Jesse Pinkman 4,660 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Logan said: I'm from Illinois, moved to Indiana, then now in Missouri. They're essentially all the same state lol. I bet... Its so sad lol It's science, bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
420 1,042 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 That ugly a$$ group have to at least help them pay their future expenses, does it even help? 너와의 어색한 침묵이 차라리 좋아 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 26 minutes ago, Logan said: I used to live in Indy. Oh wow! Yeah I live in northern Indiana myself actually... Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezze0410 395 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I am generally pro-choice, and am against what the organisation stands for, but I am baffled by this forum's reaction to this measure. I view this measure to be anti-discriminatory; it is only the abortion of foetuses based solely on the grounds of their disability that is banned. It does not ban the abortion of foetuses for other reasons the state deems acceptable (for example, when the foetus is the product of sexual assault). Abortions undergone solely due to a foetus's disability, in my view, add to the stigma of disability; the public should be made aware of the potential of disabled people to live full, meaningful lives... I also find it appalling that any opinion which restricts access to abortion is so immediately vilified. Regardless of one's beliefs, foetuses are living beings; one should have every right to defend the foetus's right to life as one does to respect the mother's decision, as long as the reasoning is not based on hatred. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 22 minutes ago, jezze0410 said: I am generally pro-choice, and am against what the organisation stands for, but I am baffled by this forum's reaction to this measure. I view this measure to be anti-discriminatory; it is only the abortion of foetuses based solely on the grounds of their disability that is banned. It does not ban the abortion of foetuses for other reasons the state deems acceptable (for example, when the foetus is the product of sexual assault). Abortions undergone solely due to a foetus's disability, in my view, add to the stigma of disability; the public should be made aware of the potential of disabled people to live full, meaningful lives... I also find it appalling that any opinion which restricts access to abortion is so immediately vilified. Regardless of one's beliefs, foetuses are living beings; one should have every right to defend the foetus's right to life as one does to respect the mother's decision, as long as the reasoning is not based on hatred. I am of the belief that the government, nor the state should have ANY jurisdiction over your own personal body Whatsoever!!! Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezze0410 395 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 3 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: I am of the belief that the government, nor the state should have ANY jurisdiction over your own personal body Whatsoever!!! I agree somewhat, but there are necessary laws: laws regarding consent, for example. While one might argue that laws regarding consent concern two individuals, the point remains that the issue of whether a foetus constitutes an individual remains. Wherever one might stand on the issue, to dismiss it would be imprudent. And my argument was not in support of this law; it was an attempt to point out some issues that might have been lost due to people's emotional response to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luiz 4,253 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 i was going to say the same kinda thing jezze but i'm biased here my brother was mentally handicapped so..... . i mean if i had a wife and all and she wanted to abort my child due to a disability i'd be pretty upset. its her decision here though. edit: ok its like the only thing people take into consideration is the hassle it will be caring for them and i know it will be a struggle but i dont like that we view this situation in that way. just because the kid is handicapped doesnt just reduce him/her to nothing more than a problem to take into consideration. its still a person. he/she will still smile, laugh, learn, grow and love you like any other kid. you will love that child like any other child regardless of their disability. i would use an emma emote but it doesnt seem appropriate I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teo 609 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 This is tragic on so many levels. And I literally can't believe that there are people supporting it. Like are they going to pay for these children's medical treatment and give money to one of the parents to stay at home if it needs 24/7 assistance? Not that the law is ok even if they do... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uo111 5,282 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 This law doesn't ban abortions if the mother wants to have one because their child will be disabled. This law bans abortions if the child is disabled, period. Which means conservative doctors in the state won't even allow the abortion because they will demand all sorts of test, trying to prove the fetus is disabled in some way. And lord help a white woman if they find out the father isn't white, then the abortion won't be allowed and the woman will have no legal recourse. This law allows discrimination against women, that's all it is. It flies directly in the face of the right of women to have an abortion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supersonic 49,376 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If you are not ready to care for a disabled child, you should not have children AT ALL. Aborting embryos just because they might have a disability is a gross and ableist justification for getting an abortion. Disabled people are just as worthy of love and affection as able-bodied people are. That being said, I think uterus-bearers should be able to get abortions whenever the f*ck they want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmgSum1Actually 3,041 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Midwest monsters be like.. Shameless selfpromo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It's sad. That's all I have to say. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 8 hours ago, jezze0410 said: I agree somewhat, but there are necessary laws: laws regarding consent, for example. While one might argue that laws regarding consent concern two individuals, the point remains that the issue of whether a foetus constitutes an individual remains. Wherever one might stand on the issue, to dismiss it would be imprudent. And my argument was not in support of this law; it was an attempt to point out some issues that might have been lost due to people's emotional response to it. Good Points!! 👍🏾👍 Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.