Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
lawlifelgbt

Ohio wants to ban abortions based on Down Syndrome

Recommended Posts

momof2treasures

The blood test can be done at 10 weeks now, so it can even be a really early choice. Thankfully, I've never had to make this choice. I can't even imagine judging someone who has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
momof2treasures

My other thought is this-isn't this proposed ban discriminatory? DS isn't the only disability out there that can be detected before birth. Why are they the only ones who matter? This clearly hasn't been given much thought, these people are just jumping on what I call the Down's syndrome bandwagon. It's a more common issue that's detected before birth, and the only one they have heard of because they have spent no time learning anything about disabilities or prenatal diagnosis. They simply don't care about disabled children enough to do that, they just want to forward their own agendas. It's discriminatory to make a law that only includes one very specific diagnosis IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexa

I was going to say good luck getting this law passed, but the way things have gone lately I wouldn't be surprised if it does pass. Yes, it is very sad that babies get aborted because they have D.S., but I don't see the same people who want to ban aborting them lining up to adopt babies with D.S. The Duggars, Bates, Kellers, Seewalds, Dillards, Maxwells, etc. all have healthy kids and none have adopted as far as I know, and none have adopted special needs children.

It's just another attack on poor women. If a woman who has money wants to abort her baby for whatever reason can't in her state/county, she'll just travel elsewhere to get the abortion. A poor woman who wants to abort but cannot in her location will end up having the baby and will inevitably end up on welfare/aid and the child will be born into a less than stellar situation. It makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

Exactly. This can lead to caregiver abuse, and more cases of parents abandoning their child with a disability. Then, there's the issue of what happens to someone with a disability like DS when the caregiver dies, and they have no siblings who are willing or able to care for them.

Another thing is that many people with DS also have heart conditions, often shortening the person's life or requiring open heart surgery when still an infant. Those who want to ban abortions for DS also don't want to provide health insurance for them after they're born and might need that heart surgery.

And i can see them saying, "Well the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, so no to public funding for healthcare for those who can't pay for their own care".

In other words they want to go back to when horrible things in life just happened and people who couldn't afford care just died. No interventions, no help for those who got an unlucky roll of the dice, just don't let anyone abort a pregnancy. It all comes back to religion and a no-mercy approach to life can be just as harsh and painful as falling on a cactus, which God invented, right? Sucks to be unlucky, they'd say. Which ultimately means they'd worship money and wealth because the wealthy would be able to help themselves.

But i don't think Jesus would have been like that, at all. He would have been for universal health care, and i'm pretty sure he would be empowering women to be the best mothers that they can be in whatever situation they find themselves, and He would have been for giving help to the helpless. I don't know about abortion, but i've heard that Jewish law doesn't recognize life before birth? I could be wrong on that. I don't know.

Anyway, He'd be helping, not saying "sucks to be you" to all the people who get dumped on by life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmmieJ
Another problem I am becoming aware of as I am aging is worries by friends with DS children about what will become of them when they are gone, financially and emotionally. The ones in better shape are those who worked to get their children into independent living situations while still young. Those who kept them at home have to worry about the child feeling abandoned after their parents die. They may or may not have siblings willing and able to take over.

I speak as the sister of a Downs Syndrome person. She is the youngest of our family (no surprise there). When she was born, doctors would still routinely suggest putting a DS child in an institution. My parents never considered that for a moment. She was and remains a beloved member of our family.

However, not everyone would make a good parent of a child with special needs. I have read some horrific abuse stories. It tears me apart each time I hear of one of these gentle, loving people being abused because their mom or their dad (or their sibling that got left taking care of them) did not want them, did not love them, and in fact, hated them for being Downs.

If a woman, or a woman and her partner, do not feel they can unconditionally love and financially care for a disabled child, then they should abort. Do not have a child that you are pretty sure you will resent and don't really want. What a horrible life you will give that child. Because of my own experience, I know that if I had learned I was carrying a Downs baby, I would have proceeded with the pregnancy and loved that child with all my heart for all of my days. But not everyone feels that way, and in that case, it would be better all around not to subject that soul to a miserable life. If you believe there is a God and that God wants this particular soul to make it to Earth, then trust that God will find another way for the soul to get here.

