Bill banning Down syndrome abortions passes in Ohio, heads to Kasich's desk

a reply to: Cutepants

Euphamisms will solve all our problems.

It works so well for the arms industries afterall.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My general view is the "still" qualifier is insulting. People are beautiful when they behave like beautiful people. Having known a few downs folks i can say that they tend to be pretty darned beautiful people

It just feels objectifying.

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: EternalSolace


Everyone has the right to live, agreed?

The funny part about life is that it changes. And we're compelled to change with it. I don't agree with every single change, but what choice do i have. I have to live in this messed up place, just like the rest of us. We do as we're told, or we pay the consequences. Change happens, sometimes slower than we want but it happens.

It seems many support the right to live, right up until you are born. Then most anti abortion types don't give a flying hoot about you after then.

I support the right to abort downs babies and I would do so myself.

Unless of course one of you that doesn't support that right promises to have and look after that baby.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My general view is the "still" qualifier is insulting. People are beautiful when they behave like beautiful people. Having known a few downs folks i can say that they tend to be pretty darned beautiful people

It just feels objectifying.

They are beautiful people, usually friendly and love a cuddle.

However they need constant care in most cases for their whole lives.

Lots of people can't cope with that, I've seen that burden destroy lives many times.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I think it comes down to eugenics.

Either you're for it or against it.

Obviously, I am against it, but I see too many that are for it.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

I've chosen not to procreate anymore, but i cannot say who is worthy and who isn't to live, can you?

I mean seriously, can you honestly hold that power, the power to decide who lives and who dies?

I'd like to know. What do you think?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: EternalSolace

I think it comes down to eugenics.

I think it's more than that. It gets to the core of the issue.

Do the unborn have the right to life?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: EternalSolace

I think it comes down to eugenics.

I think it's more than that. It gets to the core of the issue.

Do the unborn have the right to life?

I asked that same question.

And the responses were, "No".

a reply to: pavil

You want the mandate to live with Down Syndrome. YOU? You'd live like that if you could go back and choose?

I call a case like this the right to not have to. 20 minutes of plastic forceps vs 60 years on the low.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

The GOP-led Ohio state Senate on Wednesday passed a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and Republican Gov. John Kasich has sent signals that he will soon sign the measure into law.

Lawmakers voted 20-12 in favor of the ban, which would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if doctors know that it is being sought, "in whole or in part," to avoid a Down syndrome pregnancy.

Bill banning Down syndrome abortions passes in Ohio, heads to Kasich's desk

I am without a doubt (post history proving) pro life. That said, who can determine the worth of a life (fetus) that has downs syndrome? I can understand the potential shortened life period of a person with downs. But why should downs alone be the determining factor over what impact they have in this world? That said, who can say the life should be shortened without the chance to impact the world?


Is Ohio on the right side of history? Or not?

I on one side want to defend the right for a downs person to impact the world... but where is the line drawn?

I always wondered what the liberal take on this would be. Suppose homosexuality IS genetic. At some point one should be able to determine this (let's pretend there is actual science to support this claim in the first place, and not just more "feels"). Should the woman be totally free to abort her child based on that alone?

People are going to use "23 & Me" and all the genetic testing to determine their children.

The unborn baby might be bad at math or too short, or be *gasp* a ginger?

Get rid of it. . . . . .

a reply to: Cutepants

it's not so much a pejorative; "It is named after John Langdon Down, the British doctor who fully described the syndrome in 1866."

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

This is why I say that things like abortion are a "personal choice", and settle for the mantra "do what you want with you and yours and leave me and mine alone".

Im pretty staunchly pro life, but im a bigger fan of keeping my nose out of other peoples business.

Why is it, that the people that want to force everyone to have said child, are the same ones that want to cut all assistance for said child?

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks: "You wanted the child so bad, you can # raise it!"

Sorry, but that's the reality of it. Them folks always want less government, less regulations, blah blah blah, until it comes to regulating someone's body.... Then they're all for it.

Having a down syndrome baby isn't for everyone. Your life is going to change, dramatically. It is a burden, sorry to point that out. It's a burden for the parent, the child, for a lot of people involved.

You may or may not feel the same, to each their own.

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Abysha

They get WIC and hard work like the rest of us peasents. Deal with it.

No. The "rest of you peasants" aren't being forced to raise a child with down syndrome by threat of law.

