• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio House bill would ban abortions spurred by diagnosis of Down syndrome

Stillbirts occur when the fetus dies in utero after 20 weeks gestation.
At least 20 percent occur because of chromosomal disorders.

From March of dimes site:

There are a number of known causes of stillbirth. Sometimes more than one of these causes may contribute to the baby’s death. Common causes include:

Birth defects: About 15 to 20 percent of stillborn babies have one or more birth defects (1). At least, 20 percent of these have chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome (1). Others have other birth defects resulting from genetic, environmental or unknown causes.

Stillbirth | March of Dimes
 
No, the anti-abortion position is entirely consistent with reason and science.

The pro-abortion position is informed by ludicrous and delusional hatred, and often bizarre and extreme religious notions, as evidenced by the pro-aborts on this site who express the notion that killing is essential religious freedom, that killing is okay because reincarnation fixes everything, and that rape babies are spawn sent by the devil.

Again, **** society; individual rights are what matters.

But yes, individual human rights are well served by imprisoning those who kill innocent human beings in aggression so they can't hurt anyone else.

psychoababble
 
no rebuttal

your solution would cause all sorts of civil unrest in the USA. banning abortions is not going to happen so deal with it. and putting women in prison for having an abortion-good luck with that

why is the anti abortion jihad mainly male?
 
your solution would cause all sorts of civil unrest in the USA.

Eh. Only amongst amoral nitwits that are best ignored.

banning abortions is not going to happen so deal with it.

Uh-huh. Other historical purveyors of bigotry said the same.

and putting women in prison for having an abortion-good luck with that

Law being enforced in this country in a rational and consistent manner would be fortunate, yes.

why is the anti abortion jihad mainly male?

Statistically speaking, gender is no indicator of abortion position.

The better question is why are you engaging in non-sequitur garbage? Rhetorical question, of course - it's because you have no argument.
 
Evidently, only if it conforms to your very narrow viewpoint. I am still kinda shocked that you, of all people, hold such a subjective view of "freedom". Oh well, I guess you learn something new every day. :shrug:

He's not a religious nut.

He clearly understands the concept of freedom a little more than you do.
 
If the parent(s) want to try to intervene and the hospital is equipped to try to intervene that is up to the parent(s) and staff to try to intervene than that should be their choice. If the parents which to give comfort care than at that early stage with such low odds of survival they should be able to make that choice.

Something else to consider is the fact that neo natal units and staff are limited.

Using the equipment and staff to try to save a 22 week gestation preemie may mean there is no neo natal available for 25 week gestational preemie born that would have an 85 percent chance to live if a unit were available.

So the staff should just say " sorry we can't intervene and try to save 25 week gestational preemie because a 22 week gestational preemie is using it and just might have 10 percent chance of living long enough to make it out of the neo natal intensive care unit."

Hard choices.
I am glad I am not faced with a choice like that.

Hard choices indeed.
and then there's the question of how many more babies would survive if the money spent on attempting to keep a preemie with a 10% chance of survival alive were to instead go to ordinary pre and post natal care for normal pregnancies.
 
Hard choices indeed.
and then there's the question of how many more babies would survive if the money spent on attempting to keep a preemie with a 10% chance of survival alive were to instead go to ordinary pre and post natal care for normal pregnancies.

Former Dean of the Yale Law School (and now a 2nd Circuit CoA judge) Guido Calabresi wrote a book called something Like "Tragic Choices" which involved the allocation of what he called tragically scarce resources in a competitive society. a tragic choice might involve two patients needing a kidney-say the father of four children who is 40 years old and supports those 4 children and his wife and say a 12 year old child who has yet to have much of a life. who gets the Kidney>

so when we turn to other health care issues where the public is forced to fund the health care of so many members of the public a question must be raised about the tragic choices of funding one profoundly disabled child that health care professionals knew was going to be born with severe health challenges vs saving or dramatically improving the lives of other children who have serious but far more treatable challenges.
 
Former Dean of the Yale Law School (and now a 2nd Circuit CoA judge) Guido Calabresi wrote a book called something Like "Tragic Choices" which involved the allocation of what he called tragically scarce resources in a competitive society. a tragic choice might involve two patients needing a kidney-say the father of four children who is 40 years old and supports those 4 children and his wife and say a 12 year old child who has yet to have much of a life. who gets the Kidney>

so when we turn to other health care issues where the public is forced to fund the health care of so many members of the public a question must be raised about the tragic choices of funding one profoundly disabled child that health care professionals knew was going to be born with severe health challenges vs saving or dramatically improving the lives of other children who have serious but far more treatable challenges.
and they say we don't have rationing.
 
He's not a religious nut.

He clearly understands the concept of freedom a little more than you do.

Lol, if you say so. Just let me ask you this. Since when does determining the worth of a human life hinge on their ability to contribute to society? Since when do the tenets of liberty completely lack compassion and empathy?
 
... Since when do the tenets of liberty completely lack compassion and empathy?

Liberty?

Access to contraception and legal abortions are a part of our liberty.

...Good policy is policy that allows for all people – regardless of their religious identity – to follow their own faith and conscience when directing the course of their life. When it comes to matters of reproductive health, RCRC believes that real religious liberty protects the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family, and her own faith. Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual.

Religious Liberty | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice
 
Lol, if you say so. Just let me ask you this. Since when does determining the worth of a human life hinge on their ability to contribute to society? Since when do the tenets of liberty completely lack compassion and empathy?

A fetus is not human life. Life is the existence of an individual human being. A fetus is not an individual human being.

Therefore, determining the fate of a fetus is not comparable to comparing the fate of a living, breathing, out of the womb human individual.

The tenets of liberty do not lack compassion, they are neutral to it.

Just as a man can use his free speech to advocate for the love of humanity, so can a man use his free speech to condemn humanity out of spite.
 
A fetus is not human life. Life is the existence of an individual human being. A fetus is not an individual human being.

Therefore, determining the fate of a fetus is not comparable to comparing the fate of a living, breathing, out of the womb human individual.

The tenets of liberty do not lack compassion, they are neutral to it.

Just as a man can use his free speech to advocate for the love of humanity, so can a man use his free speech to condemn humanity out of spite.

Do you believe that the Unborn victims of Violence Act, which states that the murder of a fetus is the same as a murder of a "a living, breathing, out of the womb human individual", should be repealed? Same question regarding the the dozens of other state legislation that states the same.
 
Do you believe that the Unborn victims of Violence Act, which states that the murder of a fetus is the same as a murder of a "a living, breathing, out of the womb human individual", should be repealed? Same question regarding the the dozens of other state legislation that states the same.

Yes..
 
Do you believe that the Unborn victims of Violence Act, which states that the murder of a fetus is the same as a murder of a "a living, breathing, out of the womb human individual", should be repealed? Same question regarding the the dozens of other state legislation that states the same.

A fetus has no rights.

Feticide laws protect the state's interest.
States can and often do protect the interest of non ( natural ) persons.
 
Back
Top Bottom