ignorance", and "bigotry" are so commonly and/or redundantly used you start associating the words with one meaning. I'll admit I didn't know bigotry meant the refusal to change one's belief in the face of evidence to the contrary until I actually looked it up. People tend to just string em all together so it's hard to figure out the meaning of the words themselves.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 6:54 pm

It doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. If we are to legalize abortion, then we need to keep it legal.

Besides, those screenings can show more than just the potential for DS. It can show defects that are incompatible with life. What if that fetus is given a 1% chance of survival after the screening?

Do we really want to make it illegal for her to abort after finding out such a tragic thing?

While I am against aborting for DS and other defects that are compatible with life, I cannot imagine being required to carry to term a child I know will probably die within minutes of birth.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 7:30 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Oh you mean doctor X says that the baby has less than 1% chance of survival so you should abort. First thing is get a second opinion, because it is often that another doctor will look at the data after doing a similar test and say that doctor X is insane and they baby has a much better chance of surviving.

Janissy wrote:

When I was pregnant my doctor pressured me to get an amniocentesis test done because of my "advanced maternal age" and risk of Downs Syndrome. I declined but I had to really argue my way out of it. The doctor was very insistent that I should have an amniocentesis test done and that I should abort if it howed Downs Syndrome. She did not just say "ok" when I declined.

The patient is the ultimate decider and so I didn't get the amnio but the doctor did not give up easily. Her main argument was the intense difficulty of raising a Downs Syndrome child and how so many parents go into it lightly.

I stood my ground but probably some women who were on the fence got swayed. The power of a doctor to convince people of something is very strong. Knowledge is power but when it comes to "getting educated" the average patient probably believes that the best education they can receive is the one they recieve from their doctor, a knowledgeable source. And when the doctor says "abort the Downs baby" and gives persuasive and medicalese arguments why, women listen.

Quoted because I'm not sure people saw what you posted.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Mar 2011, 7:33 pm

Orwell wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

That seems reasonable. A genetic screening can be valuable so that the parents know what to expect and can prepare, but selective abortion could set a bad precedent.

Is genetic screening along with abortion something that is economically possible for most people? It sounds like you'll be unfairly targeting the rich.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 7:37 pm

Orwell wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

In answer to your question, Inuyasha, no Autistics whom (sic) are Pro-Abortion are not hypocrits (sic).

That's been bugging me, but I wasn't going to say anything.

Inuyasha, you make me [sic].

Glad to know I've done something good for the day, seems I may be losing my touch cause no leftist has gone into a homicidal rage yet screaming they want to shoot me or hit me in the face with a shovel today.

Also, yes Autistic people supporting abortions on one hand, but screaming abortion shouldn't be used to eradicate autism are being hypocrits.

We are basically being considered the next round of "undesirables."

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 7:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Also, yes Autistic people supporting abortions on one hand, but screaming abortion shouldn't be used to eradicate autism are being hypocrits.

We are basically being considered the next round of "undesirables."

You haven't shown this. An autistic can support abortions, can support abortions of undesirables, and can scream that abortions shouldn't be used to eradicate autism. All that this position entails is that they strongly believe autistics are not actually to be properly considered undesirable.

Even further, if one holds to weaker variants of these two supposedly incompatible positions, the problem outright disappears.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 8:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

And what gives anyone the right to decide if someone is "undesirable?" I guess in your view it was okay for people to bully us as children because since we have autism we are "undesirable."

Seriously, this would be hilarious if it was just so sad that you can't recognize the point I'm making.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

04 Mar 2011, 9:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

And what gives anyone the right to decide if someone is "undesirable?"

Well, the right to abort apparently. In any case, if fetuses are not persons, then it isn't "someone.

Quote:

Seriously, this would be hilarious if it was just so sad that you can't recognize the point I'm making.

Is it "can't recognize" or "reject on most levels"? I think it is the latter.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 9:31 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

You shouldn't assume I would abort based on one doctor's opinion. I am very much against abortion, so it's not a choice I would make lightly.

Most women don't make the choice to abort on a whim, either.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 9:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

No, I am not a hypocrite. I think it's wrong to abort a fetus solely on the basis that they have a genetic defect that they could live with.

At the same time, I fully support women's right to choose for themselves what they will put their body through. Abortion should remain legal at all stages of gestation in order to protect the woman.

These are not contradictory viewpoints, nor are they hypocritical.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

05 Mar 2011, 9:43 am

visagrunt wrote:

In answer to your question, Inuyasha, no Autistics whom (sic) are Pro-Abortion are not hypocrits (sic).

Hypocrisy is "the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations." (OED)

My pro-choice position is based upon a judgement that a woman is the sole source of authority over her own person. This is not a false appearance of virtue or goodness, this is an honest statement of my true beliefs. I do not approve of abortion because I believe that it is a tool for eugenics. I am not hiding some nefarious purpose behind my belief in a woman's right to security of the person.

Eugenics is an ugly. I find the practice of aborting female fetuses for no other reason than their sex reprehensible. I am less categorical about DS because I have no experience to suggest to me that I have a competent opinion to offer. Frankly, I am no fan of abortion when you come right down to it. But as ugly as eugenics or sex selection are, as much as I would prefer a world in which abortion was not necessary, I am not prepared to see these as excuses to infringe on the more fundamental principle of a woman's self determination.

I am no hypocrite. My position disguises nothing.

Jingo lingo topic

Some writers try to complicate their writings with fancy, often erroneous grammatical usage. A disease?

Abortion 101 topic

I have been reading all these posts about the reasons for abortion, and visagrunt again wrote it most clearly.

No one need know why a women has an abortion. This is her choice, along with supportive others (if needed/wanted), and her physician.

I really do not know why it is important to know that 90% of DS fetuses are aborted. I do not need to know any reason, as it does not add anything to what I already know or believe about my choices.

Reproductive choice is private. I personally would not abort any pregnancy, and I have three children. None were screened, though a blood test showed some abnormalities during my pregnancy with my son. He turned out just fine, thank you.

I refused amniocentesis during my pregnancy with my youngest. She is just fine, thank you.

With my first pregnancy, there were no such tests as far as I knew at the time (in 1973), and again, my daughter is just fine. And if any of my children did develop/or were born with challenges, well, this is the chance many parents like me take. There are no guarantees at viable birth. Parenting is a risky business. But I digress.

Humankind is not an endangered species. There will be plenty of us around, with all types of differences/challenges.

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

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

05 Mar 2011, 1:46 pm

@ sartresue

Is a child a person or are they property? Seriously stop dancing around the issue, cause that is what the entire situation boils down to.

Page 4 of 26 [ 401 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 26 Next

Jump to:

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

Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?