SCOTUS May Consider Down Syndrome Abortion Ban in What Would Be a Pivotal Case for Disability Rights

[Jackcrevol]

It's a choice.

I'm both pro-choice and pro-life. I believe the distinction between human being and fertilized egg happens prior to birth and that becomes the dividing line for me. At some point it becomes a balancing of rights between two human beings (mother and unborn child). So, provided determination of Down's occurs prior to the transition to human being I would not support a ban on abortion.

i'll allow it.

 

[lawgator1]

Re: the dividing line observation.

Is it possible to know where that is, is it uniform or does it vary by woman/fetus, and is it something the law can decide on a universal basis, i.e. 20 weeks, 17 days, by trimester, etc?

 

[C-south]

If you are going to ban abortions based on the test, you might as well ban the tests as well. No need knowing anything until the child pops out if you can't make decisions based on the information.

If the new wave of disabled children appear as a result of the ban, the typical conservative attitude will probably apply as usual. For many of them, life begins at the heartbeat and ends at birth. You had a child with issues, now deal with the child with little/no state support since you decided to get pregnant in the first place.

Why would you get pregnant if you would potentially need state support? That said there’s plenty of special needs programs that nobody minds being funded.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Why would you get pregnant if you would potentially need state support? That said there’s plenty of special needs programs that nobody minds being funded.

Truthfully, the difference between the costs of a special needs child and a healthy child is astounding. Not many people have the financial resources to handle the difference.

 

[volinbham]

Re: the dividing line observation.

Is it possible to know where that is, is it uniform or does it vary by woman/fetus, and is it something the law can decide on a universal basis, i.e. 20 weeks, 17 days, by trimester, etc?

I'm sure there's some variation. Could be solved with 1) some type of testing, 2) a wide range (eg 24 weeks).

There should always be a health of the mother exception - (eg. a right of self defense).

 

[LouderVol]

If you are going to ban abortions based on the test, you might as well ban the tests as well. No need knowing anything until the child pops out if you can't make decisions based on the information.

If the new wave of disabled children appear as a result of the ban, the typical conservative attitude will probably apply as usual. For many of them, life begins at the heartbeat and ends at birth. You had a child with issues, now deal with the child with little/no state support since you decided to get pregnant in the first place.

woo woo woo. women decide to have sex? The number one argument is that the women have no choice in the matter and need abortion to protect their right to choose.

sounds like they made a choice, didn't like the results of said choice and now want a free-be at the cost of their own child's life.

 

[volkyries]

woo woo woo. women decide to have sex? The number one argument is that the women have no choice in the matter and need abortion to protect their right to choose.

sounds like they made a choice, didn't like the results of said choice and now want a free-be at the cost of their own child's life.

As usual, you miss the point.

In this specific instance, you are taking away the option/choice to have/raise or not a child with an expected disability. As clearwater noted, there is a significant burden (cost, time, etc) placed on families with disabled children. To some, they are a gift from God, to others they are not. Nobody knows which it will be until they are grown and the results present themselves.

Not everyone is cut out for those burdens nor can they afford them. So you (since you clearly believe as I posted) force them (by removing the choice) to have the child they can't raise on their own while telling them sucks for you because you should have never got pregnant. You only force the burden onto others using the state while providing little assistance to them.

 

[volkyries]

Why would you get pregnant if you would potentially need state support? That said there’s plenty of special needs programs that nobody minds being funded.

As clearwater noted, there are significant costs differences between a normal and disabled child. So, while someone could easily afford a normal child, they might not be able to afford a disabled one. The opposite of your question and equally important question in this case is "Why would the state force you to have a child you can't afford?"

 

[LouderVol]

As usual, you miss the point.

In this specific instance, you are taking away the option/choice to have/raise or not a child with an expected disability. As clearwater noted, there is a significant burden (cost, time, etc) placed on families with disabled children. To some, they are a gift from God, to others they are not. Nobody knows which it will be until they are grown and the results present themselves.

Not everyone is cut out for those burdens nor can they afford them. So you (since you clearly believe as I posted) force them (by removing the choice) to have the child they can't raise on their own while telling them sucks for you because you should have never got pregnant. You only force the burden onto others using the state while providing little assistance to them.

state shouldn't be providing aid either. kids are already expensive, I have no sympathy for those who can't plan ahead.

and yes I am saying finding out about the extra burden of DS is not a valid one to kill the child. unless you are comfortable killing the ones that make it out of the womb you are applying an inconsistent standard. IMO DS, or any other disability, is like finding out you are having twins, or triplets. no excuse to abort just because of the added cost to you or society. its a human life.

 

[LouderVol]

As clearwater noted, there are significant costs differences between a normal and disabled child. So, while someone could easily afford a normal child, they might not be able to afford a disabled one. The opposite of your question and equally important question in this case is "Why would the state force you to have a child you can't afford?"

because murder is wrong.

lose your job and suddenly you can start offing your 5 year old kid?

