90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

I see nothing wrong with killing retards.
They are a waste of human resources.
Its inherently selfish of their parents to bring them into this world.
As when they die all of us will have to take care of their pet.

Rohnyn I think you are a retard. So do us the favor in taking your own advice.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s pretty tasteless to take this child (whoever did that, not the OP) and make him the medium of some political message. It’s exploitation. Pure and simple. [/quote]

It is tasteless and hopefully the kid isn’t aware enough to realize what happened.

Kneeddragger- your definition of perfect creation is messed up. You do realize faulty genetics is responsible for Down’s Syndrome, right?

I don’t understand how those who believe in a perfect creation can look at six-legged Indian child and tell themselves “Yep, God’s handiwork”. That “handiwork” is the bad type of variation which will not be passed down to offspring and is not good for our survival. Realize that if humanity hadn’t killed millions of misshapen babies through infanticide throughout most of it’s history, you wouldn’t be here today.

I apologize for being harsh.[/quote]

Not quite.

In the case of Down’s Syndrome, and except for the rare Robertsonian translocation, the genetic cause is not in the germ line, but it is a somatic mutation of the aging mother (much rarer still, of the father). So disposing of the afflicted child, or restricting childbirth in the affected mother, does not decrease the chance of such babies being born in future generations.

So this is a case of the human burden of misfortune. It does not go away. It is either borne, or aborted after cytogenetic testing.

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
I see nothing wrong with killing retards.
They are a waste of human resources.
Its inherently selfish of their parents to bring them into this world.
As when they die all of us will have to take care of their pet.[/quote]

I see we have a volunteer.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Also, why do you think a supposed supercreator would look like a retarded kid?
[/quote]

Just to be accurate, your Supercreator used the word “image” not “form.”

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
I see nothing wrong with killing retards.
They are a waste of human resources.
Its inherently selfish of their parents to bring them into this world.
As when they die all of us will have to take care of their pet.[/quote]

Leader in the clubhouse for worst post of the year.

And in PWI, that’s saying something.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s pretty tasteless to take this child (whoever did that, not the OP) and make him the medium of some political message. It’s exploitation. Pure and simple. [/quote]

It is tasteless and hopefully the kid isn’t aware enough to realize what happened.

Kneeddragger- your definition of perfect creation is messed up. You do realize faulty genetics is responsible for Down’s Syndrome, right?

I don’t understand how those who believe in a perfect creation can look at six-legged Indian child and tell themselves “Yep, God’s handiwork”. That “handiwork” is the bad type of variation which will not be passed down to offspring and is not good for our survival. Realize that if humanity hadn’t killed millions of misshapen babies through infanticide throughout most of it’s history, you wouldn’t be here today.

I apologize for being harsh.[/quote]

Not quite.

In the case of Down’s Syndrome, and except for the rare Robertsonian translocation, the genetic cause is not in the germ line, but it is a somatic mutation of the aging mother (much rarer still, of the father). So disposing of the afflicted child, or restricting childbirth in the affected mother, does not decrease the chance of such babies being born in future generations.

So this is a case of the human burden of misfortune. It does not go away. It is either borne, or aborted after cytogenetic testing.

[/quote]

My point was not just that the mutation would go away. In fact, that really didn’t have much to do with my main point. The main point was, if you live in a rural society going through a tough time, you cannot afford to keep a person around that can’t haul their own weight in some way: either giving advice (as the elderly did having been there and done that) or in some other way. Young children often died, but especially those with major disadvantages. If a mother had a child she could see was clearly a disadvantage, she was allowed to let it die because this benefitted the group (although this wasn’t discussed explicitely most of the time).

Houstonguy- Now, this may seem completely separated from the current age, and I suppose you could argue that it’s no reason, but the fact is, humans still have this urge. They want to have the best chance to obtain the most power and resources as possible. It used to be that if you had a kid, that kid would obtain resources for you in your old age and help you as they were growing up. Now, it’s pretty much every person for themselves and in addition, a kid is a major hinderance in obtaining power depending on when they are had. So you can preach ethics all day, and I might agree with you. But the fact of the matter is, the human still wants to get ahead, the kid prevents this, and thus some humans will do away with it.

