90% of women choose abortion when child has Down's Syndrome

After reading the entire article, I understand where both sides are coming from. What I don't understand is why people think their kids are going to lose funding because there are fewer people living with the disorder. Are funds really based on the number of people who have it, or are they based on how afflicted the people who have it are? It struck me as a bit selfish. "Give birth to your kid so mine can keep being in this program!"

They want people to keep having kids with Down's Syndrome so that there will be more funding for a cure? Isn't choosing not to have a child with the disorder a sort of cure in itself? Shouldn't they be happy that fewer people have the disorder? I guess I don't understand, but the arguments in favor of having the child strike me as a bit hypocritical. If someone doesn't want to have a child, regardless of whether it is going to be different or not, I wouldn't want to even try to convince them otherwise out of fear that the well-being of the child might be affected.

The 10 percent that choose not to get an abortion means there are still 350 children with Down's Syndrome born each year. Then there are the people who choose not to get the test at all. The number is significantly decreased but that doesn't mean children with Down's Syndrome will be "alone" or "alienated". If that's an issue, then people need to focus more on teaching children acceptance of others, and less on trying to convince people to have a child with a disorder.

I'm not trying to be callous, it's just to me... less people born with a disorder = good.

I also thought the 90% stat was shockingly high. My wife is 4 months pregnant and we have discussed this issue at length. We both agree that we are going to have the baby, whether the baby has a disability or not. We take the opposite view of indica, in that we believe it would be unfair to end the child's life because their life will be hard. However, I understand your position and like you said you aren't having children so it's not really an issue. This is and will always be a delicate issue which should be discussed openly between the parents.

I'm not trying to be callous, it's just to me... less people born with a disorder = good.

You know, if you kill every last man, woman, and child, thereby eliminating the human race from the face of the Earth, I can pretty much guarantee you there will be less people born with a disorder. Any disorder.

Ah yes, because abortion threatens humanity with extinction.

What a worthless statement.

Well put Indica.

So, because a few people feel superior over others for choosing to give birth to a disabled child, they want everyone else to be forced to make the same decision !

We would definitely abort a fetus with down syndrome. We are not ashamed to say it.

A FETUS is not a viable entity. That is why it is a fetus.

How is it that AntiChoice people are so hell bent on protecting the rights of something that hasn't even been born yet, but could care less about the woman actually walking around, breathing and sentient, CARRYING said fetus?

Life isn't Disney, no - but that's true regardless of whether you have Down's, or not. If some parents want to deny life to their child because it would be an inconvenience, then they're piss-poor parents, because, in the end, they aren't going to be parents at all. Unless they get it "right", the next time? How disgusting.

People with Down's have a lowered life expectancy, sure. So do people in sub-Saharan Africa.

By the way - following this "life isn't Disney" train of thought - perhaps that should be applied to parents, too? It seems to undermine your arguments. Have Down's? Well, it happens, life isn't Disney! Have a kid with Down's? Life isn't Disney!

Seems the people who are aborting out of convenience ("but I didn't dream of having a kid with disabilities when I was playing house as a child!") are the ones trying to live the fiction, not the other way around...

If some parents want to deny life to their child because it would be an inconvenience, then they're piss-poor parents, because, in the end, they aren't going to be parents at all. Unless they get it "right", the next time? How disgusting.

This doesn't actually make sense, I'm not a piss-poor astronaut, I'm simply not an astronaut. Would you prefer that a person take on a multi decade commitment something that they do not want? Or do you simply think that people who make a very rational choice are disgusting? I think the chances that I will have a child voluntarily are about 20% that doesn't make me a piss-poor parent.

People with Down's have a lowered life expectancy, sure. So do people in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a very perverse analogy.

Seems the people who are aborting out of convenience ("but I didn't dream of having a kid with disabilities when I was playing house as a child!") are the ones trying to live the fiction, not the other way around...

This does not make sense, abortion and testing for downs are not fiction. What about cystic fibrosis? That's a disease that can be tested in utero and aborted. Kids with that disease aren't nearly as happy as Down's kids, but would you support aborting those fetuses?

on a multi decade commitment something that they do not want?

