LUFTRAUSER
Banned
It's weird that people feel obligated to women's bodies. Like, yeah, we need people to have babies to survive as a species but I think people that exist now are more important than potential future people.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Indiana to ban abortion for fetuses with certain birth defects ala down syndrome
- Thread starter Enter the Dragon Punch
- Start date
- Status
a baby needs care, that's not the same thing as being literally attached to the lining of a woman's womb and acting as a parasite
Zoe
Member
Your math doesn't add up there.
And I'd say your definition of "fatal condition" is way too broad--most people take it to mean certain death. Cystic Fibrosis used to be considered a fatal condition, but it's not anymore because of medical advances. People with Down's can now lead long and fulfilling lives--I wouldn't consider that fatal.
Gentleman Jack
Member
You fail to understand what happens when abortions are made illegal.
Back before they were legal, women were getting them anyway, in unsanitary conditions by practitioners who were not doctors. A lot of pregnant women and their fetuses died.
Now that they're legal, only the fetus is lost.
Making them illegal brings us back to scenario A, not some paradise where everyone learns more about Down's Syndrome.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Great post. I made a minor adjustment.
What a bunch of horseshit. Elective abortion is 100% legal in Canada and there is still great support networks for children with disabilities. Imagine that, you can have safety nets and societal support for sick/disabled children and people without restricting the bodily autonomy and freedom of women!
What an insane, fucked up world-view. I'm frankly disgusted that anyone would say that.
"Let's hope you have a higher rate of frequently fatal, or at least lifelong-crippling diseases on your children so that I can make a point!" Sheer lunacy.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
If you were born with the parasitic, deformed remnants of what was once your twin hanging off your body and your parents had it sawed off and incinerated would that be the same as if they took out a pistol in the hospital room and shot your perfectly healthy twin shortly after birth because they only wanted one child? Somehow I don't think it would.
Littlefang
Member
I'll throw in that as a personal opinion, I think sex-selective abortion is wrong. From a legal standpoint, I will defend a someone's right to get an abortion for any reason they want. The only exception would be when the fetus is developed enough to be able to survive outside of the womb and the mother's life is not at risk.
People don't abort babies with birth defects because they think them to be subhuman. They do it because they are unequipped to raise a child with those defects. And this might mean that they are emotionally incapable of raising that child. I don't see why that's such a horrible thing. Aborting a fetus with Down syndrome does not mean that you think all people with Down syndrome should be aborted. That'd be like saying having an abortion means that you think all children should be aborted too.
I don't think I would ever be emotionally capable enough to raise a child with a severe developmental disability and I only have the utmost respect for the people that do.
PdotMichael
Banned
It doesn't really change the arbitrary nature of your definition when human life beginns.
I don't get your point. Please rewrite your post again if you like.
I'll believe that people are anti-choice because they think life is so precious when they also start advocating for mandatory kidney donations. You've got two, after all, the government can arbitrarily declare ownership of one. Oh yeah, and we better penalize you if they suspect you might be intentionally doing something to make yourself an unfit donor.
a fetus is living human tissue. if that is your definition for human life then you should be protesting amputations, biopsies, tumor removals, and any number of other medical procedures.
it's not arbitrary to assign different value to a nonsentient parasite versus a newborn.
No, it says something about my attendance in biology class. This isn't an ethical debate.
And I'm still baffled to where you think I said a fetus isn't alive or human. It's both. But up to a certain point it's literally an extension of the woman's body and therefore she can decide to medically remove it.
Eye for an Eye
Member
Certain mutations of Cystic Fibrosis are still fatal in infancy and childhood. Painting it with a broad brush doesn't look at each individual case. The same with Down Syndrome. There is a broad range of physical and mental capabilities and only looking at the higher functioning kids is not looking at the whole picture.
That 12% doesn't even include those who choose to terminate, or those lost in stillbirth. Those are only among those considered to be "live births".
