wasabibunny
Registered User
I should probably add that I am talking about severe disabilities that affects people's ability to function independently in the world.
Having an amnio test ruined my life
- Thread starter thanka2
- Start date
BECAUSE he/she is our child, and is a blessing, and not a burden.
It is not the same having conceived and chose to abandon, vs opting to adopt right from the start.
I am not saying it's an easy choice to continue with the pregnancy, and all the same respect to those who decide they cannot carry on with it, but that is not to say it is a no brainer why people wouldn't choose to terminate.
nicolejoy
Registered User
I think that this attitude is common amongst people who have little interaction with people with a disability. The truth is that disabled people and disabled children have so much to offer society - and the flip side is, there are many able-bodied people who are probably even more of a drain... people addicted to drugs or alcohol (which is in some ways just as "disabling" as a physical disability), people in countries such as Australia who choose not to work but just like on social security (I know many such people)... should they also not be allowed to live?
I think that such attitudes towards people with disabilities can rapidly degenerate into eugenics and supremacy, the very same ideology that Hitler had when gassing millions of people (both disabled and able-bodied) in WW2. In fact, selective reproductive technology is often called "the new eugenics".
I wish that everyone had the opportunity to interact with people with disabilities more frequently - those with both physical and cognitive disabilities. These people increase diversity amongst us and are some of the most valuable assets to our society.
On the contrary, I think it is more selfless than selfish. It is an incredibly hard journey. I know of mothers who have children who became ill and disabled, I can tell you the amount of love I witness (parents, children, relatives, friends) is amazing and touching. The children are a true blessing and constantly remind us to be better people. In fact 2 of them I know are so talented that they have recently held an art exhibition that wad truely impressive. I, for one, do not view them as a burden to society. There are many ways one can be a burden, but in the case of a child, I don't think so. We don't choose our children, we should love them all alike.
erina320
Registered User
You have obviously never worked (or for that matter even been close to a friendship) with a disabled person before. Your logic is truely disturbing. People with disablities give the rest of society (not just the parents of these people) the opportunity to learn and practice compassion. They are genuine people who challenge "society" at large to question what it is to be human, to know love for another, to sacrifice, to give and gain nothing in return and in short to be a better, more selfless human being. I challange you to find anyone who has worked with, knows closely or is related to a person with special needs to say otherwise.
By your logic, we are cold, heartless chattle. Here only to work and contribute like unfeeling animals or robots. Elderly should be disposed of instead of loved and cared for by their extended family, the unemployed should be cast out of socity instead of given a second chance and anyone who ends up terminally ill or otherwise unproductive has no worth to the rest of us so let's get rid of them too. It's sickening...
Ooooh....that stings. (BTW...I said the PC thing on another forum, I think.
I just want to clearly state here that from reading wasabibunny's posts here in this thread that my personal ideals/philosophies etc. really are in no way connected to how she feels about this topic. I am not familiar with wasabibunny but it appears in this regard we have absolutely nothing in common ideologically. Just want to make that clear.
carang
Registered User
no, no, no... i didn't mean that they did.... if the remarks were from elsewhere, my deepest and sincerest apologies. (i thought that was what you said on the porn thread.... if not, apologies! 
)
i could never in a million years think you would think the same as wasabibunny.... i don't know many people who do.
)i could never in a million years think you would think the same as wasabibunny.... i don't know many people who do.
howardcoombs
Registered User
Politically Correct
If you are a Canadian - an old, dead political party
If you are a Canadian - an old, dead political party
Oh, I wasn't astonished by wasibibunny's comments on PC grounds. Rather it's the logic that confounds. Especially"There are already so many orphans and disabled individuals and starving children." Again, by that logic, none of us should be having children at all, given how overcrowded the world is and how many children there are that could be adopted.
The fact is that most of us don't choose to have children for altruistic reasons - there is the "pleasure of reproduction" (that wasabibunny cites) and a number of other reasons which are unconnected to the good of society and more connected to the good of ourselves. Moreover, I'd wager that most people who choose to terminate a pregnancy because the child is going to be disabled do so for reasons more to do with themselves than the good of society. So why should parents who choose to give birth to a child that might have a disability be particularly singled out as selfish?
I don't see what great contribution most of us are making to society anyway. We exist and we are trying to exist comfortably, consuming a chunk of the earth's resources as we go along.
