• 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

From medscape.com

As NICUs proliferated in hospitals throughout the United States, high-risk perinatal services did not always develop in parallel. In addition, specialized technology such as high-frequency ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and surgical correction of potentially lethal congenital anomalies became available in the 1990s at some, but not all institutions further contributing to inconsistencies of capabilities in NICUs. A voluntary reporting survey conducted by the AAP Section of Perinatal Pediatrics in 2000 revealed considerable variability among the 880 units in the United States that self-reported as Level III/subspecialty or Level II/specialty NICUs.[8]

As state governments regulate health care facilities and services, differences among state regulatory requirements could explain the variation in capabilities and practice documented in the Section of Perinatal Pediatric survey.
In 2002, we began a review of operational terminology and regulatory status for hospital neonatal care services in the United States and reported the results through 2004 in preliminary form.[9] We report here the results of an analysis of current state documents that contain definitions and criteria language regarding hospital neonatal services.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717159
 
It's called compassion. Are you anti-compassion?

In fact, there are many with Down Syndrome who are productive members of society.

They go to school and suck up hundreds of thousands of dollars with special tutors and all this other **** (that the parents almost always never pay for) while people like my ****ing brother who dropped out of high school but was smart enough to make it to the navy ****ing nuke program got nothing but a stupid little "enlightenment" extra curricular course.

Yes. They are a ****ing drain.
 
They go to school and suck up hundreds of thousands of dollars with special tutors and all this other **** (that the parents almost always never pay for) while people like my ****ing brother who dropped out of high school but was smart enough to make it to the navy ****ing nuke program got nothing but a stupid little "enlightenment" extra curricular course.

Yes. They are a ****ing drain.

If you disagree with government entitlements, fine. I'm probably with you on that one. But they are human beings, and government largess aside, they have as much right to live as you or I do.
 
If you disagree with government entitlements, fine. I'm probably with you on that one. But they are human beings, and government largess aside, they have as much right to live as you or I do.

Sure they do.

Fetuses have no rights though.
 
That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but many of us would vehemently disagree.

Sure. However, what truly matters more than your insignificant opinion... Is that the constitution is on my side.
 
Sure. However, what truly matters more than your insignificant opinion... Is that the constitution is on my side.

No, it isn't. Nor are you on it's side.
 
It's a worthwhile question.

It is a direct reflection about what you believe about those people once they are born.

We have no qualms feeling offended if it was said about racial minorities or homosexuals specifically.

The bolded is false.

It is a direct reflection of how one feels about legally requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will.

In cases of a birth defect or fetal abnormality, it would also be about legally requiring another family to take on the added financial and emotional responsibilities that come with caring for a child with a disability.
 
The bolded is false.

It is a direct reflection of how one feels about legally requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will.

In cases of a birth defect or fetal abnormality, it would also be about legally requiring another family to take on the added financial and emotional responsibilities that come with caring for a child with a disability.

Absolutely not.

If Mason says that X will not be a productive member of society because of diagnosis A that says more about how that person views the group, not the strain on the would-be parents (which can be very real). If he was talking about the issues from the parents standpoint, he would do so. He wouldn't call the person with a disability a worthless human being. He wouldn't gripe about spending resources when a person with a disability is on this earth.

Why this is so hard for a number of prochoicers to understand about our community (the disability community) is certainly mystifying, but not surprising. People with disabilities find this rhetoric utterly demeaning, because we do not speak this way about other human beings. A lot of us are prochoice, but we do not tolerate demeaning rhetoric about us.

Turning this around on us to mean that you have to bash people with disabilities to fulfill some innocuous discussion of choice and the force of government on a woman is crap. It's simply the bashing of people like us with disabilities.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not.

If Mason says that X will not be a productive member of society because of diagnosis A that says more about how that person views the group, not the strain on the would-be parents (which can be very real). If he was talking about the issues from the parents standpoint, he would do so. He wouldn't call the person with a disability a worthless human being. He wouldn't gripe about spending resources when a person with a disability is on this earth.

I got nothing like that out of Mason's post. But here-- He can speak for himself.


Do you not understand the difference between aborting a baby with a birth defect and killing people that exist in the world?


Judging by your response to me, I imagine that no, you do not understand the difference.




Why this is so hard for a number of prochoicers to understand about our community (the disability community) is certainly mystifying, but not surprising. People with disabilities find this rhetoric utterly demeaning, because we do not speak this way about other human beings. A lot of us are prochoice, but we do not tolerate demeaning rhetoric about us.


Good thing that is not what's being discussed here.



Turning this around on us to mean that you have to bash people with disabilities to fulfill some innocuous discussion of choice and the force of government on a woman is crap. It's simply the bashing of people like us with disabilities.


Now I'm bashing people with disabilities? Seriously? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I suggest you reread the thread title, because the "crap" you refer to is, in fact, the topic.
 
I got nothing like that out of Mason's post. But here-- He can speak for himself.





Judging by your response to me, I imagine that no, you do not understand the difference.







Good thing that is not what's being discussed here.






Now I'm bashing people with disabilities? Seriously? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I suggest you reread the thread title, because the "crap" you refer to is, in fact, the topic.

Re-read his posts from the start of the thread please. And yes, if you try to tell me he is not bashing people with disabilities and do your part to say that this rhetoric is necessary to uphold the virtues of prochoice, you are permitting oppressive linguistics.
 
