Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Woman with Down’s syndrome takes Sajid Javid to court over abortion law


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

 

Im unclear what your point is, given that such logic can be applied to anyone, we only ever live in our own minds and can only judge our happiness by our own experiences of it.

would you abort a baby that showed markers for down syndrome?  i would, and so would my wife,   i would not want my kids to have one. so by my standards it is not a happy and healthy life. 

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aztek said:

would you abort a baby that showed markers for down syndrome?  i would, and so would my wife,   i would not want my kids to have one. so by my standards it is not a happy and healthy life. 

Okay good for you!

You have joined the many people in this thread who have completely missed the point.

Power to you though, that’s your choice to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Grey Area said:

live full and happy and productive lives I would argue that it is inherently selfish of any parent to choose to have an abortion

I mean, having children is in and of itself a selfish thing.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aztek said:

i did not miss anything

Well that’s entirely untrue.  You asked this:

Quote

would you abort a baby that showed markers for down syndrome?

I made my personal position clear in a previous post.  But that’s just me.

 

1 hour ago, aztek said:

i just do not see it your way

Don’t see what my way?  I’m not sure exactly what or really why you are challenging me on?

Is it simply my view on the standard of living a person with Down Syndrome has?  That’s fine if you disagree.  My opinion is forged through over 18 years working with children and young adults, many of who have Down syndrome and their families and carers.

1 hour ago, aztek said:

and neither do many people apparently, 

Like who and on what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grey Area said:

 

Like who and on what exactly?

you tell me,   those are your words below

Quote

You have joined the many people in this thread who have completely missed the point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

you tell me,   those are your words below

I can’t tell you, I genuinely don’t know.  Plenty of people have assumed my stance on abortion in this thread, a stance which I had not revealed as this thread is not about that.  I feel that those misunderstandings have been cleared up, so what exactly do ‘many’ people disagree with me about?

Look you claimed to have not missed anything so tell me.  And if you have anything to add about the actual topic at hand then feel free to chip in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

I can’t tell you, I genuinely don’t know.  Plenty of people have assumed my stance on abortion in this thread, a stance which I had not revealed as this thread is not about that.  I feel that those misunderstandings have been cleared up, so what exactly do ‘many’ people disagree with me about?

Look you claimed to have not missed anything so tell me.  And if you have anything to add about the actual topic at hand then feel free to chip in.

ask the guy who said this 

Quote

You have joined the many people in this thread who have completely missed the point.

 

oh wait, that is you. ask yourself then

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aztek said:

ask the guy who said this 

 

oh wait, that is you. ask yourself then

 

 

Oh, well I guess you can’t back your statement up then.

But wow!  thanks for your insightful, on topic contribution to the thread, it’s rocked my world.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Oh, well I guess you can’t back your statement up then.

 

you mean i can't back up YOUR statement? no i do not see why i should

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, aztek said:

you mean i can't back up YOUR statement? no i do not see why i should

How can I back up my claim, should I just pick some random posters and say nope they haven’t disagreed with me?

Lol.  You are the one who claimed lots of people in disagreement with me.  I can’t see any, you also claimed to have not missed anything, so come on, this was your claim back it up, or better yet, if you’ve nothing to contribute to the actual subject of the thread don’t bother posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

How can I back up my claim, should I just pick some random posters and say nope they haven’t disagreed with me?

Lol.  You are the one who claimed lots of people in disagreement with me.  I can’t see any, you also claimed to have not missed anything, so come on, this was your claim back it up, or better yet, if you’ve nothing to contribute to the actual subject of the thread don’t bother posting.

yes i did , and i stand by it,  i strongly believe it is not the case of them missing something,  this is just how you see it.  they just do not agree with you. and neither do i. 

you are not even close to be in a position to tell me or anyone what we should post and what not to post,  you seem to be lost and do not know where your place is. 

Edited by aztek
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 8:18 AM, Grey Area said:

People with Down Syndrome can live great lives.

One of my family members, now gone, had Down's Syndrome, and I can assure you that while they tend to have a sunny disposition, their lives can not said to be "great". They might, if lucky, live beyond 50 years, but usually they are gone by their mid to late forties. Yes, some live older, and alongside higher performing ones they get put into the public eye as being the norm, but they are not. People with Down's Syndrome also stand a much higher chance of being born with other defects, such as a missing or partially formed limb. For every person with Down's Syndrome you see on the TV having a more or less normal conversation, there will be a far larger number that will never be on the TV as they cannot speak properly. You will not see on the TV those who sit all day rocking back and forth making strange noises. This is not a "great life", either for them, or for those in their family, for siblings who end up taking second place as so much care has to be devoted to the one with Down's Syndrome. Holidays, even just a day out, can be problematical. For the great majority, Down's Syndrome is not good for the afflicted or their families.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, aztek said:

yes i did , and i stand by it,  i strongly believe it is not the case of them missing something,  this is just how you see it.  they just do not agree with you. and neither do i. 