I also find this 'burden on society' line of thinking scary because its extreme form is the Nazi idea that anyone who does not fit the ideal of a perfect human should be be exterminated. There are still countries in the world where society deems women to be a 'burden' resulting in baby girls being aborted and a skewed sex ratio.
I'm not anti-abortion, nor can I say for certain what my choice would have been had I known that my child was liked to have DS. One of my worries would be how my child would manage once I died.
But if there are parents who feel that they can make suitable arrangements for their child, why not? As I see it, the primary responsibility for caring for children with DS falls on the parents and thus they rightly have the freedom to decide whether to terminate or not. I barely see society playing any big role. As a member of society, I don't feel like I'm bearing some great burden as a result of the few children that are born with a disability. One could also argue that people with disabilities stand a good chance of being independent if society was not so individualistic, materialistic and dare-I-say "selfish" and didn't grudge them a little patience, help and some tax dollars.
The fact is that most of us don't choose to have children for altruistic reasons - there is the "pleasure of reproduction" (that wasabibunny cites) and a number of other reasons which are unconnected to the good of society and more connected to the good of ourselves. Moreover, I'd wager that most people who choose to terminate a pregnancy because the child is going to be disabled do so for reasons more to do with themselves than the good of society. So why should parents who choose to give birth to a child that might have a disability be particularly singled out as selfish?
I don't see what great contribution most of us are making to society anyway. We exist and we are trying to exist comfortably, consuming a chunk of the earth's resources as we go along.
I also find this 'burden on society' line of thinking scary because its extreme form is the Nazi idea that anyone who does not fit the ideal of a perfect human should be be exterminated. There are still countries in the world where society deems women to be a 'burden' resulting in baby girls being aborted and a skewed sex ratio.
I'm not anti-abortion, nor can I say for certain what my choice would have been had I known that my child was liked to have DS. One of my worries would be how my child would manage once I died.
But if there are parents who feel that they can make suitable arrangements for their child, why not? As I see it, the primary responsibility for caring for children with DS falls on the parents and thus they rightly have the freedom to decide whether to terminate or not. I barely see society playing any big role. As a member of society, I don't feel like I'm bearing some great burden as a result of the few children that are born with a disability. One could also argue that people with disabilities stand a good chance of being independent if society was not so individualistic, materialistic and dare-I-say "selfish" and didn't grudge them a little patience, help and some tax dollars.
I didn't read it like that Carang. Breathe Thanka!
The whole argument is flawed, from the definition of society and the use of the word statistically to the idea that the the number of steps away from physical perfection a person is should dictate their right to exist in this world. As others have said, it stems from a lack of experience of the world and you can't gift that on a post in a forum.
The whole argument is flawed, from the definition of society and the use of the word statistically to the idea that the the number of steps away from physical perfection a person is should dictate their right to exist in this world. As others have said, it stems from a lack of experience of the world and you can't gift that on a post in a forum.
I didn't read it like that Carang. Breathe Thanka!
The whole argument is flawed, from the definition of society and the use of the word statistically to the idea that the the number of steps away from physical perfection a person is should dictate their right to exist in this world. As others have said, it stems from a lack of experience of the world and you can't gift that on a post in a forum.
Ha ha ha...I'm actually not upset...but because it could be read that wasabibunny and I are on the same page, I really needed to make it clear that we're not. As I communicated to carang elsewhere, "wasabibunny's 'name' and my 'name' used in the same sentence was a bit frightening"--especially on this topic.
There probably is no need for me to clarify where I stand on this issue further.
Thanks charade, you were able to articulate all the things I wanted to say but was unable to.
My child has DS and we didn't have a choice because we didn't know. Would I have chosen differently had we known, I can't answer that. Knowing how our little girl is growing and thriving then there would have been no choice but things could have been very very different and I know parents who face unbelievable struggles day in day out.
People often forget that a child with special needs grows up to be an adult and whilst I know that my little one will not be a doctor, lawyer, banker, I do know that she will in some way contribute something to the world in which she lives. Which is a lot more than so many 'normal' individuals do.
Yes I have concerns about what will happen to her as we grow old and when we die but we will do our very best to ensure that we build relationships in all our lives to ensure that she will never be alone.