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/04/understanding-mortality-down-syndrome/
And here's another chart with national averages.
http://www.healthindicators.gov/Ind...-syndrome_1187/Profile/Chart_Bar_Demographics
PdotMichael
Banned
All your examples lack the the fact that no fertilization happened (which is also one of the oldest and most basic definition about when life begins) or ends the life of someone.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Elaborate on the false equivalence. I have heard people prefer partners based on height, baldness, lack of disability.
Yes aborting a fetus based on bad reasons is troubling, selfish, wrong whatever.
However, you have yet to give a valid justification why your preferences should violate the body autonomy of Women.
You are welcome to make your case. Get away from the law books. Under no conditions is it moral to force women to be baby incubators against their will.
What??
Oldest? People didn't know what the fuck fertilization was for a while. Most basic? What does that even mean?
A fertilized zygote is a cell. There is nothing magical that gives it any value to anyone other than the person whose body it's in.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
This is not true, sorry. Shown in my first post, were a third world country like Chile with no abortion have better maternity mortality ratio than fully developed USA with abortion. (And no, women are not aborting illegally, by the simple statistical fact that we have the correct number of Down syndrome born).
It's pretty obvious that with illegal abortion, abortions drop dramatically, 99% of women who would consider it, do not do it.
So nope, that's just a supposition not supported by facts.
CornBurrito
Member
Who is going to pay for the child's care?
Irobot82
Member
House Bill 1337
So you can't abort the baby solely because it has Down syndrome. That seems a little tough to enforce.
So you can't abort the baby solely because it has Down syndrome. That seems a little tough to enforce.
CornBurrito
Member
My guess would be he thinks abortion should be legal (for any reason) because he believes it is ultimately up to the mother to decide. Her body her choice.
Trying to spin it as "oh you must love female infanticide" or whatever isn't even a clever misrepresentation.
I think alcohol should remain legal. I guess I'm in favor of fetal alcohol poisoning since inevitably some pregnant women will choose to drink.
boiled goose
good with gravy
The us is not homogeneous in it's laws and access. It would be more fair to compare to a specific state or smaller country.
It's irrelevant regardless. The only reason to reduce abortions is because birth control is safer. That's it. I care about the women. Unborn fetuses? There is no rational reason to care.
The stuff in part 1 is kind of hilarious as well - "national origin" ? What woman thinks "Oh hell no I got knocked up by a German, I better run out and get an abortion!" No pro-America eugenics in Indiana please!
The "any other disability" part is rather awful, since there are developmental and chromosomal disorders that are far worse and any sensible doctor would advise to not carry to term. Forcing women to carry a fetus to full term just to have it die immediately after birth is horrific, and has happened in state with restrictive limits on abortion after a set amount of weeks like Texas.
Irobot82
Member
I think they were trying to model it after the civil rights laws of discrimination.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
This is very true.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
First of all, you're gonna need to back up this assertion with evidence. The CIA world factbook and World Bank Data disagree with you. Now I did find this one source from 2012 (not as recent as World Bank) corroborating your claim, however, even that one source clearly shows that Canada is well above Chile (which is barely 2 points above the USA, btw), and Canada has full legal access to abortion.
So, even if your dubiously-substantiated claim is true, it doesn't prove anything.
Pretty ironic statement right there.
I'm not really sure how to get away from the law books when the thing we are discussing is law and policy.
The only case I can make is theoretical. If every woman decided tomorrow that they were not willing to carry female children to term the human race would cease to exist. That is an apocalyptic nightmare scenario and not reality, though there are areas of the world where male infants far outnumber girls for non-natural reasons. The only reason I bring it up is to indicate that there are actual moral and practical issues involved which at some point can coalesce enough to trump bodily autonomy in this limited regard.
And that's it. I agree that this law is misguided at best and impossible to enforce even if it weren't. The only point I have been trying to make is that an absolutist perspective on this issue that just "whatevers" these questions away doesn't help anybody.
I think you're either willfully misunderstanding Balphon's position, or actually misunderstanding it. My own view is this: How can you be for female reproductive rights and for female foeticide? Put ethics aside, even logically speaking something has to give.
I don't think it's that much of a give for the state to say no to selective sex abortion, whilst preserving as many reproductive rights as possible.
And that right should extend I think to aborting a baby with down's syndrome. I, personally, don't think mother's should abort if they find out their child has down's syndrome, but on hearing the arguments for this, [not the her choice her life blank cheque stuff] I think you can make a sound case for abortion. And this sound case stands even if I morally disagree with it.
Not that my stance has any actual merit or value in finding out how the law was created. Or for what *actual* purpose.
Why don't they increase funding and services for those with disabilities so it's not such a burden for parents. They would be much more likely to not consider an abortion if they knew there was help. I live a nice red state and they give fuck all for those that are disabled. But god forbid you consider an abortion. My brother has Down syndrome and the services are shit. Hes been on a waiting list for 8 years for residential services. The state is constantly auditing and threatening to remove his existing services and Medicaid. They've actually remove them three times because his "supposedly" didn't qualify anymore but it ended up being an "error" on their end. I could go on and on about what a fucking shit show it is. My mom has actually testified before the state legislature about how ridiculous everything is and how the state has made it such a burden on parents to try and receive assistance.
Exactly, the issues shouldn't be limiting abortions for women but expanding services that help individuals with disabilities. If these Republicans cared for the children as they seem to shout, then their actions would show it by having amazing support services once the child is born that continue to help far into adulthood and senior citizen age. Instead they want to limit abortions and make services non existent.
My position is radically different now in my late 30s (pro-choice) than it was in my early 20s. Arguments changed my mind...why can't they change yours?
The fact that you think the concept of egg fertilization is in any way "old" shows just how little you understand about biology and history.
Down syndrome kids are extremely likely to have major other health complications after they're born. Ones' these same guys are working to make sure aren't covered for most people. So its basically "wait till there born, then we'll kill 'em for you, and take whatever meager savings you have at the same time" situation.
Eye for an Eye
Member
90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks gestation (from the date of last menstrual cycle).
10% of abortions are performed in the second trimester or later.
1% of abortions happen after 20 weeks.
Early Prenatal Non Invasive Testing, such as Maternt21, Panorama, Verifi, and Harmony, can detect fetal blood in the mother's blood as early as ten week. The results on average take about 10 business days (or about two weeks) to get back. It is only considered a screening, it is NOT diagnostic. This is also done in conjunction with a 12 week NT scan. During this ultrasound, they look at the thickening in the neck area. Often times this can lead to heart defects if it is above 3mm thick and an increase is genetic abnormality. During this time, fetal hydrops can also be detected.
If a screening test comes back positive, a CVS test can be done between 11-13 weeks. This takes a small sample of tissue from the placenta for DNA testing. FISH results can usually take 48-72 hours, although full results generally take a week or longer to get back. A microarray can take up to two weeks to get back.
If the placenta is not in a position for testing, or the gestational period is above the 13 week limit, an Amniocentesis can be done 15 weeks and onward. This takes amniotic fluid from around the baby to test the DNA. Again 2 days for FISH results, a week for full, and two weeks for a microarray.
Most heart conditions can not be detected before the 18th week at the earliest, but on average between 20 and 22 weeks.
There are many genetic conditions that do not necessarily cause physical defects that can be detected by an ultrasound. The same goes for not all physical defects means there's an issue with the chromosomes.
Now there's also hundreds of genetic conditions passed down from parent to child. Some are recessive and require both parents to have an affected gene to have an affected child. Others are dominant (usually on the X chromosome) and only requires it to pass from one parent to have an affected child. Specific genetic testing can take on average 2 weeks if sent to a laboratory that does specific testing for specific conditions to 6 weeks or more if sent to just any lab that does DNA testing.