What if they "do not want" a redhead?

What if they "do not want" a redhead?

Then as far as I'm concerned they have every right to abort that potential redhead, but you that doesn't refute the fact that you made a false analogy. Much like this one:

What if they "did not want" a Guinea worm?

Children raised in squalor also have trouble living independently. Should those children not exist? Who are you to choose who is "superior" enough to survive? Because of a genetic abnormality? That's crap reasoning and leads us to a horribly slippery slope. Just because something may not be right in the genetic cauldron does not mean that there is something "wrong" with them. They are who they are! They just have different needs than some others.

Also, FYI, just by aborting all Downs fetuses will not eliminate the condition. It is produced in healthy, generally older women, because of a messed up meiosis division. It will not be eliminated easily. As well as it shouldn't. It is a natural addition to the symphony of human culture.

...IMHO, of course. :-)

A false analogy? You're the one who said a family should be able to abort a child they "do not want". I asked you a question, and you answered it. Yes, you think that being a redhead is a valid enough reason to be aborted. Needless to say I disagree. And there's an end to that.

Yes, you think that being a redhead is a valid enough reason to be aborted. Needless to say I disagree. And there's an end to that.

No, it's not over, you are dishonest.
I said

Then as far as I'm concerned they have every

right

to abort that potential redhead

Not

that being a redhead is a valid enough reason to be aborted.

Validity of the reason was irrelevant to my statement. The question you should be asking yourself is why on earth you would equate Downs and red hair? Or Downs and black people? Do you consider having red hair or being black a genetic disorder? Are there not qualitative differences between them? Why not answer my question about cystic fibrosis? Instead you attempt to put words in my mouth.

Furthermore, the "do not want" referred to the commitment. We are not cavemen anymore, having children can be and needs to be a conscious choice where people commit to no less than 18 years of social and economic responsibility. If people do not want to make a commitment they do not have to for whatever reason they choose. I see no reason to to paint people who do not choose to have a Downs kid as being monsters.

But if you are going hold that opinion and express it, just be honest about it. Don't lie about what other people say and think. If your argument isn't strong don't prop it up in that way, just say your peace and move on.

Furthermore, the "do not want" referred to the commitment. We are not cavemen anymore, having children can be and needs to be a conscious choice where people commit to no less than 18 years of social and economic responsibility. If people do not want to make a commitment they do not have to for whatever reason they choose. I see no reason to to paint people who do not choose to have a Downs kid as being monsters.

This is because you are a relativist. Why can the conscious choice not occur before the pregnancy happens? People do not have a right to consequence-free sex. Parenting has always been a 16-18 year social and economic responsibility, this is not a new thing. The argument is basically :
Having a disabled child is difficult.
People are entitled to the easiest life they want.
Therefore, they are justified in aborting a disabled child, because that is what is easiest. Besides, disabled children are always miserable, and people stare at them - allowing them to grow up is what is cruel! Killing it while it is still in the womb is actually humane.

Would you prefer that a person take on a multi decade commitment something that they do not want?

Once again, if you value the sanctity of human life, than all humans, oldest and youngest, share an equal right to live. A fetus is never anything other than human, therefore it has a right to live. To answer your question, yes they should. Wants and desires are dynamic; they shift and migrate like the sands of the Sahara. "I want" is not a moral justification for abortion.

Or do you simply think that people who make a very rational choice are disgusting? I think the chances that I will have a child voluntarily are about 20% that doesn't make me a piss-poor parent.

A choice being rational is not sufficient to make that choice moral.
You lost me on the last sentence.

amorphous and chasing,

Your desire to put words into my mouth is just incredible. You both seem to be able to type and form sentences so I'm guessing this isn't a literacy problem. It's made think that, you actually don't care about discussing things. So, prepare yourself for my wit, since I don't see the purpose of responding to your further inventions of what I think.

This is because you are a relativist.

That depends on who you ask.

Why can the conscious choice not occur before the pregnancy happens?

Have you ever tried to make a decision before you were conceived? Are you saying you think chickens should lay themselves?

