Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're missing the point, genetic testing is a choice and no where does the article state abortion is mandated, once again, choice. I don't seem to recall stories of Nazis offering any such choices.
Even those with high functioning Down Syndrome typically require financial help from either family or the the government. With the cutbacks in Medicaid, subsidized housing funds, etc. seems needlessly cruel to get all self-righteous if it's sink or swim after that.
Well, that's the issue, isn't it? We all know that many of these anti-choice pols don't give a rat's ass really. Or programs that help support the disabled would be something like adequate, and would not be on the block to pay for tax cuts.
I know that many anti-choice voters have a genuine concern for the lives and welfare of DS and other disabled people. I'm just saying that that genuine concern somehow gets lost by the time the likes of Paul Ryan starts entering numbers into his spreadsheets.
I once, while living in Denton for college, went by the Denton State School to see about a job. The lady I interviewed with took me on a quick tour of the place. She did not want for me to commit to a job without seeing some of the patients.
I was appalled at what I saw. People usually speak of Down's syndrome, but there are other genetic disorders that make Down's seem like a summer cold.
I did not take the job. The lady was very wise to make applicants see some of the patients.
OMG! this brought back memories!
the same thing happened to me in the same year. I got a 'tour' of the place and could not wait to exit the building. mostly I felt pity for those people; I knew I would not be able to face them every day.
filthy, half-dressed, 'playing' with each other in the common rooms...
my daughter plans to have genetic testing done when she becomes pregnant. no history of DS on either side, but she'll be 32 or 33 years old and having her first.
Maybe we should murder all of the babies in the womb of drug addicted mothers. Maybe we should murder the drug addicts or at least sterilize them so they don't produce drug addicted babies.
Then we can abort all of the babies born to single women. How many of them are burdens on society?
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood progressive racist eugenicist who also thinks charitable organizations are at fault for keeping "the defectives" alive:
"Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes."
"Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the «failure» of philanthropy, but rather at its success."
Then there is Bertrand Russell who sees opposition to government as a way to prove you're an imbecile. Eventually you go after the ones who can't pass school exams after you get epileptics, those with tuberculosis and alcoholics and sterilize all of them to increase the intelligence of society.:
"We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased."
Then there is George Bernard Shaw who thinks anyone who needs looking after should go. Say, does that include all of the 20 - 30 year olds still living with their parents:
"A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."
Because Progressives don't need to brag about every good thing that we do.
The women have the option to receive the testing, and then they get to choose what to do with the results.
Down Syndrome is a horrible thing to live with, and it severely effects the families who have children with the disease.
The Icelandic women deserve recognition for doing the right thing, despite how difficult it must be.
It would be your choice as to whether you keep or abort the baby.
I'm going to guess you're a guy though, so nobody but the potential mother of your potential children needs to give a **** about what you're ok with.
OMG, I agree with Lilly on something!
Nope. That's a sociatiel issue, if we say your body your choice up to the first trimester(whatever that threshold is) because at some point clearly life begins that is why no civilized country allows abortion up to nine months, if you can't abort a regular baby for lack of an better word, you can't abort it because it has ds. I understand medical situation quality of life of the baby it's a medical decision, but I don't think ds falls into that category.
Yes, the people doing this in the US were the progressives and the Nazis viewed them very favorably and got many of their ideas regarding cleansing and and eugenics from American progressives.
Haaar! You're prepared to label every government dating back to the year 1900 "Progressive", are you.
Maybe we should murder all of the babies in the womb of drug addicted mothers. Maybe we should murder the drug addicts or at least sterilize them so they don't produce drug addicted babies.
Then we can abort all of the babies born to single women. How many of them are burdens on society?
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood progressive racist eugenicist who also thinks charitable organizations are at fault for keeping "the defectives" alive:
"Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes."
"Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the «failure» of philanthropy, but rather at its success."
Then there is Bertrand Russell who sees opposition to government as a way to prove you're an imbecile. Eventually you go after the ones who can't pass school exams after you get epileptics, those with tuberculosis and alcoholics and sterilize all of them to increase the intelligence of society.:
"We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased."
Then there is George Bernard Shaw who thinks anyone who needs looking after should go. Say, does that include all of the 20 - 30 year olds still living with their parents:
"A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."
Shrug. Margaret Sanger, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw no longer think or say anything. That's because they're dead. And have been for a good 50 years or more.
Can't you come up with someone a bit closer to our time?
well, you know what they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I am that broken clock, not you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