I am a genetic carrier of Fragile X. It's a dominant disorder, and my repeat count is a 150 (carrier status). Anything about 200 is considered full mutation (fully affected), and I have a 98% chance that the Fragile X gene will expand into a full mutation.
My first pregnancy took 4 weeks for results. My second pregnancy took 6 weeks for results. I terminated both pregnancies after 20 weeks.
Your definition is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. All that is left to do is to figure out which arbitrary line is the most ideal. Me personally, when the baby is born because that is when sentience begins.
As early as 10 weeks potentially.
Eye for an Eye
Member
The testing can be done at 10 weeks, but results won't get back until nearly 12 weeks. On top of that, it is only considered a screening and NOT diagnostic. If a positive result comes back, then doctors will proceed with more invasive diagnostic testing. While the risk is slim (less than 1%, and even lower for well skilled doctors), it is still considered a risk to do a CVS or Amnio. Therefor, even with early testing, most woman are beyond 12 weeks and in the beginning of the second trimester when they terminate a pregnancy.
This should be the name of the bill.
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
Absurd law. What women do and why they choose to do it in regards to abortion is up to them, full stop.
If people are so concerned about decreasing abortions (for any reason) or eliminating the need for them all together, then work to promote services to aid people when they do have children, and increase/support access to birth control and education to help them never reach the point where they have to make a decision like this. THAT'S how you can practice your beliefs of life at conception instead of trying to force your beliefs on others when you have no stake (uterus) in the matter.
If people are so concerned about decreasing abortions (for any reason) or eliminating the need for them all together, then work to promote services to aid people when they do have children, and increase/support access to birth control and education to help them never reach the point where they have to make a decision like this. THAT'S how you can practice your beliefs of life at conception instead of trying to force your beliefs on others when you have no stake (uterus) in the matter.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Ah I see. I guess it didn't occur to me that people might actually just vote for president, then basically ignore the rest of the ballot.
Airola
Member
This thread has awful amounts of bad talk and implications towards people with down syndrome.
The guys from a punk band called Pertti Kurikan Nimipäivät are all persons with disabilities. I believe two of them have down syndrome.
They tried to get into the Eurovision song contest to raise awareness of people with disabilities. The didn't manage to get to the finals but they were in the semi-finals.
Here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Y0HOPL5GU
I bet they would hate to read this thread.
You can think what you want, but I find it very VERY sad that so many of these posts are implying it's a moral issue and thinking it's morally more right to allow the abortion of down syndrome fetuses than to forbid it.
Under pragmatism I can understand someone having that stance, but if someone's claiming it's morally the right thing to do, then I would seriously ask you to have a talk with some disabled people.
Being pro or anti abortion is one thing, but to claim things like this based only on how hard it is to raise a person like that is a whole other thing.
The guys from a punk band called Pertti Kurikan Nimipäivät are all persons with disabilities. I believe two of them have down syndrome.
They tried to get into the Eurovision song contest to raise awareness of people with disabilities. The didn't manage to get to the finals but they were in the semi-finals.
Here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Y0HOPL5GU
I bet they would hate to read this thread.
You can think what you want, but I find it very VERY sad that so many of these posts are implying it's a moral issue and thinking it's morally more right to allow the abortion of down syndrome fetuses than to forbid it.
Under pragmatism I can understand someone having that stance, but if someone's claiming it's morally the right thing to do, then I would seriously ask you to have a talk with some disabled people.
Being pro or anti abortion is one thing, but to claim things like this based only on how hard it is to raise a person like that is a whole other thing.
Eye for an Eye
Member
Because it is very difficult to raise a disabled child. Families fall apart, resources are limited, and it's a never ending struggle provide care. Some people think of all aspects of raising a child with disability and determine their choice from there. But every one just brushes under the rug the million and one other complications that can occur During a pregnancy that this law also affects.
Would you be this opposed if the bill explicitly stated T13 or T18 and not T21?
Andrew Korenchkin
Member
Yeah....this is bad. It should be a choice and up to the women if she wants to raise a Down Sydrome kid.