You’ve completely lost me.  Do you actually have anything to say about the court case that is what we have been discussing?  Or Is your position simply to disagree with me?

 

50 minutes ago, aztek said:

you are not even close to be in a position to tell me or anyone what we should post and what not to post,  you seem to be lost and do not know where your place is. 

How so?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

One of my family members, now gone, had Down's Syndrome, and I can assure you that while they tend to have a sunny disposition, their lives can not said to be "great". They might, if lucky, live beyond 50 years, but usually they are gone by their mid to late forties. Yes, some live older, and alongside higher performing ones they get put into the public eye as being the norm, but they are not. People with Down's Syndrome also stand a much higher chance of being born with other defects, such as a missing or partially formed limb. For every person with Down's Syndrome you see on the TV having a more or less normal conversation, there will be a far larger number that will never be on the TV as they cannot speak properly. You will not see on the TV those who sit all day rocking back and forth making strange noises. This is not a "great life", either for them, or for those in their family, for siblings who end up taking second place as so much care has to be devoted to the one with Down's Syndrome. Holidays, even just a day out, can be problematical. For the great majority, Down's Syndrome is not good for the afflicted or their families.

Really good post, nicely put and yes, to most people their exposure to people with Downs Syndrome is in the media.

As I have explained I come from a position in which I have had the pleasure to work with many children and young adults with Down syndrome for almost 2 decades.  Yes they can have complicated and painful medical issues, but then so do plenty of people without Down syndrome, and they are as individual as the rest of us, I have worked with young people with the condition that you would not have known they had Down syndrome, and others who’s mental age would not progress beyond 6-8 years old.

To be clear here, so I do not get more people confusing what we are discussing. A woman with Down syndrome is claiming the current law in the U.K., that a mother carrying a Down syndrome child can have an abortion right up to full term, whereas a healthy child, the cutoff for termination is 24 weeks, is discriminatory.  In essence Heidi feels that people with Down syndrome are lesser than other able bodied people.  I’d love to hear your take on this.

I support Heidi, I can see where she is coming from, but I can also see the other side as well.  As a man and someone who will not be having anymore children, I am aware that I’m not in the strongest position to pass any sort of judgement so I would defer to those who know much better than me, and hope that those people are in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

To be clear here, so I do not get more people confusing what we are discussing. A woman with Down syndrome is claiming the current law in the U.K., that a mother carrying a Down syndrome child can have an abortion right up to full term, whereas a healthy child, the cutoff for termination is 24 weeks, is discriminatory.  In essence Heidi feels that people with Down syndrome are lesser than other able bodied people.  I’d love to hear your take on this.

 

In my opinion these three do not have a valid case to put forward, and I'm baffled as to how a child born in 2019 can be a plaintiff, or even have anybody acting for them as the case is not about them whether they have DS or not. He's alive, so for him the point is mute, he is just being used for shroud waving propaganda.

If the issue was of forced abortions for DS, then this would be a different matter, and eugenics raises it's head, but it is not, it's about the cut off time for an abortion, and I believe that DS is a serious enough condition to warrant the current situation.

Then there is a balance to be struck between the rights over her own body of a woman v those of an unborn foetus, and I believe that the rights of the woman should come first.

It would of course be great if there was never any reason to perform an abortion, and my gut reaction is against abortions, it's not natural. But, women get raped, and we get births that in the natural order of things would be terminated as soon as a problem was seen. That may seem harsh, and I do not advocate exposing unwanted babies on a mountain, but there is no test to see where a child will be on the DS scale, many are not so good, and, while of course blameless in themselves, can be a very disruptive element in familes. Some of them never master toilet training, even into their forties, and those parents and others who can deal with this are in the minority. For many of us a normal baby is bad enough, but at least you know it will end.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

In my opinion these three do not have a valid case to put forward, and I'm baffled as to how a child born in 2019 can be a plaintiff, or even have anybody acting for them as the case is not about them whether they have DS or not. He's alive, so for him the point is mute, he is just being used for shroud waving propaganda.

I think the case is valid.  It may in reality not have a chance of being successful, but perhaps that is not entirely the point.  I get where it’s coming from, though on reflection I do think that perhaps the complexities of the big picture outweigh the simplicity of the complaint.

 

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

If the issue was of forced abortions for DS, then this would be a different matter, and eugenics raises it's head, but it is not, it's about the cut off time for an abortion, and I believe that DS is a serious enough condition to warrant the current situation.

Then there is a balance to be struck between the rights over her own body of a woman v those of an unborn foetus, and I believe that the rights of the woman should come first.

Yeah, not sure how comfortable I am making any sort of committed opinion on that side of things.  I don’t know enough about Down syndrome during pregnancy and the risks to the mother taking it to full term, but I would say if the danger was no more or less significant than a normal pregnancy, then the case is stronger in that respect as it is simply about the standards of living for those involved.

