25 Aug 11
I tried to find something from more trustworthy sources. Apparently Denmark is not, as your hateblog would seem to suggest, promoting aborting babies with Down syndrome, but rather offering free screenings, after which a significant percentage of parents decide to abort foetuses with Down syndrome.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/scitech/92-technology/51921-downs-syndrome-dwindling.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo in your estimation offering free screenings is not promoting aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome? Why then are they offerring free screenings?
I tried to find something from more trustworthy sources. Apparently Denmark is not, as your hateblog would seem to suggest, promoting aborting babies with Down syndrome, but rather offering free screenings, after which a significant percentage of parents decide to abort foetuses with Down syndrome.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/scitech/92-technology/51921-downs-syndrome-dwindling.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyDo you understand the difference between taking a test and acting on the results?
So in your estimation offering free screenings is not promoting aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome? Why then are they offerring free screenings?
What offering free screenings does is promote awareness.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not sure. Perhaps to empower parents to make their own decision about whether or not they want to raise a disabled child, or because such screenings allow prevention of risk to the mother.
So in your estimation offering free screenings is not promoting aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome? Why then are they offerring free screenings?
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe only reason one would take the test is to try and decide if they want an abortion. So here you have the state paying for such tests in the hopes that more will decide to have abortions to help society in a euginic fashion.
Do you understand the difference between taking a test and acting on the results?
What offering free screenings does is promote awareness.
Where is my logic askew?
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyThere are more than that one reason to take the test. The fact that you either can't think of it or I suspect haven't even tried to think of it is telling.
The only reason one would take the test is to try and decide if they want an abortion. So here you have the state paying for such tests in the hopes that more will decide to have abortions to help society in a euginic fashion.
Where is my logic askew?
Bringing up a child with Down's syndrome is a significant amount more effort and resources than a child without. It's possible that parents might want to simply prepare for that fact and to know what to expect.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnEr....um.....yea.
There are more than that one reason to take the test. The fact that you either can't think of it or I suspect haven't even tried to think of it is telling.
Bringing up a child with Down's syndrome is a significant amount more effort and resources than a child without. It's possible that parents might want to simply prepare for that fact and to know what to expect.
Really the question should be, if you could prevent your offspring from having Down Syndrome, would you? I think everyone would. The controversy simply stems around the moral dilemma of a fetus possibly being human. From the states perspetive, it is not so there is no controversy and is a no brainer decision.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhy judge the reason?
There are more than that one reason to take the test. The fact that you either can't think of it or I suspect haven't even tried to think of it is telling.
Bringing up a child with Down's syndrome is a significant amount more effort and resources than a child without. It's possible that parents might want to simply prepare for that fact and to know what to expect.
Parents should be able to abort for any reason. What if you don't want a daughter? Just abort the girl because she's a girl.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyNo it doesn't - calling something "human" or not is a semantic issue and therefore cannot possibly have any relevance for deciding moral issues.
Er....um.....yea.
Really the question should be, if you could prevent your offspring from having Down Syndrome, would you? I think everyone would. The controversy simply stems around the moral dilemma of a fetus possibly being human. From the states perspetive, it is not so there is no controversy and is a no brainer decision.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyOk.. so you don't actually have even a semi-intelligent or intelligible response. Got it.
Er....um.....yea.
Really the question should be, if you could prevent your offspring from having Down Syndrome, would you? I think everyone would. The controversy simply stems around the moral dilemma of a fetus possibly being human. From the states perspetive, it is not so there is no controversy and is a no brainer decision.
There isn't much controversy here outside of the controversy I think you seem to want to spark.
How is it somehow immoral to encourage people to have a test? No one is being forced to even have the test.