Geoffrey Clark

[Blitzen]

I know this is a rant, but........this scum of a man, Geoffrey Clark, should not only lose his job, but should be publicly beaten, for his draconian, almost Nazi thoughts regarding abortion.

For anyone that isnt up to date with the news, he has said that he thinks that any foetus which is diagnosed with issues such as Spina Bifida or Downs Syndrome should be aborted as to not waste public healthcare money.

GEOFFREY CLARK.....if you are reading this, i very much hope that you never have that dilemna,to consider.
I would also suggest, that as an MP with any real aspirations, then you think about what an idiotic statement you made.

You are a disgrace to the educated world, a disgrace to your family, and an embarassment to human kind (if we can put you in that category).

One day you will die, and if there is a God, i hope you suffer miserably and painfully for a long time.

[TheAnimus]

Freedom of speach is wounderful.

I mean kicked out of UKIP because your a bit too far with your views, thats quite an achivement.

[shaithis]

The thing is, putting your emotions aside for a moment, he has a point....and in some cases it could be beneficial to the parents and even the child. Of course no one is going to want to hear that news but as the old adage goes "You got to be cruel to be kind".

And to be even colder.....got any better ideas to help cut our national debt?

The government are getting desperate to save and make money....it's why the cannabis debate is raging and why half of America has already decriminalised it. Expect more ideas that outrage people as this recessions end continues to be out of sight.

[Blitzen]

Cruel to be kind?
Do you think then that my disabled child which falls into one of those categories should've been gotten rid of?

I expect it from some here, but that sickens me.

Maybe Bluebell was right to walk away from this site if it breeds ******s like you.

And admins.....feel free to brandish the ban hammer if you like, as I would prefer not to be associated with this kind of narrow minded idiocy.

[Terbinator]

Only as narrow-minded as taking the stance that his suggestion is and always will be out of touch, surely?

I'm with saithis, in that he has a point - one that isn't too ridiculous (IMO) - recession, cash constraints or otherwise.

As for you disabled child, it's really case dependent. We have some disabled people in this country who really are just cabbages, living no sort of life whatsoever - certainly one that has no resemblance to being able to exercise the HRA in any fashion other than 'right to life'.

OTOH, we have paralympians - it isn't as simple as 'rid us of the disabled people' - who clearly are their own individuals and live, for the most part, fruitful and free lives. Yet these athletes are fundamentally classed as disabled.

[Galant]

Heated subject but I'm with Blitzen because this is one of those subjects where someone needs to draw a line or the 'boundaries' of what is acceptable will forever drift until they don't exist. There is a very interesting article on this, I think from the Guardian no less (although some time ago) highlighting the shameful links between nazi-like eugenics and some 'heroes' of British socialism. I'll see if I can find it.

Here is the question that everyone needs to ask - how and where do you draw the line in when it's acceptable to end someone's life - and let's limit it further - without their consent?

The very scary reality is that if you can't find a way to draw an objective line here then everything, absolutely everything, becomes acceptable given 'the right' circumstances, and human rights cease to exist in any real and meaningful way.

The idea that disabled humans can be 'offed' because it's convenient is despicable.

Here's the article by Jonathan Freedland - originally published in the Guardian, 1997: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/eugenics.html

And interestingly here's a similar but more recent Guardian article also written by him which I found while looking for the other - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...st-closet-left

[peterb]

<---snip

And admins.....feel free to brandish the ban hammer if you like, as I would prefer not to be associated with this kind of narrow minded idiocy.

No - I think we realise it is an emotive subject - particularly if you are personally affected by the issues.

It is a subject that requires great sensitivity in its discussion though, and I would ask all posters to remember that.

That is not to discourage debate, but to re-emphasise that it is the ideas and thoughts that are debated, not personalities.

[cptwhite_uk]

Blitzen, I think you need to realise you have a tendency to be very bias and not give a considered opinion (general observation of your personality and posts over the years) - this being a prime example of that. You also need to understand people are not inferring anything directly about your child or circumstances, or judging you on the path you took but are looking at the issue in a very broad and general sense, something I feel you struggle to do given you're emotionally involved directly with this particular issue. Try not to take personal offence to differences of opinion.

I can honestly see both sides of the debate but an opinion needs to be given with clear boundaries for the terms on which you view that opinion valid - are we talking about termination if abnormal physical or mental conditions are observed after the legal limit for abortion, or before? Is the termination suggested to be enforced or optional? Every case will be individual and thus needs to be judged on it's own merits.

We are fast approaching an age where or physical biology will be engineered, and while I detest eugenics on the principle that one particular "look" is better than another I don't think it should be a dirty word in all circumstances. Who wouldn't choose to be prettier, a bit taller, naturally slim, good skin, good eye sight etc etc....we will be able to define these things in the next 100 years or so and there's going to be some very serious questions needing to be asked when the possibilities start to present themselves. Only yesterday I heard the story of a woman who was completely paralyzed (so I believe) who'd had electrodes attached to her brain and within a fortnight could now control a robotic arm to a high degree of fidelity (pick up a cup and drink from it etc.).

Physical disability I suspect will in time be less and less of a limiting factor to living a full, productive and happy life. Mental disability needs to be considered separately and I suspect we will have trouble finding answers everyone can be satisfied with regarding how people who are severely mentality disabled should be treated, before and after birth.

[Ferral]

I have to agree with Blitzen with this one.

I also have a disabled child and granted he can be hard work, however we wouldn't be without him as I am sure Blitzen would agree with that sentiment.

In time I am sure that genetics and gene manipulation and whatever weird stuff that goes on will one day remove disability without the need to abort. Until that day though the choice should lie with parents of a child not yet born.

[Splash]

Is he entitled to his opinion? Sure. I'm also entitled to my opinion that (assuming what Blitzen has said is accurate, I've been so busy I've seen little to nothing of the news of late) he's an asshat, and that the vast majority of the human race is likely to think the same. If the parents make the choice to abort then that is their decision, and one I feel they have every right to make but the idea of enforced abortions can frankly GTF. Sure, times are hard, but there's plenty we can trim from governmental budgets before we have to be anywhere near this kind of chat.

[kalniel]

Eugenics is something everyone in my field is very aware of and most of us have training in ethics as part of our education these days. We learned our lessons well from the Nazi's and the behaviour of experts in Britain at the time is shameful (if understandable).

We've just done a company wide 'experiment' related to genotyping - the (individually confidential) results aren't really the object of the exercise, the point was to examine emotions and feelings about that sort of thing, and comparing expected emotions to actual ones post the study.

It gets very hard to draw the line with these things as well. Is IVF abortion of non-chosen foetuses? Is genetically tested IVF abortion if you select a foetus to avoid a known serious genetic disability (and thus cure it permanently for your children's children etc.). Is surrogate egg donation abortion of the natural mother's potential foetuses (eggs)? Is sperm donation abortion of the natural father's potential foetuses?

[Galant]

If the parents make the choice to abort then that is their decision, and one I feel they have every right to make

Here's the thing - upon what criteria is this decision made? Does the simple fact of being a parent provide justification for any decision? If not, then why not?

...but the idea of enforced abortions can frankly GTF. Sure, times are hard, but there's plenty we can trim from governmental budgets before we have to be anywhere near this kind of chat.

This gets to the crux of the original point - as described in the OP the justification for said abortions/murders is a financial one. Mr. Clark speaks of disabled children, one assumes, because he believes that relieving them from their 'weakened' condition is a 'merciful' act (or maybe not, maybe he just knows that caring for them will cost everyone more), yet his main concern is financial burden. The problem with that reasoning is, as Splash has pointed out, the focus is on financial/economic circumstance and not human care. Following that thought we reach the point where although a disabled child usually costs more, if parents are poor then a perfectly healthy and happy child could levy just as much burden. Do we end the lives of healthy children too? What if the baby has just been born and then circumstances outside the family's control change things so that they aren't as well off as planned. That newborn will then be in the same position. Can the parents make the call to end the child's life then - for what are exactly the same reasons? If so, when is the cut-off point? How old is too old to die? Or is it, how old is too old to live?

Who makes the call? Who decides who lives and who dies?

The parents? The children? The government? The bank?

If a human right to life truly exists then the bottom line is - no-one has the right to make that call. Instead we all have the responsibility to pull together and help provide for all these children - and adults.

That's where the line should be drawn. On human selfishness and greed. Not on human life itself.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flRvsO8m_KI

[Galant]

Here's an article on the story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20773800

[Splash]

Here's the thing - upon what criteria is this decision made? Does the simple fact of being a parent provide justification for any decision? If not, then why not?

The simple fact that you have to live with whatever decision you make. The state shouldn't be able to force a decision on you, and nor should the church.

[Galant]

The state 'forces decisions' all the time - robbery, fraud, rape, murder - all illegal with a penalty of jail time - the temporary (and rarely permanent) forfeiture of your right to freedom.

So again, same question, does the simple fact of being a parent provide justification for any decision, and if not, why not?

[melon]

Cruel to be kind?
Do you think then that my disabled child which falls into one of those categories should've been gotten rid of?

I expect it from some here, but that sickens me.

Maybe Bluebell was right to walk away from this site if it breeds ******s like you.

And admins.....feel free to brandish the ban hammer if you like, as I would prefer not to be associated with this kind of narrow minded idiocy.

Calm down Blitzen

He does have a point , but not based purely on money , but what kind of life or options that kid will have if the parents cant cope or its quality of life is going to be difficult at best.

Im not against folk raising disabled kids , how could I be ? but I dont think its for every one - esp given how hard raising kids already is.

Disability is not fun , nor an easy thing to go through with - life ( I imagine the teenage yrs esp being hard ) perhaps if Id be born disabled i might see that differently ,though the fact is Ive rarely seen or heard of any one enjoying being stuck this way unless they were born disabled first.

That said their are many people who are proud of their disability , to the point they wouldnt even trade it to be " normal " , but Im not so sure thats spiting themselves sometimes rather than acknowledging the emotions it brings.

You might be the only person with such and such in the whole country , and with things like relationships that make living a big hell-no sometimes even within itself.


m