Extremely high? What percentage do you imagine when you hear the rate is "extremely high"? I pictured something like 90%, but according to this article, it's something like 50%. I'd like to see a breakdown in the percentages, with separate numbers for the women who generally think abortion is morally wrong and women who think early abortion is merely ridding the body of an unwanted growth. It might be that these 2 groups are about equal in size, and the women in Group 1 have a 1% incidence of abortion when the unborn is known to have Down syndrome, and Group 2 has 99%. Together, the result is 50%.
But I don't think women divide neatly into 2 groups. It's more of a spectrum, and there are also women who haven't thought about the question in any depth. I can also imagine how a woman in Group 1 might arrive at the decision to have an abortion, and how a woman in Group 2 might decide not to. (In the first case, a woman facing a known challenge might abandon principles she'd previously embraced in the abstract. In the second case, a woman might think that destroying the unborn because of something about that individual is murderous in a way that is not like the generic rejection of a pregnancy happening at an inconvenient time.)
Back to the linked article:
[S]ome parents of children with Down syndrome are celebrating the news that North Dakota has become the first state to outlaw abortion for fetal conditions like Down syndrome. One parent wrote that “it felt like a small victory seeing that abortions based on Down syndrome were banned — like saying, see, individuals with Down syndrome are valued and protected."...Piepmeier — who has interviewed women who chose to abort in this situation — opposes this kind of law. Unsurprisingly, these women described an "incredibly painful decision," focusing on the difficulties the child would face.
Noting that the North Dakota law won't stop abortions — these women will simply travel out of state — Piepmeier says if North Dakota really cared about the fate of children with Down syndrome, it would take the money that it will now need to be spent in litigation defending the law and spend it on making the state a more "welcoming place for people with disabilities."
Posts
277 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 277 of 277The shit hits the road in these cases. That 90% of identified downs fetuses are aborted seems to be the correct number. This implies that a significant number of nominally pro-life couples agreed to an abortion in these cases. Anti-abortion views are conditional for a large fraction of people who are nominally pro-life.
The Ninth Amendment speaks of unenumerated rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What this means, to me, is that these rights have to date back to the common law ("retained") and they have to be popular ("by the people"). In other words, if one major party is jumping up and down about your so-called right (see Dred Scott, see Lochner, see Roe), you have screwed the pooch.
But, as I mentioned earlier, the major problem with Roe was not finding an uneumerated right for a woman to have surgery. The major problem with Roe was that they found a right to abort a baby.
This "pro-life" person refused the testing.
Solves the problem right there. If you know you don't want abortion on the table you don't put abortion on the table.
In the case of abortion, though, you're making that choice for someone else, that *they'd* be better off dead.
And I agree with that. And I'll accept, for the point of argument, there really is a "they," as opposed to cells. In this case, Fox thinks he has the moral right to decide because of his beliefs. I disagree.
In fact, I think it is a moral failure to not decide on your own with no guidance one way or the other, based on your own personal experiences. In this particular case, I think it exceeds the "consciousness" hurdle I put forward for most of these decisions.
As from my posts, you will see I do not tolerate the idea that in this particular case there was anything other than ZERO hope for any non-suffering outcome. It's simply not realistic.
So to me the question comes down to, in this particular case, are you willing to allow increased suffering because of your inability to decide, or because you have a belief. From my perspective, to do that is morally cowardly.
Likewise, I do find arguments such as "So and so suffered a lot, so it's OK." I don't see two wrongs as making a right. Nor do I see much value in the emotional trauma to my wife, my kids, etc. I know from previous experiences, it wouldn't have been as bad for me as for them.
Synova said...
This "pro-life" person refused the testing.
As was noted earlier in the thread, some tests are automatic as part of general tests for fetus health.
Exactly Synova. While it is helpful to have advance knowledge, all other things being equal- this is not a situation of all other things being equal. The testing is invasive and has some degree of risk of inducing miscarriage, so most prolife pregnant women refuse the test.
A reasonable man- I noted the tiers of testing but you drew the wrong conclusion No one aborts on the basis of the ultrasound or quad tests that are automatic. They are not definitive, at all.
