Ohio bans doctors from performing Down Syndrome abortions

[RoadRunner79]

For anyone who is interested, here is a picture of the human baby, that is being discussed, and some think should be killed.


Also, as it turns out, people with down syndrome are human after all.

That baby is 10 weeks old, too. Abortions on down syndrome babies aren't done until about half way through the second trimester because that's when they are found out... around 20 weeks.

Here is a more accurate representation of what some people here think we should be allowed to kill by ripping apart limb from limb: https://www.babycentre.co.uk/20-weeks-pregnant

I chose the 10 weeks photo, because from a quick search, that seemed to be the earliest, that they where detecting down syndrome (10-13 wks) as part of the op.  However from the information others posted, it sounds like even much later, the test results are not very reliable.

---

For anyone who is interested, here is a picture of the human baby, that is being discussed, and some think should be killed.


Also, as it turns out, people with down syndrome are human after all.

No RR this is a baby:



What you posted was a foetus. I know you're mentally deficient but even you should know the difference.

And I know that you are prone to make attacks against the person, rather than thoughtfully presented ideas (therefore your quip about metal deficiency means very little)

However I said "baby", because the citation did. And most literature/websites don't seem to have a problem with calling it a baby from what I can tell. Really the definition of "fetus" only tells us that the baby is prenatal, and about 8 weeks or further into development. There appears to be nothing within the definition of baby that would preclude this period of time.

It seems to me, that many who get picky about these words, mostly want to de-humanize the subject, and I assume so it is easier to reconcile killing it. Would you have a problem, with it; if we just classified it, as a distinct human being, from that of the mother? I think that too much focus on either age or location just clouds the issue.

[Angrboda]

It seems to me, that many who get picky about these words, mostly want to de-humanize the subject, and I assume so it is easier to reconcile killing it.   Would you have a problem, with it;  if we just classified it, as a distinct human being, from that of the mother? I think that too much focus on either age or location just clouds the issue.

Politicization of the terms used occurs on both sides. In the same vein, pro-lifers use the terms "human being" and "baby" without acknowledging the very real differences that exist between what we normally refer to with these terms, and what the terms are being used to denote within this debate. Complaining about one side's politicization of the terms without acknowledging your own simply makes you a hypocrite.

[RoadRunner79]

For anyone who is interested, here is a picture of the human baby, that is being discussed, and some think should be killed.


Also, as it turns out, people with down syndrome are human after all.

Repeating a Biblical Un-Truth will NEVER make it true.   And it doesn't matter of you're religious or not, posts like that give false succor and comfort in their Error.

It's unensouled, and therefore, it is not a living human being.


Genesis 2:7  (KJV)
 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


And I realize, even PLAINLY WORDED, perfectly clear Bible verses can appear to be twisted and connived and lied into saying the exact opposite of what they clearly say, but dammit, it's right there, upfront in the Bible.  If someone doesn't like it, be honest, declare a schism and spout your unBible nonsense under your own flag that  you know better than Jehovah, the Lord God Almighty.

I don't think that say's what you think it says!

And if I thought you had any intention other than using it in any way you find to an advantage in rhetoric, I would bother explaining it to you.

[Angrboda]

Repeating a Biblical Un-Truth will NEVER make it true.   And it doesn't matter of you're religious or not, posts like that give false succor and comfort in their Error.

It's unensouled, and therefore, it is not a living human being.


Genesis 2:7  (KJV)
 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


And I realize, even PLAINLY WORDED, perfectly clear Bible verses can appear to be twisted and connived and lied into saying the exact opposite of what they clearly say, but dammit, it's right there, upfront in the Bible.  If someone doesn't like it, be honest, declare a schism and spout your unBible nonsense under your own flag that  you know better than Jehovah, the Lord God Almighty.

I don't think that say's what you think it says!

And if I thought you had any intention other than using it in any way you find to an advantage in rhetoric, I would bother explaining it to you.

Please, humor us with an explanation.  Otherwise you're just dodging the issue with an obvious cop-out.

The only verses I know that address the legal status of “seed” in the womb come in a brief section of case law.

Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. Injuries to the woman prompt the normal penalties for harming another human being: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Killing the woman is murder, a capital crime.

The miscarriage is treated differently, however — as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it’s not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is.

Abortion: What the Bible Says (and Doesn’t Say)

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Psalms 33:6

9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army...

