Legislators now believe they can deny a woman an abortion because they disapprove of her reason for it. Well, what's new about that? Nearly all anti-abortionists characterize ANY abortion as being for convenience only. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the family involved is in the best position to know whether their family can adequately care for a special-needs child? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ohio-bill-would-ban-abortion-if-down-syndrome-is-reason/ar-BBm0ywJ Opening a new front in the abortion wars, abortion opponents are pushing Ohio to make it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a woman is terminating her pregnancy to avoid having a baby with Down syndrome. The legislature is expected to approve the measure this fall because lawmakers endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, which supports the bill, make up more than two-thirds of both houses...... Mike Gonidakis, the president of Ohio Right to Life, said his group had made the bill here a legislative priority because Down syndrome is so recognizable, so easily diagnosed in pregnancy and so likely to lead to abortion. We all want to be born perfect, but none of us are, and everyone has a right to live, perfect or not, he said. You go to any supermarket or mall and see these families who just happen to have a child with Down syndrome, and they will tell you how fortunate they are to have those children. Pretty soon, were going to find the gene for autism. Are we going to abort for that, too?
The are prolifers who WANT girls to knowingly have Down Syndrome as this proves submissiveness to their religion and that OTHER people are willing to suffer for their own beliefs. Religious/ideological zealots will always have a contest between them over who is the more extreme zealot to their slogans and doctrine.
I raise the topic here: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/421110-miscarriages-known-birth-defects.html Given the choice between birthing a whole and healthy baby, there are prolifers who want Down Syndrome babies instead. As for the law, there is no way to read what is in a woman's mind as proof. However, there are laws prolifers want passed that doctors may knowingly lie to women about the health of the fetus and nature of the fetus - lie about its gender and lie that it doesn't have any birth defects - to trick women. The question is how much will it become that women do not dare to go to a doctor for pre-natal care as doctors increasingly become police officers and investigators against them? There is no doctor-patient secrecy in criminal cases. Anything you tell a doctor, anything a doctor finds or learns, is information for police, courts and trials already.
This ego centric guy says """We all want to be born perfect, but none of us are, and everyone has a right to live, perfect or not""" speaking for those with disabilities.....because HE doesn't have one. HE has to go to a supermarket to FIND one!!! , he spouts off not having a clue what it all involves...and then thinks he scored a big point because the parents , in their most selfish mode, say how fortunate THEY are to have these children,....as if they'd admit what a physically and financially draining burden it was...,,those "Pro-Lifers sure don't give a damn how the disabled feel nor do they care as long as they feel good....
You don't want abortionists to get abortions? Why? They have the same rights as anyone else. What IS their reason? I can't read their minds like you can so I have to ask...... MOD EDIT - Off Topic
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/04/did-you-know-90-of-babies-with-down-syndrome-are-aborted/ According to this pro life website, 90% of foetuses found to have Down's Syndrome are aborted. Naturally, this website doesn't approve, but not many pro lifers agree with them, do they?
Because it is so easy to find people willing to adopt disabled babies................. Yes there are Downs babies that do well - comparatively there are also many many Downs born with multiple genetic abnormalities - from congenital heart to oesophageal atresia to leukaemia. Who will help that mother support that child? If you really really want to stop this then that is the answer - ensure the child will be supported
As more women opt to have children later in life the incidents of Down Syndrome will increase as statistically it is highly related to the age of the woman.
Just to point out, it is a logical fallacy to assert that correlation necessarily implies causation. As a hypothetical example, it might be that women with a lower level of genetic fitness or poorer health are less likely to find a partner they want to reproduce with in their early years. I disapprove of abortions on perfectly normal healthy babies. Down syndrome is a difficult case. Many people may not realize this, but the fact that a baby has been diagnosed with Down syndrome early on is not a set indicator of exactly how retarded the child will turn out to be. You see, the retardation is only a secondary effect of the chromosomal abnormalities, and depends on other factors in the womb, and to some extent random chance. Some people with Down Syndrome turn out to be "almost" normal, with personalities like you and me (though their bodies and facial features may be slightly misshapen). Others turn out to be essentially like wild animals who are unable to talk or carry out any human task. Most probably turn out to be somewhere in the middle. That's part of what makes the decision so difficult. One question we can ask ourselves is if a newborn baby came out and the doctors realized right then and there that it had Down Syndrome, would it be okay to kill it? Perform a mercy killing, put it out of its misery because it probably would turn out to be very retarded? Why or why not? How can we advocate termination at 20 weeks in the womb but not right when it comes out? Isn't the principle still the same? We are terminating because it has Down Syndrome and "won't be able to live a normal life". Whether the baby is inside or outside the womb does not change the supposed justification. No, what I think is happening here is that Down Syndrome is being used as just another excuse for "women's choice". Pro-choicers believe the woman should be able to abort regardless of whether it has Down Syndrome.
For the thousandth time, women do not need an excuse to get an abortion. WHERE did you get that idea? They only need a reason to CHOOSE abortion and they do NOT need one YOU approve of ......abortion is legal. You: ""Pro-choicers believe the woman should be able to abort regardless of whether it has Down Syndrome. """ YES, that's what Pro-CHOICE is all about.
Yawn .. yet again you proceed with something that has been debated and answered numerous times, classic wash, lather, rinse, repeat.
Yes, and I'm one of those pro-choice. The linkage of age to the rate of Down Syndrome is very well documented. There is a decisive difference you do not acknowledge. A woman can not get pregnant when she already is pregnant and most women - nor their husbands - are willing to have as many children as she humanly possibly can, but USUALLY a Down Syndrome child requires far more attention, meaning a possible overall lesser number of children, plus often having a Down Syndrome child is committing to being a parent to that child as a child as long as the child lives. I have raised that issue on a different thread. Since a woman can't both be pregnant and get pregnant, it can often come down to the choice of EITHER birthing a Down Syndrome child OR birthing a child who is whole in body and mind. The woman has to pick one, she can't do both. So UNLESS she shares your view that all abortions are murdering a baby, how can she ethically justify not trying to give her next child a healthy and whole body and mind? If the woman MUST pick between bring a Down Sydrome child into her family and our society OR a whole and healthy in body and mind child into her family and our society, which should she pick? Which is best for her next child? But I understand that is a question you will refuse to answer because you likely claim a 1 cell zygote is no different from a 6 year old child, right? In my opinion, until a child is born into our society, our society has no venue and jurisdiction in relation to the zygote/embryo/fetus.
Suppose a 2-year-old child is involved in a horrible accident and becomes quadriplegic. Is it okay to off them to make room in the family for two new children? You do think that second normal healthy child should be born, don't you?
Why do you keep bringing up weird scenarios having to do with born people. You have been schooled in the difference between a fetus and the BORN.....why do you ask if murder is OK when you know NO one has suggested it is?
As usual you ignore the well documented differences between a fetus and a child. When the child in your fairy-tale scenario above actually physically injuries the female we can have the conversation .. until then it is nothing more than a delusion. BTW: Any time you want to quit being a coward the challenge still stands.
The answer is no. A person who does not grasp the difference between an 8 week old fetus and a 2 year old child horrifically trivializes children.
What about when the fetus is 18 weeks old? Because often times they may not realize there is something abnormal until later into the pregnancy...
Is that so shocking? What's the difference between aborting a handicapped baby at 18 weeks gestation and aborting a handicapped baby that was prematurely born at 26 weeks? Because 2 months isn't really that long... And pro-choicers are the ones talking about 'banning reason'
As you well know because you have been schooled in it repeatedly because one is BORN and one isn't...... Why do you keep asking that question when it's been answered several hundred times???