Excellent point about how many Downs babies are born to older parents. I have seen many of my sister's friends end up with no close relatives to take care of them after their parents have passed. Often if there is a sibling or siblings, either they don't want to be the caretakers or they are unable to do so because of their own situations. Fortunately for my sister, she does have four remaining, fairly healthy siblings - we will make sure she is taken care of. But that's not always the case. Some will be high functioning and able to live on their own or perhaps with a roommate in an apartment (assuming funding is available to help pay for that apartment). Others will end up in a group home, and one hopes they will be treated kindly by those running the home.

I think it is a terrible idea to force anyone to carry a baby that they do not want, and quite possible will resent and grow to hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twinmama

These kinds of laws are really only about stopping women from having sex. If you aren't married? Don't have sex. If you don't want a pregnancy? Don't have sex. If you can't raise a child with a disability? Don't have sex. Funny that the men can have all the sex they want without judgement though. Wonder who they are doing it with...

And I just don't see the point in forcing people to carry children they can't support and/or don't want. Those children, with DS or not, deserve to be loved and wanted and to have every chance at a great life. If their parents can't give that to them, maybe they are making the right choice in not continuing the pregnancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
artdecades

There is no way this is constitutional under Roe v Wade.

Of course, the goal of these anti-choice activists is to get Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court again and overturned.

This is the same as sex-selective abortions. Are there moral reasons why people are against sex-selective abortions? Sure. But that doesn't matter. I support a woman's right to choose no matter what the reason. A woman's right to choose for any reason must be preserved at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture

My Fiancé and I have actually discussed this a bit. We both agree that we would not abort a fetus diagnosed with DS, but we would if the child was born with defects so severe that death would occur very quickly or the child would be in agonizing pain (or if they would be incapable of living a somewhat full life). We have teachers in our families and my mom (and brother-in-law) worked with Special Education students. My state still provides a good amount of support for people with disabilities and we feel we could provide a good and loving home for a child - regardless of their health or developmental issues.

That said, not everyone is capable of doing that or wants to do that. Caring for someone with disabilities is very difficult at times and some people just can't handle it - and that's ok. To me, choosing to end a pregnancy can be far more merciful than having an unloved or unwanted child. Every women or couple deserves the right to decide the best option for their situation. I want to know that I have the ability to end a pregnancy if I ever needed to and I want all women to have that level of comfort as well.

This law is just a flimsy attempt at pandering to special interest groups. It benefits no one for more people with disabilities to be born into the world without providing adequate financial, physical, emotional, and mental support for the children and families - something that these politicians appear to vehemently oppose. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for playing games with such a serious health issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture
Remember the flap about how the ACA was going to mean we'd have "death panels" making health care decisions? Well, no surprise that never came to pass but what do we get now, tribunals to determine the validity of a woman's decision to abort FOR WHATEVER REASON?

It really is turning into a death by inches for women's rights in this country. My daughter has no interest in having children and I can't see that her feelings will ever change. But honestly, I'm glad she prefers to remain child-free since it's far better than becoming an incubator for the state, which is the way things are going.

I would love to have a daughter one day (neither of us care about the sex of our future kids but it would be cool to have at least one of each; so long as the kids are happy and healthy we don't care what sex organs they have). We live in a state that scores well for women's rights issues, but stories like this almost make me hope we only have boys... Life for our potential sons would be much easier and safer if these laws become widespread. I never want my child to be put in a position where they have to decide between continuing a pregnancy (for any reason) or risking their life or freedom to end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 much chickenetti
A disabled child can also hamper the life of the caregiver.

Another problem I am becoming aware of as I am aging is worries by friends with DS children about what will become of them when they are gone, financially and emotionally. The ones in better shape are those who worked to get their children into independent living situations while still young. Those who kept them at home have to worry about the child feeling abandoned after their parents die. They may or may not have siblings willing and able to take over.

Somewhat related to this is the guilt many parents of disabled children experience and the effect this has on their relationships with others.

As the older sister of a micro-premie who is now an adult and barely self-sufficient, I see this every day. At the beginning, my brother faced terrible odds and my parents were forced to allow doctors to take heroic measures to keep him alive. As a result, this young man (who would have died if he had been born 5 years earlier) faces severe learning disabilities, vision issues, psychological issues (schizophrenia), motor issues, health problems, and a myriad of other issues. My parents tried their best with him (my mother stopped working so that he could get the best care possible) but, unfortunately, the situation will never be ideal and I know I will have to care for him as my parents age.

