NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: An entirely new area of law ... wrongful birth. The world just keeps getting stranger and stranger! :(


A Wrongful Birth? (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312wrongful.1.html?th&emc=th)


By ELIZABETH WEIL
Published: March 12, 2006
Like most American women who give birth to a severely handicapped child, Donna Branca became pregnant with A.J. well before the age of 35. Had she been older, her doctors would almost certainly have recommended amniocentesis to screen for genetic disorders. But she was 31, so they did not, despite the fact that she had an unusual pregnancy. Branca bled during her first trimester, a possible indication of birth defects, and at her midterm sonogram, when she was 20 weeks pregnant, her fetus looked smaller than it should have based on when her doctors originally presumed she conceived. Branca had not gained much weight, either, but her doctors — whom she is barred from identifying, by a legal settlement — saw no cause for alarm. "Looking back now, of course, it's easy to say I should have asked more questions or maybe been a little more concerned," she told me last fall, sitting in her grassy backyard in Orangeburg, 20 miles north of Manhattan. Branca is a pretty woman, dark and compact, with a winning suburban New York accent. She glanced at A. J., a 6-year-old with a head of dark curls and the mental capacity of a 6-month-old. Her 3-year-old twins from a subsequent pregnancy ran around collecting acorns.

On April 22, 1999, when Branca was 28 weeks pregnant — four weeks past the legal window for terminating a pregnancy in New York — she saw her regular doctor (for what would be the last time) and was reassured that her baby was fine. But three weeks later, while on vacation on the Jersey Shore, Branca began to bleed again. Her husband, Anthony, drove her to the emergency room at Southern Ocean County Hospital in Manahawkin, N.J. Anthony Branca, like his wife, is compact and mild-mannered. When the obstetrician arrived, the doctor got out a tape and measured Donna's belly, a standard procedure to gauge a fetus's size. Although such measurements are a routine part of prenatal medicine and require only a few seconds, Donna had never had her belly measured. The obstetrician on duty that day asked Donna if she had had any prenatal care at all. Then he told her, based on his calculations, her fetus appeared to be only 24 weeks old, not 31.

An emergency sonogram confirmed that the fetus was indeed abnormally small, and an amniocentesis later performed at Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, N.Y., revealed much worse news: Donna Branca's fetus had both a gene duplication and a gene deletion on his fourth chromosome. (It was not until after birth that it would became clear that her baby had Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which commonly includes mental retardation, physical disfigurement, inability to speak, seizures and respiratory and digestive problems.) After two weeks of bed rest, during which doctors tried to delay labor, Donna delivered A.J. Branca on June 11, 1999, about six weeks before her due date. He was 15 inches long and weighed two and a half pounds, and he didn't cry when he came out. "One of the first things the attending doctor said to me," Donna told me, "was, 'It's not hereditary, so you should just have another child right away."'

What happened next — the years in which the Brancas came to love A.J. deeply and also to file a multimillion-dollar lawsuit claiming that Donna Branca's obstetrician's poor care deprived her of the right to abort him — sheds an uncomfortable light on contemporary expectations about childbearing and on how much control we believe we should have over the babies we give birth to. The technology of prenatal care has been shifting rapidly: sonograms became standard in the 80's; many new genetic tests became standard in the 90's. Our ethical responses to the information provided has been shifting as well. As in many other realms, from marriage and its definition to end-of-life issues, those ethics and standards are being hashed out in the courts, in one lawsuit after another. And what those cases are exposing is the relatively new belief that we should have a right to choose which babies come into the world. This belief is built upon two assumptions, both of which have emerged in the past 40 years. The first is the assumption that if we choose to take advantage of contemporary technology, major flaws in our fetus's health will be detected before birth. The second assumption, more controversial, is that we will be able to do something — namely, end the pregnancy — if those flaws suggest a parenting project we would rather not undertake.

The practice of terminating specific pregnancies, as opposed to aborting pregnancies so as not to have a child at all, is seldom discussed in its baldest terms. It is also poised to rise. Just this past November, scientists at Columbia University published a major paper in The New England Journal of Medicine on the effectiveness of new, noninvasive techniques for screening for Down syndrome in the first trimester, when the decision to terminate will most likely be more common and, some argue, more humane. In in vitro settings, a new technology called P.G.D. — preimplantation genetic diagnosis — allows doctors to test for genetic defects days after fertilizing an egg in a petri dish. Perhaps most important, the number of prenatal genetic tests is increasing exponentially — it jumped from 100 to 1,000 between 1993 and 2003 — and no regulations yet guide parents and doctors about fair reasons for terminating or going forward with particular births. Should it be O.K. to terminate a deaf child? What about a blind one? How mentally retarded is too mentally retarded? What if the child will develop a serious disease, like Huntington's, later in life? According to one reproductive legal scholar, Susan Crockin in Newton, Mass., "As reproductive genetics opens up new possibilities, we should expect to see more of these cases, and we should expect to see more novel issues."

At present, courts in about half the states recognize wrongful birth as a subset of medical negligence or allow lawsuits under the more general malpractice umbrella if a doctor's poor care leads to the delivery of a child the parents claim they would have chosen to terminate in utero had they known in time of its impaired health. In some of these states, like New York, where the Brancas' case was tried, emotional damages — compensation for the distress incurred by having an impaired child — cannot be recovered. No matter the legal context, terminating a wanted pregnancy is no one's first choice, but for the time being at least, when faced with a fetus that will become a severely handicapped child, all the choices are bad. At this moment, we are fairly adept at finding chromosomal flaws and horribly inept at fixing them. There is no chemical or surgical remedy if you find out your child-to-be has cystic fibrosis, fragile X, Down syndrome, Tay-Sachs, anencephaly — the list goes on and on. As Leon Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, has noted, in prenatal cases, often the only way to cure the illness is to prevent the patient.

The first significant wrongful-birth lawsuit involving a disabled child, Gleitman v. Cosgrove, reached the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1966. One plaintiff was the child's mother, who had contracted rubella early in her pregnancy in 1959. Worried, she consulted her doctor and was assured that her unborn baby would be fine, despite the common understanding that rubella early in pregnancy can lead to birth defects. The baby in question was born with "substantial defects. . .in sight, hearing and speech." Interestingly, the court recognized the physicians' failure as well as the parents' anguish and attendant financial burdens although it still decided in favor of the defendants, in part, it seems, because it did not want to enter the ethical thicket inherent in finding for the parents. "A court cannot say what defects should prevent an embryo from being allowed life.. . ." the opinion reads. "Examples of famous persons who have had great achievement despite physical defects come readily to mind, and many of us can think of examples close to home.. . .The sanctity of the single human life is the decisive factor in this suit in tort. Eugenic considerations are not controlling. We are not talking here about the breeding of prize cattle."

[ This article is FIVE pages long! To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312wrongful.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). ]

Makes sense to me. It's negligent if a doctor gives you incorrect advice that leads you down a path you would otherwise not want to have gone down; in this case that is pregnancy, birth, and all the added expense of caring for a seriously disabled child.

Makes sense to me. It's negligent if a doctor gives you incorrect advice that leads you down a path you would otherwise not want to have gone down; in this case that is pregnancy, birth, and all the added expense of caring for a seriously disabled child.
Perhaps so, but it just startled me. I mean "Wrongful BIRTH?" Whew! :confused:

Perhaps so, but it just startled me. I mean "Wrongful BIRTH?" Whew! :confused:

You never saw the Kevin Costner movie The Postman then have you?

I agree that the doctor was wrong to led the mother down this path, but is killing the child really the right answear? *sigh* and we now go further down the path to "designer babies".

I agree that the doctor was wrong to led the mother down this path, but is killing the child really the right answear? *sigh* and we now go further down the path to "designer babies".

If a kid was going to born with a disease that would cause them extreme pain all their life and the parents know about it in time to abort, is it more responsible to give birth to the child, or to get rid of the fetus before it can experience pain?

I'd say it's more responsible to save a child from pain then to give birth to it. Other people might think otherwise.

