SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
an Ohio bill [would] ban abortions in cases where a pregnant woman has had a positive test result or prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome. Physicians convicted of performing an abortion under such circumstances could be charged with a fourth-degree felony, stripped of their medical license and held liable for legal damages. The pregnant woman would face no criminal liability.
Several other states have considered similar measures, triggering emotional debate over women's rights, parental love, and the trust between doctor and patient.
The Ohio bill's chief Senate sponsor, Republican Sen. Frank LaRose, said Republican lawmakers accelerated the measure after hearing a mid-August CBS News report on Iceland's high rate of abortions in cases involving Down syndrome. The report asserted Iceland had come close to "eradicating" such births.
[...] Doctors and medical students are fighting the measure.
Parvaneh Nouri, a third-year medical student at Wright State University, told lawmakers it would do little to stop abortions but could stop information-sharing between patients and their doctors.
“It destroys the trust of our patients, for which we have worked tirelessly over generations of physicians to cultivate,” she said.
Indiana's version of the law has been blocked by a federal judge while North Dakota's law has gone unchallenged due to the state's only abortion clinic not performing abortions after 16 weeks. An Oklahoma bill that would prohibit abortions based on any genetic abnormalities did not reach the state Senate.
Previously: Down Syndrome Births Nearly Eliminated in Iceland
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:53PM (2 children)
I'd say this is less about eugenics and more about not leaving the parents effectively saddled with a child who, instead of taking care of them in their old age (one of the biggest reasons to have kids in the first place), will be requiring an inordinate amount of resources to look after, leaving them strapped at best in their retirement.
If those Down Syndrome fetuses want to live, they should find someone else to foot the bill for it. And if anyone would presume to "save" them, they should be the ones to do it, or shut the fuck up.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:30PM
Parent (unlikely) said:
"... instead of taking care of them in their old age (one of the biggest reasons to have kids in the first place)..."
Something tells me you aren't a parent. This is not a realistic expectation.
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:59PM
I'm with the AC on disagreeing that is the primary reason to have children. However, it's also true that the child with a condition like Down may never be fully independent.
Even if the parent is fine dedicating their life to helping the child, the child quite likely will outlive them. Even if the state or whoever scrapes together a way to take care of them, what kind of quality of life will the child have under those circumstances?
It's entirely possible they could have a decent life still, but it seems like a pretty huge gamble, and one you have a limited ability to influence.