| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2005 07:52:52 AM |
| Object: |
Abortion: The New Eugenics |
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Not wishing to publicize a practice most doctors prefer to keep secret,
the medical community releases only sketchy information on the
frequency of eugenic abortion against the disabled. But to the extent
that the numbers are known, they indicate that the vast majority of
unborn children prenatally diagnosed as disabled are killed.
Medical researchers estimate that 80 percent or more of babies now
prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. (They estimate
that since 1989 70 percent of Down-syndrome fetuses have been aborted.)
A high percentage of fetuses with cystic fibrosis are aborted, as
evident in Kaiser Permanente's admission to the New York Times that 95
percent of its patients in Northern California choose abortion after
they find out through prenatal screening that their fetus will have the
disease.
The frequent use of eugenic abortion can also be measured in dwindling
populations with certain disabilities. Since the 1960s, the number of
Americans with spina bifida has markedly declined. This dropping trend
line corresponds to the rise of prenatal screening. Owing to prenatal
technology and eugenic abortion, some rare conditions, such as the
genetic disorder Tay-Sachs, are even vanishing in America, according to
doctors.
"There really isn't any entity that is charged with monitoring what has
been happening," says Andrew Imparato, head of the American Association
of People with Disabilities (AAPD), "A lot of people prefer that that
data not be collected. But we're seeing just the tip of the iceberg.
This is a new eugenics, and I don't know where it is going to end."
"I THINK OF IT AS COMMERCIAL EUGENICS," says Andrew Kimbrell, executive
director of the International Center for Technology Assessment.
"Whenever anybody thinks of eugenics, they think of Adolf Hitler. This
is a commercial eugenics. But the result is the same, an intolerance
for those who don't fit the norm. It is less open and more subtle. Try
to get any numbers on reproductive issues. Try to get actual numbers on
sex-selection abortions. They are always difficult to get. If you are
involved in that commerce, do you really want people to go: So you
aborted how many disabled children? That's the last piece of
information people want out there."
Indeed, intellectual arguments in favor of eugenic abortion often
generate great public outcry. Princeton professor Peter Singer drew
fire for saying, "It does not seem quite wise to increase any further
draining of limited resources by increasing the number of children with
impairments." Bob Edwards, the embryologist who created the first
test-tube baby through in vitro fertilization, has also drawn protests
for predicting that "soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child
that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a
world where we have to consider the quality of our children."
But these comments, far from being unthinkable, reflect unspoken
mainstream attitudes and practice. Only through political gaffes (and
occasional news stories) is eugenic abortion ever mentioned, such as
the time in 2003 when a blundering Hillary Clinton objected to a ban on
partial-birth abortion because it didn't contain an exemption for
late-term abortions aimed at the disabled. Women should not be "forced"
to carry a "child with severe abnormalities," she said.
In an interview with TAS, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania
recalled his 2003 exchange with Hillary Clinton on the Senate floor in
which she endorsed eugenic abortion. "It was pretty revealing. She was
saying there had to be an exemption for disabled children being aborted
as opposed to healthy children being aborted," he says. "When she
realized what she was advocating for, she had to put in the general
niceties. But I don't think you can read her comments and come to any
other conclusion than that the children with disabilities should have
less constitutional protection than children who are healthy."
He added that "the principal reason the Democrats defended the
partial-birth abortion procedure was for pregnancies that have 'gone
awry,' which is not about something bad happening to the life of the
mother but about their finding out the child is not in the condition
that they expected, that it was somehow less than wanted and what they
had hoped for."
What Hillary Clinton blurted out is spoken more softly, though no less
coldly, in the privacy of doctors' offices. Charles Strom, medical
director of Quest Diagnostics, which specializes in prenatal screening,
told the New York Times last year that "People are going to the doctor
and saying, 'I don't want to have a handicapped child, what can you do
for me?'" This attitude is shared by doctors who now view disabled
infants and children as puzzling accidents that somehow slipped through
the system. University of Chicago professor Leon Kass, in his book
Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, writes that "at my own
university, a physician making rounds with medical students stood over
the bed of an intelligent, otherwise normal ten-year-old boy with spina
bifida. 'Were he to have been conceived today,' the physician casually
informed his entourage, 'he would have been aborted.'"
THE IMPULSE BEHIND PRENATAL SCREENING in the 1970s was eugenic. After
the Roe v. Wade decision, which pumped energy into the eugenics
movement, doctors scrambled to advance prenatal technology in response
to consumer demand, mainly from parents who didn't want the burdens of
raising children with Down syndrome. Now prenatal screening can
identify hundreds of conditions. This has made it possible for doctors
to abort children not only with chronic disabilities but common
disabilities and minor ones. Among the aborted are children screened
for deafness, blindness, dwarfism, cleft palates, and defective limbs.
In some cases the aborted children aren't disabled at all but are mere
carriers of a disease or stand a chance of getting one later in life.
Prenatal screening has made it possible to abort children on guesses
and probabilities. A doctor speaking to the New York Times cited a
defect for a eugenic abortion that was at once minor and speculative: a
women suffering from a condition that gave her an extra finger asked
doctors to abort two of her children on the grounds that they had a
50-50 chance of inheriting that condition.
The law and its indulgence of every conceivable form of litigation has
also advanced the new eugenics against the disabled. Working under
"liability alerts" from their companies, doctors feel pressure to
provide extensive prenatal screening for every disability, lest parents
or even disabled children hit them with "wrongful birth" and "wrongful
life" suits. In a wrongful birth suit, parents can sue doctors for not
informing them of their child's disability and seek compensation from
them for all the costs, financial and otherwise, stemming from a life
they would have aborted had they received that prenatal information.
Wrongful life suits are brought by children (through their parents)
against doctors for all the "damages" they've suffered from being born.
(Most states recognize wrongful birth suits, but for many states,
California and New Jersey among the exceptions, wrongful life suits are
still too ridiculous to entertain.)