People do not have a right to consequence-free sex.

Are you saying that there are people who are advocating the right to causes without effects? Please, don't hold back, I'm rather interested, post a link to one of these folks sites!

Having a disabled child is difficult. People are entitled to the easiest life they want.
Therefore, they are justified in aborting a disabled child, because that is what is easiest. Besides, disabled children are always miserable, and people stare at them - allowing them to grow up is what is cruel! Killing it while it is still in the womb is actually humane.

You make a strong case, I'm not sure I agree with it, but, a strong case nonetheless. I'm not sure I'd like to be caught in a public forum saying such a thing, so, I guess, that took guts.

A fetus is never anything other than human

Never? You mean to say that fetuses have been around forever? Is there a fetus jar somewhere where they've been kept? Have you talked to them? What do they have to say?

Wants and desires are dynamic; they shift and migrate like the sands of the Sahara.

That sounds like... Are you propositioning me? how dare you. No.

Or do you simply think that people who make a very rational choice are disgusting? I think the chances that I will have a child voluntarily are about 20% that doesn't make me a piss-poor parent.

A choice being rational is not sufficient to make that choice moral.
You lost me on the last sentence.

oh, oh dear, it was a literacy issue. I...feel so...embarrassed...I'm not going to put words into your mouth, or anything else for that matter, I'm going to be civil, I understand, because hooktawnfonixwucedfumitu.

Haha, seriously. I needed that.

Children raised in squalor also have trouble living independently. Should those children not exist? Who are you to choose who is "superior" enough to survive? Because of a genetic abnormality? That's crap reasoning and leads us to a horribly slippery slope.

We're not ordering the mother to abort a fetus if it's a Down's baby/redhead/living in squalor.

We're not choosing who is "superior" enough to survive. I agree that that would be crap reasoning.

We're giving the mother to ability to choose.

In your desperate quest to give yourself some sort of moral pedestal, you've attempted to tell us that "pro-choice" means "We're ordering all mothers with certain kinds of fetuses to abort!"

That insane mental leap is indeed crap reasoning.
Next time, make your demonization less transparent.

This little conflict is a great example for our target audience. You can notice that SuperUnspecial understands reason & logic, while Chasing used completely irrelevant fallacies.

I should clip this to the Logic on the vine group.

It is quite sad that Jack Huang had to reinstate the obvious since so many have failed to realize what pro-choice really means. It simply means choice. Thank you for doing that, Jack, it was unfortunately needed.

How @!$%#ing delusional do you think people are? Do you honestly believe that all pro-choice women never have babies? It's called a choice. Sometimes having it is the best course of action, sometimes not. The choice is up to the mother, the person who will ultimately take care of this being. Hence the use of the @!$%#ing word choice.

I apologize for my statements above. Upon rereading it, I was angry and let my emotions get the best of me. I am not very good at arguing, as you can see. Please ignore what I said.

@psi29a
Thanks for digging that out.

@Glinda: I try to not to read much into 'interpretations' or 'opinions' and dig to the sources themselves as they tend to be more knowledgeable about that data then op-ed itself that usually has an agenda of some kind. I'm not trying to knock this piece, as it does add an emotional element to the numbers.

@TheWindshield
Excellent comment - exactly long enough. :-)

The Downs people I have been around were universally sweet and quite charming. Not to generalize but they seemed to be very responsive to music and loved to dance - so we had that in common.

While I definitely ask people to think twice before making this choice, I can't expect people to undertake such a responsibility, as much as I would want them to. What I hope you will take to mind, though, is that it is enormously difficult to raise her with a society that knows very little about her. We have heard many snide comments about her appearance and mannerisms from people, and it is very hurtful.

Agreed. No one but those who will take responsibility for a child with any disability can know whether they are up for the challenge or not.

Thanks for this.

At least the people under death penalty actually did something wrong.

Not always.

But is the solution to eliminate all of them?

No, and no one is remotely close to advocating that.

