Would you abort a down syndrome fetus?

[Napoleon Ier]

now obviously i cant comment to some of the accuracy of his statements...but the man and the source you use could very easily both be construed to have a bit of an axe to grind.

the website itself, claiming it is the largest growing independent news site, is seemingly through even the most superficial of glances, a bit of a home to some conspiracy rhetoric. Now this alone of course does not mean the article is truthful or whatever, but it bears mentioning.

Also, the man in question, is currently not at all identified with the pro-choice movement and is fact a member of a conservative sect of catholicsm. It certainly brings into question what affect such a landmark change in thinking and in behavior, if one notes his works published may have on what he is reporting and in his views.

Why Obama and other democrats should be questioned on their faith.
Love that one.
Why better trade with Europe is a step towards a world government.
Does Jay get his news from here?
Homosexuals get diseases all the time.
Wow.

Enter contest, debunk 'global warming,' win big.
Riiiiight.

Yeah, ok, you wanna rebutt Nathanson or not?

[Iliad]

now obviously i cant comment to some of the accuracy of his statements...but the man and the source you use could very easily both be construed to have a bit of an axe to grind.

the website itself, claiming it is the largest growing independent news site, is seemingly through even the most superficial of glances, a bit of a home to some conspiracy rhetoric. Now this alone of course does not mean the article is truthful or whatever, but it bears mentioning.

Also, the man in question, is currently not at all identified with the pro-choice movement and is fact a member of a conservative sect of catholicsm. It certainly brings into question what affect such a landmark change in thinking and in behavior, if one notes his works published may have on what he is reporting and in his views.

Why Obama and other democrats should be questioned on their faith.
Love that one.
Why better trade with Europe is a step towards a world government.
Does Jay get his news from here?
Homosexuals get diseases all the time.
Wow.

Enter contest, debunk 'global warming,' win big.
Riiiiight.

[Napoleon Ier]

Come on tonky! Its a little unfair to dissmiss someone out of hand because they were members of Opus Dei... , Nahanson, being a member of CRASH would be quite the kind of person to refer to.
Then I guess thats the only way you can come up with anything to rebutt him in your efforts to sanctify Roe v. Wade as some kind of extension of the 60s Civil Rights movement.

[Snorri1234]

I wasn't comparing you unmitigated cretin, I was saying you don't need to know abortionnists to condemn them, like you don't to know Klansmen or Nazis to condemn them.

No dickweed. What you fail to see is that you were comparing them to Nazis by the simple way of mentioning them alongside abortionists.
I know what you said, you're just under the mistaken impression that that doesn't sound stupid.

But for shits and giggles, let's look at the dictionary entry for "analogy".
Analogy:
–noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics.
a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.


—Synonyms 1. comparison, likeness, resemblance, similitude, affinity. 2. correspondence.

Well.... I guess it wasn't a comparison then, right?

But hey, if you want, sure, let's compare those three :

"Darky niggers ain't humans, dirty yids ain't human, inhuman-clump-o-cells-fetus (most derogatory of all three) ain't human" : same ignotant bullshit, different people, different times.

Oh man that sure is a good argument.

Face it naps, you know your position is based on nothing but religion and you resort to petty accusations to cover that up.

[Napoleon Ier]

I wasn't comparing you unmitigated cretin, I was saying you don't need to know abortionnists to condemn them, like you don't to know Klansmen or Nazis to condemn them.

No dickweed. What you fail to see is that you were comparing them to Nazis by the simple way of mentioning them alongside abortionists.
I know what you said, you're just under the mistaken impression that that doesn't sound stupid.

But for shits and giggles, let's look at the dictionary entry for "analogy".
Analogy:
–noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics.
a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.


—Synonyms 1. comparison, likeness, resemblance, similitude, affinity. 2. correspondence.

Well.... I guess it wasn't a comparison then, right?

But hey, if you want, sure, let's compare those three :

"Darky niggers ain't humans, dirty yids ain't human, inhuman-clump-o-cells-fetus (most derogatory of all three) ain't human" : same ignotant bullshit, different people, different times.

Oh man that sure is a good argument.

Face it naps, you know your position is based on nothing but religion and you resort to petty accusations to cover that up.

You spectacularily fail to see my argument. Again.