Dante, what you fail to realize, or maybe refuse to face, is that "suffering" is a relative and subjective term, and is arbitrarily defined. Further, God's time and purpose is not man's time and purpose.
By deciding that that person's life was "too painful" and terminating their life involuntarily, you arrogate to yourself the wisdom and purpose of God.
You claim to know how much "suffering" is too much for another person, you claim omniscience to their condition, and the subsequent omnipotence to decide what to do about that "suffering."
You put yourself in the place of God for that person. I will pray for you.
Women who generally think abortion is morally wrong don't even test for Downs Syndrome.
----------------------------------
This is not universally true. I know of at least one women who is personally opposed to abortion who had genetic testing so that she and her doctor could prepare for any potential difficulties with the pregnancy due to genetic problems.
For me killing is wrong, period. However, my opinion is tentative on those women who abort babies which resulted from rape, incest.
I had genetic testing because at my pre-natal ultrasound (I was 38 then) they saw something wrong with the baby's heart. I had amniocentesis and the doctor found out that my baby had Trisomy 18, Edwards syndrome. The doctor mentioned that I can have an abortion or if I choose to continue with the pregnancy the baby could live up to 12 years. My baby died 4 hours after birth.
PianoLessons said...
Cedarford and others:
How stand you all on last week's Panned Parenthood response on Post-Birth Abortion:
======================
Pretty simple. I don't agree with 3rd Trimester abortions, save for severe fetal defect and life and health of the mother. And hope that testing for defects can mainly weed out problems in 1st trimester eventually - vs. some that can now only be done late in the pregnacy.
As for after birth - no active commission of euthanasia, killing a delivered baby is acceptable. But I oppose any effort to force heroic medical care on parents of a severely defective baby, when the parents don't wish to go through the colossal trouble and expense of months of intensive care for a non-viable baby or one predicted to slowly die in the next few years.
I even want it so that welfare recipents and other burdens on the state when they scream about wanting the best free stuff done - are told that their benefits will be cut 5-10%. To help defray the cost of care of their defective offspring. And if they still demand "whatever heroic measures it takes, no taxpayer expense spared!" - they know they too will have to put some sacrifice in and not await the plump new disability benefit checks that actually will increase their standard of living for each "special needs" infant they demand all the bells and whistles in care and extras for..
Inga: You say all sorts of stupid shit ST, what else is new?
I disagree. I think ST's views are more nuanced than most commenters here.
St. Croix - The Griswold case was about getting government out of our bedrooms.
Ironically - as it was a set up case - staged by a law professor's wife - this is all it was about.
There is a great paradox between Griswold and Roe that has never been sufficiently challenged in our academic legal system.....
Why? Because of complete Orwellian political correctness. Death to the sad law school scholar who tries to argue this irony.
To me, "rape" is no excuse for a 3rd trimester abortion. A woman had plenty of time before 3rd trimester to consider whether to abort or not.
Where the fundie goobers in the Republican Party got in big trouble was in opposing any woman of the opinion that they shouldn't be forced to bear a rapist's baby. With lectures about how Jesus must have wanted the rape so he could have another blessed wee one...ot how women can't get pregnant from "real rape" of course not helping the fundie goobers at the polls.
Dante, what you fail to realize, or maybe refuse to face, is that "suffering" is a relative and subjective term, and is arbitrarily defined. Further, God's time and purpose is not man's time and purpose.
And your beliefs are on account of what someone else told you was the truth, as opposed to your own synthesis of it. Yet, because of what you were told, you feel you can tell me about these things.
Cedarford: OK - good. But I have a question....
An abortion fails and a live fetus with a heartbeat is delivered. Planned Parenthood says "the parents should decide to kill it now or not".
Who is the medical emergency here? What does the medical world do here? Is not the live, almost aborted fetus now the medical victim in most need of care?
Do you know that most doctors are very Pro-Life? Have you ever read their Hippocratic Oath? Can't you see the practical problem?
ot how women can't get pregnant from "real rape" of course not helping the fundie goobers at the polls.