While we all love my brother and have done our very best for him, having a child with these sorts of needs isn't something we would wish on anybody. As I reach the point in my life where I am ready for children, I know I am also ready to abort if they have issues like Downs) and am learning about my rights as a parent so that, if I have a child who is a micro premie like my brother (or has other, severe, special needs), I know exactly when I can legally say enough is enough.

I believe that every child should be wanted, but I also believe that every child I bring into the world should be able to function in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toothfairy

So they cut funding, don't give two shits about anyone another than themselves and now wants to ban abortion. First we all know this will never happen. But why in the wold are the wasting time passing shitty laws. Second they are always complaining how their tax dollars are being used to support people. Third maybe they should take care of kids with disabilities. I've seen so many kids in foster care with severe disabilities and they will be there for life because it's hard to take care of a kid with a disability. Whose going to care for that kid when you're dead. Gosh these people are idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toothfairy
These kinds of laws are really only about stopping women from having sex. If you aren't married? Don't have sex. If you don't want a pregnancy? Don't have sex. If you can't raise a child with a disability? Don't have sex. Funny that the men can have all the sex they want without judgement though. Wonder who they are doing it with...

And I just don't see the point in forcing people to carry children they can't support and/or don't want. Those children, with DS or not, deserve to be loved and wanted and to have every chance at a great life. If their parents can't give that to them, maybe they are making the right choice in not continuing the pregnancy.

But married women have sex too. So a married women shouldn't have sex with her husband? Some people are really close minded. Like how they always compare abortion to black lives. Wtf?

As a foster parent I've seen my share of kids who feel or left unwanted. I agree that a child with DS shouldn't be born to parents that don't want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2xx1xy1JD

I also want to say that they should see proper funding and resources for people with disabilities as the right thing to do, period, even if it isn't directly linked to abortion.

As we've said before, it's not possible to test for all conditions prior to birth, and it's also not possible to know the full extent of disability even if a child ends up having DS or another testable condition. Children will be born who have special needs, and they will need care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mama Mia

I"m against abortion being legal after the first trimester except in limited circumstances ( life of the mother, rape incest, fetus incompatible with life, etc ) -- and even I think this is stupid.

What on earth is the sense of saying that it's okay to have an abortion at 20 weeks for any reason - except for one specific, stressful, emotionally and financially demanding situation. In that case, nope, can't do it. That makes no sense. :?

I understand the disability rights idea behind it----but just no. I they wanted to encourage more women carrying a child with Downs not to abort-- then they shopuld focus on building up meaningful supports and resoources that would make life easier for both the parents and the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainFunderpants
My Fiancé and I have actually discussed this a bit. We both agree that we would not abort a fetus diagnosed with DS, but we would if the child was born with defects so severe that death would occur very quickly or the child would be in agonizing pain (or if they would be incapable of living a somewhat full life). We have teachers in our families and my mom (and brother-in-law) worked with Special Education students. My state still provides a good amount of support for people with disabilities and we feel we could provide a good and loving home for a child - regardless of their health or developmental issues.

That said, not everyone is capable of doing that or wants to do that. Caring for someone with disabilities is very difficult at times and some people just can't handle it - and that's ok. To me, choosing to end a pregnancy can be far more merciful than having an unloved or unwanted child. Every women or couple deserves the right to decide the best option for their situation. I want to know that I have the ability to end a pregnancy if I ever needed to and I want all women to have that level of comfort as well.

This law is just a flimsy attempt at pandering to special interest groups. It benefits no one for more people with disabilities to be born into the world without providing adequate financial, physical, emotional, and mental support for the children and families - something that these politicians appear to vehemently oppose. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for playing games with such a serious health issue.