In 2003, Ob-Gyn Savita Khosla of Hackensack, New Jersey, agreed to pay
$1.2 million to a couple and child after she failed to flag Fragile X
syndrome, a form of mental retardation caused by a defective gene on
the X chromosome. The mother felt entitled to sue Khosla because she
indicated on a questionnaire that her sibling was mentally retarded and
autistic, and hence Khosla should have known to perform prenatal
screening for Fragile X so that she could abort the boy. Khosla
settled, giving $475,000 to the parents and $750,000 to the child they
wished that they had aborted.
Had the case gone to court, Khosla would have probably lost the suit.
New Jersey has been notoriously welcoming to wrongful birth suits ever
since the Roe v. Wade decision, after which New Jersey's Supreme Court
announced that it would not "immunize from liability those in the
medical field providing inadequate guidance to persons who would choose
to exercise their constitutional right to abort fetuses which, if born,
would suffer from genetic defects."
According to the publication Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, "court
rulings across the country are showing that the increased use of
genetic testing has substantially exposed physicians' liability for
failure to counsel patients about hereditary disorders." The
publication revealed that many wrongful birth cases "are settled
confidentially." And it predicted that doctors who don't give their
patients the information with which to consider the eugenic option
against disabled children will face more lawsuits as prenatal screening
becomes the norm. "The human genome has been completely mapped," it
quotes Stephen Winnick, a lawyer who handled one of the first wrongful
birth cases. "It's almost inevitable that there will be an increase in
these cases."
The combination of doctors seeking to avoid lawsuits and parents
seeking burden-free children means that once prenatal screening
identifies a problem in a child the temptation to eugenic abortion
becomes unstoppable. In an atmosphere of expected eugenics, even
queasy, vaguely pro-life parents gravitate towards aborting a disabled
child. These parents get pressure from doctors who, without even
bothering to ask, automatically provide abortion options to them once
the prenatal screening has diagnosed a disability (one parent, in a
1999 study, complained of a doctor showing her a video depicting the
rigors of raising an afflicted child as a way of convincing her to
choose abortion), and they feel pressure from society at large which
having accepted eugenic abortion looks askance at parents with disabled
children.
The right to abort a disabled child, in other words, is approaching the
status of a duty to abort a disabled child. Parents who abort their
disabled children won't be asked to justify their decision. Rather, it
is the parents with disabled children who must justify themselves to a
society that tacitly asks: Why did you bring into the world a child you
knew was disabled or might become disabled?
Andrew Kimbrell points out that many parents are given the complicated
information prenatal screening yields with little to no guidance from
doctors. "We're leaving parents with complete confusion. Numerous
parents are told by doctors, 'We think there is some fault on the 50th
chromosome of your child.' A number of polls have shown that people
don't understand those odds."
"There is enormous confusion out there and nobody is out there to help
them," he says. "This is a huge tangle. And it leads people to abort
out of confusion: 'I guess I better abort, because I don't know. It
sounds really bad and I don't know what the percentages mean.'"
THE NEW EUGENICS isn't slowing down but speeding up. Not content to
wait to see if a child is fit for life, doctors are exploring the more
proactive eugenics of germline genetic engineering (which tries to
create desirable traits in an embryo) and Preimplantation Genetic
Diagnosis (PGD), which is used to select the most desirable embryos
after extensive genetic testing has been done before they are implanted
in mothers' wombs.
"The next stage is to actually start tinkering genetically with these
embryos to create advantages such as height," says Kimbrell. PGD is a
"gateway technology" that will advance the new eugenics to the point
"where children are literally selected and eventually designed
according to a parent's desires and fears," he says. (Meanwhile,
doctors are simultaneously reporting that children born through in
vitro fertilization are experiencing higher rates of birth defects than
the average population, suggesting that for every problem scientists
try to solve through dubious means they create multiple new ones.)
Many countries have banned PGD. But American fertility clinics are
offering it. Two-thirds of fertility clinics using PGD in the world are
in the U.S., says Kimbrell. "Reproductive technology is an unregulated
Wild West scenario where people can do pretty much anything they want
and how they want it," he says.
Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term eugenics in
the 1880s. Sparking off his cousin's theory of evolution, he proposed
improving the human race through eugenics, arguing that "what nature
does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly,
and kindly." As eugenics passes through each of its stages -- from
sterilizing the enfeebled at the beginning of the 20th century to
aborting the disabled at the end of it and the beginning of the 21st --
man is indeed playing God but without any of his providence or care.
Andrew Imparato of AAPD wonders how progressives got to this point. The
new eugenics aimed at the disabled unborn tell the disabled who are
alive, "disability is a fate worse than death," he says. "What kind of
message does this send to people living with spina bifida and other
disabilities? It is not a progressive value to think that a disabled
person is better off dead."
George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/NeumayrNewEugenics.php
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 07:49:00 PM |
|
|
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born.
Evidence?
The
reason is eugenic abortion.
Or you're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 11:01:35 PM |
|
|
In article <dcmftr$114$1@bolt.sonic.net>, wrote:
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born.
Evidence?
The
reason is eugenic abortion.
Or you're a liar.
This is common knowledge, Ray. You can look it up yourself.
http://www.answers.com/topic/down-syndrome
Today, Down Syndrome is considered a ground for abortion
in an increasing number of countries. The number of
children born with Down Syndrome is decreasing due to a
large number of abortions after an early diagnosis of Down
Syndrome during pregnancy. In a hearing before the German
Parliament, doctors stated that 90% of all children
prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. This
number is consistent with the official statistics, wherein
1500 children with Down Syndrome should, statistically,
have been born per year (at a prevalence rate of 1:600),
but only 63 p.a. were listed in the 1995 birth register.