 

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It would of course be great if there was never any reason to perform an abortion, and my gut reaction is against abortions, it's not natural. But, women get raped, and we get births that in the natural order of things would be terminated as soon as a problem was seen. That may seem harsh, and I do not advocate exposing unwanted babies on a mountain

I think it’s a damned sight better than a DIY Job with a length of hooked wire, and of course the mountain as you said.  I stand by Mothers decision though, we each have to look after ourselves, and we each have to live with those decisions for the rest of our lives.

 

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It would of course be great if there was never any reason to perform an abortion, and my gut reaction is against abortions, it's not natural. But, women get raped, and we get births that in the natural order of things would be terminated as soon as a problem was seen. That may seem harsh, and I do not advocate exposing unwanted babies on a mountain, but there is no test to see where a child will be on the DS scale, many are not so good, and, while of course blameless in themselves, can be a very disruptive element in familes. Some of them never master toilet training, even into their forties, and those parents and others who can deal with this are in the minority. For many of us a normal baby is bad enough, but at least you know it will end.

I can’t argue with that at all.  Part of me wants say that the risk is part and parcel of choosing to have children, but of course, sometimes that isn’t a choice.

Thanks for taking the time, I will remember your insight for the future :tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

In my opinion these three do not have a valid case to put forward, and I'm baffled as to how a child born in 2019 can be a plaintiff, or even have anybody acting for them as the case is not about them whether they have DS or not. He's alive, so for him the point is mute, he is just being used for shroud waving propaganda.

If the issue was of forced abortions for DS, then this would be a different matter, and eugenics raises it's head, but it is not, it's about the cut off time for an abortion, and I believe that DS is a serious enough condition to warrant the current situation.

Then there is a balance to be struck between the rights over her own body of a woman v those of an unborn foetus, and I believe that the rights of the woman should come first.

It would of course be great if there was never any reason to perform an abortion, and my gut reaction is against abortions, it's not natural. But, women get raped, and we get births that in the natural order of things would be terminated as soon as a problem was seen. That may seem harsh, and I do not advocate exposing unwanted babies on a mountain, but there is no test to see where a child will be on the DS scale, many are not so good, and, while of course blameless in themselves, can be a very disruptive element in familes. Some of them never master toilet training, even into their forties, and those parents and others who can deal with this are in the minority. For many of us a normal baby is bad enough, but at least you know it will end.

Another great, thoughtful, post. Unfortunately you can't argue against religious fundamentalists, they sincerely declare all life is sacred while condoning the shooting to death of staff at clinics, oblivious to the irony. Three killed, nine injured in attack on Colorado abortion clinic | Reuters

Edited by ted hughes
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, aztek said:

Trisomy21

Yeah, but that's a scientific descriptor for DS, not a means of determining how badly afflicted the person will be, which will not become evident for some years.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ted hughes said:

Another great, thoughtful, post. Unfortunately you can't argue against religious fundamentalists, they sincerely declare all life is sacred while condoning the shooting to death of staff at clinics, oblivious to the irony. Three killed, nine injured in attack on Colorado abortion clinic | Reuters

When this sort of thing comes up I striaght away think of the song with the line "Every sperm is sacred" in the Monty Python film "The meaning of Life".

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

When this sort of thing comes up I striaght away think of the song with the line "Every sperm is sacred" in the Monty Python film "The meaning of Life".

I've been trying for the whole thread not to mention... apparently, I just had to :lol:  ... that there's no theological reason to believe the soul is assigned to the fertilized egg cell right away, in the moment of conception.

There's no theologically plausible reason why a Christian can't be pro-choice. Within common sense and universal ethics limits, of course.

But you can't mobilize the flock with boring stuff like universal ethics or true compassion. Hell, no, they need the conflict and the spectacle.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yeah, but that's a scientific descriptor for DS, not a means of determining how badly afflicted the person will be, which will not become evident for some years.

it is enough to know there  will be a problem in a future, how bad of a problem , depends on the score.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I've been trying for the whole thread not to mention... apparently, I just had to :lol:  ... that there's no theological reason to believe the soul is assigned to the fertilized egg cell right away, in the moment of conception.

There's no theologically plausible reason why a Christian can't be pro-choice. Within common sense and universal ethics limits, of course.

But you can't mobilize the flock with boring stuff like universal ethics or true compassion. Hell, no, they need the conflict and the spectacle.  

 

An issue, I think, of imposing the supernatural on the natural by means of religious dogma. The issue of when "you" inhabit your body is of course something to think about as it cannot be, as some think, at the moment of birth, otherwise would a baby born by caesarion section before full term be a "zombie" or something. Difficult question that goes into the nature of, for the religious, the soul, or the non religious, whatever makes us, us. The Ancient Egyptian multifaceted concepts of the soul are easier to get your head around than when, let's say, the spark of life, enters your body.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2021 at 8:56 AM, Wepwawet said:

When this sort of thing comes up I striaght away think of the song with the line "Every sperm is sacred" in the Monty Python film "The meaning of Life".

Hope not, otherwise most teenage boys would be mass-murderers.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.