I would read some of the stories of siblings of disabled kids if you intend to have multiple kids, period. Life can be incredibly difficult for the siblings of disabled kids -anything from attention during childhood to dating, marriage, and potentially starting a family as a grown-up. I know I wouldn't marry a guy who had a disabled sibling, purely because I wouldn't want to risk getting stuck taking care of said sibling. We have some close friends that have an incredibly disabled sister and one has openly told me he's aware he'll never have kids because he'll never be able to have the relationship he wants with his own kids meanwhile knowing he's responsible for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nelliebelle1197

Well, captainfundepants, I don't think anyone with a disabled family member would want you in their lives anyway with an attitude like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RosyDaisy

Fuck you, captianfundipants! Just fuck you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VelociRapture

I would read some of the stories of siblings of disabled kids if you intend to have multiple kids, period. Life can be incredibly difficult for the siblings of disabled kids -anything from attention during childhood to dating, marriage, and potentially starting a family as a grown-up. I know I wouldn't marry a guy who had a disabled sibling, purely because I wouldn't want to risk getting stuck taking care of said sibling. We have some close friends that have an incredibly disabled sister and one has openly told me he's aware he'll never have kids because he'll never be able to have the relationship he wants with his own kids meanwhile knowing he's responsible for her.

We are well aware of the struggles that parents and siblings face when one child is born with health or developmental problems. If that happens with our first child then we will, of course, think carefully about adding a second - not just because of the reasons you stated (such as not getting enough attention in childhood), but because we want to be sure that we can provide the best care available for the first child. It is not a decision we take lightly and any child that we welcome into our family will be welcomed with love, acceptance, and joy.

As for your personal thoughts, I commend you for knowing what you can and can't handle ahead of time - it wouldn't be fair to you, a potential partner, or that person's family for you to get involved romantically if you aren't willing to put up with a disabled sibling. It especially would be unfair to the sibling in question. For me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying this, that wouldn't be an issue. I'm grateful that my Fiance's family is relatively healthy, but I would gladly care for any of his family members - or my own - should the need arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full enough quiver

I think it's really important to be honest with yourself about what your capabilities are. Personally, I wouldn't abort for Down's, but I wouldn't go out of my way to have a disabled child, such as adopting, or marrying a man with a disabled child. I broke up with a guy after meeting his autistic son. He was a great guy, and a wonderful father. Both he and his son deserved someone who was willing to do the work of raising the child. I wasn't willing to do that to my daughter. I knew I wanted other children, and that wouldn't have been fair to anyone. As for someone with a disabled sibling, I don't know. It would be tough to be a caregiver while raising children. I don't think its a bad thing to carefully consider what kind of emotional and financial strain that could put on your family. I bet abortions for Down's or any other disability would drop drastically with better support services, education, health care, therapies, assisted living facilities, etc. also, more people would be willing to adopt special needs kids. But everyone knows they don't want that. Pre born, you're a life that needs protecting, pre school, you're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mama Mia

Hmmmm.... At first, honestly, I was appalled by Captain Fubdiepants post. But in thinking about it, while it was put very abrasively , I guess it is good to be honest with yourself about what you can and can't handle. You still, of course, have 0 quarantee that life events might not throw you a big fat curveball -- but if you KNOW you'll be miserable and resentful - -and make everyone around you miserable-- I guess it is better to just avoid situations you know you can't handle. :?

also I'm just relieved that the anti- disabled remarks got attention instead of my anti- abortion remarks :embarrassed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundaymorning
Hmmmm.... At first, honestly, I was appalled by Captain Fubdiepants post. But in thinking about it, while it was put very abrasively , I guess it is good to be honest with yourself about what you can and can't handle. You still, of course, have 0 quarantee that life events might not throw you a big fat curveball -- but if you KNOW you'll be miserable and resentful - -and make everyone around you miserable-- I guess it is better to just avoid situations you know you can't handle. :?

also I'm just relieved that the anti- disabled remarks got attention instead of my anti- abortion remarks :embarrassed:

I agree. They are being honest, instead of putting on an act. And while nelliebelle1197 might be right that most people wouldn't want to have someone like that in their family in first place, at least they know from the beginning where the person stands. Taking care of a disabled person is an incredibly demanding task, so it's better for everyone involved if someone is aware beforehand that they wouldn't be able to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawlifelgbt
Mama Mia wrote:

Hmmmm.... At first, honestly, I was appalled by Captain Fubdiepants post. But in thinking about it, while it was put very abrasively , I guess it is good to be honest with yourself about what you can and can't handle. You still, of course, have 0 quarantee that life events might not throw you a big fat curveball -- but if you KNOW you'll be miserable and resentful - -and make everyone around you miserable-- I guess it is better to just avoid situations you know you can't handle. :?