I share your views in this, but I recently saw a discovery program, in which they were studying the process of the female orgasm. Amazingly, the female orgasm takes fluid in the uterus and pushes it towards the fallopian tube that has the egg in it.
Don't get me wrong, women can become pregnant without orgasm, but it was pretty amazing that people have evolved this mechanism.
And your beliefs are on account of what someone else told you was the truth, as opposed to your own synthesis of it. Yet, because of what you were told, you feel you can tell me about these things.
Why would one individual's synthesis of things be Superior to a collective wisdom that has come down through thousand of years, including synthesis from some people with undeniably profound intellect?
And why do you assume that those of us who believe these things have accepted the beliefs dogmatically rather than also doing our own analysis and synthesis of our observations and experiences, in the formation of our own values?
No, Dante, that is not the case. Objective truth is knowable and observable every day in our world.
It is the core of the rebel's defiance of truth to claim that truth is not objective and knowable. That truth is merely something made up to "further the interests of those in power," or some other such twaddle.
The rebel further claims that he has discerned "truth" himself and not "relied on others," which "truth" conveniently being whatever justifies and rationalizes his rebellion.
I know your game because I played it myself for many years, lying to myself and always telling myself that I knew what was best and all that God stuff was a bunch of crap made up by The Man to keep us all down.
There is hope for all of us. Again, I will pray for you.
We have vastly more people, who endure terrible suffering, yet who struggle intensely to survive, rather than give up.
Father Fox
Words of wisdom.
Where the fundie goobers in the Republican Party got in big trouble was in opposing any woman of the opinion that they shouldn't be forced to bear a rapist's baby. With lectures about how Jesus must have wanted the rape so he could have another blessed wee one...ot how women can't get pregnant from "real rape" of course not helping the fundie goobers at the polls."
...
or how having a 'rape' option as the only legal way to opt out of the pregnancy via legal abortion would incentivize some women to cry rape ...
C Stanley said...
so most prolife pregnant women refuse the test.
I doubt this is true. For a lot of people who are nominally pro-life in public surveys their commitment is likely to be conditional on whether or not it affects them personally. As Nini noted above, if a preliminary test comes positive most people will get genetic testing and a large fraction will get an abortion, as is shown for the Down's syndrome abortion rate.
Although pro-life views have been trending slightly positive in recent years I doubt this would be sustained if there were widespread restrictions on abortion.
People still believe homosexuality is a choice?
If so, then any one of you could choose to be attracted to the same sex, right?
Well, can you? I can't.
doubt this is true. For a lot of people who are nominally pro-life in public surveys their commitment is likely to be conditional on whether or not it affects them personally.
I'm sure there are some people who waver in their convictions when the going gets tough, but on what basis do you presume to know this is true for " a lot of people"?
As Nini noted above, if a preliminary test comes positive most people will get genetic testing and a large fraction will get an abortion, as is shown for the Down's syndrome abortion rate
nini noted her personal experience. Anecdote doesn't equal evidence and one doesn't equal "most". Not to mention that she didn't abort.
Look, you only have to look at the fifty percent number to see the discrepancy- a bunch of Downs kids are still being born. How do you account for that if your presuming all of these flip flopping prolife women?
C Stanley said...
you only have to look at the fifty percent number to see the discrepancy- a bunch of Downs kids are still being born. How do you account for that if your presuming all of these flip flopping prolife women?
The real number seems to be closer to 90% and, as multiple people noted, there seem to be remarkably few Down's kids nowadays, especially considering the significant increase in childbearing age.
Clearly a lot of nominally pro-choice couples choose to abort trisomy fetuses.
I know of a couple that decided to forego amnio testing because they would not abort a Downs child. But their baby was born with Tay-Sacks.
Tay-Sacks is one of the few good reasons I know of for abortion. But as long as Tay-Sacks exists, abortion should be safe and legal.
What is it about conservatives that gives them so much disproportionate sympathy for the retarded?
Since they lack empathy, is it a self-identification thing?
Totally serious question here.
Why would one individual's synthesis of things be Superior to a collective wisdom that has come down through thousand of years, including synthesis from some people with undeniably profound intellect?