If a kid was going to born with a disease that would cause them extreme pain all their life and the parents know about it in time to abort, is it more responsible to give birth to the child, or to get rid of the fetus before it can experience pain?

I'd say it's more responsible to save a child from pain then to give birth to it. Other people might think otherwise.

But why stop there? I mean, let's say the child isn't going to have blue eyes. Ahh well, let's abort it. Oh, the baby is going to be in a wheelchair, but no actual pain, eh let's abort it. The baby isn't going to be a blonde? Abort it! Pain is nothing new, we've all experienced pain, we all will contiune to experience pain. Pain is a part of LIFE. The only way to avoid pain is to lock yourself in your room and to lay in bed all day. I've seen it over and over again, when society try to make rules like when to end a human being's life (in this case, the unborn baby), it ultimately leads down to a slipperly slope to where a human's life can be terminated just because it isn't a blonde, or it's not going to have the right eye color etc. Let's leave the tree of life alone.

But why stop there? I mean, let's say the child isn't going to have blue eyes. Ahh well, let's abort it. Oh, the baby is going to be in a wheelchair, but no actual pain, eh let's abort it. The baby isn't going to be a blonde? Abort it! Pain is nothing new, we've all experienced pain, we all will contiune to experience pain. Pain is a part of LIFE. The only way to avoid pain is to lock yourself in your room and to lay in bed all day. I've seen it over and over again, when society try to make rules like when to end a human being's life (in this case, the unborn baby), it ultimately leads down to a slipperly slope to where a human's life can be terminated just because it isn't a blonde, or it's not going to have the right eye color etc. Let's leave the tree of life alone.
:rolleyes: Reductio ad absurdum.

:rolleyes: Reductio ad absurdum.

huh?

Well, technically those things could already happen since abortion is legal. People can abort babies for whatever reason they want. That's not to say that people actually do abort babies due to their eye color, i'm sure the majority of people who have abortions don't do it for reasons as arbitrary as that. We don't have to make special laws to allow people to abort babies for any old reason they want, all we have to do is keep abortion legal.

Well, technically those things could already happen since abortion is legal. People can abort babies for whatever reason they want. That's not to say that people actually do abort babies due to their eye color, i'm sure the majority of people who have abortions don't do it for reasons as arbitrary as that. We don't have to make special laws to allow people to abort babies for any old reason they want, all we have to do is keep abortion legal.

That's true. I guess I do not like it when people decide to abort babies because they are disabled/handicapped. I mean what the fuck is that all about? I mean I'm sorry if your baby isn't going to be perfect physically, but that's a pretty damn stupid reason to abort him. I'm just glad my dad told the doctor to fuck off when he presented my parents with the idea of aborting me.

But why stop there? I mean, let's say the child isn't going to have blue eyes. Ahh well, let's abort it. Oh, the baby is going to be in a wheelchair, but no actual pain, eh let's abort it. The baby isn't going to be a blonde? Abort it! Pain is nothing new, we've all experienced pain, we all will contiune to experience pain. Pain is a part of LIFE. The only way to avoid pain is to lock yourself in your room and to lay in bed all day. I've seen it over and over again, when society try to make rules like when to end a human being's life (in this case, the unborn baby), it ultimately leads down to a slipperly slope to where a human's life can be terminated just because it isn't a blonde, or it's not going to have the right eye color etc. Let's leave the tree of life alone.

*cough* I may be new to this, but isn't that one of them there fallacy things?

I've got a bit of a family history of spina bifida. When I get pregnant I want to get tested for it and if it's positive, I'd get an abortion.

I've got a bit of a family history of spina bifida. When I get pregnant I want to get tested for it and if it's positive, I'd get an abortion.

Wow... Just wow.... Just for the sake of curiosity how old are you?

Wow... Just wow.... Just for the sake of curiosity how old are you?
22.

It's actually one of the few instances I can see myself getting an abortion, to be honest.

That's true. I guess I do not like it when people decide to abort babies because they are disabled/handicapped. I mean what the fuck is that all about?

I'd rather not exist then be retarded, crippled or blind.

I'd rather not exist then be retarded, crippled or blind.
I know a crippled kid (with spina bifida) who would rather have not existed...

22.

It's actually one of the few instances I can see myself getting an abortion, to be honest.

Yea, umm, come back when you're 30 or so. Killing someone just because it has a chance of having spina bifida is just cold hearted. I'm 22 and even I admit I am still young and immature in some retrospect. I don't know what you've heard about abortion, but it isn't a do it and forget it kind of deal. Most women who had an abortion end up regretting it and depressed after they realized what they've done.

I'd rather not exist then be retarded, crippled or blind.

Yea, you're neither of the above are ya? How can you say that 100%, without a doubt if you're neither mentally or physically disabled? Once again, for the sake of curosity, how old are you?

Yea, umm, come back when you're 30 or so. Killing someone just because it has a chance of having spina bifida is just cold hearted. I'm 22 and even I admit I am still young and immature in some retrospect. I don't know what you've heard about abortion, but it isn't a do it and forget it kind of deal. Most women who had an abortion end up regretting it and depressed after they realized what they've done.
I wouldn't be killing anything. I would be ending the potential for a life to begin. I wouldn't be able to care for a disabled kid and would probably resent it if forced to carry through with such a pregnancy.

Furthermore, that is bullshit, most women who have abortions experience relief and happiness, most women who want an abortion and don't get one end up depressed.

That's true. I guess I do not like it when people decide to abort babies because they are disabled/handicapped. I mean what the fuck is that all about? I mean I'm sorry if your baby isn't going to be perfect physically, but that's a pretty damn stupid reason to abort him. I'm just glad my dad told the doctor to fuck off when he presented my parents with the idea of aborting me.

If you were a spirit floating about, and had a choice of being a disabled child or a 'normal' child, which would you choose? Truly, it's easier for everyone involved for all children to be born as perfect as possible. For the parents, for the children, possibly for society... There's nothing wrong with disabled people, but- Hm, it's hard to put this in words and not sound like an asshole, because I honestly don't mean it that way... but the more 'perfect' everyone is, the better. I mean, in a perfect world, nobody would be disabled in anyway.

Ah pants, there's no way to make that sound good. Maybe I am just an asshole. However, I will stand by the idea that there's nothing wrong with being disabled, but it's better not to be.

Yea, you're neither of the above are ya? How can you say that 100%, without a doubt if you're neither mentally or physically disabled? Once again, for the sake of curosity, how old are you?
You like asking people that, don't you?

You think you're better or smarter because you're older or something? You think that perhaps due to someone's age they might not think about these sorts of things?

Some women feel sad for a bit after having an abortion, but that doesn't mean they regret the decision or that it was the wrong one. Some women also feel sad after putting a child up for adoption, but they still feel it was the right thing to do. I would be concerned about any woman who didn't feel something after having an abortion, it's a huge decision, but that doesn't mean it's one they regret.

There are many things in this world worth doing that cause us sadness, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them.

You like asking people that, don't you?

You think you're better or smarter because you're older or something? You think that perhaps due to someone's age they might not think about these sorts of things?
I am going to have to agree with Dakini on this one. While some wisdom does come with age, this is not a determinant in any way on one's intellect. Young people such as Dakini and I seem to hold our own intellectually...

If you were a spirit floating about, and had a choice of being a disabled child or a 'normal' child, which would you choose? Truly, it's easier for everyone involved for all children to be born as perfect as possible. For the parents, for the children, possibly for society... There's nothing wrong with disabled people, but- Hm, it's hard to put this in words and not sound like an asshole, because I honestly don't mean it that way... but the more 'perfect' everyone is, the better. I mean, in a perfect world, nobody would be disabled in anyway.

Ah pants, there's no way to make that sound good. Maybe I am just an asshole. However, I will stand by the idea that there's nothing wrong with being disabled, but it's better not to be.

Actually, I would probably choose to be disabled. It made me the person I am today, and I'm proud of who I am.

