Utopia Talk / Politics / Iceland Eliminates People

Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 03:25:27 Iceland Eliminates People with Down Syndrome by Alexandra DeSanctis August 16, 2017 4:00 AM @xan_desanctis A casually worded CBS News article depicts a horrifying reality. CBS News reported earlier this week that Iceland is leading the world in “eradicating Down syndrome births.” One might be forgiven for assuming that Iceland has developed an innovative treatment for the chromosomal disorder. It turns out Iceland’s solution is much simpler, and much more sinister: using prenatal testing and abortion to systematically exterminate children with Down syndrome. This isn’t progress; it’s eugenics. Prenatal testing is optional in Iceland, but the government mandates that doctors notify women of that option. About 85 percent of expectant mothers undergo the test, and close to 100 percent of those women choose to abort if their child is diagnosed with Down syndrome. Just two children with Down syndrome are born in Iceland each year, often as the result of faulty testing. The CBS article does little to accord this subject the moral gravity it deserves. “Other countries aren’t lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates,” the authors note casually. CBS News’s tweet promoting the story read simply: “Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion.” But Iceland isn’t “eliminating Down syndrome” at all. It’s eliminating people. The callous tone of the piece makes selective abortion sound like a technological innovation rather than what it really is: the intentional targeting of “unfit” persons for total elimination. What kind of culture does it require to foster such a mindset, to foster a society in which nearly every mother of a Down-syndrome child chooses to abort? Iceland is at the high end of the spectrum in this regard — and was one of the first countries to normalize widespread prenatal testing, in an effort to identify fetal abnormalities and eliminate them through abortion — but it is far from alone. Ninety percent of women in the United Kingdom who receive a positive Down-syndrome diagnosis choose to abort. In the U.S., that percentage falls somewhere between 67 and 90, according to a recent meta-study of Down-syndrome termination rates over the last few decades. In Europe as a whole, somewhere around 92 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. This targeting of individuals with Down syndrome is borne out not just in astronomical abortion rates, but in a cultural attitude that often regards them as less than human. In France, for example, the State Council banned from the airwaves a video featuring children with Down syndrome talking about their happy lives. The advertisement was meant to comfort mothers who received a prenatal diagnosis and assure them that their children would have beautiful, largely normal lives. The ad was forbidden by the French government because the smiles of the children would “disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices” — in other words, because seeing them happy would upset women who had aborted their Down syndrome children. Meanwhile, prenatal testing is praised nearly universally for its ability to give women a full array of “options” for their pregnancies, but many women report feeling pressured by their doctors — whether to be tested in the first place or to choose abortion if the test reveals Down syndrome or other abnormalities. It is taken for granted in the medical community that no woman would carry a Down-syndrome pregnancy to term. This pressure reveals the pervasive belief that selective abortion is somehow an actual health-care solution. Instead of seeking real treatment for the ailments that plague people with Down syndrome, or even finding potential cures, we have settled for a false vision of progress that kills people with a disorder rather than treating them. A counselor at an Iceland hospital sees the issue even more starkly. “We don’t look at abortion as a murder,” she said. “We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication . . . preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder — that’s so black and white. Life isn’t black and white. Life is grey.” It is in this supposed gray area that the desire to promote health and well-being morphs into the insidious view that people with Down syndrome are better off dead — and that we will be a more advanced society for having relieved them of the burden of a “limited” life. Too many people today believe it is preferable, and indeed more humane, to murder children rather than allow them to suffer. But what life doesn’t have suffering? Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosomal basis for Down syndrome, once offered this perspective: “It cannot be denied that the price of these diseases is high — in suffering for the individual and in burdens for society. Not to mention what parents suffer! But we can assign a value to that price: It is precisely what a society must pay to remain fully human.” The title of the CBS piece asks, “What kind of society do you want to live in?” The article’s implicit response seems to be, “One dedicated to eliminating abnormality and suffering by any means necessary.” But no admirable society eradicates suffering by eradicating those who suffer. To achieve true moral progress, we must reject the killing of the vulnerable and condemn any backwards society that promotes such a regime as a solution. READ MORE: The Medical Pros Are Wrong on Down Syndrome Dear Future Mom and the Sensitivity Police France Prepares to Criminalize Pro-Life Advocacy http://www...and-cbs-news-disturbing-report
yankeessuck123 Member	Fri Aug 18 03:35:53 I was wondering when this right-wing talking point would show up here.
The Children Member	Fri Aug 18 03:37:25 iceland is a shithole i watch some iceland travel vlogs on youtube, theres nottin there other than expensive food lol i thought it was bad over here but its like 15 bucks for 1 fuckin sandwich over there... ridiculous shithole
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 03:56:40 yankee, first I've heard of it. Do you approve or disapprove? Just curious.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 04:02:15 Some of you might like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6He0FWoFj0
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Aug 18 04:03:48 [Article; Alexandra Desanctis]: "This isn’t progress; it’s eugenics." Umm.. Was the author implying mutual exclusivity? Because eugenics can be progress... She's using the Pro-Life talking point that fetuses are already "people" though, so this was a non-starter.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 04:06:21 Timing is everything. First trimester or bust.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 04:37:43 You can have this test in Sweden as well, it is optional and below a certain age you won't even be asked. I would assume all Nordic countries have this.
Asgard Member	Fri Aug 18 05:23:51 so what is wrong with aborting such fetuses? it's not eugenics, there is no "Geneics" or genetics here. It's preventing people with a horrific incurable disease caused by an extra chromosome from being born. fetuses aren't people and this Christian propaganda is not welcome.
Asgard Member	Fri Aug 18 05:39:24 Here too. Also there are a lot fewer people with Down syndrome than they used to be (life expectancy 40 years).
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 06:01:52 Asgard Life expectancy is 60 now (in the US). You sure you want to make the chromosones are not genetics argument? It will get you in a world of trouble with sammy. Ultimately, the dangerous thing here is trying to 2nd guess why people have abortions. Right of information will give a lot of information on the fetus. Some of that information may or may not be relevant to a decision to have a 1st trimester abortion. Its a personal decision.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 06:03:43 Did anyone watch the link posted here? Fri Aug 18 04:02:15
Asgard Member	Fri Aug 18 06:09:40 It should not be a personal choice. Like that couple in the US who chose willingly to have brainless child just because they are Christian.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 06:23:26 I never heard about that one. Are you talking about the couple in England that wanted to take their child to the States to try an experimental cure? No way of knowing but there may have been a very slim chance if the doctors and the courts had not stopped them in the beginning. I say **may** have.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 06:32:40 Not what happened HR. Asgard Don't mock future republicans.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 06:38:20 Well just what the hell did happen jergul? The news over here said the doctors took the parents to court to prevent them taking their baby to the states because the trip would have been too hard on the baby. Or some such nonsense. And the courts, all of them, sided with the doctors. Of course, Norwegian news is so much more superior than American news so clue me in.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 06:56:23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 06:59:06 Note that one-payer health care would have covered the costs of experimental treatment if it had been established that treatment was in the best interests of the child (the risk of pain and death outcome weighed against the chance of survival). Privat US health insurance seldom if ever covers experimental treatment.
yankeessuck123 Member	Fri Aug 18 07:20:56 If you're not anti-abortion, I can't think you would be upset by selective early-term abortion.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 07:57:31 ys That assumption of consistency is likely unwarranted.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 18 08:22:59 Not that I care if people want to vivisect their own young, but speaking of talking points, "early-term" and "first trimester" are complete lies. NT screening can be performed in the 11-13 week range, but it has a accuracy rate of less than 90%. NT screening is combined with hormone screening, performed at 15-20 weeks. Integrated screening is 95% accurate, but this puts you firmly in the second trimester, and about a month from viability for a majority of the window.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 08:45:09 "The case became controversial because the medical team and parents disagreed about whether experimental treatment was in Charlie's best interests." "In October 2016 Charlie was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), a National Health Service children's hospital, because he was failing to thrive and his breathing was shallow. He was placed on mechanical ventilation, and in November the genetic condition was diagnosed. The following month the parents contacted a neurologist in New York, Prof. Michio Hirano, who was working on an experimental treatment based on nucleoside supplementation with human MDDS patients. He and GOSH agreed to proceed with the treatment, funded by the National Health Service. In January, after Charlie had seizures that caused brain damage, GOSH formed the view that further treatment was futile and might prolong suffering. They began discussions with the parents about ending life support and providing palliative care." "Charlie's parents still wanted to try the experimental treatment and raised funds for a transfer to a hospital in New York. In February 2017, GOSH asked the High Court to override the parents' decision, questioning the ability of nucleoside therapy to treat Charlie's condition. The British courts supported GOSH's position and the European Court of Human Rights refused to intervene." "On July 2017, after receiving letters from several international experts defending the potential of the treatment and providing new evidences, GOSH applied to the High Court for a new hearing, and the New York neurologist pioneering nucleoside therapy finally visited Charlie at GOSH. After examining scans of Charlie's muscles, Prof.Hirano said it was too late for the treatment to help Charlie, and the parents agreed to the withdrawal of life-support." So, the doctors' action in October resulted in court battles and by the time the doctors relented in July and agreed to let the parents try the cure, it was too late.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 08:56:59 HR Boy, your reading comprehension sucks. Forwyn Yepp, termination would be in week 18 if confirmation is desired. Prior to week 12 if indication is enough along with other factors to opt for an abortion (the process is easier in or before the 12 week. It is a right until then).
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 18 11:48:44 Where am I wrong?
Nekran Member	Fri Aug 18 11:52:15 "Prenatal testing is optional in Iceland, but the government mandates that doctors notify women of that option. About 85 percent of expectant mothers undergo the test, and close to 100 percent of those women choose to abort if their child is diagnosed with Down syndrome." So it's a choice... I don't see an issue here.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: