If you found your Unborn Child had Down Syndrome would you want them Born?

[Spicymemer]

Condoms have a 15 - 19% failure rate.

Is this what they teach in america?

[Raakel]

Told that story before... Our first child had a very high chance of beeing disabled and a lot of complications during my wifes pregnancy. The human geneticist at the prenatal center told us that some parents would have gone for abortion. We where devestated back than and my wife and I came to the conclusion that theres's already a little person growing in the belly and she should decide for herself if she wants to live and we'd accept the consequences.

Turns out she has a strong will and was born perfectly healthy and I gave the parental center a big finger. They talk like lawyers all the time so you are on own anyways. I can't image having that lovely child that now lifes a happy life with us killed! I can accept that people are not strong enough for the consquences but never underestimate the power of life. Every child can be happy as long as its parents are whilling to love it - it's your own suffering that you are projecting into it.

[Draco-Onis]

Is this what they teach in america?

It's called real life and people being people you may want to look into it.

https://www.livescience.com/18661-14...om-errors.html

[Spicymemer]

It's called real life and people being people you may want to look into it.

https://www.livescience.com/18661-14...om-errors.html

Yeah i dont take statistics from 'livescience'

[prwraith]

I'd abort. Why would I intentionally bring all those problems into the world for the child and myself?

[Ghostpanther]

So do I but if I could have stopped them from being born I would there is a difference between being alive and living.

They are alive and living.

- - - Updated - - -

There's quite the difference between someone in a wheel chair and downs. A person in a wheel chair is "all there" in the head.

So the living things which are not all there in the head equal to normal humans, should not exist?

- - - Updated - - -

It's called real life and people being people you may want to look into it.

https://www.livescience.com/18661-14...om-errors.html

Do you think seat belts are 100% effective in preventing deaths in car accidents?

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah i dont take statistics from 'livescience'

That's not statistics rofl that is just the common mistakes people make, unless you think people are just full of clarity when they are sexually aroused.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think seat belts are 100% effective in preventing deaths in car accidents?

Agreed just like most tools human error drops the effectiveness rate especially during sex people aren't exactly using their brains.

[Musik-Diversity86]

If you think they are so irresponsible, why would you ever want to saddle them with a child?

Not to mention, actual accident happen. Like condoms break. I had broken condoms. Stable and exclusive couples sometime have accidents like failure of female contraceptives (it happens).

Rape happens. Really dumb drunk nights happen etc.

Life is not binary. Forcing people then to have and try and raise a child for the next 20+ years is absolutely stupid and outright malicious. Both for the parent and the child.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not a child. It's a nonviable cluster of cells and biological material that has the potential to become a child. By your logic every time a dude jerks off, they kill a few billion potential children. Putting the beginning of life at the arbitrary moment of cell division is as arbitrary as putting the beginning of life at ejaculation. That's why the SCOTUS defined the beginning of life as the moment when a fetus is viable outside the womb, until then it's none of anyone's fucking business what a woman does with her body and what is inside her body. Even then, the existing life has priority of the potential of life, that's why if it comes to a choice between the life of the mother or the baby, the mother takes priority, unless she chooses otherwise.

It's not life. Especially not human life.

See that's where your argument fails though.... unique DNA happens during conception and a different life starts forming. Sperm isn't unique DNA caused by fusion of two different people so that one falls flat.

SCOTUS defining it doesn't mean anything so that falls flat too.

So it's nonviable because..... why? Need to be specific here and it's very important for you to answer this before I reply.

It is my business when they want my money to pay for their stupidity. Anything else?

So no matter the case the child is not as important as the parent? Damn, you are pretty sick.

You need to be more specific to what you define as potential life because the child is already alive inside the womb... you might have known this unless someone told you the vaginal wall magically turns us all into humans.

P.S. your comment to Sorotia is pure fail too. If you think condoms work 100% of the time then you are, again, very stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

My fiancé and I have talked on this before. Kids aren't a priority right now but she did make it clear that we would abort if we knew about some crippling condition like downs. I was glad she was already on the same thought process.

Regardless of if the child deserves a chance or not.... We can at least readily admit we are too selfish to straddle ourselves with a downs child.

For people that do move forward.... I don't think any more or any less. No I don't think you are a hero, but I also don't think you are scum of the earth for giving birth when knowing. Either way, it doesn't really effect me in the long run so I'd just not worry what others would do when I already know how I'd handle it in my situation.

Everyone is different though and I have no reason to judge someone for a choice they made which affects them far more than it would ever effect me.

Ok I was about to say something against your comment but you said you admitted that you are both too selfish to do so then that deserves respect. You both noticed that the choice is because of the fault of your own. That is respectable man.

[Mirishka]

I'm personally not in support of abortion (not saying that I think it should be illegal, just that I personally don't agree with it, so don't job all up in my grill), and I've seen a few folks with Downe Syndrome who were happy and living full lives, so no, I wouldn't want my wife to abort if the baby had Downes.

This. One of the kindest, happiest people I've ever known was a boy in high school with Down Syndrome.

If you're the kind of person who thinks 'its defective kill it'.... then maybe don't have kids. Ever.

[Julmara]

get rid of it a make a new one its not that difficult

[Linri]

personally i would not want a child with down syndrome.. i know i sound horrible

[Musik-Diversity86]

DS people are very courageous and fine people.