It's not about being PC, it's about a level of ignorance that you have to be perfect to be of value and as many have already cited on here this kind of thinking leads to nothing good.
My child has DS and we didn't have a choice because we didn't know. Would I have chosen differently had we known, I can't answer that. Knowing how our little girl is growing and thriving then there would have been no choice but things could have been very very different and I know parents who face unbelievable struggles day in day out.
People often forget that a child with special needs grows up to be an adult and whilst I know that my little one will not be a doctor, lawyer, banker, I do know that she will in some way contribute something to the world in which she lives. Which is a lot more than so many 'normal' individuals do.
Yes I have concerns about what will happen to her as we grow old and when we die but we will do our very best to ensure that we build relationships in all our lives to ensure that she will never be alone.
It's not about being PC, it's about a level of ignorance that you have to be perfect to be of value and as many have already cited on here this kind of thinking leads to nothing good.
I didn't take Oscar test either as I was under 35 and no family history though we are fully aware of certain risk Several nurses couldn't understand y i didn't do it despite a common practice many(i suppose under that gynae clinic) under 35 did it One was about to help me register as if it's a sure thing people wud do and I decline it And others keep asking me why I didn't do whenever they realize I didn't.
My gynae gave us a very clear picture of the options & we asked loads & loads of questions and made Given that both our religions don't favour abortions and that we as parents to be are fully prepared to accept and love the child whom we are blessed with in whatever condition to come and share this life with us But like carang i prefer to deal with it when it happened
As a pregnant mum I felt so much love for the little life in me and that I want to protect and care for it with all my life I am not fully sure if i will do a gd job but i am prepared to do my best in the event of DS or any other disability
I do find that bringing a life to the world is so much of a responsibility and decisions revolving it should be made seriously and stood by firmly I wonder if the couple in subject faltered in a moment of uncertainty of themselves coping with an imposible keep deemed that way by a medical professional who supposedly knows 'better' I guess the mental pain especially for the mother now and in days to come may not be less intense than that had they stood by their decision not to give up and what they had to cope with And who knows they might have also missed the joys as what nicolejoy and family are having now
Lastly a point on statistics- society is made up of humans,alot more complex than sheer numbers I personally give high respect and admiration to parents who know they cn't have the 'ordinary'lives and the convenience and 'blessings' of a 'normal' child but I think they are EXTRAORDINARY people and they contribute immensely to the society and teach us what is unconditional love and taking full responsibility.
On such selfless love and great sacrifices I salute nicolejoy and the like!
My gynae gave us a very clear picture of the options & we asked loads & loads of questions and made Given that both our religions don't favour abortions and that we as parents to be are fully prepared to accept and love the child whom we are blessed with in whatever condition to come and share this life with us But like carang i prefer to deal with it when it happened
As a pregnant mum I felt so much love for the little life in me and that I want to protect and care for it with all my life I am not fully sure if i will do a gd job but i am prepared to do my best in the event of DS or any other disability
I do find that bringing a life to the world is so much of a responsibility and decisions revolving it should be made seriously and stood by firmly I wonder if the couple in subject faltered in a moment of uncertainty of themselves coping with an imposible keep deemed that way by a medical professional who supposedly knows 'better' I guess the mental pain especially for the mother now and in days to come may not be less intense than that had they stood by their decision not to give up and what they had to cope with And who knows they might have also missed the joys as what nicolejoy and family are having now
Lastly a point on statistics- society is made up of humans,alot more complex than sheer numbers I personally give high respect and admiration to parents who know they cn't have the 'ordinary'lives and the convenience and 'blessings' of a 'normal' child but I think they are EXTRAORDINARY people and they contribute immensely to the society and teach us what is unconditional love and taking full responsibility.
On such selfless love and great sacrifices I salute nicolejoy and the like!
wasabibunny
Registered User
I love how once people get emotionally involved in an argument they don't really care what the nuances of an argument are and just fall back on how "horrible" they think another's opinion is -- by interpretating what someone is saying however they want. I am impressed the Hitler comparison came so soon. But it's okay. There is no better way to make an impression than comparing what I said to the actions of one of the most evil dictators mankind has known. Here's a good question, if you knew your child would become the next Hitler, would you keep the baby? (and to be clear, I am in no way relating keeping a disable child to having the next Hitler. Completely separate question, before someone tries to hunt me down and destroy my family. I am asking because I would like to know your thoughts because it is an interesting question.)