Re-read his posts from the start of the thread please. And yes, if you try to tell me he is not bashing people with disabilities and do your part to say that this rhetoric is necessary to uphold the virtues of prochoice, you are permitting oppressive linguistics.


I'm pretty sure this is the post you are referring to, primarily.


Why would anybody be against aborting a baby with a life altering condition which would guarantee that person would never be a productive member of society?

I understand that post to mean:

"What idiot would propose a law to ban abortion should a woman and her family decide to terminate a pregnancy?


As for oppressive linguistics, pro-choice didn't single out Down's Syndrome in an attempt to pass another BS abortion law, that was pro-life.


Abortion should always be a legal option for women should they discover a medical problem in their pregnancy. I absolutely do not advocate picking and choosing what medical conditions will or will not apply. That's a decision for the woman, her family, and her doctor.

If you are offended they singled out Down's Syndrome, I suggest you go speak to the pro-lifers. They are the ones who brought it up in the first place. :shrug:
 
No, Mason said more than that. He specifically highlighted the desirability of aborting Down Syndrome babies *because* he felt they were not productive members of society.

Furthermore, Many prochoicers for decades have isolated the Disability Rights Movement by retaining some of the most egregious parts of their eugenic heritage. A lot of the time they don't even know they are resorting to eugenic tropes, but it's about as plain as day as someone using the N word and talking about Welfare Queens. This isn't just because some prolifers created a bill.
 
We all know about the average proud liberal's lack of respect for human life, but that is not the subject of this thread.

I guess personal insults is the subject of this thread?
 
Those odds are for today; we don't know what medical/technological advances are coming. And 18 did survive.

Yes, 6 of them with severe complications.

And yeah, we don't know what technologies are coming. Key word there "coming". Those technologies are not here. Not that it really matters though. Until such technology makes it to where the ZEF does not have to be in the woman from the day of conceptions it is still a woman's choice to have an abortion or not, it's her body, no one elses.
 
If they were doing their job correctly, the states could pass whatever abortion restrictions they want, or none at all, since abortion is not mentioned in any way, shape, form, or fashion by the Constitution.

You don't want the courts to do their job correctly. You want them to be political hacks pushing your radical agenda.

I know you don't want to admit it but people do have a right to privacy. Whether its expressly written in the Constitution or not we still have that Right. And I'm 100% positive that you are all for the Right to Privacy when it comes to the government snooping in on your business. You just don't want anyone else to have the same right.
 
Not enough to over-ride a woman's right to privacy.
So 7, 8 months is OK with you?
That is assuming with no health risk to the mother.
 
So 7, 8 months is OK with you?
That is assuming with no health risk to the mother.

We all know viability is the cut off date in the US assuming no major irreparable health risk to woman or her very life is in danger. Most pro choicer's support that.( in fact I don't personally know any who do not support viability as the cut off. )

When Roe v Wade was decided the SC had to take the woman's right to privacy into consideration and states right to protect the the potentiality of human life into consideration.
The SC decided that at viability the state had " compelling interest " in the potentiality of life and at that point viability over rode the right to privacy.
As I said abortions past 21 weeks are very rare as they are unsafe for the woman and doctor and there needs to be a fetal or maternal medical reason for an abortion that late in the pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
We all know viability is the cut off date in the US assuming no major irreparable health risk to woman or her very life is in danger. Most pro choicer's support that.( in fact I don't personally know any who do not support viability as the cut off. )

When Roe v Wade was decided the SC had to take the woman's right to privacy into consideration and states right to protect the the potentiality of human life into consideration.
The SC decided that at viability the state had " compelling interest " in the potentiality of life and at that point viability over rode the right to privacy.
As I said abortions past 21 weeks are very rare as they are unsafe for the woman and doctor and there needs to be a fetal or maternal medical reason for an abortion that late in the pregnancy.

Thank you.
Old and I miss some posts, memory bad as well. Appreciate the repost.
 
wrong, I can reason, I have legal rights, and I have the means to enforce those rights

A newborn can't reason and has no means to enforce his or her rights. He or she still has them recognized by law.

but for your belief in a deity, you cannot say an unborn fetus has any of those characteristics

a) I don't believe in any deity.

b) The current ability to reason is not the standard for legal rights... or there would be plenty of posters on this site who are presumably adult humans but would have no rights... snark aside, that also means someone in a coma, medically induced or otherwise, or even just asleep would have no rights.

The ability to physically defend yourself is not the standard for legal rights. Might does NOT make right.

Furthermore, legal rights are subjective / political, which means they are entirely mutable - you cannot justify not providing them to some humans just by virtue of asserting that you are not and don't want to.
 
Last edited:
No, Mason said more than that. He specifically highlighted the desirability of aborting Down Syndrome babies *because* he felt they were not productive members of society.

Furthermore, Many prochoicers for decades have isolated the Disability Rights Movement by retaining some of the most egregious parts of their eugenic heritage. A lot of the time they don't even know they are resorting to eugenic tropes, but it's about as plain as day as someone using the N word and talking about Welfare Queens. This isn't just because some prolifers created a bill.

You seem to be taking huge offense to what I said.

Please tell me why you would willing have a baby that you knew in the early stages would have a severe disability and you would spend the rest of your life taking care of to the exclusion of everything else you should be doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom