Support NeoGAF

[Ninja Scooter]

I think this law is good news overall, let's hope you have now a higher rate of Down syndrome people so you can actually see what it's really about.

One of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read.

 

[God Dayumm]

^ I can't believe that quote

 

[Skiptastic]

God damnit, Indiana. Every time I prop up your low cost of housing, decent people, and quaint lifestyle you always remind me that the governance sucks when it comes to many things.

Sheesh.

Fucking tell me about it.

Indiana has seen a hell of a lot of election year politics going on. There is a ground swell to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected class list, but the reps and senators won't have it be voted on because it would pass and Pence would have to sign it and lose his base or veto it and piss people off. So LGBT protections were tabled until likely next year when nobody is up for election again.

This is a total pander to Pence's right wing base to drum up support because everyone else is still pretty pissed off about RFRA and how it made our state look. Too bad the Democrats didn't have a Joe Donnelly or Evan Bayh waiting in the wings to run against Pence because they would win. Instead we got John Gregg. He didn't lose by much last time but he will probably lose again.

The best shot Indiana has of getting Pence out is Trump being on the GOP ticket and the Democrats actually spending money here. Hillary could take this state against Trump and hopefully could pull Gregg along with her. Too bad 08 Obama isn't on the ticket this time.

 

[aeolist]

As someone who has cared for the mentally disabled, I'm pretty upset at the dehumanizing posts in here. Can you please not act like the mentally disabled are sub-human? They're every bit as human as you are (perhaps even more, judging by some of these posts) and deserve every right to live. You can make your argument without knocking them down, just so you know.

i don't think i've seen that happen, but the position that i and others hold is that fetuses prior to viability are not human beings and pregnant women should be able to terminate them for any reason

mentally disabled people who have been born are just as human as anyone else and deserve all the respect and care in the world

 

[manueldelalas]

See, but the problem is that the state won't help the family with care after they've been forced to have a child that they potentially can't care for in the right way.

It's not about "seeing what Down Syndrome is all about". The problem here is that families, and more specifically, the women who are forced by law to carry the child to term, don't even have a choice in their own reproductive health.

But it is. We have double the births of Down syndrome per thousand born than you, all because of abortion laws. You should have a higher rate than us, but you don't, where are the missing kids?

The state is not going to solve a problem it doesn't see, or doesn't care about. State is not the solution here, visibility is.

Most institutions in Chile that treat Down syndrome and disabilities in general are private. Most treatments are free for most people and payed by charity (and that means charity events, professionals getting payed less of nothing at all, people giving monthly money to institutions, etc).

Society needs to realize this. If someone had a kid with a disability, society's response can't be "why didn't you abort it while you had the chance?", that's just being an asshole. Society's response must be building institutions, giving their own pocket money to help their neighbor, and in general, understand that in a society we care what happens to the guy next to us.

It also can't be an issue of rights or lefts. Or atheists vs religious.

The crude reality is that Down syndrome kids are being selected to be aborted in your country (and most "developed" countries) because they have Down syndrome. They can live a great life. They bring a ton of joy. They can be independent. They can work, earn money, travel alone, get married, cry, laugh, get angry, love, learn, write on GAF, have a cellphone, etc. And they are persons.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

God this is an awful spin on things. You should talk with a person with downs syndrome some time. They're not sub-human.

They're not sub human, their life isn't some how less devalued by having a disabilty. However, the stress on the caregiver is enormous. Often times fathers will just up and leave when they get older. That leaves the mother, who is aging herself, with a full grown child to take care of.

Therapies are all good and great, but those stop between the ages of 18-21. The adult therapies are mich harder to find, often require large amounts of money, and maybe once every 3-5 years lets some one in on a medicaid list. The same goes for group homes.

It's hard. It mentally draining. It's physically draining. Most of all it is very financially draining. 99% of the time the mother must become a stay at home caregiver, which can significantly impant the family's income and resources. Grandparents usually become out of the question babysitters because they can't handle the physical demands of a an older disabled child.

I love my brother, but I REFUSE to allow my child to have the same kind of life. I refuse to live that kind of life again.

 

[Yamauchi]

A law I actually agree with. Good job, Indiana.

 

[Balphon]

Abortion should be legal period. For any reason at anytime no questions asked

So you're in favor of allowing sex-selective abortion as well?

