26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe it would be a better idea to leave it up to the people concerned.
Being against abortion, I would oppose any testing that is done merely to screen for abortions. Any tests that could facilitate a better outcome for the unborn would be OK with me.
However, this thread is about the state giving free prenatal testing for Downs. Last time I checked there is no medical intervention for Downs, therefore, it is merely an abortion screen.
Last I checked, Denmark was a "free" country. If people don't want the tests, no one is going to make them take it.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe thread is about Denmark promoting eugenics, not about the freedom to do so.
Maybe it would be a better idea to leave it up to the people concerned.
Last I checked, Denmark was a "free" country. If people don't want the tests, no one is going to make them take it.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyYes, certainly.
Actually general, I asked you specifically to debate the merits of abortion. Specifically, I asked if you thought it would be a better world if we could screen the unborn for potential disease and disorders. Would the world be a better place?
What say you?
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhere did I say I was in favor of limiting someones reproductive freedom in this thread? I said that I was personally against abortion, but never once suggested in this thread that abortion should be banned.
No it isn't. It's about your desire to limit reproductive freedom as your answer to my question makes clear.
Again, this thread is about the promotion of euginics in Denmark and abroad.
What say you? Would the world be a better place if more of this was done?
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyIdeally mental illness and any other anomalies which would cause the child, if conceived, to live a short life or an unhealthy and unproductive life, regardless of gravity, would be avoided.
So where is the cut off line? I mean, what if it is determined that the child will be mildly retarted? What if they are just below average? What if it is determined they will die around age 20 etc?
But that's a decision for parents to make- I certainly wouldn't endorse coercing anybody into performing unwanted abortions.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyI don't care what potential parents do as regards the decision of whether to have a child or not. It's none of my or yours business.
Where did I say I was in favor of limiting someones reproductive freedom in this thread? I said that I was personally against abortion, but never once suggested in this thread that abortion should be banned.
Again, this thread is about the promotion of euginics in Denmark and abroad.
What say you? Would the world be a better place if more of this was done?
Denmark is offering a test to people. If they feel like you do, they either A) Can choose not to take it; or B) Take it and choose not to abort if the results are positive for Down's. The government isn't requiring people to do ANYTHING. How that is "promoting eugenics" is beyond me.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoSo basically you would tell the parents the projected life span of the child and projected "problems" they would have and let them decide?
Ideally mental illness and any other anomalies which would cause the child, if conceived, to live a short life or an unhealthy and unproductive life, regardless of gravity, would be avoided.
But that's a decision for parents to make- I certainly wouldn't endorse coercing anybody into performing unwanted abortions.
Of course, such projections would not be 100%. What would be an acceptable percentage of likelyhood, or would you leave that up to the parents as well?
26 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBelow average? Of course I wouldn't want my wife to choose an abortion just for that.
So where is the cut off line? I mean, what if it is determined that the child will be mildly retarted? What if they are just below average? What if it is determined they will die around age 20 etc?
A mild case of Downs Syndrome? Probably not.
A sever case of Downs Syndrome? Probably
Whodey? Absolutely.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyFor the parents to decide. It makes no sense to allow abortions (before a certain point in the pregnancy) and then not allow it if people want an abortion for some specified reason.
So where is the cut off line? I mean, what if it is determined that the child will be mildly retarted? What if they are just below average? What if it is determined they will die around age 20 etc?
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyThe screenings were allegedly placed within public health care to avoid women from making decisions based on lackluster information, not to eliminate Down's. The issue was, that pregnant women had the tests done themselves anyway and then went to the public health system for an abortion if the screening showed something they didn't like for whatever reason (you can easily pay for a screening yourself and you can get an abortion within the first 3 months of pregnancy with no questions asked). The idea was to have doctors and handicap organisations assist the women with relevant information following the screenings, rather than let pregnant women get screenings from dubious sources and make their decision in solitude.
So in your estimation offering free screenings is not promoting aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome? Why then are they offerring free screenings?
Here's the guidelines from the health department (in Danish):
http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2004/Informeret_valg.pdf
Excerpt:
"The parliament finds, that it is necessary to make it clear, that the purpose of fetus diagnosis is not to prevent children with serious illnesses from being born, but to assist the pregnant woman in making her own choice. The parliament finds, that it is not the technical possibilities to discover illnesses in fetuses that should set the limits for fetus diagnosis. Ethical considerations should always be the starting point. It is to be ensured, that pregnant women do not feel obliged to an abortion due to lack of economical or social help."
---
From what I remember from the debate back in 2000-2004, the concern was exactly that women began aborting at the slightest hint of defects; now the concern is, that the system itself is promoting abortions. Of course, it turns out that pregnant women shun any kind of advice when they make their decision anyway.