Providing what advocates call outdated and biased
information on the personality of a child with Down
Syndrome, doctors often encourage mothers to have
abortions. Changes in sociological theories and long
standing knowledge from special pedagogics have not had a
noticeable impact on medical professionals' views on
raising a developmentally disabled child. Teachers trained
in special education or Down Syndrome parenting groups can
provide thoroughly researched information and organize
encounters with disabled children, giving future mothers
first hand information on life with a disabled child.
http://www.spinabifidasupport.com/abortionrates.htm
Abortions of babies with Down's syndrome, deformed feet,
cleft lips and palates, as well as other medical
abnormalities, have become more and more commonplace,
according to statistics recently released by the Office For
National Statistics in England and Wales.
The latest numbers from 2002 found that more women are
choosing to abort their babies who may have some form of
handicap. These kinds of abortions spiked by 8 percent over
the previous year.
Of Down's syndrome babies, 690 were aborted in 2002, an
increase of 17 percent over the 2001 total of 591.
More babies were aborted in 2002 who had Down's syndrome
(372) than those that were born with the disease (329).
[...]
London Metropolitan University ethics professor Jacqueline
Laing said aborting babies because they have deformities is
making the world a savage place.
"We are obliterating the willingness of people to accept
disability," Laing noted in the Drudge story. "Babies are
required to fit a description of normality before they are
allowed to be born."
Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee with a British pro-life
group called LIFE, said these increases in abortion
statistics are disturbing to people with disabilities.
"The message is being sent out to disabled people that
they should not have been born," Scarisbrick commented on
Drudge. "It is appalling and abhorrent."
LIFE's Patrick Cusworth added that women are being forced
to kill their babies if any defects are found whatsoever.
"We fear that these statistics indicate that women whose
unborn children are even suspected as having special needs
are being placed under increased pressure to have
abortions," Cusworth contended to The Scotsman. "Such
statistics are an indictment of a society which places a
conditional value upon its citizens, based upon how
'useful' they may prove to be in later life."
I wonder why Ray is so accusatory on this matter. It's almost as if the
fact that abortion is being used for eugenic purposes *disturbs* him.
Also, please *please* note what the pro-choicers are doing when presented
with evidence that eugenics is what we now have-- they become accusatory,
they *make jokes about it*, or they sit in silence. Oh, it's that same
silence that met the recent revelation that the United Nations Family
Planning Fund for which pro-choicers and Planned Parenthood constantly
harangued the Bush administration for withholding funding *just happened*
to be promoting forced abortions in China. Oh, of course PP was shocked,
*shocked* to learn this. Or even the vaguely sympathetic response to
infant euthanasia in the Netherlands. When will they say "no"? When will
they decide it's time to put the breaks on this machine? Mind you, this
will mean admitting the evil, hateful, control freak, anti-sex pro-lifers
might be right for once, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Not that it matters; by that point the market forces created by people's
willingness to pay any price for harvested organs and tissue wouldn't
allow for the brakes to be applied, nor would the leaders of every
third-world country that decides it can't fairly compete in the global
market while also having to care for its weak and sick and poor.
And when I think about these alarming trends, these gathering intimations
of a new tyranny- and pro-choicers' consistently insoucient attitudes
towards them- suddenly all the talk of dignity and autonomy and compassion
and "hopes and dreams" is stripped of all its luster. And I have all the
more difficulty believing the bad guy in all this is *me*.
I want to force my beliefs on others? Believe me, the chips are all
falling into place for someone to *really* force their beliefs in ways you
can't even imagine yet. And you just may find you were complicit in giving
them the means to do so.
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
03 Aug 2005 12:29:25 AM |
|
|
"Sadburger" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-0108052359160001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
In article <dcmftr$114$1@bolt.sonic.net>, wrote:
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born.
Evidence?
The
reason is eugenic abortion.
Or you're a liar.
This is common knowledge, Ray. You can look it up yourself.
So what's the problem with eugenic abortion anyway ? Would you rather favour
aborting the best specimens of the race ?
http://www.answers.com/topic/down-syndrome
Today, Down Syndrome is considered a ground for abortion
in an increasing number of countries. The number of
children born with Down Syndrome is decreasing due to a
large number of abortions after an early diagnosis of Down
Syndrome during pregnancy.
And that would be ... bad ?
In a hearing before the German
Parliament, doctors stated that 90% of all children
prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. This
number is consistent with the official statistics, wherein
1500 children with Down Syndrome should, statistically,
have been born per year (at a prevalence rate of 1:600),
but only 63 p.a. were listed in the 1995 birth register.
Providing what advocates call outdated and biased
information on the personality of a child with Down
Syndrome, doctors often encourage mothers to have
abortions. Changes in sociological theories and long
standing knowledge from special pedagogics have not had a
noticeable impact on medical professionals' views on
raising a developmentally disabled child. Teachers trained
in special education or Down Syndrome parenting groups can
provide thoroughly researched information and organize
encounters with disabled children, giving future mothers
first hand information on life with a disabled child
Why have that child born and force it to live with such a disability ? How
cruel would you have to be to actually do it willfully ? That would be
almost God level cruelty.
"We are obliterating the willingness of people to accept
disability," Laing noted in the Drudge story. "Babies are
required to fit a description of normality before they are
allowed to be born."
It's easy for healthy people to accept other people's disability. Forcing an
unborn to live with disability would be quite nuts. The legal system may
some day evolve to deal with such disregard for others well being.
Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee with a British pro-life
group called LIFE,
Original name, I guess she has some sort of brain disability.
said these increases in abortion
statistics are disturbing to people with disabilities.
People with disabilities have more pressing matters than looking at stats
about abortions.
"The message is being sent out to disabled people that
they should not have been born,"
Oh yeah disabled people are really sensitive about messages from people they
don't know or have never met.... that makes so much sense.
Scarisbrick commented on
Drudge. "It is appalling and abhorrent."
I thought the fetuses were abhorrent and therefore aborted ?
