Skip to main content

View Diary: My Response to Five Questions on Abortion (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There are some weird moments in here. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, gustynpip

    "Murder, of one person or a hundred, should mean life in prison without parole, or the death penalty."

    A scientist said THAT? Leave aside the death penalty - that is so fucking glib. You, scientist, know that there are several legal definitions of murder. You must also know at least something about rehabilitation.

    Again - weird.

    •  "Wanting a child with the correct number of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart, gustynpip

      chromosomes isn’t eugenics, it is correct reproduction."

      Again: weird. There is no such thing as "correct reproduction." Again, YOU, scientist, might want to weigh that against the entire underlying structure of natural selection (which, yes, will likely never favor an extra chromosome - but still).

      •  I wasn't talking about evolution (4+ / 0-)

        I'm talking about reproduction in the here and now.  Two people choose to have a baby, and they don't expect to have a mutant.  Yes, there is a very accepted scientific definition of what is, and what is not correct reproduction.

        Down syndrome is identified as a genetic disease and so far no one has identified any benefits that might be covered under natural selection.

        There's scientific correctness and political correctness.  46 chromosomes is correct, 47 is not correct.

        •  That is just fucking wrong. I worked for many (0+ / 0-)

          years with developmentally disabled adults, meaning with several people with Downs. "Not correct" is not just politically incorrect, it is scientifically and fucking humanistically incorrect. I think we all know you're making an effort at being good and right on this, but, again, glibness on issues like this is not doing you any favors at all. It is in fact hurting your considerably.

        •  And leave everything else I said aside (for a (0+ / 0-)

          moment) - what the fuck have the last 3 billion years of reprodoction on Earth been - all one big fucking mistake?What have a couple hundred thousand years of reproduction by Homo Sapiens been - without an ability to test for fetal genetic disorders - been - "not correct"?

          This is just nuts.

          •  Do you understand what a chromosome disorder is? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LadyMiseryAli

            You have 46 chromosomes, I have 46 chromosomes.  That is the mark of our species, not 47.  Sorry to have to be blunt, but yes, not genetically correct for a member of Homo Sapiens.

            For those couple hundred thousand years, a "defective copy" was left outside in the cold or drowned.  Or the child couldn't compete or keep up.  Those with fetal genetic disorders didn't live long enough to have children, or couldn't have children.  The species moved on with 46 chromosomes.

            So wouldn't it actually be calling evolution a big mistake to not abort a fetus with a genetic disorder, and instead hope for a roll of the dice that moves us forward?

            What are you arguing for?  There are random and beneficial mutations, and there are well understood genetic defects.  They're different things.

            •  If you read my comments, and I think you did, (0+ / 0-)

              you know that I know very well what it is, as I spend many years working with people with Downs. MY complaint with you is that you express yourself with the compassion and tact of a Republican blogger.

              •  And you sound like a pro-lifer (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jmcgrew, LadyMiseryAli

                Is a Downs child a gift from God now also, like rape babies?
                If we start down the path that admiting what Downs is become offensive to those with Downs, then how offensive is it to then abort a Downs fetus?  Isn't that an even bigger slap in the face?

                This is a discussion of civil rights.  You can't aford to be sentimental and worried about offending people.  If a Downs parent is offended that I don't want to be a Downs parent, does that take my choice away?  By what right?

                •  That ws a very weak response. How do I even (0+ / 0-)

                  begin to sound like a pro-lifer? By defending the Downs adults I worked with against being called "not correct"? Fuck you, Norm. THis has nothing to do with you defending your positions - I think people should be able to to abort if Downs is detected, and in just about every other possible scenario, just by the way - this is you not liking like being called out for being a thickfooted dolt.

    •  1st degree murder then? (0+ / 0-)

      Yes I know there are the manslaughters, involuntary and voluntary, and several degrees of murder.  How long do you want my response to be?

      I was referring to pre-meditated 1st degree murder, and I don't think there's much chance of rehabilitation for that.  All trust is gone.  Would you let a convicted 1st degree murderer play with your kids?

      The point is, should a person who kills 1 be punished less than a person who kills 2?

      •  A person who kills two whats? (4+ / 0-)

        If the answer is "two people", then we've just surrendered on an important point, haven't we?  
        I have no problem with a law that considers an assault which causes the termination of a pregnancy a more serious offense, just as an assault which causes permanent disability can be considered a more serious offense.  But once the law defines the embryo as a separate person under the law, we're setting a dangerous precedent.  It is exactly that kind of law that will be used if/when they move to overturn Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court.

        •  Yes, absolutely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LadyMiseryAli

          Civil rights begin at birth, so no, it's not two people.  The question is asking if the criminal deserves a harsher sentence.  Once a person violates our trust and kills, he goes to jail.  What's the point of piliing on after that?

          Does the guy in Colorado get 1/10 the food of a single murder or something?  If a person is going away for decades or life, it's because they can't be safely let loose, not that they're being punished "extra hard".  What sense is that?

          •  Here's the thing... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4mygirls, Norm in Chicago

            The people that are proposing those laws that establish "fetal personhood" by treating the non-consensual termination of a pregnancy as murder aren't actually concerned with what is and isn't a just sentence.  What they're concerned with is putting another arrow in their quiver for the day they march up to the Supreme Court to argue for the reversal of Roe v Wade.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site