It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: EternalSolace
I think it comes down to eugenics.
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?
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?
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
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?