LIFE's Patrick Cusworth added that women are being forced
to kill their babies if any defects are found whatsoever.
Sure they get strapped and have no word to say about it.... get real.
"We fear that these statistics indicate that women whose
unborn children are even suspected as having special needs
are being placed under increased pressure to have
abortions," Cusworth contended to The Scotsman. "Such
statistics are an indictment of a society which places a
conditional value upon its citizens, based upon how
'useful' they may prove to be in later life."
And how much suffering they may feel all the way. Bad society.
I wonder why Ray is so accusatory on this matter. It's almost as if the
fact that abortion is being used for eugenic purposes *disturbs* him.
Also, please *please* note what the pro-choicers are doing when presented
with evidence that eugenics is what we now have-- they become accusatory,
they *make jokes about it*, or they sit in silence.
In what category do I fall ? The problem with pro-life people (they will off
course all die and their lives will have been meaningless in the grand non
existing scheme of things) is that they enforce their views on others when
the issue really doesn' affect them ONE BIT. It's called fascism.
Oh, it's that same
silence that met the recent revelation that the United Nations Family
Planning Fund for which pro-choicers and Planned Parenthood constantly
harangued the Bush administration for withholding funding *just happened*
to be promoting forced abortions in China. Oh, of course PP was shocked,
*shocked* to learn this. Or even the vaguely sympathetic response to
infant euthanasia in the Netherlands. When will they say "no"? When will
they decide it's time to put the breaks on this machine? Mind you, this
will mean admitting the evil, hateful, control freak, anti-sex pro-lifers
might be right for once, so I wouldn't bet on it.
How can you be anti-sex and pro-life ? What is your definition of life that
doesn't include sex in it ?
Not that it matters; by that point the market forces created by people's
willingness to pay any price for harvested organs and tissue wouldn't
allow for the brakes to be applied, nor would the leaders of every
third-world country that decides it can't fairly compete in the global
market while also having to care for its weak and sick and poor.
And when I think about these alarming trends, these gathering intimations
of a new tyranny- and pro-choicers' consistently insoucient attitudes
Yep letting people choose for them selves..... what a tyranny !
towards them- suddenly all the talk of dignity and autonomy and compassion
and "hopes and dreams" is stripped of all its luster. And I have all the
more difficulty believing the bad guy in all this is *me*.
It depends on what your actions are in real life. If your conscience is
telling you something however....
I want to force my beliefs on others? Believe me, the chips are all
falling into place for someone to *really* force their beliefs in ways you
can't even imagine yet. And you just may find you were complicit in giving
them the means to do so.
Please clarify this drivel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "REP" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 05:21:43 AM |
|
|
In article
<tagutcow-0108052359160001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com>,
(Sadburger) wrote:
In article <dcmftr$114$1@bolt.sonic.net>, wrote:
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born.
Evidence?
The
reason is eugenic abortion.
Or you're a liar.
Naw, he's a liar.
This is common knowledge, Ray. You can look it up yourself.
http://www.answers.com/topic/down-syndrome
Today, Down Syndrome is considered a ground for abortion
in an increasing number of countries. The number of
children born with Down Syndrome is decreasing due to a
large number of abortions after an early diagnosis of Down
Syndrome during pregnancy. In a hearing before the German
Parliament, doctors stated that 90% of all children
prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. This
number is consistent with the official statistics, wherein
1500 children with Down Syndrome should, statistically,
have been born per year (at a prevalence rate of 1:600),
but only 63 p.a. were listed in the 1995 birth register.
I just got me some peer-reviewed studies - not as good as some consumer
site, but still:
Down's syndrome: occurrence and outcome in the north of England, 1985-99.
Bell R, Rankin J, Donaldson LJ; Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey
Steering Group.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, London, UK
This study reports changes in the prevalence and outcome of Down's
syndrome pregnancies within a 15-year period in a defined geographical
population in the north of England. Cases of Down's syndrome in births
and terminations of pregnancy occurring between 1985 and 1999, were
identified from the Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey. The total
prevalence for the 15 years was 15.2 per 10 000 births and terminations
of pregnancy [95% CI 14.2, 16.2]. Total prevalence showed an upward
trend over time, due largely to increasing maternal age. Sixty-seven per
cent of cases resulted in live births, and the overall live birth
prevalence was 10.3 per 10 000 live births [95% CI 9.4, 11.1]. The
proportion of cases resulting in termination of pregnancy rose from 15%
in 1985-89 to 38% in 1995-99; the rate of increase was greater in women
aged < 35 years. Forty-five per cent of live born infants had an
additional anomaly recorded. Survival at 1 year was 78% for those with
an additional anomaly recorded, and 96% for those without. There was a
non-significant trend towards improved survival in all infants with
Down's syndrome, from 87% in 1985-94 to 92% in 1995-99.
****** Despite increasing termination of Down's syndrome pregnancies
resulting from the greater availability of antenatal screening and
diagnosis, there has been no significant reduction in live birth
prevalence. These infants have high rates of co-existing structural
anomalies and are at high risk of death in the first year of life. There
is a continuing need to address the reasons for poor survival for Down's
syndrome infants, and to plan for their complex health and social care
needs. These findings are useful for parents deciding on prenatal
screening, as well as for clinicians and health service managers.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003 Jan;17(1):33-9.
Mortality in Down's syndrome in relation to congenital malformations.
Frid C, Drott P, Lundell B, Rasmussen F, Anneren G.
Department of Women and Child Health, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Down's syndrome (DS) is the most common form of intellectual disability.