 

[McDad]

I think there needs to be a clear understanding of “ life” instead of , well it’s somewhere between cells and viability . If we want it in as a right it should be defined . But like everyone thats just my 2 cents worth .

Living organisms are easy to classify. There are unique characteristics which all living things share. A fetus also has those characteristics.
The concept of personhood and rights bestowed therein are much harder too qualify.

 

[LouderVol]

As clearwater noted, there are significant costs differences between a normal and disabled child. So, while someone could easily afford a normal child, they might not be able to afford a disabled one. The opposite of your question and equally important question in this case is "Why would the state force you to have a child you can't afford?"

you know adoption is still a thing right?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

you know adoption is still a thing right?

Because there is a waiting list to adopt severely handicapped children?

The issue with abortion is that you are forcing
woman to carry the child to term. By doing so you are infringing upon her rights.

 

[LouderVol]

Because there is a waiting list to adopt severely handicapped children?

The issue with abortion is that you are forcing
woman to carry the child to term. By doing so you are infringing upon her rights.

freudian slip.

no, she infringed upon her own rights having sex. I didn't force her to get pregnant. Me/the government have done nothing but protect the innocent. What do most anti death penalty people say? Better one criminal go free than kill one innocent. But when it comes to babies, eff those things.

I don't care if they don't get adopted we didn't murder them like the spartans of old. unless you are promoting the same action, killing someone with DS, after they are born you don't hold a consistent view and are warping your argument to avoid what makes you uncomfortable.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

freudian slip.

no, she infringed upon her own rights having sex. I didn't force her to get pregnant. Me/the government have done nothing but protect the innocent. What do most anti death penalty people say? Better one criminal go free than kill one innocent. But when it comes to babies, eff those things.

I don't care if they don't get adopted we didn't murder them like the spartans of old. unless you are promoting the same action, killing someone with DS, after they are born you don't hold a consistent view and are warping your argument to avoid what makes you uncomfortable.

Infringed on her own rights by having sex? Good grief you're puritanical.


My position is consistent and I'm not advocating killing those that have been born. There is a point at which the fetus becomes a person and gains rights. That point for me is viability. Make abortions illegal, but allow women to induce labor whenever they want. Baby lives or dies and nobody's rights have been infringed upon and nobody has been murdered.

Until we reach that conclusion, the more humane way to handle it is to allow abortions prior to viability.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Infringed on her own rights by having sex? Good grief you're puritanical.


My position is consistent and I'm not advocating killing those that have been born. There is a point at which the fetus becomes a person and gains rights. That point for me is viability. Make abortions illegal, but allow women to induce labor whenever they want. Baby lives or dies and nobody's rights have been infringed upon and nobody has been murdered.

Until we reach that conclusion, the more humane way to handle it is to allow abortions prior to viability.

Your argument isn't about viability. It's about location. The baby is just as dependent on others after it's born. And will likely be just as dependent on others when it's 90.

And it doesn't take a puritan to believe that a baby's right to not be murdered trump's a woman's right to have sex without responsibility, by the way.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Your argument isn't about viability. It's about location. The baby is just as dependent on others after it's born. And will likely be just as dependent on others when it's 90.

And it doesn't take a puritan to believe that a baby's right to not be murdered trump's a woman's right to have sex without responsibility, by the way.

Once it is born it may be dependent upon others, but only to the extent that others consent to its dependence.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Once it is born it may be dependent upon others, but only to the extent that others consent to its dependence.

That's ridiculous. Let a baby be born and people stand by and watch it die. They will be thrown under the jail for murder. Let a mother's infant's body be found dead of starvation and neglect. Even you would be leading the charge to fry her.

Just be honest with everyone. Your argument isn't about dependence, or a mother's right to not be responsible for her child. Your argument is about location. You're arguing to make the mother's womb the most dangerous place in America for a human baby... You know, so she can have sex without repercussions.

And thinking that immoral is "puritanical" in your eyes.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

That's ridiculous. Let a baby be born and people stand by and watch it die. They will be thrown under the jail for murder. Let a mother's infant's body be found dead of starvation and neglect. Even you would be leading the charge to fry her.

Just be honest with everyone. Your argument isn't about dependence, or a mother's right to not be responsible for her child. Your argument is about location. You're arguing to make the mother's womb the most dangerous place in America for a human baby... You know, so she can have sex without repercussions.

And thinking that immoral is "puritanical" in your eyes.

I have said nothing about standing by and watching it die. I have simply said allow it to be born and the determination of whether it lives or dies is something that naturally occurs. I am sure that people would be lined up to pay for its medical care and adopt it.

Furthermore, I am not talking about abuse cases. You would agree that once the baby is born that the mother can elect to surrender the baby, right? Your argument seems to be one of timing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have said nothing about standing by and watching it die. I have simply said allow it to be born and the determination of whether it lives or dies is something that naturally occurs. I am sure that people would be lined up to pay for its medical care and adopt it.