No matter how much milk and cheese you buy, it's not going to compensate for the lifetime burden of raising that child.

You want to force her to have that baby? YOU need to help shoulder that burden.

If im not mistaken arent you a transitioning male? Because I dont know many women who would call raising a child a "burden" except for those who are seriously self centered and self serving, or those who arent women

I would.

Born female,I have two children and I absolutely identify as female. There are times when raising a child is a burden. Raising a child with downs syndrome requires considerable medical, therapeutic, financial, psychological and social support. If I did not have ready access to those resources I absolutely would not want to raise that child. I would almost certainly have an abortion. In the situation that I am in now, I would consider raising the child, but I honestly don't know what I would do. A calculating decision to be sure, which doesn't fit into the pedestalized "Mother" character that society likes to tell women is what they should be.

On a related note, but still something of an aside, I know that lots of people, mostly males, (which I highly suspect based upon your response that you are), are incredibly invested in this romanticized, even nearly deified, view of motherhood and mothers as completely selfless servants to their children, home, husbands, communities and cultures. A True Mother must never think of herself only others, sacrificing her wants, health and well being to all others, but this is simply a construct to socially compel women to submission.

Historically male dominated societies tend to bind women into three categories: virgins (innocent and sexually pure and clean) mothers (gentle, submissive servants to all others) and whores (any woman that does not fit these other two categories). The first two categories are the good women and any other woman is in the third and she is evil. Curiously, this third category often has little enough to do with such a woman's genuine sexual history, it is assumed that if she is not compliant she is promiscuous.

a reply to: redhorse

Im a father, and will attest that raising a child is a burden. It doesn't mean you don't take on that burden...but no one enjoys getting up in the middle of the night to deal with someone else's diarrhea.

originally posted by: bender151

originally posted by: EternalSolace

The GOP-led Ohio state Senate on Wednesday passed a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and Republican Gov. John Kasich has sent signals that he will soon sign the measure into law.

Lawmakers voted 20-12 in favor of the ban, which would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if doctors know that it is being sought, "in whole or in part," to avoid a Down syndrome pregnancy.

Bill banning Down syndrome abortions passes in Ohio, heads to Kasich's desk

I am without a doubt (post history proving) pro life. That said, who can determine the worth of a life (fetus) that has downs syndrome? I can understand the potential shortened life period of a person with downs. But why should downs alone be the determining factor over what impact they have in this world? That said, who can say the life should be shortened without the chance to impact the world?


Is Ohio on the right side of history? Or not?

I on one side want to defend the right for a downs person to impact the world... but where is the line drawn?

I always wondered what the liberal take on this would be. Suppose homosexuality IS genetic. At some point one should be able to determine this (let's pretend there is actual science to support this claim in the first place, and not just more "feels"). Should the woman be totally free to abort her child based on that alone?

m.pnas.org...

According to the law which has been challenged repeatedly, meaning the legal precedent is too large to change, a woman can have an abortion for any reason before a viable fetus can survive outside the womb.

Personally I am pro life. But I know making it illegal does more harm.

a reply to: dothedew

and I have to ask...
what would the future outcome be for down syndrome babies without all the support services they receive now?
I mean, they have increase medical needs, but chips still hasn't bee refunded and they've already clued us in that these nice big tax cuts for the corps are gonna be paid for by cutting the entitlement programs such as medicare and medicaid.
every school in this country has a duty to provide education to children which is designed for any special needs but, I do believe that those schools also get some funds from those medicaid programs to help with the costs of their special educational programs. they want to cut funds for home healthcare needs, and god only knows what other aspects of that support would vanish or become so defunded as to not be that effective at all...
what good does it do to save the baby if we aren't willing to invest in that baby so that they can at least reach the potential that they are capable of?

So let me get this one perfectly straight here.... we all need to vaccinate our children no matter what because a mentally handicapped baby is better than a dead baby... BUTTTT we also need to be able to abort mentally handicapped babies becuase.... a dead baby is better than caring for a mentally handicapped baby...


got it! clear as mud, you liberals are so damn consistent!

a reply to: Ridhya

"All that matters is what the parents want"

"All that matters is the parents get do to whatever want without consequences" FTFY

....

" Among them 43 (7.5%) died during the first week of life."

so kill them before they die, got it!