The syndrome is characterized by congenital malformations, especially of
the heart and gastrointestinal tract, which can result in high mortality
rates in the affected population. Many improvements have been made in
the medical treatment of this syndrome during the past few decades and
the survival of individuals with DS has increased in the industrial
world. The aim of the present study was to investigate mortality in
relation to congenital malformations. Medical records from all liveborn
children with DS delivered between 1973 and 1980 in northern Sweden were
studied, and malformations and causes of death were recorded. Out of the
219 children included in the study, a congenital heart defect was
reported in 47.5% of subjects, 42.1% of whom had complete
atrioventricular septal defect. Gastrointestinal tract malformations
were present in 7.3% of subjects, and was frequently associated with a
cardiac malformation and a very high mortality rate. Other major and
minor congenital anomalies were present in 5.5% and 5.5% of subjects,
respectively. In the 14.5-year follow-up of 213 children, the rate of
survival was 75.6%. Mortality rates within one and 10 years after birth
were 14.6% and 23.5%, respectively. Mortality within 10 years differed
significantly between children with (44.1%) and without (4.5%) a
congenital heart defect. A very high mortality rate was observed among
children with a congenital heart defect, especially when it was combined
with a gastrointestinal malformation.
J Intellect Disabil Res. 1999 Jun;43 ( Pt 3):234-4
--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 09:14:25 AM |
|
|
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Not wishing to publicize a practice most doctors prefer to keep secret,
the medical community releases only sketchy information on the
frequency of eugenic abortion against the disabled. But to the extent
that the numbers are known, they indicate that the vast majority of
unborn children prenatally diagnosed as disabled are killed.
Sounds great, I hope they keep it up
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 08:59:20 AM |
|
|
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Not wishing to publicize a practice most doctors prefer to keep secret,
the medical community releases only sketchy information on the
frequency of eugenic abortion against the disabled.
No, it's more like they don't want you fanatics killing them.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 07:32:14 PM |
|
|
In episode <YUpHe.16669$MW5.10371@trnddc08>, Susan Cohen burst into the
room and exclaimed:
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Not wishing to publicize a practice most doctors prefer to keep secret,
the medical community releases only sketchy information on the frequency
of eugenic abortion against the disabled.
No, it's more like they don't want you fanatics killing them.
I have to ask, if it's a secret, how did this Neumayr know?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 09:25:47 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:45udnbGUDfGTInPfRVn-3w@megapath.net...
In episode <YUpHe.16669$MW5.10371@trnddc08>, Susan Cohen burst into the
room and exclaimed:
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
[snip]
Not wishing to publicize a practice most doctors prefer to keep secret,
the medical community releases only sketchy information on the frequency
of eugenic abortion against the disabled.
No, it's more like they don't want you fanatics killing them.
I have to ask, if it's a secret, how did this Neumayr know?
Shouldn't this now be officially x-posted to alt.conspiracy?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 10:49:22 PM |
|
|
In episode <LQAHe.12620$kc6.2383@trnddc03>, Susan Cohen burst into the
room and exclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:45udnbGUDfGTInPfRVn-3w@megapath.net...
In episode <YUpHe.16669$MW5.10371@trnddc08>, Susan Cohen burst into the
room and exclaimed:
<wordsoftruth114@email.com> wrote in message
news:1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
[snip]
Not wishing to publicize a practice most doctors prefer to keep
secret, the medical community releases only sketchy information on the
frequency of eugenic abortion against the disabled.
No, it's more like they don't want you fanatics killing them.
I have to ask, if it's a secret, how did this Neumayr know?
Shouldn't this now be officially x-posted to alt.conspiracy?
Since it's a Deep, Dark Secret none of us know, it's hard to say...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 07:14:07 AM |
|
|
astounded us with: news:1122900772.643310.249350
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Annnd your problem with this is?????
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 07:23:26 AM |
|
|
"Phÿltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jsJHe.69899$oJ.9398@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
wordsoftruth114@email.com astounded us with: news:1122900772.643310.249350
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Annnd your problem with this is?????
I don't personally see why anyone should be forced to give birth and care
for a severely disabled child.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 08:14:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 08:23:26 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Phÿltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jsJHe.69899$oJ.9398@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
wordsoftruth114@email.com astounded us with: news:1122900772.643310.249350
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Annnd your problem with this is?????
I don't personally see why anyone should be forced to give birth and care
for a severely disabled child.
It's gruesome. These guys are speaking for a god of love that
considers insemination life and no matter how painful or horrible it
comes out it has a 'right' to life.
The christian depraved indifference to human suffering. They think
it's a 'good' thing.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
03 Aug 2005 12:55:33 AM |
|
|
In article <pi60f1ld7nidgctc194tb0vin3l2jol8o7@4ax.com>,
Steve Knight <wooly@sonic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 08:23:26 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Phÿltêr" <phylter@hsotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jsJHe.69899$oJ.9398@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
wordsoftruth114@email.com astounded us with: news:1122900772.643310.249350
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has
become commonplace.
Annnd your problem with this is?????
I don't personally see why anyone should be forced to give birth and care
for a severely disabled child.
It's gruesome. These guys are speaking for a god of love that
considers insemination life and no matter how painful or horrible it
comes out it has a 'right' to life.
The christian depraved indifference to human suffering. They think
it's a 'good' thing.
That's what I was taught way back when in Catholic school. We should
offer up our suffering to their god. That way we would earn more brownie
points in heaven.
Sick *****.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
03 Aug 2005 09:35:21 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-B1198B.22553302082005@news.giganews.com...
snip
That's what I was taught way back when in Catholic school. We should
offer up our suffering to their god. That way we would earn more brownie
points in heaven.
Sick *****.
Damn! I wonder if this is the kind of BS my neices and nephew are learning
in Catholic school? :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
03 Aug 2005 10:50:56 PM |
|
|
In article <3lc33dF11lbbrU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-B1198B.22553302082005@news.giganews.com...
snip
That's what I was taught way back when in Catholic school. We should
offer up our suffering to their god. That way we would earn more brownie
points in heaven.
Sick *****.
Damn! I wonder if this is the kind of BS my neices and nephew are learning
in Catholic school? :P
I wonder too. It seems that the Vatican wants to bring back the bad old
days. Not too long ago some loon of a cardinal (or maybe it was a
bishop) wrote that he would like to bring the Latin mass back. Yuck.