Furthermore, I am not talking about abuse cases. You would agree that once the baby is born that the mother can elect to surrender the baby, right? Your argument seems to be one of timing.

You are talking about personal responsibility for the child's life, and so am I. You have promoted the injection of salt water into its placenta, killing it in the womb, sucking it out, and discarding it (or selling it for a profit). All for the mother's right not to be responsible for the life she created.

I am saying that if that same mother even neglected that life outside the womb--much less, tortured it to death and discarded the corpse, you would be the one asking to pull the lever. Your word games aside, you're not making an argument about the mother's responsibility for her baby. Your distinction hinges on location.

My argument is one of "right to life trumps right to convenience".

 

[LouderVol]

Infringed on her own rights by having sex? Good grief you're puritanical.


My position is consistent and I'm not advocating killing those that have been born. There is a point at which the fetus becomes a person and gains rights. That point for me is viability. Make abortions illegal, but allow women to induce labor whenever they want. Baby lives or dies and nobody's rights have been infringed upon and nobody has been murdered.

Until we reach that conclusion, the more humane way to handle it is to allow abortions prior to viability.

humane to kill them before they are born, but not once they are? That's not consistent at all.

infringing her rights by having sex was tongue in cheek. She exercised her right when she choose to have sex. you don't have a right to go "oops, didn't mean for X to happen". she made a conscience decision, she should live with the results. If she went out driving and hit someone with her car and had to pay for their care for the rest of her/their life we would never justify her killing that individual. why does she get to kill her own kid? She made her choice with her own body.

maybe we should ask the baby when their rights started? it wasn't their choice to be conceived, it was the mother & fathers choice that lead to it. what right to choose does the baby have? it always makes me laugh when your side of the argument has to use the term fetus so you don't feel as bad saying you are killing a baby. its a human life from day one and you are killing them. just because someone isn't "there" yet , whatever arbitrary line you want to draw to make it ok to murder someone, doesn't mean they won't reach it. we don't deny anyone their rights just because they don't meet the qualification yet. even if you aren't 18 and face criminal charges you get all the protections under the law that would apply to an 18+ yo. Can't vote, guess what you still have the right to assemble, religious choice etc etc.

 

[LouderVol]

I have said nothing about standing by and watching it die. I have simply said allow it to be born and the determination of whether it lives or dies is something that naturally occurs. I am sure that people would be lined up to pay for its medical care and adopt it.

Furthermore, I am not talking about abuse cases. You would agree that once the baby is born that the mother can elect to surrender the baby, right? Your argument seems to be one of timing.

thats not a hard line. what one baby survives another may not. you are wanting to pick and choose. no reason it should be treated any differently than any other human.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

thats not a hard line. what one baby survives another may not. you are wanting to pick and choose. no reason it should be treated any differently than any other human.

My counter argument to abortion is this... Make all abortions illegal. However, allow women to choose to induce labor at any point they want during the pregnancy. It treats the unborn like any other human. My point is this solution fairly considers the rights of all concerned and does not force women to carry to term a parasite that has the potential to kill them.

Once they are alive, pro-lifers don't give a rat's a$$ what happens to the kid, but nobody is forced to care for another human. It is a consensual relationship that the care giver can opt out of at any time.

 

[Septic]

state shouldn't be providing aid either. kids are already expensive, I have no sympathy for those who can't plan ahead.

and yes I am saying finding out about the extra burden of DS is not a valid one to kill the child. unless you are comfortable killing the ones that make it out of the womb you are applying an inconsistent standard. IMO DS, or any other disability, is like finding out you are having twins, or triplets. no excuse to abort just because of the added cost to you or society. its a human life.

This sort of disconnect is troubling. On one hand, don't abort because <reason> on the other, can't afford them - tough sht, the kid can suffer.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

NYC Woman Brags About Being 'Abortion Doula' For Over 2,000 Women

Last weekend, the BBC interviewed Vicki Bloom, a New York City woman from The Doula Project, who bragged about assisting over 2,000 mothers to undergo abortions. The so-called "abortion doula" even stunningly admits that many of the women she's "helped" have told her that they wanted to keep their child, but felt they couldn't for economic or other reasoning.

A doula is someone who is trained in assisting women through childbirth and sometimes provides support to the family after the baby is born. But at The Doula Project, a nonprofit founded in 2007 which targets low-income and marginalized women, all doulas must be willing to assist mothers seeking an abortion.

Bloom says helping women, even reluctant ones, kill their unborn children is "most rewarding."

"Making a deep connection, making a difference - and then letting it go - is super-powerful," she told the BBC.

Bloom assists with abortions up to 24 weeks, as far along as a woman can legally obtain the procedure in New York. "I will stand up by their head and be looking into that person’s eyes, ready for whatever they need, while the doctor is doing the procedure," she explained.

MORE HERE:
NYC Woman Brags About Being 'Abortion Doula' For Over 2,000 Women