Marian wrote:Not trying to misrepresent your argument. I'm answering based on my perception. If it's incorrect, then it's up to you to rectify that, if you want to be understood differently.
I’m sorry, but that is total hogwash. If you take what I write out of context and add layers of interpretation that I did not include, then you have misrepresented my argument. I have no control over that since it is at the whim of your perception and whatever associated issues you feel like getting confrontational about.
Marian wrote:Your comment about the little old lady not having any influence just reeks of ageism, imo.
The “little old lady” in question is a construct used in previous discussions and is meant to encompass the concept of a person who has adherence to nonsensical beliefs, but is harmless because they do not have significant influence. That’s what the “little old lady” metaphor means, so denouncing my comment reeks either of ignorance of the concept, or a wilful attempt at an ad hominem
attack on my integrity.
Marian wrote:So, it's okay to tell your children over international radio that you really didn't want them? Don't you think that child might be a little hurt when he's heard that? Did i mention it was international radio?
Yes, a child might be hurt to hear that, but I think the fact that it was on international radio discussing a programme like this makes it more important to be honest and frank – clearly she thought the issues discussed were bigger and more important than the sensitivities of her children. Something I would agree with.
Marian wrote:If I am someone who has had a difficult childhood or has FAS or was a crack baby, then in essence you are saying I shouldn't be here. That gives me the right to say that I should have been born. Get it?
When you say “in essence you are saying” is entirely misrepresentative since I don’t actually say anything about what should or should not be the case and in fact I take pains to avoid doing that – because I feel that “should” and “should not” do not enter into this discussion. No-one has the right to say what should or shouldn’t happen in this instance – there is no moral absolute that deals with the situation. The only people who have any perceivable moral rights in decision making here are the people influenced by the outcome of the decision – the unborn baby, the parents and the wider support network likely to be called upon to enact the decision either way. Unborn babies are not in a position to make the decision, so it has to fall to the person with next greatest amount to lose – the mother.
Marian wrote:If saying these things are moot, then why say it? To fill in dead air?
I avoided saying it. If you recall you are the one who started this issue when you said:
Marian wrote:Who are you to say they shouldn't have been born?
When I had said no such thing.
Marian wrote: I didn't expect that one campaign would solve all problems and I find it rather patronizing that you assumed I did.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood when you said…
Marian wrote:If children shouldn't be born because they are damaged (ie. FAS or addiction etc), then those children born to the wealthy addicted parents shouldn't really have a go just because they're parents are wealthy, if we are to follow her line of thinking.
Marian wrote:My point, which you seem to have missed again, is that if we are going to deal with this issue via sterilization or BC, then it needs to apply across the board. Not just to the poor.
…when I explicitly say “they're intended to target the worst hit”. A targeted approach, by definition, means not applying things across the board as I am sure you are aware.
Marian wrote: It also needs to be said that there is only one way to 100% prevent pregnancy. All other methods are not foolproof. Babies are born to women who've had IUD's put in.
I’m not sure it does need to be said – I think we’re all aware of this. I think some slippage is an acceptable risk and I still maintain that sterilisation would be eugenics in all but name.
Marian wrote: In fact, I've heard of one case where the IUD was embedded into the baby's face! Oh dear, that baby isn't quite perfect, we'd better do away with it!
Poor little tyke, still, I don’t see any rationale for doing away with it unless the damage done by the IUD was sufficiently bad to mean that there was a poor chance of survival to birth (thereby posing unnecessary risk to the mother) or there would be permanent damage that would severely restrict the quality of the life of that individual. Sounds to me like a decision for the mother to make with input from the father, medical experts and the rest of the family (which is who I mean by “other people”).
Marian wrote:If the mother to be has the resources to deal with her less-than-perfect baby (ie. Wealth, family support etc), since it won't be a 'burden on society', does that mean no-one gets to have say in the decision but if it's a poor mother-to-be, who might need extra help, then these 'others' get to have a contribution? Isn't that just a bit discriminatory?
Isn’t it a bit socially irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you can’t look after it? If a mother is likely to rely on substantial external support for her child, then those providing that support should have a mechanism by which they can ensure their support is not being abused. I don’t mind paying my taxes and National Insurance that go towards social welfare for example – I think it’s a good thing, but I would rather that the money benefitted people who took a responsible stance – and part of that means listening to professional advice about what is likely to lie in store.