We got a problem

Post Reply New Topic

Sure, and you can just as likely be "killing" the next Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, or Osama bin Laden, etc.
So give that tired old argument a rest already!

2ukenkerl,
agreed.
one of the residents here has downs and he is known as the second most high functioning of all residents here,he is treated like a toddler when he is the most able,as people only see the physical parts of downs and then think of the stereotypes.
but he is also the nicest res.-he is like a best friend-is very protective,he tries to please and be nice to everyone-and this is something have noticed in almost every single downs person am have been schooled with,went to college with, or lived with,dont know if it is an actual DS trait or not, but have known a lot of DSers,of course DS can be severe-there was one DSer who am used to live with,who was very severe,including intellectually,he couldn't speak well and he would often strip off his clothes in the street,sit down,and then punch his fist down his throat till he coughed up blood,he would refuse to move so he now has a car on motability,he needed two to three staff with him before the car,now its two.

am do not agree with getting rid of a ds child before its born at all,the same as with autism-if it ever happens because they only think of the extremes and not what they could have when the child is older and has had time to develop.
though would not stop it,am pro choice because it is not nice to go through life as the unwanted child of a parent.

There could be a test in ten years? Or I will retire, so please keep funding me.

A test based on?

I am sorry to tell you that science gets in the way.

There will not be a test, and linking it to O'Bama, the Church, is just hype.

Religious Hospitals? Medical standards apply to all. They do not complain about public support for the education of medical personal. They do not complain about the tax benefits, let them close, we can use the space.

How far into business and politics do they have to go to lose all tax exemption?

Religion has been on welfare for a long time, time for some welfare reform.

Me too. And everyone should realize that many parents who would abort an autistic child would probably be the same parents who think about murdering (or actually murder) their disabled children anyway. A rather moot point, I'd say.

I have a problem with abortion, but I'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone else. This isn't about abortion. This is about selective abortion of autistics in the United States. Also, my original research on PP was flawed, but there's still some evidence of wanting eugenics.

Barracuda,
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
Merle

Exactly. Start worrying if they insist upon individuals with Autism Spectrum conditions having to abort their pregnancies.

Some of these posts are making me wonder if people looked at the links I provided. I may just be being literal, but some of the replies seem awfully oblique. Some people got it, but others seem to be evading the issue I presented.

What I said in my first post is this:

Unrestricted abortion in the US by late 2009
A genetic test for ASD designed for prenatal use in 6 years

A couple of years ago, I would have just shrugged this information off. Then I found out about Autism Speaks and DAN and CAN and TACA. There are some people who will not have an abortion no matter what. But there are a lot of people who, seeing the current stereotype of autism, will have an abortion based on that test. This is near genocide of the autism genes, I'd say, within twenty years. This is probably more ASAN or AFF material, but without changing the majority's view on autism within the next six years, the next generation could be screwed.

OK. So what? People who are bringing children into the world (rightfully) want healthy, well-adjusted children. They want "perfect" (ten toes, ten fingers- that sorta thing). I see no crime being committed in this desire.
Tell me how the world would be all that different without autism.

ETA: No- I haven't the patience to read through each and every post or link. I scan for generalities and make my responses accordingly. I'm willing to bet the majority of participants on this forum do the same.

FOCA(L) point topic

In Western society, a choice is a private thing, like the right to vote (or not). If a woman chooses to abort or not, this is private and between her and the doctor(s). Pro-choice is Private choice. No one's business.

These prenatal tests for this/that disease are not always reliable, so to choose based on a test result is not 100% certain. The only guarantees I know of are death and taxes.

For the record, I also refused all prenatal tests, and I was 39 when I was pregnant with my last, and 40 when I gave birth. All my children are now healthy, of average intelligence and free of physical/emotional challenges. But if they were not, so what? I chose to have these kids, and whatever they came with. If someone chose not to, then they would never know anyway.

I'm going to have to lump all I have to say to all specific posts in one post because WP is experiencing high volumes, but you tapped into one of my interests.

First of all... FOCA isn't about pro choice but Pro Abortion. If you don't know what an abortion is, well it sucks and it cuts, and it sure does suck. I'm all about a woman's rights, including the unborn woman's right to live. I'm all about choice as well, a woman can always chose abstinence.