First of all, I did not say the "pleasure of reproducing". I said the "gratification of reproducing". It is fulfilling in an emotional and mental way to have children. You become less egotistical and offspring often give a greater meaning to life because you are striving for a cause (e.g. the happiness of your children) that is greater than your own.
Did I say we should kill all disable people? No. I said I don't understand why someone would want to keep a disable baby knowingly. Anyone can have a disable baby, whether your chances are high or low. I did not say everyone should have an oscar scan. People can take their chances. I didn't have an amino. How many parents who unknowingly had a disable child think "I wish they were normal"? I am sure not all. But I am sure it?s not zero either.
Disabilities post a greater challenge to life. Life itself can be challenging. Personally I would not chose to have a child if I know he would be an insufferable alcoholic either. But I am just stating an opinion. I am not espousing that everyone should have the same opinion. We are entitle to our choices and their consequences.
What I said does not translate in ANY WAY that disabled people do not deserve to be loved or that parents of disable children "did the wrong thing". On the contrary. There are lots of ALREADY existing children that are suffering and need care and love. I would not want to bring another disabled person into the world. I agree that to raise a disable person you probably have to be stronger and more compassionate than a regular parent. It must be a lot of work. But if you are such a compassionate person already, why not help those already in need? We are not talking about a EXISTING human. We are talking about a potentiality that has not yet materialized.
Is it more rewarding raising someone disabled than having a regular child? Are we not all thrilled when our children masters a new challenge or hits a developmental milestone? And I would like to rearticulate that I am taking about SEVERE disabilities and handicaps that affect independence. That means when the parents are gone, they will be a ward of the state and post a burden to society because they cannot care for themselves. I don't consider mild learning difficulties or malformations a true disability. That may very well be evolutionary diversity. What I am referring to are disabilities that makes one dysfunctional in society and posts harm to themselves or other. Once again, be reminded that I am talking about someone like this COMING into existence. Not those that are alive and among us that require our love,help and care.
As for the argument that you keep a disable child because they are YOUR CHILD, then by the same logic you must also be anti-abortion and anti-choice. Does that mean every woman (even raped victims) necessarily needs to keep their child because it is HERS? Does a woman not have a right over their body?
I am not arguing that you should not be allowed to keep a disable baby. Everyone had their own reasons for their actions. I only said that I don't understand why anyone would make that choice knowingly. And maybe I said it to hear your views.
Waiting for more posts on how horrible I must be as a person. Yours truly xx
First of all, I did not say the "pleasure of reproducing". I said the "gratification of reproducing". It is fulfilling in an emotional and mental way to have children. You become less egotistical and offspring often give a greater meaning to life because you are striving for a cause (e.g. the happiness of your children) that is greater than your own.
Did I say we should kill all disable people? No. I said I don't understand why someone would want to keep a disable baby knowingly. Anyone can have a disable baby, whether your chances are high or low. I did not say everyone should have an oscar scan. People can take their chances. I didn't have an amino. How many parents who unknowingly had a disable child think "I wish they were normal"? I am sure not all. But I am sure it?s not zero either.
Disabilities post a greater challenge to life. Life itself can be challenging. Personally I would not chose to have a child if I know he would be an insufferable alcoholic either. But I am just stating an opinion. I am not espousing that everyone should have the same opinion. We are entitle to our choices and their consequences.
What I said does not translate in ANY WAY that disabled people do not deserve to be loved or that parents of disable children "did the wrong thing". On the contrary. There are lots of ALREADY existing children that are suffering and need care and love. I would not want to bring another disabled person into the world. I agree that to raise a disable person you probably have to be stronger and more compassionate than a regular parent. It must be a lot of work. But if you are such a compassionate person already, why not help those already in need? We are not talking about a EXISTING human. We are talking about a potentiality that has not yet materialized.
Is it more rewarding raising someone disabled than having a regular child? Are we not all thrilled when our children masters a new challenge or hits a developmental milestone? And I would like to rearticulate that I am taking about SEVERE disabilities and handicaps that affect independence. That means when the parents are gone, they will be a ward of the state and post a burden to society because they cannot care for themselves. I don't consider mild learning difficulties or malformations a true disability. That may very well be evolutionary diversity. What I am referring to are disabilities that makes one dysfunctional in society and posts harm to themselves or other. Once again, be reminded that I am talking about someone like this COMING into existence. Not those that are alive and among us that require our love,help and care.