Ezekiel 37 9-10

[LadyForCamus]

But people dont abort their babies after a positive screen because they are only 30% accurate. They do it after an amniocentesis which, as you said, doesn't happen until 16 weeks at the very earlieat. (Mine was at 19 weeks).

And just for the record, the link I posted wasn't of an aborted 20 week baby. It was a link from Baby Center with an illustration and a paragraph explaining his/her developments at that time. Nothing abortion related. I think the only person who posted a pic of an aborted baby was A Theist, and it wasn't to "gross out." It was to show what aborting a 2nd trimester baby actually looks like. If people are going to support that, they should be informed of exactly what it is they are supporting.

CL, what do you want? Make abortion illegal all over the world? And if so, do you think this would make things better for your fellow women?

Enough with this false dichotomy already.  You are starting to sound like the nutty, “they’re trying to take all of our guns!” NRA folk.  I don’t recall a single participant in this discussion advocating for blanket banning of abortions all over the world.  Maybe...just maybe...the subject is a bit more nuanced than that.  I brought up a few points for discussion in my previous post but people don’t seem interested in discussing them.

[Edwardo Piet]

Aborting a fetus that is 9 months old is very different to aborting a fetus that is a few months or few weeks old, yes. I do think a 9 month old fetus can suffer, as it's basically a baby. But I still think that not allowing women to abort would be worse. And the pro-life folk who talk as if all fetuses are babies are just plain silly. All women should be allowed to abort whenever they want. That's the point really.

[Joods]

Roe v Wade.

/thread.

The passing of this ridiculous bill isn't going to go anywhere as far as federal courts go. When you consider that the federal law trumps the state law, Ohio lawmakers just wasted time and made themselves look busy.

[vorlon13]

[vorlon13]

So maybe before we go mucking about with laws and putting women in prison again, just maybe the Christians need to sort this one out a bit more, all get on the same page, and then present their case to the rest of us ??

Who's the leader of their church for starters?  Jesus/God/Ghost ?   Or do they lead from behind wherever the congregation wants to go ??

And another thought: maybe an abortion thread could be hatched here sometime and NONE of the Christians here would dare apostatize for the duration ?


{Mod hat off}

I'm tempted to start editing profiles here of the more egregious Apostates and Heretics we have contributing. One thing to be openly atheist, another thing entirely to be false flagging for Satan here.

{mod hat on}


Not really . . . .

[RoadRunner79]

Genesis 2:7  (KJV)
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I don't think that say's what you think it says!

And if I thought you had any intention other than using it in any way you find to an advantage in rhetoric, I would bother explaining it to you.

Please, humor us with an explanation.  Otherwise you're just dodging the issue with an obvious cop-out.

Well personally, I think it is highly symbolic anyway; however even if that is not the case, simply read it.  All it says is that God made Adam alive.  It doesn't necessitate anything about the subsequent life that came from Adam or say anything of relevance to this discussion.  

However if you are going to define life, by breathing through the lungs, I did get a funny picture of some disgruntled atheists wife, waiting from some poor husbands sleep apnia to make him stop breathing long enough, that she can stab him and it wouldn't be murder!

---

It seems to me, that many who get picky about these words, mostly want to de-humanize the subject, and I assume so it is easier to reconcile killing it.   Would you have a problem, with it;  if we just classified it, as a distinct human being, from that of the mother? I think that too much focus on either age or location just clouds the issue.

Politicization of the terms used occurs on both sides.  In the same vein, pro-lifers use the terms "human being" and "baby" without acknowledging the very real differences that exist between what we normally refer to with these terms, and what the terms are being used to denote within this debate.  Complaining about one side's politicization of the terms without acknowledging your own simply makes you a hypocrite.

Oh... B.S.     First I'm not the one, who started nit-picking about terms, and making personal remarks about others intelligence, if they didn't use the right ones.  I was responding to something specifically in the context of this thread from someone involved in the conversation, so I think that your calling me a hypocrite is a bit over the top.  Not covering the short comings of every variation of the position is not being hypocritical.

Also I think that your examples of "human being" and "baby" are not even comparable.   For most regular people, (outside of those advocating the killing of tiny defenseless humans), they are perfectly normal and used all the time. While you may be able to make some argument for the word "baby" I think it would be difficult given normal usage, and current definitions. However "human being" I think is going to be much more difficult, and I think you would need to define what makes them not human in your view. As well, I don't think that current laws are consistent in this area.