Being a pregnant woman planning to abort due to a diagnosis of down syndrome find that them parents never had a diagnosis of any mental issue in utero. There is a difference between a diagnosis and a screening test that says you have a increased risk. A diagnosis means that the child will have the affliction. The right to choose what is right for the pregnancy should be between the woman and the man that fathered the pregnancy if he is involved. Otherwise it is highly inappropriate to judge someone for making a decision they felt was necessary for their future child.

@JohnW
You're a breath of fresh air!

It's a tough issue, and it's a stone's throw from choosing not to have a child with Down's to choosing not to have a child that's retarded, or fat, or has brown eyes.

Actually the most requested screening for non-medical reasons is for gender and we can probably all see where that leads.

It is costly to do so, and will probably be out of the reach of most of the world for a long time.

However, it is a Pandora's box none the less.

Wife and I are ok with screening for medical reasons, but don't care about the rest and leave it up to chance. However, if you want to make sure their eyes are 'blue' and their hair 'blond', it is up to you as an adult.

@psi29a
Comprehensive screening may stay expensive but actually (I had forgotten this was recent news) there is a company in the UK already offering a mail-order kit for about $500 - that's my rough conversion from pounds to US dollars.
http://www.dna-worldwide.com/DNA-Testing-Direct/Early-Gender-Test

But that's enough of this thread-jack - sorry everyone.

Well, that is if you are ok with screening then promptly terminating the pregnancy if the dice didn't role out in your favour.

I'm suggesting the method I spoke of above where you take the just fertilized ovum and wait for it to cell divide to about 8 and then selecting the best candidate out of the bunch and then putting it back inside the womb.

The former method as you stated is the cheaper route the later is very expensive.

Everyone wants to give their offspring the best lives they possibly can. Or everyone should, but not everyone does. It bothers some when potential parents decide that the best lives for their current pregnancies is no life at all.

Lot's of these people have given their heart, souls and savings to bring a child into the world to love and science was giving them a hope with a risk that is probably identified genetically, within weeks.

Of course if the syndrome is the result of science trying to "force" a pregnancy, we are in a different ball park.

Well I am anti-religious but you could sort of call me a pro-lifer. I dont think it should be illegal because that creates too many problems but I believe it should be greatly curtailed and not allowed out of convenience, as too many are want to do. Its treated as a last resort birth control. A woman has the right to make several choices before she even gets pregnant and these choices are conveniently forgotten about, such as whether or not to have sex, who to have sex with, to use protection or not, etc. And please dont start in with all the exceptions, we are already know about those.

However, when it comes to many genetic defects or serious diseases, I am in favor of allowing people the option to aborting the child. It goes well beyond the 'inconvenience' (as some have called it) of having a child of such special needs. We are the only species on the planet that would spend resources on such children when most animals leave them to die. There are more than plenty of healthy children on this planet who lack resources and these children require more than their share throughout their lives. If you have the means and want to take on the extra responsibility, more power to you. And yes, it can teach you many things about life, love, etc, but these are not the only things that teach that, and plenty of families have also had such conditions rip them apart.

So far I haven't read a pro-life argument that isn't based on some sort of strongly held religious conviction,

I think you should read through many of the comments in this thread. There have been few, if any (none from myself anyways) open appeals to religion. Valuing the sanctity of all human life is a philosophy that is certainly reinforced by religious principles, but the latter is not required to hold the beliefs of the former.

I don't see that this is a valid argument to bring back the clocks to back street abortions made by butchers and midwifes that so much suffering caused in the past.

Time is indeed linear, but the progression of societies is not. Simply because something was different in the past, does not mean that the present paradigm is necessarily an improvement.

You should be as free not have an abortion if you so believe, but that doesn't give one side the right to stop those who want to have one, for their reasons are just as valid.

Once again, read the arguments more carefully; this is exactly the kind of relativism many pro-lifers are trying to address.

Please let us not mix relativism with sound commons sense. I have read the arguments, and it seems obvious that "pro-lifers" or whatever one wants to call them are trying to impose their will arbitrarily.
I honestly disagree with your statement about the progression of societies, there is certainly a great improvement, now that women can choose to terminate their pregnancies in hospitals and under normal clinical conditions, and not in some back street ally, with unsterilized instruments.Even contemplating going back to that is absurd.
As for the reinforcement given by religious beliefs to the sanctity human life, well there we have a very,very debatable point, that in my opinion is better left untouched.