I have a grandnephew who attends Catholic school in New Jersey. I'll
have to ask my niece next time that I see her.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
04 Aug 2005 08:00:25 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-867A44.20505603082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3lc33dF11lbbrU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Damn! I wonder if this is the kind of BS my neices and nephew are
learning
in Catholic school? :P
I wonder too. It seems that the Vatican wants to bring back the bad old
days. Not too long ago some loon of a cardinal (or maybe it was a
bishop) wrote that he would like to bring the Latin mass back. Yuck.
I have glanced at my nephew's homework and it's god-soaked city. Nauseating
:P
I have a grandnephew who attends Catholic school in New Jersey. I'll
have to ask my niece next time that I see her.
My nieces and nephew go to St. Brendan's in Clifton, NJ.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
04 Aug 2005 10:53:08 PM |
|
|
In article <3lehtdF123h9qU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-867A44.20505603082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3lc33dF11lbbrU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Damn! I wonder if this is the kind of BS my neices and nephew are
learning
in Catholic school? :P
I wonder too. It seems that the Vatican wants to bring back the bad old
days. Not too long ago some loon of a cardinal (or maybe it was a
bishop) wrote that he would like to bring the Latin mass back. Yuck.
I have glanced at my nephew's homework and it's god-soaked city. Nauseating
:P
I have a grandnephew who attends Catholic school in New Jersey. I'll
have to ask my niece next time that I see her.
My nieces and nephew go to St. Brendan's in Clifton, NJ.
My niece lives in Parsippany. I don't know the name of the school.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
05 Aug 2005 09:49:10 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-8F1F27.20530804082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3lehtdF123h9qU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-867A44.20505603082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3lc33dF11lbbrU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Damn! I wonder if this is the kind of BS my neices and nephew are
learning
in Catholic school? :P
I wonder too. It seems that the Vatican wants to bring back the bad
old
days. Not too long ago some loon of a cardinal (or maybe it was a
bishop) wrote that he would like to bring the Latin mass back. Yuck.
I have glanced at my nephew's homework and it's god-soaked city.
Nauseating
:P
I have a grandnephew who attends Catholic school in New Jersey. I'll
have to ask my niece next time that I see her.
My nieces and nephew go to St. Brendan's in Clifton, NJ.
My niece lives in Parsippany. I don't know the name of the school.
Ah! That's not very far at all. Just a trip down Route 46 West ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
06 Aug 2005 12:29:49 AM |
|
|
In article <3lhcldF12v93rU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-8F1F27.20530804082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3lehtdF123h9qU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-867A44.20505603082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3lc33dF11lbbrU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Damn! I wonder if this is the kind of BS my neices and nephew are
learning
in Catholic school? :P
I wonder too. It seems that the Vatican wants to bring back the bad
old
days. Not too long ago some loon of a cardinal (or maybe it was a
bishop) wrote that he would like to bring the Latin mass back. Yuck.
I have glanced at my nephew's homework and it's god-soaked city.
Nauseating
:P
I have a grandnephew who attends Catholic school in New Jersey. I'll
have to ask my niece next time that I see her.
My nieces and nephew go to St. Brendan's in Clifton, NJ.
My niece lives in Parsippany. I don't know the name of the school.
Ah! That's not very far at all. Just a trip down Route 46 West ;)
Get your kicks on Route 46! :-)
I remember that road quite well from the time that I lived in Lincoln
Park. It seems that if I wanted to go anywhere, I had to get on either
46 or I-80.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 10:26:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born.
And your problem with it is exactly what, drongo?
(I know: suffering is good, the more people suffer, the closer are to
jesus and similar *****)
The
reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal
technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use
that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much
scrutiny or debate
What is there to debate, idiot? In this country, woman's body still
belongs to her and not to the pope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 10:52:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
Shorter George Neumayr: "Life - no matter how horrible."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hirn" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 11:39:23 AM |
|
|
In article <1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
[SNIP for brevity]
The right to abort a disabled child, in other words, is approaching the
status of a duty to abort a disabled child. Parents who abort their
disabled children won't be asked to justify their decision. Rather, it
is the parents with disabled children who must justify themselves to a
society that tacitly asks: Why did you bring into the world a child you
knew was disabled or might become disabled?
This is an interesting, but difficult issue. Most families do not have
the financial ability to care for a severely disabled child. Most
families with a severely disabled child, regardless of the cause of the
disability, must rely on government and/or private insurance providers
to help defray the high cost of raising a such a child.
In my opinion, those in such a sad situation have the right to do what
they feel is best, including aborting the fetus if they see fit.
Government should keep its nose out of such situations.
Are you willing to help defray the cost of raising and caring for people
with severe birth defects for their entire lives? How about the readers
of the magazine where this article appeared? How many people do you know
how would step forward to adopt an unwanted child with a disabling birth
defect? How many people do you know who would even open up their homes
to such children for temporary foster care? Would you do that? How about
George Nuemayr?
Preaching that such abortions are wrong is easy when you have never been
touched by such a tragedy. Claiming that using a genetic birth defect as
motivation for an abortion is wrong without proposing a way to actually
help those who are in that situation is foolish. Too many anti-choice
advocates refuse to actually offer any kind of alternative to those
women who might carry a deformed fetus to term if a lot of assistance
was provided to raise that child. At a minimum, are you those of you who
are anti-choice willing to donate money to help families who are in such
circumstances pay for some of their extraordinary bills?
Is it really in society's best interest for us to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars to support a profoundly disabled person or use that
money to research ways to prevent such genetic defects from occurring in
the first place? Which is the more humane option? This is a sensitive
issue, if ever there was one.
