Just in case anyone wants to read the actual bill.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisla...132-HB-214

I believe Ohio has a ban on all abortions after 20 weeks (the pain ban): https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisla...131-SB-127

I guess my issue is that this will effectively halt amniocentesis in at risk mothers and take the decision process out of their hands. The doctor will be required to inform them of the implications of an amnio. The down side (no pun) is that abortions may be performed on at risk mothers prior to 20 weeks gestation with a healthy (non downs synd) fetus.

Quote:This is just my personal opinion, ofc.

The problem is when sanctimonious shits get THEIR opinions made into law usually using some ancient superstition as the basis for their bullshit.  These are usually the same people who, when the parents they have forced to have children against their better judgement, need help they tell them to go fuck themselves.

Even when I was of childbearing age I had neither the desire nor the patience to raise a handicapped child. You are at liberty to call this selfishness; it is, however, the unvarnished truth and I make no apologies for it. If I had been compelled by the state to give birth to a child that I knew was afflicted by an incurable condition, I would immediately give that child up for adoption so that the state would be forced to foot the bill for raising the child.

(December 23, 2017 at 1:37 am)Astreja Wrote: Even when I was of childbearing age I had neither the desire nor the patience to raise a handicapped child. You are at liberty to call this selfishness; it is, however, the unvarnished truth and I make no apologies for it. If I had been compelled by the state to give birth to a child that I knew was afflicted by an incurable condition, I would immediately give that child up for adoption so that the state would be forced to foot the bill for raising the child.

What if your child suffered a debilitating life long injury at some point after they were already born? Would you say you'd turn them over to the state then too?

With that being said, there are adoption agencies specifically for special needs babies. There are many people out there wanting to adopt them. Contrary to popular belief, disabled people are not worthless or unwanted.

(December 23, 2017 at 1:51 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What if your child suffered a debilitating life long injury at some point after they were already born? Would you say you'd turn them over to the state then too?

That's a good question, and I'm not sure of the answer.  It would depend, I think, on whether I felt strong enough to deal with it, and on whether it was physical (e.g. paraplegia) or something that affects mental faculties.

For example, over the years I've had to deal with a couple of family members who had conditions in the psychosis area of the psychological spectrum, and whenever their conditions were active it filled me with an unfathomable terror and fury that still makes me shake just to think about it.  I would never willingly expose myself to that sort of thing again.

(December 22, 2017 at 10:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(December 22, 2017 at 9:27 pm)Wololo Wrote: But abortions don't kill babies. They terminate foetuses, something that happens naturally to about 60% of pregnancies.

Most people die... does your reasoning follow there as well?

MOST people die?  Do you think you aren't going to die?
All people die.

---

(December 23, 2017 at 1:51 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 23, 2017 at 1:37 am)Astreja Wrote: Even when I was of childbearing age I had neither the desire nor the patience to raise a handicapped child.  You are at liberty to call this selfishness; it is, however, the unvarnished truth and I make no apologies for it.  If I had been compelled by the state to give birth to a child that I knew was afflicted by an incurable condition, I would immediately give that child up for adoption so that the state would be forced to foot the bill for raising the child.

What if your child suffered a debilitating life long injury at some point after they were already born? Would you say you'd turn them over to the state then too?

With that being said, there are adoption agencies specifically for special needs babies. There are many people out there wanting to adopt them. Contrary to popular belief, disabled people are not worthless or unwanted.

Adopt that hypothetical baby yet?
I know it's a tender issue, but you may have genetic issues with babies of your own.  You want babies.  You don't believe in abortion.  You have a stable family and money.  You go on and on about how adoption is a viable option.

You are the IDEAL family for adoption.  Why haven't you done it yet?

(December 23, 2017 at 2:49 am)Aroura Wrote:

(December 22, 2017 at 10:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Most people die... does your reasoning follow there as well?

MOST people die?  Do you think you aren't going to die?
All people die.

---

You missed what Road runner asked - if you are saying that abortions are ok because a certain number of unborns die natually, then is it ok to terminate people because they die anyway - naturally?

I wonder how many people who support this have adopted a child, let alone one with a disability.

This is a decision that should be in the pregnant woman's hands, and not in the state's hands. Forcing a woman to carry a child to term for whatever reason is wrong. Imagine being a mother who has neither the time nor the resources to be able to raise a child with a disability. They then have three choices:

#1. Get an abortion.
#2. Do the best they can to take care of the child themselves
#3. Put the child up for adoption

#2 and #3 often do not work out well. Taking away option #1 (mostly in order to control women, which is what all abortion bills are REALLY about. Maybe a few people care about fetuses as well as all life, but most care only about the fetus. And once they're born 'fuck them.' (Especially Roy Moore apparently). puts a burden on the woman making the decision. They have to choose between two outcomes that could have terrible outcomes.

People will surely exploit the families who have family members who have down syndrome in order to push this. Exploitation is what they do best. (Especially if it falls under the ability to control women). But the fact is, nobody is telling women they should or have to have an abortion if they find out the fetus they are carrying has down syndrome. Most reasonable people think that decision should lie in that hands of each individual woman. It's a decision they have to make for themselves. They don't like one of the choices, so they want to eliminate that choice. You may think them horrible. They may think you're equally horrible for forcing them to choose between two potentially catastrophic choices, with no way out but going to an underground abortion clinic and getting the procedure done by an unlicensed person looking to make a quick buck.

Taking away a woman's reproductive rights is just an attempt to control her. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont' imagine most of the anti-choice women out there would appreciate it very much if the government started MANDATING they get abortions. But they're perfectly fine with that same government MANDATING that they can't get an abortion.

One main thing in such cases is that the child will have a known pre-existing medical condition. Consequently the child will suffer discrimination all of its life. He may not be able to get health or life insurance. The busy body bleeding hearts are doing nothing to correct that injustice. And then there's the special needs of equipment, babysitting requirements, and schooling issues. The average family is not prepared to cope with those things and maintain healthy relationships for its members. It's a heavy load to carry so don't be so quick to impose it upon someone who may not be able to do it.

Personally I would never subject a child to such a cruel life if I knew beforehand that he was going to have such severe problems.

(December 22, 2017 at 10:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(December 22, 2017 at 9:27 pm)Wololo Wrote: But abortions don't kill babies. They terminate foetuses, something that happens naturally to about 60% of pregnancies.

Most people die... does your reasoning follow there as well?

Sorry can you please translate into english? I don't speak gibberish.