Yea, as perfect as possible, good luck with that. It's a universial rule that humans are falliable, we are never going to be "perfect". We may try as hard as we might, we may sprout out blonde hair and blue eye childrens, but we will never be "perfect". There was only one perfect life on this planet, and he died for our sins.

Perfect, HA.

Actually, I would probably choose to be disabled. It made me the person I am today, and I'm proud of who I am.

Yea, as perfect as possible, good luck with that. It's a universial rule that humans are falliable, we are never going to be "perfect". We may try as hard as we might, we may sprout out blonde hair and blue eye childrens, but we will never be "perfect".
That doesn't mean we have to be disabled.

There was only one perfect life on this planet, and he died for our sins.
lol! That's a laugh and a half.

You like asking people that, don't you?

You think you're better or smarter because you're older or something? You think that perhaps due to someone's age they might not think about these sorts of things?

Yea, I do like asking that because I just find it funny how my generation (age 22 for those who are wondering) seem to think that they "know" it all. Ahh I just love the fact that you're willing to deny someone life because of a genetic disorder. It would probably be better that your children end up on the doctor's floor anyways, I doubt you could provide the child with spina bifida the love and care that it needs if you're willing to kill it.

Yea, you're neither of the above are ya? How can you say that 100%, without a doubt if you're neither mentally or physically disabled? Once again, for the sake of curosity, how old are you?

People can make decisions like that because they can imagine things like that happening to them now. For example, if a person is an athlete, they might rather die that be paralyzed (crippled). Taking these ideas into account, they decide that they would rather have been dead than born with certain afflictions.

These aren't entirely logical conclusions, given that if they had been born with certain afflictions they wouldn't be the person they are today. However, if the person they are today was somehow born into an afflicted body, they would rather be dead. Or something like that.

Yea, you're neither of the above are ya? How can you say that 100%, without a doubt if you're neither mentally or physically disabled? Once again, for the sake of curosity, how old are you?

22.

No, I am not handicapped in anyway, that said, if I was I wouldn't want to continue living, it's just me. I don't really see any point in living now, but at least i'm generally content. If someone has to wipe my ass for me, I'm done with living.

Yea, I do like asking that because I just find it funny how my generation (age 22 for those who are wondering) seem to think that they "know" it all. Ahh I just love the fact that you're willing to deny someone life because of a genetic disorder. It would probably be better that your children end up on the doctor's floor anyways, I doubt you could provide the child with spina bifida the love and care that it needs if you're willing to kill it.
No, I would probably resent the kid.
I'm only planning on having two children, I'm not going to invest that sort of time and resources to produce one that will require an obscene amount of medical care after birth and be unable to produce grandchildren to boot.

Also, spina bifida isn't quite a genetic disorder, though there is a predisposition, I'll be doing my damndest to prevent even having such a pregnancy in the first place.

Oh, and again, nothing is being killed in an abortion, thanks.

Yea, I do like asking that because I just find it funny how my generation (age 22 for those who are wondering) seem to think that they "know" it all. Ahh I just love the fact that you're willing to deny someone life because of a genetic disorder. It would probably be better that your children end up on the doctor's floor anyways, I doubt you could provide the child with spina bifida the love and care that it needs if you're willing to kill it.
:upyours: Self-righteous prick

That doesn't mean we have to be disabled.


And yet, some of the smartest people of our time are disabled, and some of the stupidest people of our time aren't (Paris Hilton).

I laugh at the fact that you people think that it's better to not be disabled than it is to be disabled. Sure we have our struggles, we have our battles, we have to put up with the double standards, stairs without ramps, or the bullying. But our struggles, our battles, makes us who we are. MY struggles, MY battle, MY disability made me the person that I am today. So *spit* on you guys, for thinking that you know what's best. You can take that assumption and shove it up your ass!

I'm 28, and i'm pro-choice. If someone wanted to have an abortion because their child was disabled, i would respect that right, because i don't believe a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is human. I don't know if i would ever have an abortion, but i know i don't want children, disabled or otherwise, so i'm fairly certain i would at least put them up for adoption.

I don't think there is anything wrong at all with being disabled, and if the child had been born already, obviously i don't advocate killing it, but i don't think abortion is murder, at least not in the early stages of a pregnancy. I wouldn't be pro-choice if i did.

Actually, I would probably choose to be disabled. It made me the person I am today, and I'm proud of who I am.

Yea, as perfect as possible, good luck with that. It's a universial rule that humans are falliable, we are never going to be "perfect". We may try as hard as we might, we may sprout out blonde hair and blue eye childrens, but we will never be "perfect". There was only one perfect life on this planet, and he died for our sins.

Perfect, HA.

Not perfect. Perfect as possible. Also, in this case 'perfection' is being unafflicated by anything, mentally or physically. It has nothing to do with colouring (not to mention that the idea that blonde hair/blue eyes is perfect is stupid). There is nothing wrong with being imperfect, everyone is imperfect in one way or another. However, the more perfect everyone is the better it is for everyone.

Not perfect. Perfect as possible. Also, in this case 'perfection' is being unafflicated by anything, mentally or physically. It has nothing to do with colouring (not to mention that the idea that blonde hair/blue eyes is perfect is stupid). There is nothing wrong with being imperfect, everyone is imperfect in one way or another. However, the more perfect everyone is the better it is for everyone.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what do you consider "as perfect as possible"?

And yet, some of the smartest people of our time are disabled, and some of the stupidest people of our time aren't (Paris Hilton).
The only smart disabled person I can think of is Hawking, and he wasn't born disabled, he has a disease that has made him so. Spina bifida is a birth defect.

I laugh at the fact that you people think that it's better to not be disabled than it is to be disabled.
It is. I can't see how one could think otherwise...

Sure we have our struggles, we have our battles, we have to put up with the double standards, stairs without ramps, or the bullying. But our struggles, our battles, makes us who we are. MY struggles, MY battle, MY disability made me the person that I am today.
Good for you. Doesn't mean I want any hypothetical children of mine to share the same battles as you.

So *spit* on you guys, for thinking that you know what's best. You can take that assumption and shove it up your ass!
This statement is fucking priceless.

You're accusing us of pretending to know what's best as you tell us what you think is best for everyone.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what do you consider "as perfect as possible"?

...I stated exactly what 'perfection' in this case was in my post. Third sentence.

And yet, some of the smartest people of our time are disabled, and some of the stupidest people of our time aren't (Paris Hilton).

I laugh at the fact that you people think that it's better to not be disabled than it is to be disabled. Sure we have our struggles, we have our battles, we have to put up with the double standards, stairs without ramps, or the bullying. But our struggles, our battles, makes us who we are. MY struggles, MY battle, MY disability made me the person that I am today. So *spit* on you guys, for thinking that you know what's best. You can take that assumption and shove it up your ass!

Technically though being not disabled is better then being disabled, since a disability isn't beneficial. Not saying it isn't possible to live a long and full life, but technically having a disability is worse then not having one.

The only smart disabled person I can think of is Hawking, and he wasn't born disabled, he has a disease that has made him so. Spina bifida is a birth defect.

And there are MANY more disabled people who have contribute GREATLY to society. Just because they aren't a fucking celeberity like Hawking doesn't mean they don't contribute to the greater good.


It is. I can't see how one could think otherwise...

Would you care to back that assumption up?


Good for you. Doesn't mean I want any hypothetical children of mine to share the same battles as you.

Well for your sake, I hope you grow up before you decide to have children.


This statement is fucking priceless.

You're accusing us of pretending to know what's best as you tell us what you think is best for everyone.

No, what I am advocating is that killing a human life just because it's disabled is asaine and dangerous. I mean what the hell do you consider disabled? ADD/ADHD is a disability, are you going to kill a human life just because it might have that? What about glasses, that's an visiual disability, are you going to kill a child just because it will need glasses?

I suggest you get off of your high horse and grow up.