I would disagree that the pro-lifers want to

impose their will arbitrarily.

I mean, quite honestly, isn't that what a woman does when she aborts?

now that women can choose to terminate their pregnancies in hospitals and under normal clinical conditions, and not in some back street ally, with unsterilized instruments.

I is truly sad when it comes to this, but as FL independent noted, there were a series of choices made that led to that outcome. This includes the decision to seek out an illegal, and dangerous abortion.

Perhaps you are not a student of history, so let's just forget about the disconnect of linearity for now.

Please let us not mix relativism with sound commons sense.

You are right, there is no right or wrong. There is only common sense. Silly me.

Very well said.

Exactly Dr. Ricardo Privtera - I agree with you 100% One poster had this to say: "Once a woman is pregnant, the government has a responsibility to protect the life of the unborn child."

That is wrong. The government has no part of this and should have no part in this.

The exceptions are rape, incest, and when protection fails.

Even consensual incest?

How can you say the failing of protection is a reason for abortion but a genetic malformation is not?

I agree. Obviously this idiot does not have children and I hope he never has to face making a decision that would save his child from a short life full of suffering from health ailments and ridicule from others.

Susanclaire, all this is fine and I am not disputing what you are saying. In England we have the NHS (National Health Service) that provides medical coverage free of charge for all citizens.We do not need insurance to qualify. The NHS has departemnts that handle these sort of children, and we have specilised institutions that handle these sort of problems. All that is fine. However the issue of abortion or non abortion is left to individual choices. People who choose to abort will do so in our hospitals and get all the necessary medical care, people who don't will give birth and get all the necessary support.
That isn't the issue here. Here we are faced with a minority of individuals who want to impose their will, because of their own personal beliefs on others who don't share that belief. If women do not want the responsibility of motherhood, then they should be free to do so. Motherhood or parenthood cannot be imposed on people against their will. The right of a woman to abort should be left to her personal choicel and no one has the right to interfere.
In Europe abortion is a legally recognized right in most countries, lately even Portugal, one of the last bastion of Vatican interference made it legal for its citizens, who were in any case travelling to Spain to get it done.
So conclude on the spirit of your last paragraph; once people have looked at all the facts regarding the abortion of a deformed or malformed phoetus, and still decide to do so, they should so without interference from third parties.

Motherhood is not forced on these people. Why do you discount the fact that the woman made several CHOICES that lead to her being pregnant. Why are these choices always discounted as if they mean nothing. She put herself in a situation to get pregnant. Actions have consequences and there is a life that is destroyed by her choice. But I guess that life doesnt mean anything either. Its just an unfortunate by product huh?

Everybody makes choices, some good some bad. So if a woman doesn't want to bring into the world a deformed or malformed child she should have the right to do so., and it shouldn't be your business, my business or anybody's business.
"She put herself in a situation to get pregnant"
Well I don't know how you do things overthere, but here it takes "two to tango". None of the contraceptive methods are 100% secure, so accidents may happen, this doesn't mean that you have the right to interfere with her life.
Religious beliefs have killed millions, and continue to do so to this day, so please don't insult my intelligence by stating that a life has been destroyed. People die everyday friend and is a fact of life. It is easy for you to make such statements because you do not have to take on the consequences of what you are saying, if you did, and had to pay for it from your own pocket I am quite sure that you change your opinion overnight.

Dont be so sure of anything since you are already making several blanket assumptions with no information. First of all you seem to think I am religious. I am not, I am anti religious, one of the reasons being their hypocripsy and the amount of killing they have done.

I am in agreement that if there is a malformed child she should have the right to be abort. However, if a woman does not want to risk pregnancy, she should not engage in such activities or else be prepared to live with the consequences. Do you have a problem with accountability?

And dont give me this 2 to tango crap, she has control over what she does.

It is easy for you to make such statements because you do not have to take on the consequences of what you are saying, if you did, and had to pay for it from your own pocket I am quite sure that you change your opinion overnight.