Is it right to do so? I don’t really think it matters in the end whether it’s right or not because you can talk ethics until you’re blue in the face, but human’s survival mechanisms are going to win in the end. Why do you think 30% of America is obese?

Wow. Just, wow.

You know what the best part is? I wouldn’t abort a child. Any child. It’s not the way I’m rigged. But, I can objectively see why other people do and what purpose that serves. Therefore, I know that it’s happened, it’s going to continue happening, and if my answer was the one everyone throughout all of history always chose, I wouldn’t be here. The same is true for future generations.

[quote]ironcross wrote:
HoustonGuy- Where do you think that greed comes from?

[/quote]

Wall Street?

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s pretty tasteless to take this child (whoever did that, not the OP) and make him the medium of some political message. It’s exploitation. Pure and simple. [/quote]

It is tasteless and hopefully the kid isn’t aware enough to realize what happened.

Kneeddragger- your definition of perfect creation is messed up. You do realize faulty genetics is responsible for Down’s Syndrome, right?

I don’t understand how those who believe in a perfect creation can look at six-legged Indian child and tell themselves “Yep, God’s handiwork”. That “handiwork” is the bad type of variation which will not be passed down to offspring and is not good for our survival. Realize that if humanity hadn’t killed millions of misshapen babies through infanticide throughout most of it’s history, you wouldn’t be here today.

I apologize for being harsh.[/quote]

Not quite.

In the case of Down’s Syndrome, and except for the rare Robertsonian translocation, the genetic cause is not in the germ line, but it is a somatic mutation of the aging mother (much rarer still, of the father). So disposing of the afflicted child, or restricting childbirth in the affected mother, does not decrease the chance of such babies being born in future generations.

So this is a case of the human burden of misfortune. It does not go away. It is either borne, or aborted after cytogenetic testing.

[/quote]

My point was not just that the mutation would go away. In fact, that really didn’t have much to do with my main point. The main point was, if you live in a rural society going through a tough time, you cannot afford to keep a person around that can’t haul their own weight in some way: either giving advice (as the elderly did having been there and done that) or in some other way. Young children often died, but especially those with major disadvantages. If a mother had a child she could see was clearly a disadvantage, she was allowed to let it die because this benefitted the group (although this wasn’t discussed explicitely most of the time).

Houstonguy- Now, this may seem completely separated from the current age, and I suppose you could argue that it’s no reason, but the fact is, humans still have this urge. They want to have the best chance to obtain the most power and resources as possible. It used to be that if you had a kid, that kid would obtain resources for you in your old age and help you as they were growing up. Now, it’s pretty much every person for themselves and in addition, a kid is a major hinderance in obtaining power depending on when they are had. So you can preach ethics all day, and I might agree with you. But the fact of the matter is, the human still wants to get ahead, the kid prevents this, and thus some humans will do away with it.

Is it right to do so? I don’t really think it matters in the end whether it’s right or not because you can talk ethics until you’re blue in the face, but human’s survival mechanisms are going to win in the end. Why do you think 30% of America is obese?[/quote]
I’m happy to put right or wrong to the side.

Prove your conjecture.

I can give you enough examples to kill ten threads of people in todays society who have risen to very powerful and wealthy positions in spite of having children.

Now all we need is Makavali and we will have all the normal players in place for 40 pages of argueing over the same damn thing again…

This is probably the biggest pile of shit in PWI for a long time…

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
I see nothing wrong with killing retards.
They are a waste of human resources.
Its inherently selfish of their parents to bring them into this world.
As when they die all of us will have to take care of their pet.[/quote]

Leader in the clubhouse for worst post of the year.

And in PWI, that’s saying something.[/quote]
You go Ad Hom as everyone else did.
What is morally obtuse about that statement?
It is okay to abort vast amounts of people with substantial intellectual potential but in the case of people with disabilities suddenly abortion is absolutely heinous?