Yea, umm, come back when you're 30 or so. Killing someone just because it has a chance of having spina bifida is just cold hearted. I'm 22 and even I admit I am still young and immature in some retrospect. I don't know what you've heard about abortion, but it isn't a do it and forget it kind of deal. Most women who had an abortion end up regretting it and depressed after they realized what they've done.
thats funny, i find that the older i get the less willing i am to consider bringing a handicapped child into the world. as i see it, youth is more idealistic. you dont know what a burden such a child would be to you, your family and itself. when you are old you are more aware of the costs and are less willing to pay them.

depending on when you find out that the fetus has spina bifida, i wouldnt hesitate to abort. im really not up to sacrificing the rest of my life for a child that doesnt exist yet.

Technically though being not disabled is better then being disabled, since a disability isn't beneficial. Not saying it isn't possible to live a long and full life, but technically having a disability is worse then not having one.

Is it really that much better? Sure I'm not "normal", sure I'm anti-social. However, I am ahead of the bell curve in IQ, I tend to take intrest such as history, religion, and politics. I don't give a rats ass about the latest fad, I don't care who is fucking who in Hollywood. I also tend to care about my fellow man some more because of my struggles. Well, I think you get the point. To say that it's better to be disabled than not, is like saying it's better to be blonde than brunette.

No, what I am advocating is that killing a human life just because it's disabled is asaine and dangerous. I mean what the hell do you consider disabled? ADD/ADHD is a disability, are you going to kill a human life just because it might have that? What about glasses, that's an visiual disability, are you going to kill a child just because it will need glasses?

I suggest you get off of your high horse and grow up.

You don't kill a child for having a disability. You prevent children from being born that have certain disabilities. With inherited disabilities, this can eventually effectively phase the disability out of existence, meaning that no child will ever have to deal with that specific disability.

Now, this could be done with people that need glasses, however, given the amount of people who have glasses it would be really freakin' difficult, and probably not worth the effort, given that soon they'll probably be able to fix children's eyes at birth.

Would you care to back that assumption up?
Having working legs is better than having legs that work, true?
Having eyes that work is better than having eyes that don't, true?
Having a brain that works is better than having a brain that doesn't, true?
Having intestines that digest food properly is better than having intestines that don't, correct?
Please show me how any disability is better than normal.

Well for your sake, I hope you grow up before you decide to have children.
I am grown up and I will be a good mother when I do have kids, I can handle kids. If I have to change the diaper of a 7 year old, however, I don't think I could handle that.

No, what I am advocating is that killing a human life just because it's disabled is asaine and dangerous.
I'm not advocating killing a human life that's disabled either. I'm saying that if I were in such a situation, I would have an abortion rather than continue the pregnancy to term.

I mean what the hell do you consider disabled? ADD/ADHD is a disability, are you going to kill a human life just because it might have that? What about glasses, that's an visiual disability, are you going to kill a child just because it will need glasses?
ADHD isnt' a disability, and needing eyeglasses is something that can be corrected for (hence the glasses...) if it's something that can be fixed, then sure, why not.

I suggest you get off of your high horse and grow up.
I suggest you take some of your own advice and stop pretending to be better than everyone else. At least I haven't resorted to adhomeneim attacks since the get go.

Is it really that much better? Sure I'm not "normal", sure I'm anti-social. However, I am ahead of the bell curve in IQ, I tend to take intrest such as history, religion, and politics. I don't give a rats ass about the latest fad, I don't care who is fucking who in Hollywood. I also tend to care about my fellow man some more because of my struggles. Well, I think you get the point. To say that it's better to be disabled than not, is like saying it's better to be blonde than brunette.
And the kid who is 30 with the intelligence of a 2 year old, what about him?

Also, I love how you seem to think you're better than everyone.

thats funny, i find that the older i get the less willing i am to consider bringing a handicapped child into the world. as i see it, youth is more idealistic. you dont know what a burden such a child would be to you, your family and itself. when you are old you are more aware of the costs and are less willing to pay them.

I belong to several groups for Goldenhar people. A while back I asked the parents if they had a second chance, would they change anything. Only one person said they would've aborted. The rest of them say that they are happy that they had their child, that even though they were born disabled, they still love them and care for them. There is MORE to having a child than money.

depending on when you find out that the fetus has spina bifida, i wouldnt hesitate to abort. im really not up to sacrificing the rest of my life for a child that doesnt exist yet.

I'm guessing that unless the child is almost perfect, you would abort it either way. You deserve my spit.

Is it really that much better? Sure I'm not "normal", sure I'm anti-social. However, I am ahead of the bell curve in IQ, I tend to take intrest such as history, religion, and politics. I don't give a rats ass about the latest fad, I don't care who is fucking who in Hollywood. I also tend to care about my fellow man some more because of my struggles. Well, I think you get the point. To say that it's better to be disabled than not, is like saying it's better to be blonde than brunette.

A disability is something that impedes the completion of daily tasks using traditional methods. I'd say that not being impeded is better then being impeded. You can still live a full life having one, but not being impeded is better then being impeded don't you agree?

thats funny, i find that the older i get the less willing i am to consider bringing a handicapped child into the world. as i see it, youth is more idealistic. you dont know what a burden such a child would be to you, your family and itself. when you are old you are more aware of the costs and are less willing to pay them.

depending on when you find out that the fetus has spina bifida, i wouldnt hesitate to abort. im really not up to sacrificing the rest of my life for a child that doesnt exist yet.

Well you better, breeding machine. Your hypothetical children's rights are more important then your own.

I suggest you get off of your high horse and grow up.

I suggest you do the same..

And start by reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida

If you wouldn't want that, then don't suggest anyone should have a child with it.

I belong to several groups for Goldenhar people. A while back I asked the parents if they had a second chance, would they change anything. Only one person said they would've aborted. The rest of them say that they are happy that they had their child, that even though they were born disabled, they still love them and care for them. There is MORE to having a child than money.
I don't think money is the sort of cost Ashmoria was referring to.

I'm guessing that unless the child is almost perfect, you would abort it either way. You deserve my spit.
For trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, you deserve mine.

A disability is something that impedes the completion of daily tasks using traditional methods. I'd say that not being impeded is better then being impeded. You can still live a full life having one, but not being impeded is better then being impeded don't you agree?

No, I do not.

And start by reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida

If you wouldn't want that, then don't suggest anyone should have a child with it.

I actually know someone with that. She is an amazing and wonderful woman, and I cherish my friendship with her. I do not know what I would do without her kind heart, and good nature.

I suggest you do the same..

And start by reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida

If you wouldn't want that, then don't suggest anyone should have a child with it.
Thank you.

I actually know someone with that. She is an amazing and wonderful woman, and I cherish my friendship with her. I do not know what I would do without her kind heart, and good nature.
My uncle Denis was born with it. He died at 4.

No, I do not.

Might I ask then how you think it is not better to be non impeded then is to be impeded?

No, I do not.

Then there is a lapse in your logic. Would you rather have a perfectly made can opener, that can open cans with a few easy twists, or a can opener that experienced an error while being manufactured so that it takes a great deal of time and effort to open a can? In the end, both can openers still work and you'll still get what you want out of the can, but that doesn't change the fact that it is better to have the perfectly made can opener.

I belong to several groups for Goldenhar people. A while back I asked the parents if they had a second chance, would they change anything. Only one person said they would've aborted. The rest of them say that they are happy that they had their child, that even though they were born disabled, they still love them and care for them. There is MORE to having a child than money.



I'm guessing that unless the child is almost perfect, you would abort it either way. You deserve my spit.
you asked the wrong question. you should have asked them if they found out today that they are carrying a fetus with this problem would they carry it to term. you may have gotten a different answer

good parents love their children. the parents of the child in the OP loved their poor handicapped child. that doesnt mean they wouldnt abort a second one if it were detected early enough.

i dont know what "almost perfect" is but to knowingly bring a horribly handicapped baby into the world is wrong.

My uncle Denis was born with it. He died at 4.

I'm sorry for that, buit what was the point of that?

You people, who advocate the death of disabled children, for the reason of money, physical, and other reasons are only looking at the surface. You do not look deep enough. I guess, unless you lived with it your whole life, like I have, you won't be able to. The people who advocate the death of disabled children, have demostrated to me, that they are not able to love and care for a child. How could you, if you're not willing to have a child at the worse possible conditions? I hope, for humanity sakes, that the people who advocate this, do not reproduce. We need to clean out the gene pool.

