Ohio could become the second state to ban women from having an abortion because of a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome. An Ohio House bill to outlaw doctors from performing an abortion under such a circumstance is the latest effort by abortion opponents to further restrict abortion rights. How frequently pregnant women choose to terminate a pregnancy because of Down syndrome is not clear. A study published by the American Journal of Medical Genetics in January estimated that 30 percent of fetuses with Down syndrome were terminated in recent years, a number largely unchanged since 1986. But a study published in 2012 in Prenatal Diagnosis found a 50 to 85 percent rate of abortions after a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Supporters of House Bill 135 say it has more to do with ending discrimination than abortion. Opponents argue that it’s the same debate about whether a pregnant mother has the right to end a pregnancy, whatever the reason. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Sarah LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township, told colleagues during a recent hearing: “I hope that you can see that this isn’t an issue about abortion; it’s an issue of discrimination — discriminating against a person, not allowing them their God-given right to life, simply because they might have Down syndrome.”
Thought on this? I do not support limiting abortion.
Ohio House bill would ban abortions spurred by diagnosis of Down syndrome | The Columbus Dispatch
Thought on this? I do not support limiting abortion.
Ohio House bill would ban abortions spurred by diagnosis of Down syndrome | The Columbus Dispatch
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?
So now we judge a person's right to live based upon whether or not they are productive members of society?
Yes, ideally.
Why? Please be specific.
Should non productive members of society be put to death?
You didn't answer the first question. Why should the right to live or die be based on whether or not a person is a productive member of society? Please be specific.I don't advocate an active death penalty for them, but I see no reason they ought to be saved. I doubt you'd disagree with my opposition to the social safety net, for instance.
The pro-life position is moral cowardice.
spe·cif·ic
spəˈsifik/Submit
adjective
1.
clearly defined or identified.
"increasing the electricity supply only until it met specific development needs"
synonyms: particular, specified, fixed, set, determined, distinct, definite; More
antonyms: general
precise and clear in making statements or issuing instructions.
"when ordering goods be specific"
synonyms: detailed, explicit, express, clear-cut, unequivocal, precise, exact, meticulous, strict, definite
"I gave specific instructions"
belonging or relating uniquely to a particular subject.
"information needs are often very specific to companies and individuals"
2.
BIOLOGY
of, relating to, or connected with species or a species.
So now we judge a person's right to live based upon whether or not they are productive members of society?
Humans are the only species on the planet that waste resources on members that contribute nothing.
People with Down syndrome attend school, work, participate in decisions that affect them, and contribute to society in many wonderful ways. - See more at: http://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/Down-Syndrome-Facts/#sthash.CaXTS52f.dpuf
Because human society is limited in the means of its self-perpetuation. Scarcity defines societies; there are hard technological and ecological limitations to the carrying capacity of any one civilization at any one given stage of development. This carrying capacity can expand with material progress - or retract with economic calamity - but can never be exceeded on its given level. Consequently, priority must be given to those capable of further improving the material conditions of civilization - must be given to us, the living.
Explanation enough, dear sir?
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?
No. Pseudo-intellectual claptrap, nothing more.
Thought on this? I do not support limiting abortion.
Ohio House bill would ban abortions spurred by diagnosis of Down syndrome | The Columbus Dispatch
Many downs syndrome people and their parents would challenge you on whether or not they are productive members of society, and rightly so. Irrespective of the issue identified in the OP, your comment is truly offensive.
Culling of animals to preserve the species as well as to preserve other species and other environments is something man can do well and responsibly and it should be supported when properly managed and regulated.
You can take it that was if you wish.
Yes, ideally.
Bible John said it himself:
Then the severely handicapped – physically-mentally- should watch out eh?
NopeHumans are the only species on the planet that waste resources on members that contribute nothing.
I'm not the slightest bit religious, so you must have pulled the "Bible John" crap out of your ass. Pro-tip - it never helps your argument when you resort to idiocy.
As for my comments in the thread related to a Rhino that was hunted because it was endangering the reproductive efforts of its herd, I stand by them. If you think a down syndrome baby, or even a herd of down babies, has the same power to alter or halt the survival of mankind, you're either delusional or you've come across some pretty powerful down babies.
I doubt they're much in the way of watching, really.
I favor hard austerity - the abolition of all fiscal redistribution schemes, whether vertical or lateral - coupled to a voluntary eugenics programme.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?