Second...FOCA would get rid of all restricitions on abortions. The act itself says it's to add it as a right, and abortion is legal for any reason before viability (the term used for when the baby could survive outside the mother's womb) and legal for health reasons after viability. The Act does NOT define viability or health reasons, but specifically allows the acting doctor in each case to define that for them. In which case, mental distress will be a very likely reason for a partial birth abortion, which mental distress is a COMMON TREATABLE symptom of pregnancy. It would also require religious hospitals to perform it as a right. Catholic hospitals will shut down. Isn't St. Jude a Catholic Hospital?

Third... Planned Parenthood is evil. They are founded on racial cleansing background, and today's intentions don't seem to deviate far from it's original intentions. Margaret Sanger, the founder, is a troll (first time using that word here). She doesn't even believe in women's health for poor women. Think I'm an idiot? Check these out...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pphistry.txt Note, to quote this link, "The original research for this article began during graduate work in Biomedical History at the University of Washington's medical school."

http://www.stopp.org/rr0302.htm

Sanger, Margaret, The Pivot of Civilization (Elmsford, NY: 1969 [reprint of the 1922 book]).

Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right (New York: Grossman, 1974, 1976). Gordon is a feminist and a strong abortion supporter.



In addition, what's ironic is a black president is about to sign Planned Parenthood agenda. That's embarrassing.

Fourth, many pro life activists are against birth control efforts because the main pro lifers out there are Catholics, and The Church is against that. They have their reasons, but I think it's because The Church has always stood strong on Pro Creation. You have to understand sex before marriage is considered a mortal sin.

LAST, TO ALL, YOU CAN SIGN THE PETITION AGAINST FOCA AT www.fightfoca.com It doesn't matter if you are pro life or pro choice. Foca is about Pro Abortion. It would send a national message to women that abortions are okay and would increase the amount of frivolous abortions that would take place. Kids could do it behind their parents back. And, another restricition it would remove is informing patients of the health risks associated with abortions, and if you look at Planned Parenthood's website, they still can't seem to do that at all. They claim abortions are completely safe which is completely false, but then again, they never cared about the health of women or their babies. In their international efforts, some women have claimed to Congress that PP wouldn't deliver their baby unless they opted for sterilazation procedures. So, Planned Parenthood isn't about choice but controlling who can and cannot have kids in this world. If you are seriously pro choice, you would be anti Planned Parenthood including their agenda. Otherwise, you better make sure you fall into Sanger's fit category if you want to and want your children to reproduce. In case you didn't read the links, that means you better be rich because the poor is considered unfit.

Well, I am pro-abortion. I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I see it as a viable means of controlling the unwanted population (and you can define "unwanted" however you care to). And if it means people are going to start being extra-ordinarily choosey about the kind of child they have- I guess that is their choice to make, not mine.

There is prenatal testing for many conditions already, but just because it's there doesn't mean all or even most parents do it. Even though our insurance fully covered it, we opted out, because we KNEW we wanted our son even if he had Downs or Spina Bifida. Even current genetic testing has a high false positive rate. It can cause a lot more worry than it's worth. But all that said, I think parents should have the option of knowing and acting if that's what they want. For some people adoption is just not an option, I couldn't give up a child, and I couldn't have an abortion except in an extreme medical situation, but that doesn't give me the right to decide what is best for others and their families.

such a...what is it, conundrum? Something like that.

Anyway, all I know is this:
In the USA prior to the decision on Roe v Wade, most abortions were done by quacks or by the mothers themselves. Now picture a woman sticking a straightened-out clothes hanger up into her womb to abort her fetus. Picture women bleeding to death, or being infected (or worse) by some abortion butcher.

Now abortion is legal. No more butchers, no more clothes hangers. When does life begin? At conception, I believe.

What I DO detest is when someone says "we" got a problem. We is pretty inclusive. for instance, I am a male. I have no idea what women go through. So...I butt out.

All I know is this. If a pregnant woman were to have an abortion, that's legal right now. But, if a person were to murder a pregnant woman, that's double homicide.