Then there is a lapse in your logic. Would you rather have a perfectly made can opener, that can open cans with a few easy twists, or a can opener that experienced an error while being manufactured so that it takes a great deal of time and effort to open a can? In the end, both can openers still work and you'll still get what you want out of the can, but that doesn't change the fact that it is better to have the perfectly made can opener.

and there is the lapse in yours. We are not machines. We are humans, we are fallibale, we will always be falliable. To compare humans, to machine, is a horrible argument. Please try again.

and there is the lapse in yours. We are not machines. We are humans, we are fallibale, we will always be falliable. To compare humans, to machine, is a horrible argument. Please try again.

Speaking strictly biologically is it better to not be disabled?

you asked the wrong question. you should have asked them if they found out today that they are carrying a fetus with this problem would they carry it to term. you may have gotten a different answer.

I asked them that if they knew back then, what they know now, would they still have the child.


good parents love their children. the parents of the child in the OP loved their poor handicapped child. that doesnt mean they wouldnt abort a second one if it were detected early enough.

You know, if by some reasons, (and I actually hope this happens) disability become undetectable by mondern means, I am just going to laugh so fucking hard.


i dont know what "almost perfect" is but to knowingly bring a horribly handicapped baby into the world is wrong.

Says who? You, a falliable human being? HA!

I'm sorry for that, buit what was the point of that?
The point being that it's not something I would ever want to deal with.

You people, who advocate the death of disabled children, for the reason of money, physical, and other reasons are only looking at the surface. You do not look deep enough. I guess, unless you lived with it your whole life, like I have, you won't be able to. The people who advocate the death of disabled children, have demostrated to me, that they are not able to love and care for a child. How could you, if you're not willing to have a child at the worse possible conditions? I hope, for humanity sakes, that the people who advocate this, do not reproduce. We need to clean out the gene pool.
I'm not advocating the death of disabled children. I'm saying that I would prevent the birth of any disabled children that would be mine. Huge fucking difference. I'm not saying that other people should do the same, I'm not saying that existing disabled people should be rounded up and executed, I'm just saying that if possible, I'll avoid giving birth to one.
If it caught me by surprise, I'd deal with it, if I can prevent it, then I will.

Furthermore, I really hope that your disability prevents you from breeding. And if not I'm sure your personality will.

I'm sorry for that, buit what was the point of that?

You people, who advocate the death of disabled children, for the reason of money, physical, and other reasons are only looking at the surface. You do not look deep enough. I guess, unless you lived with it your whole life, like I have, you won't be able to. The people who advocate the death of disabled children, have demostrated to me, that they are not able to love and care for a child. How could you, if you're not willing to have a child at the worse possible conditions? I hope, for humanity sakes, that the people who advocate this, do not reproduce. We need to clean out the gene pool.
The only problem with your argument is; there aren't any children killed. A fetus is not a child. It simply has the potential to become one.

Speaking strictly biologically is it better to not be disabled?

If you want to strip it down to the bare bones, then yes, I guess you can argue that. However, who should decide on who should live? You, me, the government? In what right, as humans, do we have to decide who should live and who shouldn't? Why were we angry, shocked, appauld at the Holoacaust, and yet, this is perfectly fine? Isn't it strange how similiar they are?

The day humans decide who should live and who shouldn't, is the day that they will bear his wrath.

However, who should decide on who should live? You, me, the government?

The woman. Her body, her choice.

I'm not advocating the death of disabled children. I'm saying that I would prevent the birth of any disabled children that would be mine. Huge fucking difference. I'm not saying that other people should do the same, I'm not saying that existing disabled people should be rounded up and executed, I'm just saying that if possible, I'll avoid giving birth to one.
If it caught me by surprise, I'd deal with it, if I can prevent it, then I will.

Furthermore, I really hope that your disability prevents you from breeding. And if not I'm sure your personality will.

You know, ironically this was tested, and Goldenhar Syndrome doesn't prevent me from reproducing. I am able to get hard, fuck my wife, and 9 months later, produce a child. If my wife would want a child, then well, I'll give her one.

I'm sorry for that, buit what was the point of that?

You people, who advocate the death of disabled children, for the reason of money, physical, and other reasons are only looking at the surface. You do not look deep enough. I guess, unless you lived with it your whole life, like I have, you won't be able to. The people who advocate the death of disabled children, have demostrated to me, that they are not able to love and care for a child. How could you, if you're not willing to have a child at the worse possible conditions? I hope, for humanity sakes, that the people who advocate this, do not reproduce. We need to clean out the gene pool.

No one here is advocating the death of disabled children. We (at least I am) are advocating the prevention of the perpetuation of disabilities in the world.

What you're saying about how people not willing to raise a seriously disabled child means they can't love a child is stupid. That's like saying that a person who can't fall in love with a seriously disabled person can't fall in love with anyone. You can't expect people to be epitomes of goodness and endless pools of patience and caring, and really, raising a disabled child is taxing, and only part of that is financial.

There's a movie called Lorenzo's Oil, about a boy born with a rare inherited illness called Adrenoleukodistrophy. It's a horrible disease and the emotional rollercoasters it puts his family through are heart-breaking. To expect people to deal with the mental anguish that some disabilities can bring is cruel.

If you want to strip it down to the bare bones, then yes, I guess you can argue that. However, who should decide on who should live? You, me, the government? In what right, as humans, do we have to decide who should live and who shouldn't? Why were we angry, shocked, appauld at the Holoacaust, and yet, this is perfectly fine? Isn't it strange how similiar they are?

The day humans decide who should live and who shouldn't, is the day that they will bear his wrath.
We were shocked because people were killed. A fetus is not a person. A fetus is a parasite leeching off the mother until it will become one.

If you want to strip it down to the bare bones, then yes, I guess you can argue that. However, who should decide on who should live? You, me, the government? In what right, as humans, do we have to decide who should live and who shouldn't? Why were we angry, shocked, appauld at the Holoacaust, and yet, this is perfectly fine? Isn't it strange how similiar they are?

Myself speaking I believe it's up to the parents. If they want to bring the child to term then it's their choice in the matter, it should not be forced on them to have or not to have a child.

The day humans decide who should live and who shouldn't, is the day that they will bear his wrath.

The day has long since passed man. Organ donor lists, death penalty, abortion, do not ressucitate orders ect.

You know, ironically this was tested, and Goldenhar Syndrome doesn't prevent me from reproducing. I am able to get hard, fuck my wife, and 9 months later, produce a child. If my wife would want a child, then well, I'll give her one.
I'm amazed someone who is such a rude, arrogant prick can get a wife.

Women really do love assholes apparantly.

Oh, and by the way, you didn't answer my question about 30 year old with the brain of an infant.

If you want to strip it down to the bare bones, then yes, I guess you can argue that. However, who should decide on who should live? You, me, the government? In what right, as humans, do we have to decide who should live and who shouldn't? Why were we angry, shocked, appauld at the Holoacaust, and yet, this is perfectly fine? Isn't it strange how similiar they are?
If by perfectly similar you mean "not at all alike" then yes, I see where you're going with that.

The day humans decide who should live and who shouldn't, is the day that they will bear his wrath.
Whose wrath?

and there is the lapse in yours. We are not machines. We are humans, we are fallibale, we will always be falliable. To compare humans, to machine, is a horrible argument. Please try again.

Wrong. Humans are machines. Organic machines. And just like no constructed machine is absolutely perfect, no human is absolutely perfect. I am not perfect. I have the disability of nearsightedness, I am fine with being nearsighted, I am happy despite of it, in all it does not bother me. However, this does not change the fact that it would have been better for me and my family for me not to have needed glasses. The difference is small, as nearsightedness can barely be considered a disability in this day and age, but there is still a difference.

Your supposed counter-argument does nothing to change the fact that not being impeded is better than being impeded.

