Your words.... "NO, they are not....they have a condition that may take thousands of dollars to treat, they need special education, they need special care ." You don't think they should be allowed to live because of dollars. <Mod Edit>
Depends some are high functioning some are not. Some have congeyical heart and food pipe defects some do not some have a specific risk of leukaemia Many people would rather not bring a child into the world if it faces all those hurdles
Why is it that almost first, our Democrats as well as some women from Australia blurt out, not the woman's responsibility, it all falls on the public? Why does the woman not retain responsibility? And no, none of us got her pregnant so for us to sanction her killing of children is not what I plan to do nor stand for.
Only in your twisted interpretation of words.... """"NO, they are not....they have a condition that may take thousands of dollars to treat, they need special education, they need special care .""" NO where in that sentence did I say they shouldn't be allowed to live. But then you don't seem to know the difference between completely different words like "protections" and "rights" so maybe that's why you are confused about my statement...
She IS responsible BUT if her right to choose is taken away and Big Government FORCES her to gestate it is no longer HER responsibility.. ....IF the state owns women then it owns their kids..... Down's kids COST MORE MONEY...not everyone has that kind of money and they sure won't get it from child-hating Repubs who are constantly cutting funding to any entity that aids CHILDREN. Take away women's rights and they have NO RESPONSIBILTY.....and shouldn't be paying taxes either I hate to crush an ego (not )but who you or anyone else has sex with has nothing to do with women's rights ...or anything else important. Oh, it doesn't matter if you do or don't stand for it, it is law.
Are you a troll? I never got an answer to : Uh, ya....the perpetrator would not be "punished"....er, how and why would that happen. If a person hires a hitman to kill someone else they are charged with murder, too. Why would women get a free pass!?? They say that because they don't want to look like they have no sympathy for the woman but they have none...zip, zero.....and certainly NONE for the kid who will face challenges that Kusich, the sick $#@&^% will NEVER have to face....what an unfeeling pig.. They have no sympathy .or they wouldn't deprive her of her human rights, force her to gestate like a cow or pig. The comment by a typical ANTI-CHOICERS and how he thinks he is god and all the people of Ohio: “Ohio is and will continue to be a state that sees the lives of people with Down syndrome as lives worth living, thanks to this legislation.”...."" But screw women , they aren't.... Maybe if they'll start a Big Charity drive to PAY FOR all the special needs of the kids they FORCED onto parents because Repubs do NOT want to pay taxes to help fellow Americans
This is just a bad law, So woman will just leave OH to have said abortion of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome.
Then stop any and all women in your family including wives, daughters and sisters from having an abortion.
Which is wrong....ALL Americans have a right to their body and it shouldn't depend on what state they are in....
You are still stuck on that because you got caught claiming that Down's syndrome kids should be aborted because they might be to "expensive". Everyone now knows that you judge human life not by the person by if they make enough money. We get it now.
You responded directly to my question about Down's syndrome not being a life debilitating event and that they are people just like everyone else. You defended aborting Down's babies for no other reason that having Down's syndrome and defended it by claiming that they cost thousands of dollars more to care for. You literally just said that its OK to abort a Down's baby because they might be more expensive to raise. If that is your logic then any fetus that has the genes for high risk of heart disease, addiction, diabetes, cancer and any other "expensive" disease should immediately be terminated. As I said you are literally using the same arguments as Hitler. They very fact that you are stuck on the "protections" versus "rights" things shows that you are rabidly attempting to deflect from your statements about abortion being about dollars and cents. We get it its protections and not rights now answer why you think its ok to abort a Down's fetus just because its more expensive and if you support aborting all children with potential genetic issues. If you are opposed to aborting kids solely because they are not genetically "pure" enough then how can you defend aborting a fetus just because its a Down's kid? If you want an abortion cause you don't want a child then have an abortion. If the child has a life debilitating condition then have an abortion. The second you start screening for non life threatening conditions such as cancer, heart disease and yes Down's syndrome we enter the age of genetic superiority we start weeding out the weak ones to purify our society from inferiors. No wonder you rabidly support Margerat Sanger. Its eugenics all over again.
As with all your statements you claim something and have no proof EXACTLY LIKE YOU CLAIMED THE SUPREME COURT GAVE FETUSES RIGHTS AND COULD NOT PROVE IT ..... I NEVER said Down's kids should be aborted and like everything else you claim you can't show any proof...... Oh, and YOU are NOT "everyone" nor are you "we".... why do you need fantasy backup ???
Gee, keep up the Hitler/Nazi references......they get deleted but not before anyone can see with your using it you have no argument..... It's not a deflection, it's an attempt to teach English.... WHO IS this "we" you keep referencing? aren't you one person? No, I don't support Sanger she's dead.... I support , and you HATE, women's rights and that includes choosing what to do with their own bodies....and no matter how YOU feel they still do
And there we have it another flat out lie. You said it was perfectly fine to abort a fetus for having Down's syndrome. I posted your response and you still deny it. You then claim that you don't support Sanger when we had a long discussion about her a year ago and you defended her. Answer the question....if its OK to abort a fetus just for having Down's syndrome then is it OK to abort a fetus for having a higher risk of heart disease, cancer or diabetes? Having an abortion because you don't want any kids then go at it. Having an abortion because the fetus isn't genetically pure is literally eugenics. How did that eugenics stuff work out historically?
YUP! If that's what the woman wants......You continually ignore the most important person involved, the pregnant woman.....but that doesn't mean she has no rights, she does and the fetus doesn't One big difference is "risk" compared to "has it". There is NO difference in procedure or outcome... It faded away........ How inhumane, SELFISH, and cruel to insist that a child be born that will always have health, developmental, and social problems just to make YOU feel all warm and fuzzy
Approximately 88% of abortions are preformed within in the first trimester (3 months) of a pregnancy. Roughly 59% take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, 19% in weeks 9 to 10, and 10% in weeks 11 to 12. About 10% of abortions occur during the second trimester (6% in weeks 13-15 and 4% by week 20). I guess if the abortion takes place within the same period of time other legal abortions take place, I find it acceptable. But though Down's Syndrome children are retarded and have health problems, they are reputed to be loving, good children. If the abortion was to take place after the normal time abortions are allowed, I'd say no, don't make it legal. When you have a child, you take the chance that anything could occur. You have no guarantee that your child is going to be all okay. Most babies are not Down's Syndrome, so if you don't have the abortion within what is normal legal time, you should have to take the chance just like you would with any baby. Rate of Downs Syndrome: Women at age 45—1 in 32 births; Women at age 50—1 in 8 births. I'd say don't have a baby after 44. If you are so desperate to be a parent, adopt an older child. Newborns usually go to parents 40 or younger. For adoption of babies, age 40 is the cutoff.
Good post....and abortion IS illegal after 23 weeks....this is just more unnecessary legislation attempting to etch away at women's rights.