 

[Tigress]

So you're perfectly fine with female infanticide. As long as it's in the tummy, it's okay. Right? I'm not judging. Though that may be hard to deduce from the tone of the previous sentence. Just interested.

I know I am fine with aborting a bunch of cells that are growing in a woman's womb. It's just a bunch of cells to a certain point. Sure, it could possibly be a kid eventually. But so can the eggs that get shed everytime a woman has a period. Do you go railing how it infanticide whenever a woman doesn't end up fertilizing an egg and having another period?

And honestly, if some one is not prepared to have a kid for whatever reason, allowing them to prevent from having a kid is a good thing. There are plenty enough unwanted kids out there. Why force some one who doesn't want one to add another?

 

[BuggyDClown]

In other news Indiana has now become a sausage fest.

I hope this shit gets stopped.

Vote Dem this year everyone, this is one of many reasons we can't have a republican run government.

I'm repulsed by our countries laws and culture towards women.

 

[Siegcram]

As someone who has cared for the mentally disabled, I'm pretty upset at the dehumanizing posts in here. Can you please not act like the mentally disabled are sub-human? They're every bit as human as you are (perhaps even more, judging by some of these posts) and deserve every right to live. You can make your argument without knocking them down, just so you know.

Point out the posts or take your faux outrage somewhere else.

 

[boiled goose]

Point out the posts or take your faux outrage somewhere else.

:/ seriously.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

The crude reality is that Down syndrome kids are being selected to be aborted in your country (and most "developed" countries) because they have Down syndrome. They can live a great life. They bring a ton of joy. They can be independent. They can work, earn money, travel alone, get married, cry, laugh, get angry, love, learn, write on GAF, have a cellphone, etc. And they are persons.

Yeah, and Down Syndrome is also a fatal condition. No one talks about the heart issues or the fact there's a high percentage of deaths within the first five years of life. Many women would continue a DS pregnancy but ultimately choose to terminate because of the severe and long list of physical deformities that make them incompatible with life. But lets just brush it under the rug and pretend all of them are high functioning (that can speak and maybe read) with no health issues.

And your disgusting no abortions no matter the circumstances make so 11 year old girls raped by step fathers must continue a pregnancy to term.

 

[Siegcram]

The crude reality is that Down syndrome kids are being selected to be aborted in your country (and most "developed" countries) because they have Down syndrome. They can live a great life. They bring a ton of joy. They can be independent. They can work, earn money, travel alone, get married, cry, laugh, get angry, love, learn, write on GAF, have a cellphone, etc. And they are persons.

"Kids" don't get aborted. Fetuses do. And they can do none of those things.

 

[Phased]

God this is an awful spin on things. You should talk with a person with downs syndrome some time. They're not sub-human.

Is anyone calling people with downs syndrome subhuman? I don't see that. However it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that raising and taking care of someone with downs is a monumental amount of work that is sometimes a lifetime commitment.

Is it wrong to let people make the choice not to do that? If you're fine with it that's great, however if you're not that's also totally ok as well. It's not a selfish choice to make, and it's not a condemnation on people with downs either.

 

[You Know Nothing]

So you're in favor of sex-selective abortion as well?

See there's no way to limit abortion without trying to get inside every woman's head as to the reason why she's having one. A woman could choose to have an abortion because of the fetus' sex. There's really no way to know unless the woman explicitly says so and even then it's still her choice.

 

[Tigress]

"Kids" don't get aborted. Fetuses do. And they can do none of those things.

Heh, I shared a meme on Facebook that pretty much said: "I'm holding a baby in one hand a petri dish with a viable embryo in the other. I'm going to drop one, you choose which. If you truly believe the embryo is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide.You should have to flip a coin, that's how impossible the decision should be. Shot in the dark, you chose the baby. Because you are aware there is a difference."

I know for me it would be a very easy choice. Save the baby. Embryo is just a bunch of cells. Just cause it's fertilized doesn't make it its own living being yet. Not until its aware of existing on its own (basically it's brain is aware of existing). And i know some people believe in a soul and think that conception is when the soul enters. But that is a religious belief that should be seperate from our laws (seperation of church and state and all).

 

[Vincent Grayson]

So you're in favor of allowing sex-selective abortion as well?

I suspect he's in favor of allowing women to make decisions about their bodies, period. Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating thought, and that's exactly what this is.

 

[Abyssal God]

WTF people speaking about Down syndrome like it was something unbearable.

In from Chile and abortion is illegal (and we still have a much better mortality rate than the USA, being a third world country and all that). We have probably the highest Down syndrome percentage in the world.

Everyone here has at least one close relative with Down syndrome, there are great facilities and help centers for people with disabilities (most private, and we have giant events were everyone gives money to sustain them, like Teleton, which is the biggest), and let me tell you, Down syndrome kids are awesome.

The huge problem with aborting people because they have disabilities or are different is that society don't see and don't realize that they have to take care of them, and help the parents.

Obviously taking care of them is hard, but it's much harder without help.

I think this law is good news overall, let's hope you have now a higher rate of Down syndrome people so you can actually see what it's really about.

If you want to have a kid, get pregnant, then find out he or she has Down syndrome and then want to abort, I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for you.

Women should have a choice to do whatever they want with their bodies.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to abort if your child will have a disability. If you won't do it, that's awesome but it was YOUR CHOICE.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

Society needs to realize this. If someone had a kid with a disability, society's response can't be "why didn't you abort it while you had the chance?", that's just being an asshole. Society's response must be building institutions, giving their own pocket money to help their neighbor, and in general, understand that in a society we care what happens to the guy next to us.

It's not being an asshole. It's someone making a choice about their body and what to do in their everyday life. You, the government, whoever, should have no say in what happens to that mother or her family. The only people who get to decide are those who the choice directly affects.

You know what is being an asshole, though? Telling someone what to do with their life simply based on your own personal beliefs / experiences.

 

[manueldelalas]

Yeah, and Down Syndrome is also a fatal condition. No one talks about the heart issues or the fact there's a high percentage of deaths within the first five years of life. Many women would continue a DS pregnancy but ultimately choose to terminate because of the severe and long list of physical deformities that make them incompatible with life. But lets just brush it under the rug and pretend all of them are high functioning (that can speak and maybe read) with no health issues.

And your disgusting no abortions no matter the circumstances make so 11 year old girls raped by step fathers must continue a pregnancy to term.

Life expectancy of Down syndrome PEOPLE is 60 years. That's an average. So no, they are not incompatible with life.

Not going to derail with the other part of your post.

 

[boiled goose]

But it is. We have double the births of Down syndrome per thousand born than you, all because of abortion laws. You should have a higher rate than us, but you don't, where are the missing kids?

The state is not going to solve a problem it doesn't see, or doesn't care about. State is not the solution here, visibility is.

Most institutions in Chile that treat Down syndrome and disabilities in general are private. Most treatments are free for most people and payed by charity (and that means charity events, professionals getting payed less of nothing at all, people giving monthly money to institutions, etc).

Society needs to realize this. If someone had a kid with a disability, society's response can't be "why didn't you abort it while you had the chance?", that's just being an asshole. Society's response must be building institutions, giving their own pocket money to help their neighbor, and in general, understand that in a society we care what happens to the guy next to us.

It also can't be an issue of rights or lefts. Or atheists vs religious.

The crude reality is that Down syndrome kids are being selected to be aborted in your country (and most "developed" countries) because they have Down syndrome. They can live a great life. They bring a ton of joy. They can be independent. They can work, earn money, travel alone, get married, cry, laugh, get angry, love, learn, write on GAF, have a cellphone, etc. And they are persons.

The aborted fetuses are not yet persons, so that line of thinking is irrelevant.
Want women to abort down syndrome kids less? Well then campaign to provide better services or whatever.

No matter the circumstances, you can't force a woman to stay pregnant against her consent. We have civil liberties for a reason.
Once a down syndrome kid is born, then how society treats that person is a separate question.

Want to judge women? Go ahead that is your prerogative. You can't force them to make the choices you want them too.

 

[Tigress]

For those advocating people should be forced to have a kid with Down's syndrom cause it's possible for them to have a happy life.

What are the chances of that when being born to some one who doesn't want or is prepared to take care of them? Some one who might resent the kid and now has all sorts of extra things they have to do cause they aren't prepared to take care of the kid and aren't mentally able to take care of the kid.

Why not allow them to prevent having the kid before the fetus develops to the point of being aware of being alive so that you don't have one more unwanted/neglected kid out there? The fetus will never have awareness of existing so you're just stopping a potential kid rather than killing a being (ok, you're killing some cells. If you're upset about that, are you also upset when they cut pieces out of people). Which if you are going to argue that... well so is not having sex and not fertlizing every egg cause every egg is a potential kid. Being potential to being a being should not = being a being.