I was saying you can condemn abortionnist whilst not knowing any personally. It happens I've met some ex-abortionnists. that's not the point though.
If you re too plain incompetent to understand this I suggest you go do some reading, cultivate yourself, then come back when you've learnt to master basic grammar.
The analogy I used? A comparison of my condemnaton of abortionnsts with hc's of Nazism, a universally accepted evil.

As for my position being based on religion...that's idiotic, and you know full well. I oppose euthanasia, but would legalize it. I oppose gay marriage, but would grant them a contract, marriage if they wish. Abortion however is murder of a human being, and you don;t need to be religious to accept tha from conception, it is wrong to destroy what is to become a human being, and which beyond 4 weeks, has all the anthropomorphized features of a human.

[Napoleon Ier]

Tell you what snorri : seeing as how no-one can posily be that bloody minded and stupid, I'll assume this all part of your smear campaign to cover up your sheer ignorance and the baselessness of your positions. Instead of this, please post some arguments. You're actually beginning to get me irritated.

[Snorri1234]

You spectacularily fail to see my argument. Again.

I was saying you can condemn abortionnist whilst not knowing any personally. It happens I've met some ex-abortionnists. that's not the point though.
If you re too plain incompetent to understand this I suggest you go do some reading, cultivate yourself, then come back when you've learnt to master basic grammar.

I didn't fucking fail to see your argument, I already responded to it, but also noted you were violating Godwins law again.
I never said you can't condemn them for doing something you see as wrong. But unriggable was asking you to prove they were of disrepute.
Now, I know you don't respond to things you can't answer, but you shouldn't go attacking me when you fail to do that.

The analogy I used? A comparison of my condemnaton of abortionnsts with hc's of Nazism, a universally accepted evil.

Oh I thought it wasn't a comparison?

As for my position being based on religion...that's idiotic, and you know full well. I oppose euthanasia, but would legalize it.

Then why are you arguing? I don't care if you don't like it, that's your full right to feel like that.

Abortion however is murder of a human being, and you don;t need to be religious to accept tha from conception, it is wrong to destroy what is to become a human being, and which beyond 4 weeks, has all the anthropomorphized features of a human.

Except that there is no way to determine that it is in fact a human being when you destroy it. And therefore the only argument is the "Potential" one, which is just silly as there is always some potential.
And you don't have to be religious to think so, but in the end it is a religious argument.

[Napoleon Ier]

http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html

Here, a better and more reputable article, and refrenced on wiki.

You gonna actually have the courtesy to debae or just keep calumniating?
Or are you frantically dredging through wikipedia in search of arguments?

Mine eyes, have seen the glory of the Coming of the LORD, he is trampling down the server where snorri's posts are stored

[Snorri1234]

Tell you what snorri : seeing as how no-one can posily be that bloody minded and stupid, I'll assume this all part of your smear campaign to cover up your sheer ignorance and the baselessness of your positions. Instead of this, please post some arguments. You're actually beginning to get me irritated.

Tell you what nappy, seeing as how no-one could possibly be so stupid as to ignore everything thrown at them and basically ignore any argument that is brought up or twist it out of all meaning, I'll asume your just a troll who is just trying to irritate everyone and make an ass out of himself.
You're already way beyond the point of irritating me.

[Napoleon Ier]

Tell you what snorri : seeing as how no-one can posily be that bloody minded and stupid, I'll assume this all part of your smear campaign to cover up your sheer ignorance and the baselessness of your positions. Instead of this, please post some arguments. You're actually beginning to get me irritated.

Tell you what nappy, seeing as how no-one could possibly be so stupid as to ignore everything thrown at them and basically ignore any argument that is brought up or twist it out of all meaning, I'll asume your just a troll who is just trying to irritate everyone and make an ass out of himself.
You're already way beyond the point of irritating me.

Dude I was responding to a point by heavycola...maybe that's why you're confused? that would explain...

[Snorri1234]

http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html

Here, a better and more reputable article, and refrenced on wiki.

You gonna actually have the courtesy to debae or just keep calumniating?
Or are you frantically dredging through wikipedia in search of arguments?

Mine eyes, have seen the glory of the Coming of the LORD, he is trampling down the server where snorri's posts are stored

Why the f*ck would I argue against him?
He offers no explanation as to why life begins at conception, merely saying it is so and that anyone who argues against that is obviously doing it all for the money. He offers no proof to back his assertion that abortion is now the primary birth control method
Basically, he offers nothing to back up anything he says.

