Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

NRO: An Abortion-Friendly Firm in Spain Uses a Girl with Down Syndrome on Its Ads

nonniey

By nonniey
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted

"............Just let me pause to emphasize the absurdity of this in all its depravity: This company selling a product that 95 percent of the time leads to the abortion of a child with Down syndrome has decided to pitch that product with . . . a picture of a child with Down syndrome. Who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?

 

 

genoma-ad.jpg

 

To complete this near-satanic act of indecency, the company used the child’s photo without the consent of her parents........"

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419736/abortion-friendly-firm-spain-uses-girl-down-syndrome-its-ads-matthew-Hennessey

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Ooh, looky.

A National Review article goes on a mouth-foaming rant about a company that's selling a test for Down syndrome.

 

By throwing around triggers like "Abortion friendly firm".  And making claims like "a product that 95 percent of the time leads to the abortion of a child", which the article itself says isn't true.  (It says that, in Spain, 95% of fetuses with Down syndrome are aborted.  Not 95% of fetuses that are tested for Down.) 

 

----------

 

And Looky. 

 

An ES poster who found the article, and skipped past the parts that actually tell the truth, so that he can quote the flamboyant claims which he had already read, weren't true. 

 

----------

 

Oh, and if you dig a little, (like, follow the link in the article.), the claim that they "used the child’s photo without the consent of her parents"? 

 

The photo was posted to a "stock photo" web site.  A site which claims that the photos on the site have been donated, for free, by the copyright owner, for free use.  The parents of the girl say that they weren't the people who posted the photo, that it must have been stolen. 

 

----------

 

And, the actual agenda, for the article and the parental objections? 

 

1)  Most parents who discover that their child has Down, choose to abort. 

2)  Therefore, they oppose parents testing for Down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonniey

nonniey

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I might be reading more into it than is actually there but I think It does have a "don't let this happen to you" quality to it.  Disturbing to use a person's photo for it.  

Well at least you seem to have got the gist of this which more than the first poster who responded did (But that really wasn't a surprise given the poster).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted

when my wife was pregnant we had a test done at 8 weeks. It is a blood test called a panorama and can tell, among other things, if there are any birth defects in the fetus. We did it so we could tell if our child was a boy or a girl. At 8 weeks, this is several weeks sooner than a sonogram can see.

If it turned out that he had downs, or any other defect that might make his life sub standard then we would have had a serious discussion about aborting the fetus. Luckily we didn't have to and now we have a healthy 8 month old baby boy.

I don't think it's correct to judge people about decisions they make to abort a fetus, especially for the health of the baby or mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major Harris

Major Harris

Posted
Posted

You were expecting novelty in the abortion debate?

Anyway, it's an "idea" backed by research and data, and it apparently bears repeating.

No. I wasn't. That was kind of my point. It's all been said a billion times, and it's off topic. I'm looking for the abortion debate in this thread tell me if you find it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins3D

Redskins3D

Posted
Posted

when my wife was pregnant we had a test done at 8 weeks. It is a blood test called a panorama and can tell, among other things, if there are any birth defects in the fetus. We did it so we could tell if our child was a boy or a girl. At 8 weeks, this is several weeks sooner than a sonogram can see.

If it turned out that he had downs, or any other defect that might make his life sub standard then we would have had a serious discussion about aborting the fetus. Luckily we didn't have to and now we have a healthy 8 month old baby boy.

I don't think it's correct to judge people about decisions they make to abort a fetus, especially for the health of the baby or mother.

Wow. I just have to leave it at that, wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Anyway, it's an "idea" backed by research and data, and it apparently bears repeating.

 

 

making folk aware they are killing people helps as well and should increase use of preventative measures more than the old clump of cells meme.

 

Disposable people.disposable lives, disposable inconveniences

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

If it turned out that he had downs, or any other defect that might make his life sub standard then we would have had a serious discussion about aborting the fetus. Luckily we didn't have to and now we have a healthy 8 month old baby boy.

I don't think it's correct to judge people about decisions they make to abort a fetus, especially for the health of the baby or mother.

That's precisely what I was thinking of. My wife and I had a similar experience to your own. The open secret with those tests, and getting them done early, is to consider terminating the pregnancy. That is why I got the "don't let this happen to you" vibe from an ad featuring the face of an actual person. I'm not judging anyone but the marketing company that felt it was a good idea. I find it ghoulish and in poor taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

So, we going with the claim that this company chose to use someone that ought to be killed, as the face of their product, because they hate Down children?

I think I've heard that argument, before. In the "name change thread".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

So, we going with the claim that this company chose to use someone that ought to be killed, as the face of their product, because they hate Down children?

That is one seriously oddly worded question larry.  I prefer not to think in terms of people "that ought to be killed" personally.  As I've stated previously the implication, intentional or otherwise, of that particular advertisement is in poor taste. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

So, we going with the claim that this company chose to use someone that ought to be killed, as the face of their product, because they hate Down children?

I think I've heard that argument, before. In the "name change thread".

 

 

Hate or indifferent?

 

it is hard to use indifferent though since they target.....biased maybe, dare I say bigoted?

 

If I was pointing a gun some might call it reckless or excessive....if they were people 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

As an aside to this thread, I have often found it interesting that by today's standards and definitions Einstein, Edison, Beethoven, Mozart, Hawking, Martha Graham, and practically every other genius would be labeled disabled.

 

I wonder if born today whether their achievements today would be the same or less? I am wary of aborting kids because they are different. I do sympathize with the idea of some genetic diseases that would mean likely vegetable, six months of life, or other very extreme conditions. Still, I find this a difficult area for a flip conversation.

 

I don't like discounting any life just because it is beset with a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted

That's precisely what I was thinking of. My wife and I had a similar experience to your own. The open secret with those tests, and getting them done early, is to consider terminating the pregnancy. That is why I got the "don't let this happen to you" vibe from an ad featuring the face of an actual person. I'm not judging anyone but the marketing company that felt it was a good idea. I find it ghoulish and in poor taste.

Now, our main reasoning for the test was to determine the sex of the baby. Neither of us were old enough or had a predisposed history of downs or any other defect. We were just really anxious to see if it was a boy or a girl. The main purpose of the test is to find defects though. Thus giving the parents the choice to decide how they would like to proceed.

And yes. Using a kid with Down's syndrome as a "lesson" is definitely in poor taste.

To be honest, it's like ads that show dead bodies to deter drunk driving or texting and driving. Showing a rotted lung to deter smoking. Generally along the same lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...