That being said:

. If the fetus is not a human yet;
. And being clearly the decision of the mother;
. And both parent had been checked for gene that could create complication;
. I would abort and not take any more chances and adopt;

There is plenty of kid up for adoption and they to need to be taken care of by loving parents.

PS: you anti-abortion nuts can suck it, I have the morale high ground.

1. Still a different life... aka a child
2. Mother has decision to take care of child or have someone else raise him
3. If you support adoption then send your child to be adopted by parents who would love him/her

There are plenty of kids up for adoption to be taken care of by loving parents... if only you felt the same way.

P.S. You just lost the moral high ground kiddo

- - - Updated - - -

Correct answer: fuck no. Buh bye zygote!

Correct answer: fuck no. Buh bye children!

Had to fix it for you

[Sengiratolom]

I'd have a talk with my fiancee (probably wife by the time we expect our 1st child) about it and express my preference to an abortion+ try again, but it is not 1 persons choice to make, if she wants to keep it we'd have to talk about the pros and cons.

[Not A Cat]

Ultimately it wouldn't be my choice, but I would cast a vote to abort.

I really don't want to procreate tbh. I have a small collection of autoimmune disorders and the last thing I want to do is pass that on to my child. It's hard enough for a SO to indirectly shoulder the burden of my shitty organs, MUCH more so her freaking child. And not for nothing, this life isn't exactly easy, I wouldn't want to impose that suffering on to my child.

Ideally I would want to adopt.

How early in a pregnancy can they find these things out anyway?

[Mistame]

We would be better of if everyone opted for abortion if they found their to be child to have stupidity issues.

Nah. It wouldn't be right to abort people just because they think carrying a fetus with Down's to term is a good idea.

See that's where your argument fails though.... unique DNA happens during conception and a different life starts forming.

It's silly to counter an alleged flawed argument with another flawed argument. Unique DNA does not constitute a life

SCOTUS defining it doesn't mean anything so that falls flat too.

On the contrary, the issue at hand in regards to SCOTUS is law, not philosophy. In order for a "life" to be consider a "human being" or "person" in the eyes of the law (and most rational people), it has to be a separate life, capable of survival without a biological host. Besides, bodily autonomy is the ultimate "I Win" button in this regard. No one has the right to live at the expense of another's bodily autonomy.

So it's nonviable because...

"Viable" refers to being capable of surviving outside the womb. This is a pretty basic deduction.

Ok I was about to say something against your comment but you said you admitted that you are both too selfish to do so then that deserves respect. You both noticed that the choice is because of the fault of your own. That is respectable man.

Calling it "selfish" is ignorant. Any reason for not wanting a child is a perfectly valid and rational reason for not having it. Again, bodily autonomy trumps everything else.

[Hunterwep]

No, it's common practice kids like this get aborted at early age where I live.

[Musik-Diversity86]

Nah. It wouldn't be right to abort people just because they think carrying a fetus with Down's to term is a good idea.



It's silly to counter an alleged flawed argument with another flawed argument. Unique DNA does not constitute a life



On the contrary, the issue at hand in regards to SCOTUS is law, not philosophy. In order for a "life" to be consider a "human being" or "person" in the eyes of the law (and most rational people), it has to be a separate life, capable of survival without a biological host. Besides, bodily autonomy is the ultimate "I Win" button in this regard. No one has the right to live at the expense of another's bodily autonomy.



"Viable" refers to being capable of surviving outside the womb. This is a pretty basic deduction.



Calling it "selfish" is ignorant. Any reason for not wanting a child is a perfectly valid and rational reason for not having it. Again, bodily autonomy trumps everything else.

1. I understand you want to belittle one comment by adding "alleged" to his but not to mine.... a little funny too but you did not provide anything here anyway.

2. So since it's law then it makes it morally right?

3. Can I get away with ending someone's life when they are in a vegetative state? or in a coma?

4. It's not ignorant... it's being honest, but then again I guess everything can be seen as "ignorant" nowadays.

[lummiuster]

Ignoring the fact your title reads like someone with downs wrote it, I would suggest aborting it. Life is hard enough without adding a lifelong handicap to it.

I'm dead lol

- - - Updated - - -

Life without any mental problem is hard already. Better abort.. It is very selfish to do otherwise.

[Lupinemancer]

To be perfectly honest. No!

[Mistame]

1. I understand you want to belittle one comment by adding "alleged" to his but not to mine.... a little funny too but you did not provide anything here anyway.

"Alleged" merely means that your claim against the validity of his comment is subjective, when in fact he has a valid point. Your point attempts to use the "life begins at conception" drivel as a wedge for the "abortion is wrong" argument, which is objectively false.

2. So since it's law then it makes it morally right?

It has nothing to do with morality, but rather with asserting that it's not "murder", etc, and therefore acceptable due to the mother's bodily autonomy taking precedence.

3. Can I get away with ending someone's life when they are in a vegetative state? or in a coma?

This isn't relevant to anything.

4. It's not ignorant... it's being honest, but then again I guess everything can be seen as "ignorant" nowadays.

You "being honest" demonstrates subjectivity thereby making your assertion that it's "selfish" ignorant.