As for the argument that you keep a disable child because they are YOUR CHILD, then by the same logic you must also be anti-abortion and anti-choice. Does that mean every woman (even raped victims) necessarily needs to keep their child because it is HERS? Does a woman not have a right over their body?
I am not arguing that you should not be allowed to keep a disable baby. Everyone had their own reasons for their actions. I only said that I don't understand why anyone would make that choice knowingly. And maybe I said it to hear your views.
Waiting for more posts on how horrible I must be as a person. Yours truly xx
I think one doesnt really know what one would do util one has to face the situation. There are many Id never do this or that that I said over the years untill it actually happenned. One of them was I would never move to HK
Now on a sligtly different note. My mother when pregnant with my sister was diagnosed with cancer - she was told that going along with the pregnancy would kill her. She chose to have my sister and indeed the cancer did kill her. Now on a one hand what a heroic thing to do. I have a fantastic sister whom I love to bits. On the other hand now I am a mother and I had been thinking about it more myself I also think it was selfish as the other kids got to pay the price and not only had to go thru a trauma of seeing their mother die but also live without her for most of the chldhood. So I think we cant be quick to judge either way. Everyone needs to have a choice and then weigh all the consequences before making the decision.I would like to think I would eep the baby no matter what but then again I never had to make that choice.
Now on a sligtly different note. My mother when pregnant with my sister was diagnosed with cancer - she was told that going along with the pregnancy would kill her. She chose to have my sister and indeed the cancer did kill her. Now on a one hand what a heroic thing to do. I have a fantastic sister whom I love to bits. On the other hand now I am a mother and I had been thinking about it more myself I also think it was selfish as the other kids got to pay the price and not only had to go thru a trauma of seeing their mother die but also live without her for most of the chldhood. So I think we cant be quick to judge either way. Everyone needs to have a choice and then weigh all the consequences before making the decision.I would like to think I would eep the baby no matter what but then again I never had to make that choice.
carang
Registered User
wasabibunny:
how do you decide if the disability is sufficient enough that you would not go through with the pregnancy?
-is being blind enough?
-or deaf?
-or maybe both?
-what about if they developed a pre-birth test for autism? would that be enough?
that is one of the problems i can see with your "logic". who and how decides?
the other thing is: most of us won't go down in the anals of history as making a significant "contribution" to society..... so, should we be terminated, too?
how do you decide if the disability is sufficient enough that you would not go through with the pregnancy?
-is being blind enough?
-or deaf?
-or maybe both?
-what about if they developed a pre-birth test for autism? would that be enough?
that is one of the problems i can see with your "logic". who and how decides?
the other thing is: most of us won't go down in the anals of history as making a significant "contribution" to society..... so, should we be terminated, too?
Wasibunny, all communication involves interpreting what one thinks the other person is saying. You are also interpreting that we are saying you are horrible, when I for one am not saying that. I just think your argument is flawed.
The Nazi ideology will come up in these discussions because this is the extreme end of your line of thought. It was pointed out in case it had not occurred to you.
Sorry for misquoting you on ?pleasure? vs ?gratification?. Whatever you call it, though, there is a big benefit to parents in having children. People with disabled children have said that they feel the same gratification in their disabled children. So both sets of parents are having children to satisfy a personal need (which one could call ?selfish? because the world really doesn?t need more child, disabled or not). Are you saying that parents of disabled children are more selfish because not only are they selfishly satisfying the same personal need as parents of non-disabled children are but their children are never going to contribute to society because they cannot be independent?
It seems to be a question, then, of how selfish one is allowed to be. You say (as I understand it) ? selfish enough to overpopulate the world but not so selfish as to pose any risk of not being independent. I say ? if you feel you have a fairly good chance of providing for your child, go ahead, indulge your ?selfishness?.
Also:
1. It is hard to know how independent the child will be before they are born. Science is not all-knowing. Many children with Down?s grow up to be fairly independent if given some support.