I truly hope no one on this newsgroup, or anyone else, is ever
confronted with such a decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 07:10:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
[SNIP for brevity]
The right to abort a disabled child, in other words, is approaching the
status of a duty to abort a disabled child. Parents who abort their
disabled children won't be asked to justify their decision. Rather, it
is the parents with disabled children who must justify themselves to a
society that tacitly asks: Why did you bring into the world a child you
knew was disabled or might become disabled?
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net>:
This is an interesting, but difficult issue. ...
Well, it's somewhat deceptive. Opposition to abortion is
associated with opposition to contraception and homosexual
activity. What do these three have in common? Taken as a
whole system, they tend to reduce the consequences of sex,
especially for women. Opposition to them is an attempt to
increase the probability that sexual activity will have a
bad outcome. Concern with fetuses, disabled or otherwise,
is secondary -- or, as you note, there would be much more
concern for what the fetus becomes after it is born.
So what's the function of raising the cost of sex? Why
is it so important to increase its dangers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Toby" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 09:15:02 AM |
|
|
So what's the function of raising the cost of sex? Why
is it so important to increase its dangers?
It has to do with the Judeo-Christian thing somehow. As they say: get 'em by
the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. Sex being such a durable
human obsession, if you contol it you can control lots of other things as
well.
It's interesting to note that sexually permissive societies generally do not
have a strong religious caste. Buddhism, for instance, is generally not
interested in controlling people's lives the way the proselytizing religions
are. You will not find such a sclerotic attitude towards sex in Buddhist
countries--and both homosexuality and abortion are much more accepted in
them.
I've been living in a Buddhist country for 20 years now, and it is quite
refreshing to find people so much less agonized about such a primal
instinct. My family and I enjoy going to the public baths. Basically they
have been segregated since the American occupation of Japan (at the same
time that prostitution was criminalized), but most people don't take it too
very seriously, especially with children. My eight-year old son jumps back
and forth between the men's side and the women's side (I would have given my
eye teeth for the opportunity to see naked women at his age), and one often
finds little girls running around scores of naked men. Families bathe
together at home, and often the girls are given the job of lathering up dad.
It is accepted and perfectly natural.
On the main fashion street of Omotesando, near where all the young teens
hang out there is a store called "Condomania", which is an upscale condom
boutique. Go in and you'll often find young teenage girls unashamedly
browsing the goods.
Abortion is accepted as a necessary evil. I don't know any women who are
actually glad they got an abortion, and there are shrines where they go to
pray for the souls of their unborn children. It is not undertaken lightly,
but neither is it particularly vilified. Mostly unmarried (and married)
couples use condoms, and they are quite responsible in using contraception.
I also spent some time in the Trobriand Islands. Phew! I'd love to get some
of those rightist religofascists over there for a look see ;-)
Toby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 08:37:27 PM |
|
|
Toby wrote:
So what's the function of raising the cost of sex? Why
is it so important to increase its dangers?
It has to do with the Judeo-Christian thing somehow. As they say: get 'em by
the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. Sex being such a durable
human obsession, if you contol it you can control lots of other things as
well.
It's interesting to note that sexually permissive societies generally do not
have a strong religious caste. Buddhism, for instance, is generally not
interested in controlling people's lives the way the proselytizing religions
are. You will not find such a sclerotic attitude towards sex in Buddhist
countries--and both homosexuality and abortion are much more accepted in
them.
I've been living in a Buddhist country for 20 years now, and it is quite
refreshing to find people so much less agonized about such a primal
instinct. My family and I enjoy going to the public baths. Basically they
have been segregated since the American occupation of Japan (at the same
time that prostitution was criminalized),<snip>
The Fourth Noble Truth: The path to the cessation of suffering is the
Noble Eightfold Path. The fourth aspect of the Eightfold Path is: Right
Action; part of that being restraint from sexual relationships that
cause harm to others. The Fifth aspect of the Eightfold path is: Right
livelihood; part of that is not being involved in prostitution.
Buddhists have almost as clear a view of sexual morality as Christians
do; their tolerance of immorality does NOT indicate approval or
acceptance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Toby" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 10:48:05 PM |
|
|
The Fourth Noble Truth: The path to the cessation of suffering is the
Noble Eightfold Path. The fourth aspect of the Eightfold Path is: Right
Action; part of that being restraint from sexual relationships that
cause harm to others. The Fifth aspect of the Eightfold path is: Right
livelihood; part of that is not being involved in prostitution.
Buddhists have almost as clear a view of sexual morality as Christians
do; their tolerance of immorality does NOT indicate approval or
acceptance.
I agree with that. I don't mean to indicate that Buddhists teach that
prostitution or any hurtful sexual practices are paths to enlightenment (at
least until one transcends them). However the Buddhist approach IME is that
one has to discover the consequences of one's actions oneself as they apply
karmically. Christians, instead, seem to favor vigorous action to save
people from themselves ASAP, whether the people see the need or not. This
may be the due to the Buddhist belief in reincarnation--that you will keep
going around until you get it right. I'm also not sure that Buddhists frame
the debate in terms of morality vs. immorality, which are rather loaded
terms which conjure up a specific iconography.
Toby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
03 Aug 2005 12:11:19 AM |
|
|
"Toby" <zdftokyo@gool.com> wrote in message
news:42f03e14$0$37074$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
The Fourth Noble Truth: The path to the cessation of suffering is the
Noble Eightfold Path. The fourth aspect of the Eightfold Path is: Right
Action; part of that being restraint from sexual relationships that
cause harm to others. The Fifth aspect of the Eightfold path is: Right
livelihood; part of that is not being involved in prostitution.
Buddhists have almost as clear a view of sexual morality as Christians
do; their tolerance of immorality does NOT indicate approval or
acceptance.
I agree with that. I don't mean to indicate that Buddhists teach that
prostitution or any hurtful sexual practices are paths to enlightenment
(at least until one transcends them). However the Buddhist approach IME is
that one has to discover the consequences of one's actions oneself as they
apply karmically.