 

[Balphon]

I suspect he's in favor of allowing women to make decisions about their bodies, period. Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating thought, and that's exactly what this is.

I find the "thought" argument in this context to be more of an issue with enforcement rather than one which immediately undermines the entire basis of this kind of law.

Still, fair enough. However, in taking such an absolutist tack you'd have to at some point grapple with the fact that what you are advocating for is essentially legalized eugenics.

 

[Easton Dark]

"And it could make Indiana the first state in the country to require that fetal remains be buried or cremated, rather than treated like medical waste."

Where would you bury it? An unmarked grave? It would have no name, no date of birth.

What would happen to the ashes? Probably thrown out anyway, right? Scatter their sorrows to the heartless sea?

This is just adding more complications to a legal procedure. Obstructionist legislation like this has to stop.

However, in taking such an absolutist tack you'd have to at some point grapple with the fact that what you are advocating for is essentially legalized eugenics.

The alternative is informing women of what rights they do and do not have with their own bodies and lives.

 

[boiled goose]

I find the "thought" argument in this context to be more of an issue with enforcement rather than one which immediately undermines the entire basis of this kind of law.

Still, fair enough. However, in taking such an absolutist tack you'd have to at some point grapple with the fact that what you are advocating for is essentially legalized eugenics.

Legalized eugenics already exist then by allowing people to choose their partners..
You can't sacrifice individual freedoms to shape society.

 

[Siegcram]

I find the "thought" argument in this context to be more of an issue with enforcement rather than one which immediately undermines the entire basis of this kind of law.

Still, fair enough. However, in taking such an absolutist tack you'd have to at some point grapple with the fact that what you are advocating for is essentially legalized eugenics.

If you want to call basic biology and the right to medical authority over your own body "eugenics", you're welcome to it. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[PdotMichael]

If you want to call basic biology and the right to medical authority over your own body "eugenics", you're welcome to it. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I don't think that "basic biology" covers when a fetus turns into a human being.

Not that I really understood why some people putting so much energy into that semantics discussion and whatever position one has about that topic is doesn't really interfere with the right to medical authority over one's owns body.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Life expectancy of Down syndrome PEOPLE is 60 years. That's an average. So no, they are not incompatible with life.

Not going to derail with the other part of your post.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/features/keyfindings-ds-survival.html

In this study, about 94% of the babies born with Down syndrome survived to one year of age, and in a subset of the data from regions with at least 20 years of follow-up, about 88% survived to twenty years of age.

So an 12% death rate before thier fifth birthday.

Infants with Down syndrome who were born of very low birth weight (< 1500 grams) were 24 times more likely to die in the first 28 days of life compared to infants of normal birth weight.
Infants with Down syndrome who were born with a major heart defect had a lower survival compared to those born without a major heart defect. Having a major heart defect increased the risk for death across the lifespan.

It's not a fatal condition?

 

[Eye for an Eye]

And lets get this straight

Poor prenatal diagnosis DOES NOT equal a down syndrome diagnosis. It goes way far and above just DS diagnosis.

 

[Balphon]

Legalized eugenics already exist then by allowing people to choose their partners..
You can't sacrifice individual freedoms to shape society.

That seems like a false equivalence. I think there are moral and ethical issues involved in aborting a fetus based on certain preferred characteristics that are not implicated by choosing a parter (or donor, or surrogate, as the case may be) on the same grounds.

Linking it back to the topic at hand, though, it seems as though abortion restrictions such as these have the potential to be reasonable if the line is drawn carefully enough. The tension seems to exist as it always does in cases like this: between an individual's right to make decisions about their own bodies and the potential harm to others or deleterious effects to society at large that may result.

I'm not sure where to draw this line or where something like Down Syndrome would fall on it. However, in the case of something like sex-selective abortion which this law also purports to ban, I think we should at least acknowledge the potentially troubling bases and consequences involved instead of merely saying "choice" and waving them off.

Likewise, and with all that being said, I'd assume based on the political reality that the drafters of this law had the worst motivations possible.

 

[Siegcram]

I don't think that "basic biology" covers when a fetus turns into a human being.

Not that I really understood why some people putting so much energy into that semantics discussion and whatever position one has about that topic is doesn't really interfere with the right to medical authority over one's owns body.

