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
Related Stories
Iceland is close to eliminating Down syndrome births due to widespread prenatal screening tests and nearly 100% of women choosing an abortion in the case of a positive test for Down syndrome:
With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.
Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.
While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.
[...] Other countries aren't lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down syndrome [open, DOI: 10.1002/pd.2910] [DX] of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it's 77 percent (2015); and Denmark, 98 percent (2015). The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity -- and Down syndrome is included in this category.
The Prenatal Diagnosis link in the summary was replaced with a working version.
National Review has a counterpoint opinion piece about the CBSN article. Snopes has a page debunking inaccurate headlines about the article.
Iowa approves one of strictest abortion bills in US
The US state of Iowa has approved one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, banning most abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected. Republican lawmakers, who control both chambers, passed the bill in back-to-back votes, sending it to the governor's desk to sign into law.
If [signed], the bill would ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Critics argue the bill makes having an abortion illegal before most women even realise they are pregnant.
[...] If [Governor Kim] Reynolds signs the bill into law, it will likely be challenged in court for possibly violating Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. [...] Some Republican lawmakers welcomed the challenge. "I would love for the United States Supreme Court to look at this bill and have this as a vehicle to overturn Roe v. Wade," Republican Senator Jake Chapman said.
Also at NPR, Reuters, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, and The Hill:
Nineteen states adopted a total of 63 restrictions to the procedure in 2017, which is the highest number of state laws on the issue since 2013, according to the Guttmacher Institute. State legislatures have proposed 15 bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks and 11 bills that would ban abortions if the sole reason is a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome.
Related: Ohio Bill Would Ban Abortion when a Prenatal Test is Positive for Down Syndrome
These 9 Places in America Will Pay You to Move There
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:25AM (37 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:03PM (32 children)
Because they're weird brown people who worship a weird brown god. Plus all their people are squatting on top of our oil. If they were blue and worshiped a green flying naked mole rat we'd hate them just as much.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:39PM (26 children)
Actually it's only because they're squatting on our oil.
In case you weren't aware, the Muslim (fake) invisible sky-daddy is the same (fake) invisible sky-daddy as the Christians and the Jews. Allah = Jehovah = Yahweh.
So if Islam's god is a weird, brown one, then so is Christianity's and Judaism's.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:54PM (11 children)
while correct, I doubt your statement "Allah = Jehovah = Yahweh" will be taken seriously by anyone who takes their religion seriously.
in fact I bet it would get you killed in some places.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:46PM (9 children)
Err, Muslims ASSERT that it's the same god. Their issue is that other people are worshiping him wrong.
You do know that they trace back to the same Abraham that Christians and Jews do, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:26PM (2 children)
You're right. That's why all three religions get along so famously. That's why the Catholics and Protestants have always gotten along so well too.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)
Yep. Sunni and Shia as well. Let's also not forget Eastern Orthodox. It's just one big, happy Yahweh-worshiping family.
Hopefully this all illustrates how fucking stupid the whole sky wizard idea is. Ever since Abraham had some crazy command hallucinations [wikipedia.org] while dehydrated in a desert and probably high on camel jenkem, every so often somebody comes along and suddenly realizes "omg, the priests are worshiping Yahweh wrong! here is my lawyer-like interpretation of the etymology of a solitary word that proves that only I know the one true way to worship Yahweh!"
Then everybody starts killing each other over who has the more correct way of worshiping the imaginary sky daddy.
Damned thing gets forked more often than a github project.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:13AM
The best God joke ever--and it's mine! by Emo Philips [theguardian.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:55PM
joke time:
Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas are about to begin negotiations over the distribution of land for Palestinians, when Netanyahu says, "Before we start the meeting, I want to tell an old Passover story."
"When Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt toward the Promised Land, he had to go through the nearly endless Sinai desert. When they reached the Promised Land, the people had become very thirsty and needed water. So Moses struck the side of a mountain with his staff and a pond appeared with crystal clean, cool water. The people rejoiced and drank to their hearts' content. Moses put down his staff and went to a solitary corner of the pond to drink, and meditate in prayer. But once Moses returned, he found that his staff had been stolen."
"I have reason to believe that the Palestinians stole the staff of our great Prophet Moses."
Abbas, hearing this accusation, jumps from his seat and screams out, "This is a travesty. It is widely known that there were no such thing as 'Palestinians' at that time!"
"And with that in mind," says Netanyahu, "let's start the meeting."
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:39PM (4 children)
Who and/or what, exactly, traces back to Abraham? In theory at least, every Jew in the world can count Abraham as a direct forebear. (Well, at least those who can afford four bears.) Christians? Not only no, but HELL NO!! Ditto for Muslims. Some few Muslims can claim Mohammed as an ancestor, but Mohammed can't claim descent from Abraham.
But, yeah, Muslims do CLAIM that they worship the same God that Jews and Christians worship. That is more than enough to confuse most nonbelievers.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:22PM (3 children)
Hmm?
The Abram/Abraham legend is the basis of ritual infant genital mutilation in Christianity. Christian Identity, for example, claims that Caucasians are the lost tribe of Israel, direct descendants of Abraham, and the 144,000 some odd elect in Revelation.
I went to the usual sources, but then I realized this [conservapedia.com] might be a better summary. Even includes the claim “Arab Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham (known as Ibrahim) through his son Ishmael.”
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:25PM (1 child)
That's a Jewish practice, not Christian.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:45PM
Ah, my bad. I tried searching, but Luke 2:21 didn't help. So I checked Matthew 5 and found something along those lines in verses 17–20 MSG. Jesus is addressing “those who were apprenticed to him” after climbing a hillside to find somewhere quiet away from the crowds his ministry was drawing:
My lack of familiarity with the source material must be leading me astray. Where may I find the part that says that Christians have been deluded about male circumcision and its necessity as part of Yahweh's covenant with Abraham for about the past century or two?
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:03AM
My understanding is that it was another case of the all loving Father God playing favourites between two brothers, again. The Jews descended from the favoured brother and the Arabs from the unfavoured brother.
Got to love Gods morals.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:52PM
That's unsurprising. Anyone who is gullible enough to subscribe to such demonstrably false belief systems will likely believe all manner of moronic bullshit.
Especially in the U.S., as Peter Medawar observed [anvari.org]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:25PM
The brown people/brown god reference is what makes it easy to justify the misery inflicted upon said brown people squatting on our oil.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:16PM (7 children)
Jehovah and Yahweh are different transliterations of the same Hebrew word. Long before vowel markings were added to Hebrew script, vowels were pronounced, but not written. Vowel markings to visually indicate vowels are a recent development. It is unclear, and no tape recording exists, of how it was originally pronounced. (Should YHWH be pronounced with three syllables or two? Should the vowels be borrowed from Elohim or Adonai? Should the W be pronounced with more of a W sound or more of a V sound?)
Muslims assert that Allah is the same God. But apparently differ about it being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which is what Jews and Christians recognize. (Example: Genesis 50:24 [biblegateway.com])
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:09PM (5 children)
I don't subscribe to any of those demonstrably false belief systems. However, IIUC Muslims claim to worship the god of Abraham [wikipedia.org]. In my book, that means they're all the same.
You can hem and haw about it all you want, but all the morons (and if you're a believer, I include you in that too) who call themselves Muslim, Christian or Jew worship the same imaginary, invisible sky-daddy.
In my mind, they're all full of shit. And full of the same shit too. And the fact that these guys (well, not the Jews, they're forbidden from proselytizing or, except in rare cases, converting others, but they have the same arrogant, self-absorbed prejudices too) have spent centuries fighting, killing and trying to convince others that their way is the right way, the only way, just shows how deluded and ridiculous they are.
So, any way you slice it, These guys come from a tradition of murder, intolerance and the arrogant belief that their trained-in prejudices are the laws of nature, whether they're Muslim, Christian or Jew. So go ahead and split rhetorical hairs, maybe you can go out and torture and kill some non-believers if you get bored.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:07AM (4 children)
Muslims also worship Jesus, considering him the second greatest prophet.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:14PM (3 children)
For certain values of "worship".
For informational purposes: Muslims deny that Jesus is God, and that Jesus ever died, thus denying Jesus' resurrection. Consequently Christians cannot accept the faith of Islam. The Bible declares that Jesus is the one and only way to God, and there is no other way. So thus there is an incompatibility between Christianity and all other religions. Except for 'forms' of Christianity that deny the Bible. Manifestation is generally persecution vs compromise, health and wealth, etc.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:49PM (2 children)
At one point there was various Christian sects that didn't believe Christ was God either, just that they mostly got wiped out in the first millennium.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)
Interesting. I hadn't heard of that.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 28 2017, @02:29AM
The Ebionites come to mind, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionism [wikipedia.org] there were also various sects that, while believing Christ was divine, didn't believe in the trinity or that Christ was always a God. Arianism was a big one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism [wikipedia.org] and some who believed Christ was adopted by God, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism [wikipedia.org] And of course, today there are the various Unitarian sects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism [wikipedia.org] that believe that
For completeness, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam [wikipedia.org] which is an interesting read.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:37PM
Come now, everyone knows the true pronunciation is Yahoo-Wahoo
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:04PM (3 children)
Sorry, but no. All the pictures I've see of God (paintings/illustrations) are an old white guy, definitely no brown parts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:22AM (2 children)
All the pictures I've see of God (paintings/illustrations) are an old white guy
You've lead such a sheltered life. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:59AM (1 child)
Those are images of Jesus, not God...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:43PM
There was a time when heretics [google.com] were put to the fire.
Better watch your back; there might still be some such zealots about.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(who was sent to catechism class but didn't slip his brain into Sponge Mode upon arriving; now a radical Anti-Theist).
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:42PM
And according to one of the Zoroastrians I work with, all three stole their best stories from his church.