I make this argument myself frequently. The way the argument goes is "Leftists, before you destroy something (marriage for instance), you had better be damn certain what you are replacing it with is much better, not based on your latest view of "morality."
However, in this case, there was very little information on which to base this stuff. Today, there is a lot more. So I'll take the information rich version.
Since they lack empathy, is it a self-identification thing?
Retarded people lack empathy? I suppose you would know.
Shouting Thomas said...
So, is it OK to abort when and if the gay gene is discovered?
You know what the answer is to that. The velvet mafia better pray that homosexuality has zero genetic component because if it does, the test for it will either be suppressed or outlawed outright. If there is a homosexual gene and there is a test for it and it isn't suppressed or outlawed, you better expect abortion rates to go up a little. Furthermore if the feds try to outlaw abortion on the face of the homosexual gene it will create utter and complete chaos and the whole leftist house of cards will crash and burn.
These fools have set themselves up for a mighty fall. It's coming.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
What is it about conservatives that gives them so much disproportionate sympathy for the retarded?
Since they lack empathy, is it a self-identification thing?
Totally serious question here.
That's bit like asking why some "liberals" identify with black abortionists like Kermit "The Frog" Gosnell. Is it a sympathy with blacks thing or a brotherly love thing?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
What is it about conservatives that gives them so much disproportionate sympathy for the retarded?
Who are you to say anyone's sympathy for the cognitively disabled among us is "disproportionate"? What a tyrant you are - what are your metrics for "proportionate sympathy" for liberals and conservatives?
Holy Orwell! You have a big problem in your mindset - get off my lawn!
That's bit like asking why some "liberals" identify with black abortionists like Kermit "The Frog" Gosnell. Is it a sympathy with blacks thing or a brotherly love thing?
No, it's actually nothing like asking something so incoherent as that. Try again.
@PianoLessons: Don't feed the troll.
Who are you to say anyone's sympathy for the cognitively disabled among us is "disproportionate"?
Someone who notices that you don't extend the same sympathy to the financially "disabled"/uninsured among us, whom you condemn to an equally brutal fate.
What a tyrant you are - what are your metrics for "proportionate sympathy" for liberals and conservatives?
They should both be compassionate whenever they can. Not selectively so, as today's excuse for "conservatives" tend to be.
Holy Orwell! You have a big problem in your mindset - get off my lawn!
It's not your lawn (although the statement mercifully reveals your stodginess), and the mindset I describe is that of the Republican party. It's unflattering, eh? But the refusal to look honestly at it is yours. No wonder it offends you.
Go tune a piano, engineering man. Lessons realizes that Rethugs have a huge asshole problem on their hands, and is at least taking seriously the predicament of it backfiring on them politically.
Which is more than can be said for you.
What is it about conservatives that gives them so much disproportionate sympathy for the retarded?
Maybe we just don't like Nazis.
Nazis sure seem to like right-wingers.
Or maybe it might be like Shakespeare said (re: Nazis), about how the lady doth protest too much.
Tell us how she's inferior, Ritmo.
No, it's actually nothing like asking something so incoherent as that. Try again.
I really think liberals are losing ground on abortion rights in this country. It's a public mood swing. You best not get caught on the wrong side of history on this one, Ritmo.
Monsters like Gosnell and that PP witch in FLA are doing you in, Ritmo. But go ahead, die on that hill.
You can "think" whatever you want, Chicken. But most normal people, when they think, make use of relevant and significant facts.
One of those facts might be the fact the stodgiest court in the land still can't overturn Roe v. Wade.
Another fact is that six Republicans lost the most recent election by proclaiming their belief in the importance of the life-giving force of rape.
Still another fact is that history tends to be on the side of science, and that while science advances stem-cell technology, and continues to demonstrate the non-sentient nature of cells that aren't autonomous organisms, only proclamations from a revised religious emperor in Rome stand as the only authority in the way of dismissing claims that fertilized eggs are people.
But why let facts get in the way of your beliefs and blind assertions?
As I said, put that photo on your desk of your kid at the early embryo stage, gills and tail intact, and then I'll believe that you're not letting your blind faith get in the way of the realism and science that the public prefers.