2. Even if they do not end up being independent, others have mentioned the value of these ?different? people to society.
3. You seem to assume that people with disabilities who are not independent will become a ward of the state once their parents are no more. My general observation is that the ?burden? of care of the disabled child who cannot be independent tends to fall on siblings and extended family members rather than the state. In fact, parents of disabled children work very hard to ensure that their children do not end up a ward of the state. You seem to be privy to some information that the majority of people with these disabilities end up as wards of the state once their parents are gone. Personally, I do not have a problem even if this was the case because I believe that these people do provide some value to society. But I think that most parents who have disabled children are not thinking that the future of their child lies in being a ward of the state, they are working to make sure exactly the opposite. Some, of course, may not succeed.
Since this started off as a post on Down?s Syndrome, I?m assuming we are talking about children with Down?s Syndrome or other disabilities of a similar nature that may limit the capacity to be independent.
Also, remember that these parents did not choose to create a child with a disability. It happened and they considered the options and decided that they would like to have a shot at the same gratification that you and I have with our children, even though the child is disabled and it would be more challenging to provide for it. And yes, some of the willingness to go through the extra effort comes from it being their own child. Just as most of us are willing to go through the effort of raising our own child but not other children (even non-disabled ones).
As for the Hitler question, I don?t think it?s possible to really ever know what your child is going to be. Even with the DS child, as far as I understand it, they can?t predict the extent of the disability. There have been stories of how parents were forewarned that their child would grow up to be the scourge of the earth but they had them anyway. Looking at the majority of the human race, I might say gah, chances of my child growing up to be an absolute tosser are very high, so why have a child? But hope springs eternal, I guess.
The Nazi ideology will come up in these discussions because this is the extreme end of your line of thought. It was pointed out in case it had not occurred to you.
Sorry for misquoting you on ?pleasure? vs ?gratification?. Whatever you call it, though, there is a big benefit to parents in having children. People with disabled children have said that they feel the same gratification in their disabled children. So both sets of parents are having children to satisfy a personal need (which one could call ?selfish? because the world really doesn?t need more child, disabled or not). Are you saying that parents of disabled children are more selfish because not only are they selfishly satisfying the same personal need as parents of non-disabled children are but their children are never going to contribute to society because they cannot be independent?
It seems to be a question, then, of how selfish one is allowed to be. You say (as I understand it) ? selfish enough to overpopulate the world but not so selfish as to pose any risk of not being independent. I say ? if you feel you have a fairly good chance of providing for your child, go ahead, indulge your ?selfishness?.
Also:
1. It is hard to know how independent the child will be before they are born. Science is not all-knowing. Many children with Down?s grow up to be fairly independent if given some support.
2. Even if they do not end up being independent, others have mentioned the value of these ?different? people to society.
3. You seem to assume that people with disabilities who are not independent will become a ward of the state once their parents are no more. My general observation is that the ?burden? of care of the disabled child who cannot be independent tends to fall on siblings and extended family members rather than the state. In fact, parents of disabled children work very hard to ensure that their children do not end up a ward of the state. You seem to be privy to some information that the majority of people with these disabilities end up as wards of the state once their parents are gone. Personally, I do not have a problem even if this was the case because I believe that these people do provide some value to society. But I think that most parents who have disabled children are not thinking that the future of their child lies in being a ward of the state, they are working to make sure exactly the opposite. Some, of course, may not succeed.
Since this started off as a post on Down?s Syndrome, I?m assuming we are talking about children with Down?s Syndrome or other disabilities of a similar nature that may limit the capacity to be independent.
Also, remember that these parents did not choose to create a child with a disability. It happened and they considered the options and decided that they would like to have a shot at the same gratification that you and I have with our children, even though the child is disabled and it would be more challenging to provide for it. And yes, some of the willingness to go through the extra effort comes from it being their own child. Just as most of us are willing to go through the effort of raising our own child but not other children (even non-disabled ones).
As for the Hitler question, I don?t think it?s possible to really ever know what your child is going to be. Even with the DS child, as far as I understand it, they can?t predict the extent of the disability. There have been stories of how parents were forewarned that their child would grow up to be the scourge of the earth but they had them anyway. Looking at the majority of the human race, I might say gah, chances of my child growing up to be an absolute tosser are very high, so why have a child? But hope springs eternal, I guess.