It's a B.S. guilt trip law. I mean, the Catholic Church has this group that travels around to different churches and condemns contraceptives because they feel that if it's "God's will" for the woman to become pregnant, then so be it - and that we shouldn't use artificial means for preventing the sperm to connect to the egg. Total crap. What is ridiculous about all this is that that #1 argument of the anti-abortion group is "Right to Life." If that were the case, then every single women who becomes pregnant, whether by consensual sex, rape, incest, etc. should be forced to have the child. Even if the child is projected to have Down's Syndrome, sorry- right to life means right to life, period. No exceptions. If you argue right to life, that means every- single- instance- otherwise your argument is not "right to life," it's "SOME HAVE THE right-to-life."
It would be a really terrible thing for a woman to have to actually see the LIVING person inside of her before she has it KILLED!!!
This bill doesn't require the woman to view the sonogram - just to have it taken. So it doesn't accomplish whatever your guilttrip goal is.
God's will I thought conservatives were all about keeping the government out of personal decisions between someone and their doctor? Guess not
I can't speak for all conservatives/libertarians but for myself it breaks down like this. I don't want the government getting involved in my business where my actions do not have a negative impact on others (and the impact should be measurable in a single instance, not that there is some potential collective impact). In the case of abortion, there is an immediate and devastating impact to the life of the unborn child. To someone who views it that way, keeping the government out of it would be like keeping the government out of murder. How many conservatives have you met that have told you the government should keep out of people's decisions to murder someone? Until the pro-choice crowd realizes that the pro-life people consider that mass of tissue a baby (which should be abundantly clear by now, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to sink in), they are never going to understand the positions they take on abortion issues and how those positions relate to a broader ideology.
Can't say with a certainty, but I'm pretty sure there are guidelines for all sorts of medical procedures codified into law. I suppose the issue here is there being no medical reason for the sonogram, it's just a guilt trip. Not in favor of this law, but I have little sympathy for someone having to endure a sonogram before they choose to end someone's life.
I am not sure how much those views relate to a broader conservative ideology as that position often seems to conflict with other conservative positions.
So, are you advocating that women and men kill their unborn child if it is shown to have Down's syndrome?
You think those kids actually deserve to live? Bah! (sarcasm fully intended) neg rep for babyicedog for suggesting they should be killed.
so let me get this straight--- your company spews pollutants out into the air that is certifiably proven to cause fatal respiratory diseases, and ends up collectively killing 20000 people. Or, perhaps you're an insurance company that actively games the system so that certain people can never have insurance---and these people die because of it. Or you're a bio-fuel company that consciously uses food for fuel and starves 80000 or so third world citizens, because suddenly the corn subsidies the USDA gives you aren't enough, and you need the USDA ethanol subsidies too. but these things aren't worth regulating. but stopping "individual" murders is? killing is killing. You might "think" your company has no negative impacts, but in most cases this is not true. what does it matter if the human life is ended in a vacuum of blood and sweat, or a plethora of coughs caused by preventable respiratory diseases, or the brutal agony of (very) preventable starvation? if you're as pro-life as you claim to be, you would care about each and every one of these cases. that said, I actually support this bill, since I'm "pro-life" all the way. criminalizing abortion would probably make a mess out of things, just like criminalizing anything does, and I am a firm believer in individual liberty. still, for me, anything that dissuades abortion, and makes someone reflect on their actions when they are requesting an abortion, cannot be bad. This doesn't restrict individual choice; it simply informs it better, by making the woman and the man fully aware of what they are planning to do and the implications of it all. that said, if men gave birth, abortion would probably not be controversial at all.
In the US 80% of babies diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted. So most, presumably, already hold to that view. A very scary thought.
we live in a shallow society where beauty is king, appearance is everything, and thousands of dollars are spent to make people sparkle. that people could do such ugly things--- to preserve their own perverted ideas of what beauty is is not surprising in the least given how many people probably laugh behind closed doors at a disfiguring scar, or a bulging pocket of fat, or a misplaced smile, while they work feverishly to convince everyone how "normal" they are---straight, conformist, nicely dressed, and always polite---to your face.
They are not aborted because of their lack of outer beauty. They are aborted because parents don't want to take on the responsibility of a special needs child (money/attention). They are cowards.
every child needs attention and money. Down Syndrome is a hard path, but there are many paths that children take, some which could equally be as hard, if not harder on their parents. "abnormal" children of all kinds---gay children, ADD children, autistic children, alienated children that become angry youth, addicts of all kind--- Down Syndrome just happens to be a form of abnormality you can easily spot. Thus the visceral reaction. It's sad, but given the culture of convenience (yes, I agree on your point as well), shallow beauty, and of strict adherence to arbitrary norms of normality (as absurd as the ability to hit a ball for males, or a face/body-waist ratio graced by genetics for females), it is not so terribly surprising that something so ugly could happen in a society that strives to be so beautiful.
i'll just note i spent most of the afternoon today w/ a group of special needs kids play (a not-so-reasonable facsimile of) softball, and the one guy who could both hit, and run to the right base (as well as more of less field) was a kid w/ down syndrom. the kids who outwardly looked "normal" (behavior aside), were far less athletically functional. moreover, the kid had a great time, and it carried over to the adults on the field.