Actually in this country, the government subsidizes and pays for many abortions with taxpayer money, so we do pay for it. And we should not be.

As for it being easy, you know absolutely nothing. My girlfriend, rather my ex-girlfriend, had gotten pregnant and got an abortion DESPITE my desire to keep it. So dont talk to me about things being easy when you have no idea what you are talking about.

I apologize for my anger, obviously this is quite a touchy subject for me.

So, it is a woman's fault that she got pregnant and not the man's fault?

are you one of those "life should be like the Waltons" guys?

Did I say it wasnt the man's fault? No I didnt. Did I say he had no part in it? No I didnt. Please dont make inane assumptions and ask dumb questions like that.

The woman has equal and in fact more responsibility regarding pregnancy. Why? Because she has to pay for more of the consequences. It is unfair but thats life and thats reality. When men can get pregnant from women, it will become equally fair but since thats not happening anytime soon, yes women are going to bear more of the burden.

FL uttered the following from his lips:

And don't give me this 2 to tango crap, she has control over what she does.

Apparently FL you are unaware that implied opinions are just as meaningful as explicit opinions, especially when you frame it in such wonderful context as my quoted line.

A racist does not have to explicitly say he hates Blacks, he only has to imply it in his behavior and words for people to know his opinion.

Similarly with your sexism and double standards when it comes to pregnancy. You do not have to say you are a sexist or hold double standards on responsibility for pregnancy when you imply it so clearly.

There is not a single court of law in the USA that would ignore implied meaning. hiding behind the infantile "I did not say that anywhere in my statement" is you fooling yourself.

BMS says: I hate it when I screw up my formating, the correctly formated post is below

FL uttered the following from his lips:

And don't give me this 2 to tango crap, she has control over what she does.

Apparently FL you are unaware that implied opinions are just as meaningful as explicit opinions, especially when you frame it in such wonderful context as my quoted line.

A racist does not have to explicitly say he hates Blacks, he only has to imply it in his behavior and words for people to know his opinion.

Similarly with your sexism and double standards when it comes to pregnancy. You do not have to say you are a sexist or hold double standards on responsibility for pregnancy when you imply it so clearly.

There is not a single court of law in the USA that would ignore implied meaning. hiding behind the infantile "I did not say that anywhere in my statement" is you fooling yourself.

@BMS

So you are saying, in general (not in cases of rape)

1) A woman never chooses who to sleep with
2) A woman never chooses when to have sex
3) A woman never chooses whether or not to use birth control

I dont know what world you live in, but generally a woman has control over these things.

Similarly with your sexism and double standards when it comes to pregnancy. You do not have to say you are a sexist or hold double standards on responsibility for pregnancy when you imply it so clearly.

Sigh. How sad you are that you think there are no double standards in the world and that life is fair and everything is equal. Well guess what, its not. There are double standards and there are times when one sex bears a greater burden than the other. Its not sexist, its reality. You obviously have no idea what it means to be sexist.

As you can see I have no problem stating exactly how I feel. I did not imply anything. Implications are often lost on people on the net, so theres no point in doing it. Its always best to be direct. But Im not really going to waste time on these simpleton, inane comments anymore. You will obviously read into statements whatever you want. I stated exactly what I did, no more, no less. You have done this tiresome little game before it and make its almost impossible to have a reasonable, rational conversation with you, so I am no longer attempting.

So you are saying that:

1) A man never chooses who to sleep with
2) A man never chooses when to have sex
3) A man never chooses whether or not to wear a condom?

I don't know what world you live in but generally a man has control over these things.

Just because a woman receives the man's love potion does not mean the man is less responsible in the outcome. If anything, the general rule is the man is the one seeking out the woman and is the most active in the process. You are putting more blame on the woman because she accepts his overtures. That is a stupid position.

As to your cynical stance on double standards and hypocrisy.... you simply prove everything every opponent of yours has said about you on newsvine.

Good job. A nice game of 'i know you are but what am I'. How delightful.