[Snorri1234]

Tell you what snorri : seeing as how no-one can posily be that bloody minded and stupid, I'll assume this all part of your smear campaign to cover up your sheer ignorance and the baselessness of your positions. Instead of this, please post some arguments. You're actually beginning to get me irritated.

Tell you what nappy, seeing as how no-one could possibly be so stupid as to ignore everything thrown at them and basically ignore any argument that is brought up or twist it out of all meaning, I'll asume your just a troll who is just trying to irritate everyone and make an ass out of himself.
You're already way beyond the point of irritating me.

Dude I was responding to a point by heavycola...maybe that's why you're confused? that would explain...

OH WELL SINCE I FORGOT IT WAS HEAVYCOLA I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND! AMIRITE? LOL!

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course.
1)I haven't started arguing about life from conception yet
2)You said quote some experts. I did. This guy was one of the most influential people in Roe v Wade

[Snorri1234]

Of course.
2)You said quote some experts. I did. This guy was one of the most influential people in Roe v Wade

Yes. But by expert I mean someone who offers data and stuff. Not someone who said he lied a long time ago.

[suggs]

cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.

[Napoleon Ier]

cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.

By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?

[Dancing Mustard]

cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.

Mega Word.

If I wasn't battered I'd probably argue with some anti-choice monkey about this, but right now I don't give a toss. Suck 'em and flush 'em say I.

[Dancing Mustard]

By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?

Didn't you just say that you were down with euthanasia?

[got tonkaed]

well to some degree i can really refute the doctor without going into a bit of the study on the pro choice sources. However, it would seem pretty reasonable that i could in some way sum up their position, he is lying about the fudging of statistics, he has allowed a new set of beliefs to supercede the ones he originally had about womens rights.

I dont know whether or not he is lying, nor do i know necessarily if there are readily available sources. I know the historical look at the creation of the roe v wade seemed to suggest there were large numbers of women dying from these abortions, and that this was built up on primarily ancedotal evidence (ie someone coming forward and admitting to a back street abortion). As far as the history im aware of, there were a large number of these operations going on.

to a degree snorri is right about the conception argument being something that is only debatable to a point. If you believe life begins there (and there are arguments for it) then its kind of hard to move past that at somepoint. In a similar fashion if you believe individuals have a right to control over their own reproductive capabilities (which there are arguments for) you arent moving them very far either.

Allow me to borrow from Peter Singer...the difference between the examples you used previously in thread (comparing klansmen, to nazis, to abortionists) is that the clump of cells has no ability to cognitize what is about to happen to it, in as far as it is an it. To me, the idea that something that does not exist could possibly have a greater claim over existence than something that does, is innately questionable. However i accept there are moral presuppositions behind this (see a thread where ambrose and i discuss this issue over a number of pages, and admittedly he beats me up pretty well) which affect the primacy of the life not yet lived.

let me just say i find the logical inconsistency behind euthansia and abortion being different things outside of an individuals ability of volition which gets thrown out because a baby cant account for itself in teh wish to live, as one of the more interesting concepts behind some aspects of hte pro-life movement.

[dustn64]

Abortion is wrong either way you look at it.

[Dancing Mustard]

Abortion is wrong either way you look at it.

Didn't Suggs say something about you?

[Frigidus]

cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.

By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?

The Romans had things right. The father had the right to kill any of his children he disapproved of.

Son: Daddy can you play with me?

Father: No, I'm busy.

Son: Pleeeeeeeeeeease?

Father: That's it. <Dwarf tosses kid in front of bus>

[Neoteny]

Abortion is wrong either way you look at it.

Gotta love the serious contributers.

[heavycola]

cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.

By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being disingenuous. Because if you aren't, this is possibly the weakest post you have ever made.

[strike wolf]

I'd have to say no, because it takes the fetus a few months' worth of development for the fetus's brain to be grown enough for scientists to determine if it could have down syndrome or not. At this point there's no doubt in my head that this would be considered murder of the worst kind(killing a defenseless human) and I would never be able to do that, down syndrome or no.

I'm gonna agree with riggable on this one.