It’s Down Syndrome, not Downs. As in look down the page. 
That’s the whole reason. Many people who are not planning on aborting their child will do so once they have learned that there are defects that would impact the quality of life.
This is the republicans way of preventing exactly what you are proposing.
Apparently the law even extends to banning the procedure if the mother’s life is in danger. :mad: People like that DO NOT have a choice.
Merged threads starting at post #60.
[/moderating]
Yes, but if you were a pregnant mother you’d be a woman and what you’d like does not matter to Republicans. They would like to force you to give birth against your will and what they want is what matters.
I do wonder why US politics is consumed by this question. In Europe the abortion debate seems only to persist in a couple of countries that are very Catholic like Ireland and to a lesser extent Poland. Apart from the religious/ethical questions, what is the political division that drives the debate in the US over legislation?
My guess is “Liberals are killing babies!!!” is a powerful political message.
Obviously the next step for the Ohio Legislature and Gov. Kasich is to criminalize abortion for any fetal defect. Like anencephaly.
It’s the warm, fuzzy, Republican thing to do.
On a personal level, I have problems with abortion as merely birth control, as I do take the position that it’s at least a living organism (we can debate “living” until the end of time, I reckon).
But as a matter of practical jurisprudence, I’m basically of the opinion that women should be allowed to have abortions, even if I don’t necessarily agree with their motivations for having them. Giving the state the power to control what one does or doesn’t do with her (or his) own body is the ultimate example of oppression over an individual.
I’m not usually a fan of slippery slope arguments, but abortion is an example where it applies, because it’s more than just the right to terminate pregnancy we’re talking about. It’s a matter of giving the state the power to dictate how your body is used, and in the case of abortion, it’s requiring a woman to be used by someone else.
What’s preventing this same government from executing prisoners and turning the prison population into an organ farm?
The law, you say.
Okay, but laws can be changed, and religious fundamentalist regimes tend to be authoritarian and would probably have no qualms about expanding its domain when it comes to controversies such as these.
What I find confusing is that the Right believes in a small state, personal liberty and a free enterprise. These are rational concepts. Yet on this issue they seem to support a strong state imposing its will on an individual who may have very good reasons for their decison not to continue with a pregnancy. Anti-abortion campaigns make religious fundamentalist arguments that seems to threaten the freedom from religious persecution and the separation of Church and state that are important parts of the US Constitution. Very dangerous territory.
How do Political conservatives reconcile their policies with those of the Religious Right who seem to want religious principles enshrined in Law at the expense individual liberty? Do some politicians on the Right distance themselves from this religiosity or are they all in the pocket of the preachers?
I have a special needs child that will most likely never be able to live independently. I wouldn’t trade her for the world. If I knew then what I know now after 13 years with essentially zero government support, I would want to have the choice and not some repressive government that doesn’t provide meaningful support dictate what parents (me) should do.
One factor is that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, abortion became a proxy for white protestants’ racial grievances.
And once it took root, simple partisan polarization kept it moving. I’m sure I’ve seen numbers indicating that among committed partisans, pro-choice Republicans and anti-choice Democrats tended to change positions on abortion rather than change parties.
Most of them don’t care. They try to tug on peoples’ heart strings with tales of poor kids with Downs being aborted. They don’t understand how downright disturbing it can get. Try alobar holoprosencephaly.
In case any is wondering - no pics on that link. Pictures of that are usually pretty horrible.
I’m actually opposed to abortion in most cases, and I still think this law makes no sense. If it’s legal for a woman to abort just because she feels like it, then of course it’s legal to abort because of a serious congenital medical problem. The question in the OP would only make sense in a context where most abortions were illegal, and the possibility of congenital defect were offered as an exception.
To be a little clearer on my standard of “most cases”, I believe that abortion should be permitted before a certain level of neural development, and prohibited after (precisely what level of neural development, I’m less firm on, but an absolute lower bound would be the differentiation of neural tissue). It would in principle be possible to test for Down’s syndrome before this point, since we know the genetic basis for it, but I do not know whether current technology allows for it. If Down’s syndrome were detected before the threshold of neural development, then I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever to selective abortion of Down’s fetuses, and in fact would consider it a prudent decision.
EDIT: Oh, and I also have no moral objection to abortion in cases of ancephaly, at any point, because a fetus with ancephaly, by definition, will never reach the level of neural development needed to become a person.
It’s almost as if they think the fetus is an actual person or something!!
Hint: They do. I disagree, but I don’t find anything “confusing” about it.
I’d like to address this question from another direction …
We’re falsely assuming that people with Down Syndrome experience great suffering … that’s completely wrong … individuals with Down Syndrome are typically very happy, well-adjusted within their abilities, quick to smile and laugh and in general live a very relaxed and satisfying life … we could all learn from the example of a worry-free existence …
It’s the parents who go through a living hell … it’s the parents who suffer from Down Syndrome … it’s heartbreaking in the delivery room, a young couple full of hope and promise until the babe comes out obviously fucked up, and the doctors know on the spot, they’ll test but they already know … everything the parents wanted in life is gone, never to be realized, their home is now a mental health ward, everything forevermore will be centered on caring for their child …
I think the problem with this legislation is that it doesn’t set up programs to help the parents deal with the child’s special needs … and Down Syndrome in particular is very very predictable, we can set up “cradle-to-grave” pathways that quite literally can be one size fits all … and outcomes for both the child and parents are very good, but it has to start immediately and must last the entire life of the child … it’s expensive, and if the State doesn’t want to pay, then it seems to me they should let the parents decide …
Just to be clear, I’m not making that assumption.
Unless their teenage daughters get pregnant, in which case they are probably bundled off to the nearest abortion clinic whether she wants to do that or not, and the clinic staff are paid a lot of money to keep their mouths shut (yeah, yeah, I know all about HIPAA and patient confidentiality).
watchwolf49, Downs can vary in severity, and while most don’t suffer, the picture you paint of the “cheerful little handicapped person” is utterly absurd, and down right patronizing.
That’s one of the main reasons I chose that link. I would advise extreme caution on googling that particular ailment.