I'd give an organic example, but the fact is that if an animal is born with a disability it's likely to be abandoned to die. Oh wait, that's works as an example in a way. It would have been better for the animal baby to either have died before it could be born or to have been born perfect, rather than have been left to starve to death. Thankfully for humans, disabled people can still live happy lives, huh?

No one here is advocating the death of disabled children. We (at least I am) are advocating the prevention of the perpetuation of disabilities in the world.

Well I guess if you choose the right words, you can make anything look good.


What you're saying about how people not willing to raise a seriously disabled child means they can't love a child is stupid.

Is it really? Let's say you have a wife. You love her to death, you care about her, you're crazy about her. However she gotten into a car accident, and is disabled, has to go through numerous reconstruction surgery and will never look the same. Would you still love her?

You can't expect people to be epitomes of goodness and endless pools of patience and caring, and really, raising a disabled child is taxing, and only part of that is financial.

I know the struggles that my parents has made in raising me, and I thank them every fucking day for it. Who the hell says that life should be easy huh? Who the hell should say that life should be free of pain?

You people, you make me laugh and scared at the same time. You make me laugh with your shallow comments, and you scare me, because if this is what humanity has come to, then we're screwed. We are litterly screwed. You people have finally fucking done it! You have taken the PRECIOUS gift of life for fucking granted!

Well I guess if you choose the right words, you can make anything look good.
You're one to talk about using convenient words to make your case look stronger.

Is it really? Let's say you have a wife. You love her to death, you care about her, you're crazy about her. However she gotten into a car accident, and is disabled, has to go through numerous reconstruction surgery and will never look the same. Would you still love her?
Yes, because looks are everything. :rolleyes:

You people, you make me laugh and scared at the same time. You make me laugh with your shallow comments, and you scare me, because if this is what humanity has come to, then we're screwed. We are litterly screwed. You people have finally fucking done it! You have taken the PRECIOUS gift of life for fucking granted!
Seriously, get over yourself.

I know the struggles that my parents has made in raising me, and I thank them every fucking day for it. Who the hell says that life should be easy huh? Who the hell should say that life should be free of pain?

Life will never be free of pain, but we have the ability to ease the amount of pain we are exposed to.

You people, you make me laugh and scared at the same time. You make me laugh with your shallow comments, and you scare me, because if this is what humanity has come to, then we're screwed. We are litterly screwed. You people have finally fucking done it! You have taken the PRECIOUS gift of life for fucking granted!

Could you please stop with the rediculous generalizations? Humanity isn't screwed, we change, we adapt, we deal. The only time we're gonna be screwed is if something happens that totally wipes us out at once otherwise existance will continue.

You people, you make me laugh and scared at the same time. You make me laugh with your shallow comments, and you scare me, because if this is what humanity has come to, then we're screwed. We are litterly screwed. You people have finally fucking done it! You have taken the PRECIOUS gift of life for fucking granted!

Oh, lay off with the melodrama, and get over yourself. If you can't argue about this without resorting to insults and gross appeals to false sentiment, then you really ought to stop.

Well I guess if you choose the right words, you can make anything look good.



Is it really? Let's say you have a wife. You love her to death, you care about her, you're crazy about her. However she gotten into a car accident, and is disabled, has to go through numerous reconstruction surgery and will never look the same. Would you still love her?



I know the struggles that my parents has made in raising me, and I thank them every fucking day for it. Who the hell says that life should be easy huh? Who the hell should say that life should be free of pain?

You people, you make me laugh and scared at the same time. You make me laugh with your shallow comments, and you scare me, because if this is what humanity has come to, then we're screwed. We are litterly screwed. You people have finally fucking done it! You have taken the PRECIOUS gift of life for fucking granted!

The day cystic fibrosis ceases to exist is the day the world is a slightly better place.

'Never look the same'? If you're just talking about her being disfigured, then sure I would still love her. I'm bloody nonsexual, it's not as if I'm attracted to her physically anyway. However, if she ended up in need of constant/near-constant care, no matter how much I loved her I don't know how long I could go without having a breakdown. In the end, I probably wouldn't be able to stay with her.

However, that's a flawed comparison. Screening embryos/fetuses for defects would be more like meeting a disabled person and then falling in love with them or not. Or perhaps starting a relationship with them or not is more accurate.

Life doesn't need to be free of pain, or need to be easy. However, no pain is better than pain, and ease is well... easier.

I can't understand how getting rid of disabilities is somehow going to destroy the human race.

And life isn't so precious, it happens all the time. Hell, I think life happens more often than death does. Sure I'm glad to be alive, but you know what? If I wasn't alive... I wouldn't care! 'Cause, y'know, I wouldn't be alive! And if I'd never been alive, my parents wouldn't care either. Nor would my sister. Or my friends even. 'Cause I would never have existed! So they never would have BEEN my parents/sister/friends. Yup. Life is fleeting, life means little. <3

Oh, lay off with the melodrama, and get over yourself. If you can't argue about this without resorting to insults and gross appeals to false sentiment, then you really ought to stop.

I think I will take that advice. I will leave this thread, because apparently, I see where my kind stands in society. We cannot make a contribution to society, we cause you too much paint and suffering, so, we must be killed before we are even born. But hey, that's progress right? I mean, just think how happy we'll all be once we killed off every unborn child that will have a disability. But hey, we can try again and again and again. Because, that's progress too! Boy we are just so damn progressive aren't we? Just going through life like it's nothing more than clothes.

I think I will take that advice.
That was all that needed to be said. Just get over yourself.

I think I will take that advice. I will leave this thread, because apparently, I see where my kind stands in society. We cannot make a contribution to society, we cause you too much paint and suffering, so, we must be killed before we are even born. But hey, that's progress right? I mean, just think how happy we'll all be once we killed off every unborn child that will have a disability. But hey, we can try again and again and again. Because, that's progress too! Boy we are just so damn progressive aren't we? Just going through life like it's nothing more than clothes.
Oh please, you were attacking people from the get go. If you can't make a rational argument without resorting to personal insults, let alone starting off with personal insults then good riddance. And again, get over yourself.

I think I will take that advice. I will leave this thread, because apparently, I see where my kind stands in society. We cannot make a contribution to society, we cause you too much paint and suffering, so, we must be killed before we are even born. But hey, that's progress right? I mean, just think how happy we'll all be once we killed off every unborn child that will have a disability. But hey, we can try again and again and again. Because, that's progress too! Boy we are just so damn progressive aren't we? Just going through life like it's nothing more than clothes.

Way to not understand a single thing anyone in this thread was saying! Congratulations, I think you deserve a prize for that.

Honestly, you're pulling conclusions out of your ass. What part of 'There's nothing wrong with people having disabilities, but it would be better if they didn't have to have a disability' that you can understand? 100% functional is better than 70% functional. Even if I'm 90% functional, with points only taken off for bad eyesight, it would still be better for me to be 100% functional.

I think I will take that advice. I will leave this thread, because apparently, I see where my kind stands in society. We cannot make a contribution to society, we cause you too much paint and suffering, so, we must be killed before we are even born. But hey, that's progress right? I mean, just think how happy we'll all be once we killed off every unborn child that will have a disability. But hey, we can try again and again and again. Because, that's progress too! Boy we are just so damn progressive aren't we? Just going through life like it's nothing more than clothes.

Could you please point out where someone has said we must kill children with disabilities here? From what I have seen it's being argued for choice, the choice to be able to if you want carry the child to term, or if you want not to.

I think I will take that advice. I will leave this thread, because apparently, I see where my kind stands in society. We cannot make a contribution to society, we cause you too much paint and suffering, so, we must be killed before we are even born. But hey, that's progress right? I mean, just think how happy we'll all be once we killed off every unborn child that will have a disability. But hey, we can try again and again and again. Because, that's progress too! Boy we are just so damn progressive aren't we? Just going through life like it's nothing more than clothes.

I have never seen anyone so pointedly refuse to understand opposing arguments before. I guess that makes me a noob, but still...

It's not like it's so hard to understand. I am sure that my uncle, who was born mentally and physically handicapped, would have been better off if he hadn't been born handicapped.

And the other point... no one is advocating killing babies.. just preventing them from being born. Before they become babies.

Way to not understand a single thing anyone in this thread was saying! Congratulations, I think you deserve a prize for that.

Honestly, you're pulling conclusions out of your ass. What part of 'There's nothing wrong with people having disabilities, but it would be better if they didn't have to have a disability' that you can understand? 100% functional is better than 70% functional. Even if I'm 90% functional, with points only taken off for bad eyesight, it would still be better for me to be 100% functional.

I understand perfectly. I understand that many people would kill their child if they knew ahead of time that it would be disabled. I understand perfectly how we must create a society of near perfect people. I understand fully by what yall mean. You may try to hide it in pretty words, you may try to back track to say that theres nothing wrong with disabled people. Well, if there's nothing wrong with us, then why abort us? Ahh the contridictions. I guess, unless you are "100% functional" you cannot contribute to society. I guess, technology and law has made people like me, obsolete, and thus should be discarded. I guess in today's society, we just don't accept people for who they are, and why should we, when we have the technology to change it?

Yea, I understand fully and perfectly.

Says who? You, a falliable human being? HA!

Well, what makes your falliable human opinion better then hers?

Could you please point out where someone has said we must kill children with disabilities here? From what I have seen it's being argued for choice, the choice to be able to if you want carry the child to term, or if you want not to.

The fact, that many people on here are advocating the "abortion" (nice pretty words), soley on the fact that the child will be disabled.

The fact, that many people on here are advocating the "abortion" (nice pretty words), soley on the fact that the child will be disabled.
fetus =/= child

I understand perfectly. I understand that many people would kill their child if they knew ahead of time that it would be disabled. I understand perfectly how we must create a society of near perfect people. I understand fully by what yall mean. You may try to hide it in pretty words, you may try to back track to say that theres nothing wrong with disabled people. Well, if there's nothing wrong with us, then why abort us? Ahh the contridictions. I guess, unless you are "100% functional" you cannot contribute to society. I guess, technology and law has made people like me, obsolete, and thus should be discarded. I guess in today's society, we just don't accept people for who they are, and why should we, when we have the technology to change it?

Yea, I understand fully and perfectly.

Obviously, judging from this post... you don't.

I understand perfectly. I understand that many people would kill their child if they knew ahead of time that it would be disabled. I understand perfectly how we must create a society of near perfect people. I understand fully by what yall mean. You may try to hide it in pretty words, you may try to back track to say that theres nothing wrong with disabled people. Well, if there's nothing wrong with us, then why abort us? Ahh the contridictions. I guess, unless you are "100% functional" you cannot contribute to society. I guess, technology and law has made people like me, obsolete, and thus should be discarded. I guess in today's society, we just don't accept people for who they are, and why should we, when we have the technology to change it?

Yea, I understand fully and perfectly.
No you don't understand at all. You just sit here and set up strawmen instead of actually looking at what people have said. So if your so damn full of yourself that your going to make posts good riddence and stay out of the thread like you said you would. Or perhaps you'll keep comming back trying to get the last word because of that huge ego you have.

The fact, that many people on here are advocating the "abortion" (nice pretty words), soley on the fact that the child will be disabled.

They are advocating the choice to be able to abort. Not everyone can deal with raising a disabled child, some can, but others might not. Forcing someone to have the baby is just as bad as forcing them to abort, thus why the choice is so important.

They are advocating the choice to be able to abort. Not everyone can deal with raising a disabled child, some can, but others might not. Forcing someone to have the baby is just as bad as forcing them to abort, thus why the choice is so important.

and who decides who's life is more important?

and who decides who's life is more important?

The parents.

and who decides who's life is more important?
The mother.
Her body her choice.

The parents.

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. Tell him what he's won Johnny. ;)

You still haven't told me how a 30 year old with the intellect of a 2 year old is as good as a 30 year old with the intellect of a 30 year old and makes such great contributions to society by the way.

The fact, that many people on here are advocating the "abortion" (nice pretty words), soley on the fact that the child will be disabled.
since i can abort a perfectly healthy fetus for no particular reason, i dont see what the problem is with aborting one for a very good reason.

I understand perfectly. I understand that many people would kill their child if they knew ahead of time that it would be disabled. I understand perfectly how we must create a society of near perfect people. I understand fully by what yall mean. You may try to hide it in pretty words, you may try to back track to say that theres nothing wrong with disabled people. Well, if there's nothing wrong with us, then why abort us? Ahh the contridictions. I guess, unless you are "100% functional" you cannot contribute to society. I guess, technology and law has made people like me, obsolete, and thus should be discarded. I guess in today's society, we just don't accept people for who they are, and why should we, when we have the technology to change it?

Yea, I understand fully and perfectly.

No, that is not it at all. I am not 100% functional, and I can contribute to sociey. You are not 100% functional, and you can contribute to society. This does not change the fact that we would both be less of a drain on society if we WERE both 100% functional.

There's nothing wrong with a disabled person, however, it is better for a person not to be disabled than be disabled. And if a person decides to have and raise a disabled child, that's their prerogative, and with certain disabilities, that's fine. With other disabilities, I think they're being cruel.

I'll say it again, the day a disease like cystic fibrosis ceases to exist in this world is the day that the world is a slightly better place.

I guess, unless you lived with it your whole life, like I have, you won't be able to.

Now, now. Don't go speaking for the rest of us disabled folk. I have lived the majority of my life in intractable nonstop pain, and I see things a bit differently than you.

I see absoutely no problem with aborting a clump a cells that would one day turn into a seriously disabled child. Are you actually wishing for more children to live a life of sufffering? Are you actually wishing to destroy the lives of adults who are in no position to raise a seriously disabled child? How monstorous! Just because you had to suffer doesn't mean you should force it on others.

My parrents lives would have been much easier had they aborted me. However, I was born prior to Roe V. Wade, and my disability didn't manifest until I was 13 (36 now). So in my case it's moot. But I certanly have no problem with the idea of them chosing to do so were it an option.

However, now that I'm here, it's a whole different kettle of fish. I have no intention of going anywhere. Stopping a *potential* source of pain and suffering isn't the same thing as killing off a thinking and/or feeling child or adult.

Calm down.

.

Now, now. Don't go speaking for the rest of us disabled folk. I have lived the majority of my life in intractable nonstop pain, and I see things a bit differently than you.

I see absoutely no problem with aborting a clump a cells that would one day turn into a seriously disabled child. Are you actually wishing for more children to live a life of sufffering? Are you actually wishing to destroy the lives of adults who are in no position to raise a seriously disabled child? How monstorous! Just because you had to suffer doesn't mean you should force it on others.

My parrents lives would have been much easier had they aborted me. However, I was born prior to Roe V. Wade, and my disability didn't manifest until I was 13 (36 now). So in my case it's moot. But I certanly have no problem with the idea of them chosing to do so were it an option.

However, now that I'm here, it's a whole different kettle of fish. I have no intention of going anywhere. Stopping a *potential* source of pain and suffering isn't the same thing as killing off a thinking and/or feeling child or adult.

Calm down.

.

A well worded retort. Mmm. That smells like smackdown

Now, now. Don't go speaking for the rest of us disabled folk. I have lived the majority of my life in intractable nonstop pain, and I see things a bit differently than you.

I assure you, I only speak from myself.


I see absoutely no problem with aborting a clump a cells that would one day turn into a seriously disabled child. Are you actually wishing for more children to live a life of sufffering? Are you actually wishing to destroy the lives of adults who are in no position to raise a seriously disabled child? How monstorous! Just because you had to suffer doesn't mean you should force it on others.

No, what I am advocating is that the child to be given the right to life. What I am advocating is that the parent should come up with a better excuse to kill a child than "he's disabled". That is the most shallow and vain excuse for an abortion. Heh, it's ironic. During the Holoacaust, the German people actually cried out and rallied against Hitler when he started exterminating the disabled/handicapped people in his camps. How times have changed.


My parrents lives would have been much easier had they aborted me. However, I was born prior to Roe V. Wade, and my disability didn't manifest until I was 13 (36 now).

Even if we had R Vs. W, and even if we did have the technology back then, would it really change things? Your parents still wouldn't have detected the disability until it was too late. Just because you have the means, and just because you have the law (which was created by society) doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it just.

Let me ask you something, did you chose your disability? Did I chose mine? Does anyone with a disability or handicap really chose that kind of life? No. But the pretense of aborting (there's that nice word again, so much nicer than killing) an unborn child who will be disabled seems to make it our fault. "Well, the child will be disabled, so we're going to abort it and try again."

Heh, all through my life, I've heard of diversity, how we're suspose to have a rich and diverse society. Also how we're suspose to accept people diversity, and to cherish that. But I guess that's only if you can't help it. Hey, we have the technology, we have the law, so why not create a society of "almost perfect" people. After all, everyone will be happy.

And people wonder why I'm anti-social.

COMMENTARY: An entirely new area of law ... wrongful birth. The world just keeps getting stranger and stranger! :(

I would not call something which in most countries has been legislated for over 10 years "entirely new"....
For reference: most countries forbid the trial.

I am advocating is that the parent should come up with a better excuse to kill a child than "he's disabled".

No one is advocating killing a child. That would be horriffic. A clump of undeveloped cells is not a child.


Heh, it's ironic. During the Holoacaust, the German people actually cried out and rallied against Hitler when he started exterminating the disabled/handicapped people in his camps. How times have changed.

False analogy. As has been said many times before, a clump of undeveloped cells is not a child/person. The Nazis murderd *EXISTING* humans. There is a huge difference.

Also, no one here is suggesting that all potentially disabled fetuses should be aborted. They are merely saying that parents have the right to decide whether or not they want to bring a severly disabled child into their world. Not the government, not society at large, but the parents. Many parents will still chose to have them just as many people still choose adopt disabled children.


Even if we had R Vs. W, and even if we did have the technology back then, would it really change things? Your parents still wouldn't have detected the disability until it was too late.

That's why I said it was moot in my case.


Let me ask you something, did you chose your disability? Did I chose mine? Does anyone with a disability or handicap really chose that kind of life? No. But the pretense of aborting (there's that nice word again, so much nicer than killing) an unborn child who will be disabled seems to make it our fault.

Abortion doesn't imply fault. And of course I didn't choose to be disabled. But if I had a choice, I would choose not to be. And had I been given the choice before birth of either not being born or being as disabled as I am, I would have chosen not to be born. But I'm here now, so I make the best of it. I push for equal rights and access for the disabled. And I happily spend my disability checks. :p Such as they are.

But I also know things will likely get much worse for me in the future. And at the time of my choosing, I will end my life in the manner I see fit. Not because society thinks I should, but rather because it is what I believe to be best for me. It is my right to do so.

Heh, all through my life, I've heard of diversity, how we're suspose to have a rich and diverse society. Also how we're suspose to accept people diversity, and to cherish that. But I guess that's only if you can't help it. Hey, we have the technology, we have the law, so why not create a society of "almost perfect" people. After all, everyone will be happy.

I respect diversity too. But that dosent mean we should perpetuate suffering in its name. If it is possible to end some of that suffering, we should. There will always be disabled people. There is no getting around that. Some will come from accidents, some from disease, and some from undetected birthdefects. We must accept all such people and work towards a better life for all. But to intentionally bring suffering onto a child when it isn't necessary is just selfish and cruel IMO.

.

False analogy. As has been said many times before, a clump of undeveloped cells is not a child/person. The Nazis murderd *EXISTING* humans. There is a huge difference.

Also, no one here is suggesting that all potentially disabled fetuses should be aborted. They are merely saying that parents have the right to decide whether or not they want to bring a severly disabled child into their world. Not the government, not society at large, but the parents. Many parents will still chose to have them just as many people still choose adopt disabled children.


Perhaps this analogy works:
Suppose a couple lives in a wartorn country, where food and water are scarce and every day is a struggle for survival. This couple decides that they do not wish to have a child in those circumstances.

Are they bad people because of this ?

Perhaps this analogy works:
Suppose a couple lives in a wartorn country, where food and water are scarce and every day is a struggle for survival. This couple decides that they do not wish to have a child in those circumstances.

Are they bad people because of this ?

Much better analogy. :cool:

Perhaps this analogy works:
Suppose a couple lives in a wartorn country, where food and water are scarce and every day is a struggle for survival. This couple decides that they do not wish to have a child in those circumstances.

Are they bad people because of this ?

And yet, as human beings, we have the ability to prevent conception through condoms, birth controls etc. They could even put the child up for adoption. There are many more viable option than killing the child.

A well worded retort. Mmm. That smells like smackdown

Thanks. I occasionally manage to string together a few coherent sentences. :D

And yet, as human beings, we have the ability to prevent conception through condoms, birth controls etc. They could even put the child up for adoption. There are many more viable option than killing the child.


...in a 'war-torn' country?


When you get to heaven, will you still be disabled?

I find it ironic that most anti-aboritionists care so deeply about the "child" before it's born, but don't give a damn about it once it's out of the womb. Who cares if a severely disabled child suffers from the disability to a possibly premature death anyway? Or the mental anguish of the parents who have to care for it? Or society that has to support it? Noo, its well-being is only important when it's a formless lump of cells.

And yet, as human beings, we have the ability to prevent conception through condoms, birth controls etc. They could even put the child up for adoption. There are many more viable option than killing the child.

Adoption is such a nice word too, much better than "carrying a child to term, giving birth, and then dumping it in some foster home where no-one will want it because it's disabled, and will be miserable and lonely all it's life.".


Oh, and I too am curious to hear how having a disability is better than not having one.
How is a person without legs better off than a person with legs?

...in a 'war-torn' country?


When you get to heaven, will you still be disabled?

'And if thine hand offends thee, cut it off, for it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven maimed then to enter Hell whole, where the fire burns eternal and the worm dieth not.

And if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out, for it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven maimed then to enter Hell whole, where the fire burns eternal and the worm dieth not.'

This quotation is of the top of my head as I can't remember the Bible reference but I think it's about right.

But why stop there? I mean, let's say the child isn't going to have blue eyes. Ahh well, let's abort it. Oh, the baby is going to be in a wheelchair, but no actual pain, eh let's abort it. The baby isn't going to be a blonde? Abort it! Pain is nothing new, we've all experienced pain, we all will contiune to experience pain. Pain is a part of LIFE. The only way to avoid pain is to lock yourself in your room and to lay in bed all day. I've seen it over and over again, when society try to make rules like when to end a human being's life (in this case, the unborn baby), it ultimately leads down to a slipperly slope to where a human's life can be terminated just because it isn't a blonde, or it's not going to have the right eye color etc. Let's leave the tree of life alone.

I agree that we can't have everything perfect, but is it really fair to a child to be born when they will never be able to have a fullfilling life? Why bring them into the world if they can't have a life worth living? If you ask me, that's one of the worst things you can do.

I myself have no problem with abortion. Until it has even developed a brain there is no question of it being aware, or fundimentally alive, at least for me. What is different about it from some cells scraped from my arm? One thing: potential for life. So it is the potential of life you want to protect. Am I right so far?

But lets take that to its logical conclusion. If it is killing a child to stop the potential of life for some personal reason, then it is killing it when you do not use contreception, as you are 'killing' the potential to bring forth life. It is killing in fact when you say "I have a headache", because you are not taking the chance to create a life a go. It is killing in fact if you don't spend every hour of your day either pregnant or having sex. And don't even think of getting sterilized, you mass murderer you :p

You may say that I am being stupid, and taking it too far. But I truely cannot see the difference. Untill it is alive in more of a way than the cells of my body are alive, then I cannot see any difference, and hence I cannot see a problem. I may be incorrect, but if so could you please explain to me how? I cannot see any holes in my arguement so far.