I would guess that all forms of love would be looked on positively if such a
thing as karma existed.
Christians, instead, seem to favor vigorous action to save people from
themselves ASAP, whether the people see the need or not. This may be the
due to the Buddhist belief in reincarnation--that you will keep going
around until you get it right. I'm also not sure that Buddhists frame the
debate in terms of morality vs. immorality, which are rather loaded terms
which conjure up a specific iconography.
Christians on the other hand believe that an all loving God will let you
burn in hell for all eternity if you don't do exactly what is in the old
book (even though that God created your soul and is pretty much responsible
for anything you do anyway).
At least if the propaganda had some coherence....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Toby" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
03 Aug 2005 01:54:01 AM |
|
|
I would guess that all forms of love would be looked on positively if such
a thing as karma existed.
The idea is that certain actions bind you to this plane of existence. The
worst that can happen is that you are stuck here until you stop repeating
the actions that keep you here. Buddhists stress compassion as an important
tool.
Christians, instead, seem to favor vigorous action to save people from
themselves ASAP, whether the people see the need or not. This may be the
due to the Buddhist belief in reincarnation--that you will keep going
around until you get it right. I'm also not sure that Buddhists frame the
debate in terms of morality vs. immorality, which are rather loaded terms
which conjure up a specific iconography.
Christians on the other hand believe that an all loving God will let you
burn in hell for all eternity if you don't do exactly what is in the old
book (even though that God created your soul and is pretty much
responsible for anything you do anyway).
At least if the propaganda had some coherence....
If you find any coherence be sure to let me know.
I actually find lots of positive stuff in Christianity; it's unfortunate
that it got so adulterated with all the other crap. I especially dislike the
fact that they feel that they are beholden to convert me for my own good. At
least the Buddhists are modest on this point, willing to mind their own
business and wait until and if I approach them.
Toby
Toby
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 10:38:44 PM |
|
|
So what's the function of raising the cost of sex? Why
is it so important to increase its dangers?
Toby:
It has to do with the Judeo-Christian thing somehow. As they say: get 'em by
the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. Sex being such a durable
human obsession, if you contol it you can control lots of other things as
well.
It's interesting to note that sexually permissive societies generally do not
have a strong religious caste. Buddhism, for instance, is generally not
interested in controlling people's lives the way the proselytizing religions
are. You will not find such a sclerotic attitude towards sex in Buddhist
countries--and both homosexuality and abortion are much more accepted in
them.
I've been living in a Buddhist country for 20 years now, and it is quite
refreshing to find people so much less agonized about such a primal
instinct. My family and I enjoy going to the public baths. Basically they
have been segregated since the American occupation of Japan (at the same
time that prostitution was criminalized),<snip>
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>:
The Fourth Noble Truth: The path to the cessation of suffering is the
Noble Eightfold Path. The fourth aspect of the Eightfold Path is: Right
Action; part of that being restraint from sexual relationships that
cause harm to others. The Fifth aspect of the Eightfold path is: Right
livelihood; part of that is not being involved in prostitution.
Buddhists have almost as clear a view of sexual morality as Christians
do; their tolerance of immorality does NOT indicate approval or
acceptance.
That sort of thing is the reason I gave up describing myself
as someone who had Buddhist ideas. Just as with Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and probably several other religions,
someone is sure to tell you they're not the _right_ ideas.
The thing to be is a Gnostic, because there are virtually no
Gnostics left, and your chances of getting away without
being chided for wrongthink are correspondingly better.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
02 Aug 2005 05:47:34 AM |
|
|
Lovely post.
Susan
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-CD3FB4.12392301082005@news.giganews.com...
In article <1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wordsoftruth114@email.com wrote:
The New Eugenics
George Neumayr
[SNIP for brevity]
The right to abort a disabled child, in other words, is approaching the
status of a duty to abort a disabled child. Parents who abort their
disabled children won't be asked to justify their decision. Rather, it
is the parents with disabled children who must justify themselves to a
society that tacitly asks: Why did you bring into the world a child you
knew was disabled or might become disabled?
This is an interesting, but difficult issue. Most families do not have
the financial ability to care for a severely disabled child. Most
families with a severely disabled child, regardless of the cause of the
disability, must rely on government and/or private insurance providers
to help defray the high cost of raising a such a child.
In my opinion, those in such a sad situation have the right to do what
they feel is best, including aborting the fetus if they see fit.
Government should keep its nose out of such situations.
Are you willing to help defray the cost of raising and caring for people
with severe birth defects for their entire lives? How about the readers
of the magazine where this article appeared? How many people do you know
how would step forward to adopt an unwanted child with a disabling birth
defect? How many people do you know who would even open up their homes
to such children for temporary foster care? Would you do that? How about
George Nuemayr?
Preaching that such abortions are wrong is easy when you have never been
touched by such a tragedy. Claiming that using a genetic birth defect as
motivation for an abortion is wrong without proposing a way to actually
help those who are in that situation is foolish. Too many anti-choice
advocates refuse to actually offer any kind of alternative to those
women who might carry a deformed fetus to term if a lot of assistance
was provided to raise that child. At a minimum, are you those of you who
are anti-choice willing to donate money to help families who are in such
circumstances pay for some of their extraordinary bills?
Is it really in society's best interest for us to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars to support a profoundly disabled person or use that
money to research ways to prevent such genetic defects from occurring in
the first place? Which is the more humane option? This is a sensitive
issue, if ever there was one.
I truly hope no one on this newsgroup, or anyone else, is ever
confronted with such a decision.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion: The New Eugenics |
01 Aug 2005 07:31:46 PM |
|
|
In episode <1122900772.643310.249350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wordsoftruth114 burst into the room and exclaimed:
EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason
is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to
screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to
abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a
eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.
<snip>
Wordsofcrap wants lots and lots of handicapped people around so he can
feel *special...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
