[QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1431455] It would appear that such disorders are not always hereditary.[QUOTE]
Which I already said.
[QUOTE]As are many other traits.[/[QUOTE]
Obviously
You seem to want to make a distinction between terminating a life because of preventing to breed (which both infancies exposure and abortions would), unfit to be within broader society (which would include parents no wanting the "additional stress that's not burdensome"), or just general benevolence of quality of life. Unlike other genetic abnormalities, Downs has a range of functionality that would be unknown during pregnancy.
I'm more aware of Iceland's near eradication of Downs.
So personhood and the rights of persons are not philosophical topics?
So you now agree that execution by exposure is part of the history of eugenics.
[
I admitted to not commenting on topics I felt off-topic. The OP specifically deals with the issue of personhood and rights and did not deal with policies regarding govt fiscal policies. It's impossible to compare US and European spending policies as the two have different priorities. For one, the largest economy in NATO doesn't even have a single battle ready division (and won't until 2025 despite being sped up) nor does it have a history of meeting the 2% GDP defence expenditure. Most NATO counties don't. But again, that's way too broad a scope. If you want to say it's okay terminate a Downs foetus if the govt won't prioritise relevant subsidies whether it has personhood or not, just say it.
Which I already said.
[QUOTE]As are many other traits.[/[QUOTE]
Obviously
It was not eugenics. That you insist on repeatedly making such a claim is both uninformed and excessive.
In this regard Iceland is little different from many other western countries, so what is the origin of your fixation with Iceland and the aborting of Down syndrome foetuses?
No it was not. It offered some very brief and personal opinions.
So personhood and the rights of persons are not philosophical topics?
That comment is mendacious given that I have denied nothing
[
but have addressed the wider issues pertaining to raising a congenitally impaired child.
However, what is apparent is that you have repeatedly ignored directly addressing many of the points I raised.
However, what is apparent is that you have repeatedly ignored directly addressing many of the points I raised.
I admitted to not commenting on topics I felt off-topic. The OP specifically deals with the issue of personhood and rights and did not deal with policies regarding govt fiscal policies. It's impossible to compare US and European spending policies as the two have different priorities. For one, the largest economy in NATO doesn't even have a single battle ready division (and won't until 2025 despite being sped up) nor does it have a history of meeting the 2% GDP defence expenditure. Most NATO counties don't. But again, that's way too broad a scope. If you want to say it's okay terminate a Downs foetus if the govt won't prioritise relevant subsidies whether it has personhood or not, just say it.
Comment