If you think the distinction between "fetus", "baby" and "kid" in an abortion debate is simply semantics, I'm not sure I can help you.

Not that "human being" is in any way a better descriptor, which is why I haven't used it.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

WTF people speaking about Down syndrome like it was something unbearable.

In from Chile and abortion is illegal (and we still have a much better mortality rate than the USA, being a third world country and all that). We have probably the highest Down syndrome percentage in the world.

Everyone here has at least one close relative with Down syndrome, there are great facilities and help centers for people with disabilities (most private, and we have giant events were everyone gives money to sustain them, like Teleton, which is the biggest), and let me tell you, Down syndrome kids are awesome.

The huge problem with aborting people because they have disabilities or are different is that society don't see and don't realize that they have to take care of them, and help the parents.

Obviously taking care of them is hard, but it's much harder without help.

I think this law is good news overall, let's hope you have now a higher rate of Down syndrome people so you can actually see what it's really about.

If you want to have a kid, get pregnant, then find out he or she has Down syndrome and then want to abort, I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for you.

Are... are you serious?

Man, the things people do to justify bad things about their country...

 

[dab0ne]

what % of indiana favors abortion ?

Well I'm one.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

How does the fact that the fetus having a birth defect invalidate one's right to an abortion?

 

[Miles Quaritch]

WTF people speaking about Down syndrome like it was something unbearable.

In from Chile and abortion is illegal (and we still have a much better mortality rate than the USA, being a third world country and all that). We have probably the highest Down syndrome percentage in the world.

Everyone here has at least one close relative with Down syndrome, there are great facilities and help centers for people with disabilities (most private, and we have giant events were everyone gives money to sustain them, like Teleton, which is the biggest), and let me tell you, Down syndrome kids are awesome.

The huge problem with aborting people because they have disabilities or are different is that society don't see and don't realize that they have to take care of them, and help the parents.

Obviously taking care of them is hard, but it's much harder without help.

I think this law is good news overall, let's hope you have now a higher rate of Down syndrome people so you can actually see what it's really about.

If you want to have a kid, get pregnant, then find out he or she has Down syndrome and then want to abort, I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for you.

Your country is having to deal with the downs dilemma because of your regressive approach to women's bodily rights. Address that and stop with the frankly ridiculous judging of women who choose not to keep a downs foetus.

 

[aeolist]

That seems like a false equivalence. I think there are moral and ethical issues involved in aborting a fetus based on certain preferred characteristics that are not implicated by choosing a parter (or donor, or surrogate, as the case may be) on the same grounds.

Linking it back to the topic at hand, though, it seems as though abortion restrictions such as these have the potential to be reasonable if the line is drawn carefully enough. The tension seems to exist as it always does in cases like this: between an individual's right to make decisions about their own bodies and the potential harm to others or deleterious effects to society at large that may result.

I'm not sure where to draw this line or where something like Down Syndrome would fall on it. However, in the case of something like sex-selective abortion which this law also purports to ban, I think we should at least acknowledge the potentially troubling bases and consequences involved instead of merely saying "choice" and waving them off.

Likewise, and with all that being said, I'd assume based on the political reality that the drafters of this law had the worst motivations possible.

it's not waving off concerns, it's pointing out that abortion restrictions are not the way to address something like this. if you want to make people feel ok about having a girl baby, make it so that society doesn't devalue their existence. if you want to have people keep a fetus with down syndrome, make sure they will have extensive help and support throughout their life raising the child and caring for the adult as needed.

scotus has held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. the reason why any given woman would choose to exercise her constitutional right should not be put under a microscope by the state.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Well I'm one.

My mistake. I read it wrong.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

How does the fact that the fetus having a birth defect invalidate one's right to an abortion?

It doesn't, really. They just want a way to reduce the number of abortions in any way they possibly can, and this is just the latest excuse they've come up with.

 

[dab0ne]

Sorry. My mistake I read it wrong. Deleting.

No worries

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Uhhh... The user asked who favors it? I do. I'm pro choice.

Sorry. My mistake I read it wrong. Deleting.

 

[PdotMichael]

If you think the distinction between "fetus", "baby" and "kid" in an abortion debate is simply semantics, I'm not sure I can help you.

Not that "human being" is in any way a better descriptor, which is why I haven't used it.

That are all just terms for a human existence at different developement stages. The fact that you can't provide some arguments why a fetus should have less rights to live from an ethical point of view says a lot about your standpoint.

And I'm not even against the right of abortion or limit the right with all kinds of conditions. But the argument that abortion is okay because a fetus is not human appears to me like a cheap cop-out.

 

[Irminsul]

It's really fascinating to see how totally unrelated things are often posted in these threads. What exactly has aborting fetuses due to probable birth defects to do with how we treat human beings with disabilities?

Also, that eugenics talk is funny. Are there some illnesses that we aren't supposed to help eradicate just because they happen to be genetic? That seems weird.

 

[Skii]

God this is an awful spin on things. You should talk with a person with downs syndrome some time. They're not sub-human.

I don't know what I said wrong... My statement just says that people are being punished for having bad genetics - something they can't control.

 

[aeolist]

That are all just terms for a human existence at different developement stages. The fact that you can't provide some arguments why a fetus should have less rights to live from an ethical point of view says a lot about your standpoint.

And I'm not even against the right of abortion or limit the right with all kinds of conditions. But the argument that abortion is okay because a fetus is not human appears to me like a cheap cop-out.

why? it's a nonsentient mass of tissue that is entirely dependent on another's body for its existence. as far as rights go i think a fetus should be on the same level as a tumor.

once it has higher brain functions and is viable outside the womb it is a different story, but that has never been in contention here.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

As someone who has cared for the mentally disabled, I'm pretty upset at the dehumanizing posts in here. Can you please not act like the mentally disabled are sub-human? They're every bit as human as you are (perhaps even more, judging by some of these posts) and deserve every right to live. You can make your argument without knocking them down, just so you know.

I don't think anyone is saying they have no right to live. But a future mother should have the option of preventing a pregnancy they do not want; the reason doesn't matter. Maybe they don't have the money or time to raise a kid. Maybe they were raped. Maybe they just want to be child free. It really doesn't matter. The whole point of abortion is that women have the right to choose. I don't understand why a genetic defect that will undoubtedly make raising that child much more difficult is suddenly less valid than any other reason.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

That are all just terms for a human existence at different developement stages. The fact that you can't provide some arguments why a fetus should have less rights to live from an ethical point of view says a lot about your standpoint.

And I'm not even against the right of abortion or limit the right to all kinds of conditions. But the argument that abortion is okay because a fetus is not human appears to me like a cheap cop-out.

A cheap cop out in what sense?

A foetus isn't human, why should it be given preferential treatment?

 

[Balphon]

it's not waving off concerns, it's pointing out that abortion restrictions are not the way to address something like this. if you want to make people feel ok about having a girl baby, make it so that society doesn't devalue their existence. if you want to have people keep a fetus with down syndrome, make sure they will have extensive help and support throughout their life raising the child and caring for the adult as needed.

I'm not somehow against making the world a better place for women and people with disabilities.

scotus has held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. the reason why any given woman would choose to exercise her constitutional right should not be put under a microscope by the state.

The right is not unqualified. Even the freedom of speech isn't unqualified.

But I take your point about putting an abortion-seeking woman through even more of an ordeal in order to satisfy high-minded issues of ethics. That's why I said awhile ago that the problem I'd have with this law is in the area of enforcement: it'd be impossible to administer it effectively, and any attempt to do so would likely just make securing an abortion more difficult. Hence, I doubt the people behind this law had fully benevolent motivations in drafting it.

It's really fascinating to see how totally unrelated things are often posted in these threads. What exactly has aborting fetuses due to probable birth defects to do with how we treat human beings with disabilities?

Also, that eugenics talk is funny. Are there some illnesses that we aren't supposed to help eradicate just because they happen to be genetic? That seems weird.

I was speaking in the context of sex-selective abortion, so the "illness" you're talking about is being born a woman.

It gets way thornier in the context of something like Down Syndrome, and I wouldn't use that language in that sort of context. It'd be too hyperbolic and I don't know enough about it.

 

[Apathy]

A cheap cop out in what sense?

A foetus isn't human, why should it be given preferential treatment?

Again we go back to the fact that people will scream "won't someone think of the children" when really it's oppression of women and their right to do what they want with their body.

 

[PdotMichael]

why? it's a nonsentient mass of tissue that is entirely dependent on another's body for its existence. as far as rights go i think a fetus should be on the same level as a tumor.

once it has higher brain functions and is viable outside the womb it is a different story, but that has never been in contention here.

The problem is that your definition is arbitrary. A baby is also dependent on another's body.