In a system that was rational or reasonable, it would be illegal to bring mentally challenged people into the world if neurotypical people were murdered. To do the opposite makes no sense, if you ran a business would you kill your best work applicants, and hire those who are incapable of performing the job at all.

Use your head, or maybe you’re a downy browny so that is not possible.

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
I see nothing wrong with killing retards.
They are a waste of human resources.
Its inherently selfish of their parents to bring them into this world.
As when they die all of us will have to take care of their pet.[/quote]

Leader in the clubhouse for worst post of the year.

And in PWI, that’s saying something.[/quote]
You go Ad Hom as everyone else did.
What is morally obtuse about that statement?
It is okay to abort vast amounts of people with substantial intellectual potential but in the case of people with disabilities suddenly abortion is absolutely heinous?

In a system that was rational or reasonable, it would be illegal to bring mentally challenged people into the world if neurotypical people were murdered. To do the opposite makes no sense, if you ran a business would you kill your best work applicants, and hire those who are incapable of performing the job at all.

Use your head, or maybe you’re a downy browny so that is not possible.[/quote]

I’d like to vote on Rohnym being a retard. I vote he’s a retard and should die.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

I can give you enough examples to kill ten threads of people in todays society who have risen to very powerful and wealthy positions in spite of having children.
[/quote]

An outlier is not an indicator of a trend. Also, how many of those who rose to great power started out on the bottom and popped out a kid at a tender age? How many started out on the bottom and rose to the top with a disabled kid (I’m actually interested in if there are any who meet this)? Once again, maybe a few, but not anywhere close to enough to be anything other than outliers.

You get my point. It’s much easier to survive as a young person in today’s society without a kid.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

I can give you enough examples to kill ten threads of people in todays society who have risen to very powerful and wealthy positions in spite of having children.
[/quote]

An outlier is not an indicator of a trend. Also, how many of those who rose to great power started out on the bottom and popped out a kid at a tender age? How many started out on the bottom and rose to the top with a disabled kid (I’m actually interested in if there are any who meet this)? Once again, maybe a few, but not anywhere close to enough to be anything other than outliers.

You get my point. It’s much easier to survive as a young person in today’s society without a kid. [/quote]

Society has no survival instinct or rights. Animals strive only to pass on genetic material. A parent that is willing to do what it takes to raise a child is a positive in that respect. It can be as easily said that parents willing to kill their children for convenience is a negative survival trait.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
HoustonGuy- Where do you think that greed comes from?

[/quote]

Wall Street?[/quote]

Haha. Well, they are a good example of trying to thrive to the best of their ability in anyway possible.

I have a friend who I used to work with who always claimed, when he was making minimum wage, that if he was running the company, he would take a pay cut and raise everyone else’s wage. Five years later, he’s a head manager of a hotel where he has the power to do this, if he wanted. I asked him if he was planning on raising his house-keeper’s wages and he shook his head. When I asked why not he was like “I can’t afford it.”

I’m like “What? But you got by on minimum wage just fine!”

and he was like “Well now I have more [personal] expenses.”

I see how it is.

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

I can give you enough examples to kill ten threads of people in todays society who have risen to very powerful and wealthy positions in spite of having children.
[/quote]

An outlier is not an indicator of a trend. Also, how many of those who rose to great power started out on the bottom and popped out a kid at a tender age? How many started out on the bottom and rose to the top with a disabled kid (I’m actually interested in if there are any who meet this)? Once again, maybe a few, but not anywhere close to enough to be anything other than outliers.

You get my point. It’s much easier to survive as a young person in today’s society without a kid. [/quote]using your basis of survival, we can absolutely discard outliers. In todays society people can and do survive comfortably with a kid at all levels. What is your “main point” here? Let’s just get to it.

Rhonyn you sound pretty retarded my friend. Your words come off as though you think you are superior to everyone around you. It kind of sounds like you support communism, well if that retard baby won’t help us plow the fields than let’s abort IT. What if your baby was born with defects and only found out a week later after it was born would you kill the baby knowing it will live but will only hamper YOUR life?
Your trying to play god you buffoon.