And your point is what exactly? How do those statements have any bearing on anything? Will a man carry a pregnancy? Does it man have to go through labor? Are you seriously going to say a man has the same burden of pregnancy that a woman has?

This isnt very hard to grasp so I will spell it out in simple terms so even you can understand. Only a woman can carry a child. She is the only one that can get pregnant. Therefore she has more of a burden in exercising control and responsibility in getting pregnant. Yes its unfair but it is reality. In the same way, she has ultimate control over getting an abortion. The man has little say. Or are you saying because he has equal responsibility, he should have equal say in whether or not a woman can have an abortion? You cant have it both ways. If men are just as equally responsible in all aspects, we should have equal say in whether or not abortions happen. Good luck with that.

As to your cynical stance on double standards and hypocrisy.... you simply prove everything every opponent of yours has said about you on newsvine.

Oh really? And what is it they say? My cynical stance? Its a realistic. Or are you saying there arent double standards and hypocrisy in the world?

If you want to talk about reinforcing what people say about someone, look no further than the mirror. Your comments have been dismissed time and again due to the ridiculousness of your comments (see #20.10 for a perfect example).

FL, Only a Man can provide the sperm needed to get a woman pregnant. No matter how you look at it, your argument cuts both ways.

As to the last part of your post: The world is full of liars and cheats, but that does not make it right to behave in such a way. Feeding Double standards and engaging in hypocracy is a despicable act performed by despicable people. To rise above and move past these problems, people have to start acting appropriately. Change starts with each of us.

FL, Only a Man can provide the sperm needed to get a woman pregnant. No matter how you look at it, your argument cuts both ways.

Actually thats no longer true or needed. A man is not needed anymore. And he definitely doesnt need to have sex with a woman. They can get the sperm on their own.

The world is full of liars and cheats, but that does not make it right to behave in such a way. Feeding Double standards and engaging in hypocracy is a despicable act performed by despicable people. To rise above and move past these problems, people have to start acting appropriately. Change starts with each of us.

But to ignore them and pretend that they do not exist is also lying and cheating. If people are going to truly start rising above them, they will act more responsibly when it comes to sex. As soon as people take that step, Ill start treating them as such.

First... where can you get Sperm in a commercial setting with out a man involved in the process. Second, I am not arguing that a woman who goes out of her way to be inseminated should not take full responsibility for getting pregnant.

But your situation is exactly what Im talking about. A child was an inconvenient to her career track. As a doctor and a human being, do you really think thats a valid reason to end a childs life? I mean think about what you are really saying here.

If pregnancy was so unwanted, why wasnt a diaphragm and condoms used? Why wasnt she also on the pill? If it was so unwanted, why was so few protections taken to avoid it? Because the option to easily kill that child was available, so you were fairly cavalier about it. Do you not see that? Do you not see thats the attitude that many have? 'Well worse comes to worse, I can always get an abortion.' The last ditch method of birth control.

Dear friend, first let's clarify that I am a Doctor of Law and not a doctor of Medicine, secondly like I said in my comment it was an accident because the diaphragm didn't work properly and though she normally takes the pill, at that time she couldn't for other medical reasons. Now abortion in my country is legal, and it is right that it should be so, you may not agree with my opinion and I respect that, but it is a fact. From a legal point of view a fetus in the first 4 weeks of existence is a non-entity. So I do not see why I was cavalier about it, both I and my woman work long hours, and our professional lives are full, and I as her partner have to respect her choice. Personally, like you I was in mind of letting nature do its course, but if she really wasn't prepared to have a child then what is the point of forcing such an issue? As you say we men do not get pregnant, so we really have no idea on what a woman goes through in those 9 months, and never will. So we are not in a position to judge really such a decision on the part of women.
In retrospect, and I will be very honest with you, I am glad that we took that step because a child would have been too much of a hindrance, and quite probably it would have ended up raised by nannies or whatever, because neither of us would have the time to be parents.

You make my point even more with each sentence. Look at what you are saying man. A hinderance? We are talking about a human life here. Can you not see how cavalier you are and dismissive about it? The first 4 weeks its a non-entity, in legal terms. However, legality is a fiction. This is your child we are talking about. You know full well, that it is more than likely (barring any complications) that the 'non-entity' will be your child in 9 months.

