"In Iceland, upwards of 85 per cent of women elect to have prenatal testing, and close to 100 per cent of pregnancies where Down syndrome is diagnosed are terminated.
Denmark isn't far behind, with a termination rate of 98 per cent."
Some of them actively publicize that people with Down's lead happy, healthy, and independent lives, without significant support. (As we see Gabe does in the article.) They generally stay away from the moral debate.
For people who follow the abortion debate in the US, when people say "as long as it's not used for Eugenics," what they really mean is that they are ok with abortion as long as it's not used to abort Down's fetuses.
> 38% said it should be illegal in all or most cases
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/17/what-the-...
I'm referring to people who pray outside of abortion clinics, put up gravestones for aborted fetuses, sponsor billboards, ect, ect.
It's an important aspect of American culture, and provides context to a possible anti-abortion agenda of the article, and contrast to Icelandic pro-abortion culture.
Then be clear and specific, and don't require everyone to guess. You are referring to an entirely negligible portion of the population, with no political weight, but phrased it as something significant. Again, "minority" is not useful for the exact reason demonstrated.
You are a troll.
There, are you happy?
Obviously it's easy to argue if terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing someone, but I'm willing to just give that to you since it seems like that's your position. But even then, sometimes people do have to die for what's best for society. Forcing people to give birth to a child they don't want and who will have a difficult life is certainly not a better policy than just avoiding all of that with an abortion, even if you want to consider abortion a bad thing. Sometimes you have to pick between two bad things, and it's certainly a progressive position to acknowledge this in order to pick the lesser bad thing.
I'm not sure where you get this from. I stated, with very simple wording, that I don't think that terminating the mentally ill is related to being progressive, with an example demonstrating why. I'm not trying to communicate anything, other than what I wrote.
> But even then, sometimes people do have to die for what's best for society.
This is, literally, the reason the Nazis terminated the mentally ill [1], and is a framing that is not in line with progressivism at all, which would be more about personal choice.
Because that's what this entire discussion is about?
You do get that we're not talking about killing living people, right? At least if you're willing to say that an abortion isn't a living person, hence why I assumed that was your position lol
To be clear: I don't think it's progressive to round up mentally ill people and "terminate" them. I never said that. Nobody here is saying that. That's not what is being discussed in this thread by anyone.
>This is, literally, the reason the Nazis terminated the mentally ill
Sure, and it's also the reason we allow cops to use deadly force when necessary, or allow the military to kill enemy combatants, or, in some places, allow people to commit suicide in humane ways. It turns out, sometimes, someone dying is the best choice for society as a whole. It's not a pleasant reality, but it's inescapable.
Again, "progressivism" doesn't mean "only ever do things which are universally accepted as being good," it just means to make progress in the human condition through reforms aimed at increasing positive liberty [1]. That doesn't mean "don't ever ever kill anyone because it's bad to kill and makes people sad :(".
But, again, we're talking about abortion here. I'd love for you to explain how the right to abortion, for any reason, is actually not a progressive idea.
My mistake! I completely misread that bit.
> I'd love for you to explain how the right to abortion, for any reason, is actually not a progressive idea.
One of those reasons is eugenics, a form of ableism. That was my only point.