I'm actually not appalled in the least! I agree that if you don't think you can handle it, don't put yourself in that situation. I wouldn't do that either, and if I had even a child with a disability, I would abort, or if not detected, not be the one to stay home and do the 24/7 care (though a lot of that is career as well, I'm set to out-earn my wife by about 100 percent). And I can foresee problems with loss or resentment if the kid could never live independently.

I agree about the sibling attention, etc. thing. When I was growing up, my mother was home much more because she was a teacher. She heavily favored my younger brother because they had more interests in common, he did slightly better in school (4.0 to my 3.8), he looked like her, and he was more easygoing.

He also played high-level USTA youth tennis all over the country. All the lessons, travel, tournaments, etc. took up all of her after-school and weekends and at least four hours each day in the summer. Plus, the equipment, time, and fees meant that I couldn't always take on a summer activity, do usual kid things like playdates, etc. that required transport or money (beyond enough to meet my basic needs), or have a lot of free time because I was either dragged with to the court, or left alone in the house for hours with all the chores and pet care. When you're alone, you can't go to friends, or have people over, so the dog(s) were my friends. My mom took on volunteering with a breed rescue org for a few years, fostering- not that I minded puppies, but 12-15 year old me was doing 90% of the actual work! Even our vacations were to an (albeit nice, beach-having), area of the country that had some of the best pros to teach little brother. No option to ever go anywhere else, and not much escape from having to always watch/discuss/hear about tennis.

I realize this isn't exactly a comparison to having a disabled sibling, but I can see the problems with not having a lot of time, money, attention, etc. for the other kids, and the other kids being less able to have friends or having more of a workload because of the sibling. Because I saw some small slice of that, even if it was for more positive reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nelliebelle1197

I agree. They are being honest, instead of putting on an act. And while nelliebelle1197 might be right that most people wouldn't want to have someone like that in their family in first place, at least they know from the beginning where the person stands. Taking care of a disabled person is an incredibly demanding task, so it's better for everyone involved if someone is aware beforehand that they wouldn't be able to handle it.

I think it was not what she said but how she said it and the way that abrasiveness makes her seem rather unpleasant or immature. This is a subject that deserves a little bit more thoughtfulness than dashing off potentially self-damaging off handed comment based on one of those "my friend has a"... stories. No one wants a disabled child, but it happens, even with the best medical care and healthiest parents. It often happens to the people least able equipped to handle the situation. I don't think I could do it and I wouldn't sign up for it, but you never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2xx1xy1JD

The thing is, of course, that you DON'T know what life will throw at you.

You can have a child with autism or cerebral palsy or mental illness (all things that can't be detected in advance). You or your spouse can have parents that end up requiring care. A friend of mine cared for her MIL after the MIL was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, which was basically a hellish year of chemo and extreme surgery and dying. You or your spouse can become disabled.

Yes, someone may come into a relationship already knowing that they have a heavy family responsibility. OTOH, someone who has experience in dealing with disabilities may have already proven themselves and shown that they are capable of managing life's curve balls, dealing with special needs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainFunderpants
The thing is, of course, that you DON'T know what life will throw at you.

You can have a child with autism or cerebral palsy or mental illness (all things that can't be detected in advance). You or your spouse can have parents that end up requiring care. A friend of mine cared for her MIL after the MIL was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, which was basically a hellish year of chemo and extreme surgery and dying. You or your spouse can become disabled.

Yes, someone may come into a relationship already knowing that they have a heavy family responsibility. OTOH, someone who has experience in dealing with disabilities may have already proven themselves and shown that they are capable of managing life's curve balls, dealing with special needs, etc.

Exactly. Life throws curve balls and I'm not starting off down in the count 0-2 with two outs. If we start off up 3-0 with one out and then strike out, that's one thing, but marriage is hard enough without the hazards being guaranteed. Heck, I'll barely consider dating a person with an obese parent (won't even consider someone obese themselves) simply because I consider it a major character flaw and know that there are guaranteed health issues that, as the wife, I'm likely to end up dealing with.

Again: marriage is hard. Why go into it with known hazards when you know for a fact that it's only going to get harder as the years go on? That being said, I would absolutely date/marry a disabled person. There are plenty of disabled people living normal lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.