So I do not see why I was cavalier about it, both I and my woman work long hours, and our professional lives are full, and I as her partner have to respect her choice.

You were cavalier here because you simply relied on a highly falable method of birth control and only used one. Yes she was on the pill but what stopped you from using a condom? Or her going on norplant? I see plenty of excuses like 'we are just too busy' but really you just didnt want to bother with the addition protections that would be needed.

Frankly each statement you have made has shown just how shallow and comtemptible abortion is based on your support. I ask you to really re-read the things you have said and consider them from an outside point of view.

Again, I do not think abortion should be illegal because that prevents any from being done and there are times they will be needed. However, it should be greatly curtailed.

The Law isn't fiction, the Law is the Law!

No its not. The law is a fiction that made created. These laws did not exist in early man or before man. They are our creation. The only true laws are the laws of physics and nature and even they are not absolute.

So did you ask her if she wanted to get pregnant in the first place? And why didn't you use any precautions?

She actually would vacillate on her decision on that. Sometimes she wanted one at the time, sometimes she did not. At the time she was on the pill, but we had discussed the possibility of pregnancy and she had said she was against abortion and we were not opposed to having a child. However, when that stance was no longer convenient for her, she took action quite contrary to her previously stated beliefs.

I find it strange with all that you have said you had seen that you would value a young life so little. Do you think by calling it a fetus you remove any fact that it will develop into a child? If someone murdered your wife, who was carrying a fetus, did the person just kill your wife and a meaningless fetus or did they kill your wife and child? Im sure you would feel they kill your wife AND child.

Such experiences as you describe should have either made you realize the value of life even more than the average person or made you more callous toward human life. You must decide which way its going to be.

Dr.

FL falls into one of those authoritarian mindsets where his world view is the right one and everyone must follow it or they are bad and wrong. He would not have a problem making everyone do it his way and I think he has shown those foolish ideas in the treads you have engaged him in discussion.

He may deny such things claiming "I never said I was an authoritarian" but his failings in self analysis cause him not to notice these true positions he holds.

Yes Behind My Screen, I think that I have to agree with your assessment on the character of our fellow debater. In fact FL, when you state that:
"She actually would vacillate on her decision on that."
You are actually seeing something you wanted to see, but that in reality was not there. It's a common enough mistake humans do in relationships. We tend to see in the other what we want to see and not necessarily what is. So in effect by pushing the issue on your partner you really didn't take into account the fact that maybe she really didn't want motherhood. has it ever occurred to you that maybe she told you that she was against abortion just to let you hear what you wanted to hear? So our two situations are not comparable, because my woman and I from the beginning of our relationship decided not to have kids. In fact now to avoid a repetition of what happen, I had a very simple operation called vasectomy. So the issue is settled once and for all.

"She actually would vacillate on her decision on that."
You are actually seeing something you wanted to see, but that in reality was not there. It's a common enough mistake humans do in relationships.

This is quite laughable.

Of course you agree with him. He supports your position. And then in the next breath you make an assessment about a situation you could not be further removed from and provide an analysis on completely false assumptions with no validity.

You are actually seeing something you wanted to see, but that in reality was not there. It's a common enough mistake humans do in relationships.

Gee, I must have missed you sitting there when my ex and I were having these conversations. And its incredible that you were also able to read my ex's mind as to what she was thinking and feeling. And you also seem to know exactly what she said each time we talked about it in order to provide your analysis of those talks. Perhaps you could provide a transcript to support that?

In fact now to avoid a repetition of what happen, I had a very simple operation called vasectomy. So the issue is settled once and for all.

Now this I completely agree with and applaud you for. If you know that is your decision, then it is the correct thing to do. Bravo.

has it ever occurred to you that maybe she told you that she was against abortion just to let you hear what you wanted to hear?

Come on. Of course it did. However, the first time we discussed it, she did not know my position before she stated hers. And at the time, I didnt have a firm position on either side, I was kind of in the middle. And we had talked on it on more than several occasions.