So Ritmo - if 51% of the public supports infanticide, that's A-OK right?
Democracy rulez, infants drool!
How she should get a knife in the neck. Tell us how it's right, Ritmo.
Well, it's not right, ignoramus - because early embryos don't even have necks, let alone brains. Even Synova is pro-woman at that point. So why would it matter if the brain that does result later is impaired or not?
Anyway, my guess is that in lieu of the neck that is absent in early embryos, you might want to aim for those gills.
Keep up the Nazi talk. Again, the lady doth protest too much.
So Ritmo - if 51% of the public supports infanticide, that's A-OK right?
According to Chicken it is.
But I never made that point. I merely responded to it.
I think it is immoral to bring a child to term only to have it suffer.
How do you know it is suffering?
@Ritmo: If invention* can be legally traced back to conception and reduction to practice, why not life?
____________
*trace back the word origin of that word and tell me it doesn't make you smile.
My etymological research is leading me to a "finding" or "discovery", but I suspect your humor is leading you to reach back (no pun intended) to the appropriated Latin root venire, or "to come".
In any event, the reduction does not work because these are separate things, however wistfully one might think that imagining a life-form of some sort makes it what we hope it will one day be. This is natural, a human aptitude for naming things as a prelude for determining their essence.
But it doesn't work because uteruses aren't public property, as well as for all the aforementioned stuff.
But it doesn't work because uteruses aren't public property, as well as for all the aforementioned stuff.
Invention are not conceived nor reduced to practice in public either; further, they are owned or "sold" by their "parents".
The baby murdered in Carhart had Down's, Ritmo.
The way the socialist mind works, it's a percentage game. Kill 600,000 viable babies, the socialists will tell you that it's a tiny percentage.
Kill 60 million Chinese, it's a tiny percentage.
They also rely on a Pravda media to hide the bodies.
Keep up the Nazi talk.
Before Hitler killed the Jews, before he killed the homosexuals and the gypsies, he killed the handicapped.
Like babies, inventions are disclosed at birth for the world to see--but they exist well before hand.
Actually, this all changed under Obama--AIA.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Who are you to say anyone's sympathy for the cognitively disabled among us is "disproportionate"?
Someone who notices that you don't extend the same sympathy to the financially "disabled"/uninsured among us, whom you condemn to an equally brutal fate.
My responses here on this thread were on topic per the issue of aborting Down's Syndrome babies...
I extend similar compassion and sympathy to the finacially disabled and uninsured among us - trust me.
I never condemned these folks to an kind of "equally brutal fate" - in fact, I think I have spoken out that the fate of the cognitively disabled which you refer to as the "retarded" - so old school - such a stodgy and uncaring term - is not brutal at all in the world we have designed today.
I was warned to not feed a troll - and I frankly am not sure who is a troll and who is not on the Althouse blog - but you - my friend - have a giant chip on your shoulder and an agenda that shows you haven't read through this thoughtful thread at all.
I'm actually gonna do something that will drive you crazy - most likely.
I'll devote a rosary to you. So there:-)
Invention are not conceived nor reduced to practice in public either; further, they are owned or "sold" by their "parents".
Or removed from consideration.
O Ritmo Segundo - BTW - it's always my lawn when someone gets in my face.
I was just on your lawn with my thing about "dedicating a rosary to you"
Feel free to tell me to get off your lawn, bud, but I'll still spend some minutes tomorrow doing what I said I would do.
When I say a rosary for someone - I am totally on their lawn - in their space and hopefully in their hearts even if they don't know it.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it (in keeping with my stodgy discourse. BTW - I haven't heard anyone use that adjective in a while and you use it often. Odd word....I kind of like it :-)
Sorry St. Croix, I'm still with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and New England Journal of Medicine on this one. Funny that I think physicians should over-rule theocrats on medical matters, but I do.
You are ignorant if you don't realize that the existence of late-term abortions (a miniscule percentage of all abortions) primarily serves to end wanted but very life-threatening pregnancies in which the fetus would be too grotesquely deformed to live at all. You're talking cyclopses, decerebrates, monstrosities born without skulls, all sorts of horrifying and hopeless matters that you think it's worth it to your sensibilities to put a woman into septic shock for. Shameful.
Or removed from consideration.
Abandonment is always an option--and it still occurs in secret. It's like a miscarriage of invention. But it doesn't change the legal definition of conception.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Sorry St. Croix, I'm still with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and New England Journal of Medicine on this one. Funny that I think physicians should over-rule theocrats on medical matters, but I do.
I wonder if Ritmo will listen to Pogo when it comes to end-of-life questions.
Anyway, I'll take your "Carhart" and raise you a "Savita Halappanavar".
May you have many Savita Halappanavars to kill with your "ethics", St. Croix. Remember, to you, it's not even just a numbers game if you can ignore the fact that you don't mind killing a few women to get to the promise of controlling their bodies and indulging the fantasy that all fetuses are viable. And miscarriages never happen, too. God never creates things that aren't viable - ever. All are healthy, strong and destined to live long lives, even when born without organs. No biggie. Science is a lie, especially medical science, right?
Abandonment is always an option--and it still occurs in secret. It's like a miscarriage of invention. But it doesn't change the legal definition of conception.
Oh, give it a fucking rest already. Maybe the turning of the tide is as much a function of extremist Republican idiocy as it is the fact that now men have been implanted with embryos to carry. Go ahead, Chicken, loan your body out to save the little sea monkeys. My guess is, you won't.
I wonder if Ritmo will listen to Pogo when it comes to end-of-life questions.
Who the hell cares what that paranoid, fanatical constipation doctor says about anything? His most serious point to me was to admit that he's just playing a game. Glenn Beck has deeper thoughts than Pogo. Seriously.
Look everyone! We have a martyr, too! Isn't life grand. Over here.
Post that into your GOOGLE images search, St. Croix. Let me know where in her neck, (or uterus), you'd like to plunge your knife.
o Ritmo Segundo - You are a tiresome Obama hack who will say anything here to cast good folks with thoughtful reflections on a serious issue as Republicans.
I actually wonder if you get paid for your absolute baloney sausage.
You actually give me hope - if all reasonable, loving people need to confront is the logic of someone like you - we will prevail.
Signing off on this thread but I am still gonna dedicate a few beads to you. You are such a Dem/progresive/sheepish hack.
I feel bad for you.
His most serious point to me was to admit that he's just playing a game
Wasn't that your schtick? I'm sure ST has your admission bookmarked--he's linked it a few times.
Whatever you say, Sister Benedict.
I just hope you find your talk exciting enough for the Savita Halappanavars of the world. Yep, her spirit longs for all the excitin' rhetoric and thoughtless dogma you have her! Holy smokes! Let's kill a Hindu woman and sacrifice her to the god of intellectual expediency!
And Sister, you sure aren't being reasonable. What reasonable, "loving"! thing could you say for that woman who died in Ireland in October?
Come on. Think about it. Don't be a hack. You want your sleep to be well-deserved tonight, right?
ST, Pogo... It's like an autistic traditionalist's imaginary friends listing.
a miniscule percentage of all abortions
I hear Jack the Ripper killed a miniscule number of hookers.
primarily serves to end wanted but very life-threatening pregnancies
This is a lie. The baby who was murdered in Carhart had Down's syndrome. Nothing life-threatening about Down's syndrome.
the fetus would be too grotesquely deformed to live at all.
Another lie. Babies with Down's syndrome live long and happy lives. You hate them because they won't pay taxes to the state that you place above humanity. You are a vile socialist, Ritmo, an embarrassment to humanity, and a liar.
Healthy babies are routinely killed after 22 weeks. Every day.
You're talking cyclopses, decerebrates, monstrosities born without skulls
I want you to acknowledge that the baby who was murdered in Carhart had a right to life. I want you to acknowledge that a child with Down's syndrome is a human being, and parents should not kill her.
Or if you're okay with killing the handicapped, spit it out, Nazi boy. Don't be shy.
all sorts of horrifying and hopeless matters that you think it's worth it to your sensibilities to put a woman into septic shock for.
