Autism Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

In response to the Sanger stuff:
http://www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/libr ... ret_sanger

Also, I really don't like the Nazi comparisons ITT. Abortion is not the same as the f*****g Holocaust. Not everybody is financially or psychologically able to care for a child with special needs, and fetuses are not the same as conscious human beings.

And before you say "IF YOU CANT HAVE A CHILD DONT GET PREGNANT", the only way you can even tell if your fetus is going to be healthy is if you get prenatal testing. It's better to get a test and find out if your future kid is going to be fine and then decide what to do. Prenatal testing is also done for things like cleft palate, so parents can know ahead of time that their child will need surgery.

And what's your opinion on prenatal testing for things like Tay-Sachs and anencephaly? Children with Tay-Sachs and anencephaly always die very young (and in the case of anencephaly, the child usually dies shortly after birth), and their lives are short and extremely painful.

I am going to grant both sides a pardon on this issue which is of extreme emotional hardship(s). All I mean by pardon is an in-depth understanding of the psycho-babble that creates an understanding of it. In conclusion I will make some advisements but with concern to my career and my advocacy the issue of abortion politics and other groups is quite clear and fashionably is ingrained with subsequent propaganda that alters the psyche and the well being of those living.

I know about the Nazis and eugenics etc - I am in my final year of a history degree and mostly study Nasism, WW2 on the Eastern Front and the Holocaust, so I have read a fair bi on this kind of thing. I just don't see how it;s the same. If the govt were the force abortions for autistic fetuses then yeah. Although even then it's a fetus, not a thinking human being.

If someone wants to have an abortion because they don't want an autistic kid, that should be within ther rights. As should first ttrimester abortion for any other reason.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Yv8_ZMpes[/youtube]

A societal attitude for or against abortion and selective abortion by means of prenatal testing is a volatile approach and is divisive for other matters. In the realm of public relations it is of it's own regard. Hence groups that are for or against it in specific ways are socio-politically compromised in macro politics and the inter-personal realities politically in gender politics as well as indirectly with religion in some correlating dynamics. Thats the reason that in the frameworks of awareness politics the buck stops here and awareness for those that live and the advocacy for them must be separate otherwise it is compromised and is a risk.

This is my risk assessment and judgement.

I support a woman's right to choose. If a woman doesn't want to carry a fetus to term, then she can get an abortion. It's none of your business.

As a matter of fact, how about you try carrying a child in your womb for nine months?

Last edited by Delirium on 14 Dec 2010, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The point was to make it none of anyones business that wants nothing to do with the matter.

I have a hard time working up any righteous wrath for people who abort their autistic babies when it's perfectly legal to abort a normal child because the condom broke. This is not just a straw man argument, it's also a "bait and switch" for pro-lifers. Throw out the bait of callous greedy lazy people wanting "perfect" children, which most everybody would agree is pathetic and sad, then switch in the entire pro-life agenda, which is something else entirely. If you can say genetic tests are an invalid reason for having an abortion, you can say it for anything, which is the ultimate goal of the pro-lifers. Get one "wedge" issue to get people to limit abortion rights, then keep pushing until the door is wide open.

I know of abortion politics in general but not much about the arguments. For the moralist religious individual it can be a matter of feeling obligated to protect perceived life. On the other hand others do not perceive this way. On a purely analytical level observing political behavior differs from having an opinion. When politics I think begins is when you attempt to dictate an opinion into a law. Although my mentality is protected by a functional model as a administrator of what the law is as a facilitator of civil rights to be I must under the law respect all opinions.

I believe it is in the best interest for those with autism that these politics are handled swiftly and not prolonged and people can focus on what is living now. This is in the best interest of quality of life and individual choice opportunities no matter the ultimate conclusions external from this topic. Ultimately in awareness and progress ethical and legal obligations arise for those whom are living external from the abortion politic.

Luckily, since I am in the U.S. and financially stable, no matter what people say on the internet, if I end up knocked up somehow, I'm still going to get an abortion.

I'm not saying this to be offensive. I'm sure you're not trying to be offensive by comparing the actions of the people who killed several of my ancestors, including my great-grandparents, in the holocaust, to elective abortion. We just obviously have different views on these topics.

In the socio-political sphere comparative analysis is required as well as deriving group based opinions. There is no root causal I have manifest in authorship. Moreover the comparisons have been made prior and for reasons of study perpetuations are unavoidable. One conflict of interest arises with a social political complex if you will between groups. The original propaganda socially is so very thick or said manipulative by nature it is quite kindly referred to as merely horrendous in totality conceptually and politically. The topic is best left alone and cannot be concluded by me but even saying that the propaganda can be perceived applicable in some ways to deflect it.

It comes down to what is illness in the arguments and what is not. It will spiral endlessly and remind me of the science fiction of star-trek and the Borg. If you hit them with a phaser they would adapt and get stronger. I am not a fiction fan.

You're not a science fiction fan, yet quote the Borg. I'm not an abortion fan, but I wouldn't ruin my life. It appears we are at an impasse.

I understood some of what you said just now. Maybe you could explain everything else aside from the Borg and after not being an abortion fan.

I'm against abortion of any kind.

Abortions should be allowed for legit reasons. Deciding your baby isn't good enough because it has a disability isn't one of them. There's such a thing as going too far. The Nazis wanted a "perfect" race of people, and this is the same attitude.

Who are you to decide what is and isn't a "legit reason"? If a woman wants to end her pregnancy (within reason, obviously not at 8 months) then she should be able to, regardless of her reasons. No one should be in a position to force a woman through a pregnancy and childbirth against her will

Right, because voluntary abortion is the same as killing 12 million people. There is not a big enough for your comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum