Unwarranted assumption + Tu Quoque fallacy.
You’re assuming I (or the original poster) know specific disabled people in foster care and are actively refusing to help them. That has nothing to do with the original post.
Even if someone doesn’t personally foster, adopt, or care for people with disabilities, that doesn’t make aborting a nearly viable baby because of a disability morally acceptable — nor does it strip them of the right to an opinion on it.
Your comment is deflection, not a logical argument.
Pro-aborts have a fondness for this fallacy. They like to make the declaration that your points are invalid if you don't adopt, foster, or take care of someone with a disability.
Those things do not invalidate moral claims.
@LibertyLog1776@Fair_and_Biased That's a Tu Quoque fallacy
Even if she doesn't help people with Down Syndrome it doesn't make the moral claim false. Your response is deflection and logically unsound.
Funny how "protect minorities" suddenly becomes "target this minority" the moment the minority in question is successful.
The issue isn't that the rich are a dangerous minority.
The issue is that envy is one of the few prejudices people still openly celebrate.
@watchman915 there are others out there. Someone will listen. I can't give up and allow future generations to be so heartless as to kill fetuses because they're inconvenient or not perfect enough.
There are so many charities and services provided to families with a child with any type of disability. Many down syndrome children grow up just fine, work, some live in group homes, have nurses and social workers. I have met many people with Down Syndrome who enjoy life and bring joy into this world. Pro-aborts are presenting a false narrative.
I keep speaking up because the other side needs to be heard. Most of the time they insult me or speak with complete vulgarity. I don't care.
You're deflecting into metaphysics to dodge the biology. We don’t need deep philosophy to know a new human organism exists: it has its own unique Homo sapiens DNA from fertilization, distinct from the mother. That’s measurable science. Conscious self-awareness comes later — but species membership doesn’t depend on it. Stick to the actual argument: being human is what matters, not viability.
@LibertyLog1776@Fair_and_Biased That's a Tu Quoque fallacy
Even if she doesn't help people with Down Syndrome it doesn't make the moral claim false. Your response is deflection and logically unsound.
“Mind your own business” (a non-argument) doesn’t work when human life is involved.
A nearly viable baby was killed for a chromosomal difference.
If they’d killed it a day AFTER birth, would “mind your own business” bc it was “their decision” cut it?
The purpose of posts like this are to shut down conversation. They make statements, don't defend them, pretend it's a non-negotiable fact because they have no tolerance for someone else having a different opinion.
When over a million human fetuses and embryos are being killed in the USA every year, most of the time due to inconvenience and the success of decades of dehumanization strategies coming primarily from radical feminists, you better believe we're going to be talking about it.
The purpose of posts like this are to shut down conversation. They make statements, don't defend them, pretend it's a non-negotiable fact because they have no tolerance for someone else having a different opinion.
When over a million human fetuses and embryos are being killed in the USA every year, most of the time due to inconvenience and the success of decades of dehumanization strategies coming primarily from radical feminists, you better believe we're going to be talking about it.