Of course there may be some abortions that are acceptable. For instance, if the baby has no head at all. I don't have to prove every abortion is a homicide, dummy. I just have to prove that one innocent baby was killed, for Roe v. Wade to be a bad opinion.
You have to be right on every single abortion, Ritmo. Including the Carhart baby, who was killed at 26 weeks, because she had Down's. You kill one baby, you're a baby-killer, Ritmo.
You are a fool, and a slow reader.
The beating heart of the miscarried fetus stuck in the body of Savita Halappanavar wasn't much less than 22 weeks and you and your ilk killed her over it. Go ahead, GOOGLE the picture of the woman you've killed, and the many more like her you intend to kill, so that you can feel smugly wonderful about your absolutist position on uteruses and what's in them and whatnot.
And you're certainly not "right" on every pregnancy, Croicky. You kill one woman, and you're a woman killer. Just ask Savita. I want you to acknowledge HER right to life (whatever that means) and bodily autonomy (more of a legal precedent here and tangibly enforced).
But you won't, because you are a COLD, HEARTLESS KILLER! And a vile fertility cultist! And anti-social(ist)!
Of course there may be some abortions that are acceptable.
"May be"?
Famous words of someone who hasn't educated himself on the subject. All that emotion, and you don't even know what you're talking about.
Shameful.
Science is a lie, especially medical science, right?
I like science. I'm not the one running from photographs or 3-D ultrasounds. I want people to see what's going on. I like facts, and I like truth. Not a big fan of censorship and hiding the photographs from our people. But go ahead and complain about the photographs, Pravda boy.
to save the little sea monkeys.
We've heard this animal rhetoric before in regard to human beings. It's nothing new. You define people as sub-human, you talk about them like they're sub-human. Nazis used similar rhetoric about the Jews. Slave-owners talked that way about Africans.
You talk about "gills," Ritmo, and "sea monkeys." Is that science?
Look at the photographs if you can stand it.
I want you to acknowledge HER right to life
I do acknowledge her right to life, Ritmo. And I acknowledge her right to kill her baby, if her pregnancy is putting her life at risk.
Why do you keep changing the subject? Does killing a baby with Down's make you uncomfortable? You don't want to talk about it?
And in Ireland, Ritmo, doctors are allowed to kill the baby if the mother's life is at risk.
Obviously, the doctors made a mistake.
Do you understand the moral difference between medical mistake and intentional homicide?
Jaime Lannister: "But even if the boy lives, he would be a cripple, a grotesque. Give me a good, clean death any day."
Tyrion Lannister: "Speaking for the grotesques, I have to disagree. Death is so final, yet life is full of possibilities.
"Remember, to you, it's not even just a numbers game if you can ignore the fact that you don't mind killing a few women to get to the promise of controlling their bodies and indulging the fantasy that all fetuses are viable."
Ritmo
You do realize nearly the same sentence could be written about abortion don't you?
Remember, to you, it's not even just a numbers game if you can ignore the fact that you don't mind killing a few women to get to the promise of controlling their bodies and indulging the fantasy that all fetuses ought to be subject to being killed at the whim of their mother.
Women die on both sides of this issue. Babies are included in the carnage on the pro abortion side. Want to play the numbers game or the value of life game?
I tried to do a bit of digging on the numbes and percentages, but the more you read the more confusing it becomes. Bottom line is that the data just isn't really available for reliable conclusions.
The numbers that are reported seem to indicate the following:
1. Numbers of live births of kids with DS have increased but the increase is less than would have been predicted based on rising maternal ages.
2. There isn't a universally accepted set of data for the percentage or number of aborted DS fetuses. Some sources are using UK numbers, some use various states or conglomerations of data from several states.
3. There has probably been a decline in the percentage of mothers choosing abortion after getting a DS diagnosis, but at the same time a rise in the actual number of mothers choosing to abort in that circumstance. Previously only older mothers were offered the screening but now it is offered to all. So, larger denominator means a smaller percentage but the numerator has also increased (the absolute number of DS abortions.)
Beyond that, I don't think anyone can say with any certainty what the numbers and percentages really are.
Post a Comment