by LoveUniHateExams 18 Replies latest social current
are you willing to adopt these kids then? - no, I'm not.
There are two options here:
#1. let them live, put them in state care, and use modern medicine to give them the best quality of life possible.
#2. kill them when they're foetuses at up to 9 months old.
And you're going for #2?
LoveUniHateExams,
Many, probably most, of the people opposing abortion also are opposed to government spending . . . . like healthcare. Can't have increasing socialization of medical care. Any social safety nets are vigorously opposed and they are not bothered in the least by the incongruity of their positions.
When you say state care it conjures up a picture of warehousing people and paying staff as little as possible. Do this until they get old enough to throw out on the streets to fend for themselves. No money for medical or mental care, no money for housing or vocational training. Everyone can make it on their own in the capitalistic paradise, the land of opportunity!
Option #3: Discover advanced methods of gene-therapy to cure them in the womb.
This would require mass testing on human subjects as part of the trial. I’m not sure how you could get Government approval to use millions of humans as trials for some kind of MRNA shot..
DD 🤔
When you say state care it conjures up a picture of warehousing people and paying staff as little as possible - there are, of course, wrinkles to be ironed out in state care. But it's still better than strangling them at birth, which is what our current law allows.
LoveUniHateExams : But it's still better than strangling them at birth, which is what our current law allows.
In UK law strangling a child at birth is murder. On the NHS website it explains that an abortion can be performed in two ways, either by taking medicine to end the pregnancy or by a surgical procedure to remove the pregnancy. In the unlikely but not impossible event that the aborted child is living it then becomes murder if that child is killed.
In UK law strangling a child at birth is murder - this was just my way of saying that Down Syndrome babies can be legally killed at birth.
Stop being obtuse.
LoveUniHateExams : this was just my way of saying that Down Syndrome babies can be legally killed at birth.
For your benefit I will repeat the UK law. Killing any child (whether seriously handicapped or not) at birth is murder.
What about carrying out an abortion when the pregnancy is at full term but the child hasn't yet been born, say at 37 weeks. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act of 1929 states
any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive [i.e. a gestation of twenty-eight weeks or more], by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life [except if it is done in good faith to preserve the life of the mother]
So, quite frankly, LUHE, your sensational heading to this thread is simply nonsense.
@Earnest - not sure about this.
As I understand it, if a pregnant woman believes her Down Syndrome 9-month-old foetus will grow up unhealthy, she can abort (kill) it. Now, how do we know which aborted babies would have been healthy and which unhealthy?
There could be quite a few aborted babies who might have grown up relatively healthy, with some quality of life, right?
LUHE, that is not what the law says. It says that "any person ... who causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother [which child at that point in time is capable of being born alive], shall be guilty of ... child destruction [except if it is done in good faith to preserve the life of the mother]".
There is no distinction between healthy or unhealthy children in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act of 1929.
There are only two exceptions. If the child is not capable of being born alive at the time of the abortion then an abortion is legal. Likewise, if it is necessary to save the life of the mother. However, any abortion of a living foetus performed after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy but before the twenty-eighth week [i.e. before it is capable of being born alive] can only be done if the pregnancy would cause grave permanent injury to the woman, if the life of the woman is at risk, or if the child were born it would be seriously handicapped.
If a child is aborted after the twenty-seventh week that is the crime of child destruction. The only exceptions are if the woman's life is at risk due to the pregnancy, or if the child is not capable of being born alive.
If a child is intentionally killed once it is independent of its mother that is the crime of murder. There are no exceptions.
If a child is intentionally killed while a birth is in progress then the lawyers will have a field day deciding whether it is child destruction or murder, but my reading of the 1929 Act makes me think it would be child destruction.