Because a few people with down syndrome formed a band then women should be forced to carry a baby they don't want? Who has talked in a bad way about anyone with disabilities in this thread? All I see are people pointing out the fact that raising a down syndrome baby is much harder than a baby without it.
Nobody is saying these children can't go on to do something with their life, but to use that to gloss over the fact that it's a harder life in general for them AND the parent isn't right.
If the mother doesn't think she has the ability to raise a child with down syndrome that's totally within her right, and is realistically the better choice over just having it and hoping for the best. That's how children end up in shitty foster homes with nobody who cares about them.
I'm saying if the mother has any doubt at all about whether she can do it, she is better off aborting than abandoning a child. If she decides she can do it, that's fantastic, good for her and the baby. However if you force her to do it, I hope you're willing to pay for the child's care out of your taxes if she realizes it's too much and abandons it.
Airola
Member
I understand it's difficult. I'm just saying that if you would say to a disabled person that his condition is something that makes it more ok to abort a person, partly because people with that condition will make the families lives hard, I'm not sure that person would take it well. I would imagine he'd get angry and/or depressed.
Eye for an Eye
Member
I terminated for a condition less severe than Down Syndrome. I made the decision twice after getting positive results back. If we were to ever try again naturally, I would again make the same decision to terminate if my child was affected by Fragile X. It is not something I want my child to live with. It is not a condition I want them to suffer with for the entirety of their life.
I was raised with a handicap brother. I love him and he's my brother, but I wish he didn't have the problems he had.
Airola
Member
About the band: You missed the point. I wasn't saying that because of this band, something should be done. It was just one example of disabled people with things to do and will to live. It was easy to choose them as an example because bringing people's awareness to the lives of disabled persons was a huge reason for them to get into that contest. They are not saying that because they do that, something should be done, but they are saying that they are a tiny small portion of people who are just as human as they are.
Kids ending up in non-caring foster homes is a whole different issue in society. But I don't think that kind of a life is so horrible that it would've been better for the kids to never been born than to end up in that situation. They still have their future and at least some possibilities.
I agree, though, that this law is stupid for suddenly forcing the abortion in this issue, and not caring about abortions in other issues. It seems a bit superficial, yeah.
Airola
Member
Sure, I understand. It's not easy.
But would it be better for your brother if he would've never been born? I don't think that's a thing we could answer, though. Only your brother knows. The thing is that ultimately it's the disabled person's lives that are the issue here. Whatever we feel about them might not be what they are feeling or what they are needing or what they are missing.
Anyways, I'm sure tons of people have made that choice for even less of a reason. Some make the choice just because they can, not even having a bigger reason for it. Life still goes on. Even though I'm more against than for abortions (not totally against by any means), people do all the time things I don't like or approve. Yet the same people surely also do tons of things I like and approve. And I also do things that tons of people don't like or approve. So I'm not a person to really judge, even though I might sound like an ass sometimes with my views about things. But it's also not a reason for me to not take part of discussions like this.
Eye for an Eye
Member
Have you ever talked to the women who have chosen to terminate for medical reasons?
Have you ever received a poor prenatal diagnosis?
Have you raised a disabled child into adulthood?
When it is YOU sitting in that chair across from a genetic counselor telling YOU that there is something wrong YOUR baby, then YOU can choose what you feel is best for you and your family.
Eye for an Eye
Member
Poor Prenatal Diagnosis goes far beyond a Down Syndrome diagnosis. This bill bans abortions for fatal diagnosis, grey area diagnosis, genetic conditions like Spinal Muscular Dystrophy (which is fatal from infant to early childhood). It affects nearly every pregnancy termination during the second trimester.
Actually, you don't understand.
And the fact that you think you do is offensive to a reprehensible degree.
Did it ever cross your sheltered little mind that some people are so disabled they can't understand the English language? Or for that matter any language at all? That the concept of death is something that's beyond their mental capacity?
- Status