Not that he really cares, he did make the point that it all seems a bit silly. He only goes to the temple to keep his Mum happy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:51PM (4 children)
Well no shit. What are you, 12? Of course we know that Christians and Jews worship the same God and traditions as the Muslims.
How is this a revelation?
How is this "Insightful" on SoylentNews?
How about this: Christianity was the original invader of Europe. It is a foreign religion brought by foreign invaders. The invaders were eventually bred out, and elements of Odinism melted into Christianity. The different sects/denominations within European (and American) Christianity are attempts to reconcile a Pagan mindset with Semitic beliefs. Christianity in Europe looks nothing like Christianity in the Middle East.
There are no "guardian angels" in the bible. That is hamingja personified, who goes before you and warns you about events to come. There is no Easter Egg, no Easter Bunny, no Santa Claus, no snow covered evergreen trees around white baby Jesus. Those are all pagan elements. Santa specifically is Wotan/Odin. Blonde hair blue eyed bearded Jesus never existed. He is Thor.
The Old Testament was a polytheistic Semitic religion. It is not the religion of Europe.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:14PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:33AM
&page=1 is -always- noise in a URL.
I would say that noupdate=1 is also unnecessary.
Using #573100 instead of #commentwrap will shorten the link a bit as well.
The page will even resolve without you putting /politics in the URL.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:30PM
Maybe you do, but apparently the AC I replied to [soylentnews.org] was unaware of this. Are you just being a dick, or are you unable to remember one post as soon as you read the next?
Oh, and I don't need a history lesson from you. I am perfectly aware of how these demonstrably false belief systems were promulgated around the world.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:54PM
You are being silly. The original human "invaders of Europe" were the Neanderthals. It has been invaded numerous times since then. It was usually an afterthought on the invasions, though, because of the lousy water supply. Which is one of the reasons the early people worshiped the god of beer. When water supplies are of dubious quality, alcohol is a great thing to add. (Not, perhaps, as good a chlorine tablets, but those were hard to come by.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:22PM
Careful there, the Catholics can't be trusted either. Depending on where you are only a good protestant, and preferably Baptist can be trusted.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:54PM (1 child)
Didn't the Suprme Court already rule that abortions were constitutionally protected?
I wouldn't think that this law would be legal given that. Obviously this law is unconstitutional. Hopefully the courts will rightfully strike it down.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:23PM
Some previous SCOTUS declared something.
If you don't like that, and the balance of the Court changed, you pass a blatantly contrary law, get kicked in the nuts by every judge and appeals court in the land, until you appeal to the new SCOTUS.
Whether they respect precedent and dismiss the appeals, or really care to overturn the previous ruling, is the main question.
If it fails, you try again: It's only taxpayer dollars used for your agenda.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:23PM
Because muslims screw 11 years old wives to death? Not all muslims you say? Fine, then I don't subscribe to this law. Catholicism is about converting, not forcing.
Besides, how can a politician be a catholic? Catholic is defined as a guy following the commandments (as a subset of Christian), the ninth included.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:28PM (7 children)
Healthcare.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:58PM (5 children)
All of us, of course.
The libertarian solution of allowing the abortion (item 1.5) [lp.org] is too technical. Also, allowing a real free market across state lines for healthcare providers (item 2.10) instead of tying it to being a W-2 employee so that the woman who is facing this decision is fully empowered to make a rational choice is way beyond too technical.
And nobody better tell me there are no women in the Libertarian party (big L) and no women libertarians (small L) because I know better.
Instead, we need mommy and daddy government to decide what's best for us, apparently.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:38PM (4 children)
Anyone who has been paying attention long enough knows that no matter what either side says, they are all enemies of Libertarianism.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:58PM (3 children)
Definitely including the Libertarian party, but yeah, also all the other official parties. And even most non-official parties.
OTOH, while I support a form of libertarianism, it definitely has some authoritarian aspects. E.g., it would be against murder. (And a few other things, but I'm trying to make a point about extremes.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:52PM (2 children)
Everyone wants the world to work a certain way. Political parties are formed of those people who want to use political power to make that happen. By that logic, a true Libertarian party would be truly different than other political movements, because it would intend to do away with political power completely.
I'm not sure that's actually possible, though. If you get rid of the government, then who has the power to prevent another government from forming? It's like they say: there are two certainties in life: death and taxes.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:32PM (1 child)
No, that's anarchist. Libertarians aren't supposed to be even miniarchists, just to want human interactions to be unconstrained by government. But there are always implicit "except when"s in the definition, and because they are implicit there isn't agreement on them even when there appears to be agreement and everyone's being honest. (You can't tell what the other guy is really asserting.)
As you say, this may really be impossible, but for a slightly different reason. Your reason is the one that applies to anarchists.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:01AM
An-archy: Greek for "Without rulers".
Both terms are at the lower edge of the political palate. [politicalcompass.org]
(I don't understand why Mike Gravel's dot isn't lavender.)
Anarchists tend to support a classless society (worker-owned cooperatives; no separate ownership class; Leftists).
Libertarians tend to support top-down Capitalism (favorable to an employer-employee structure; Right-wingers).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:54PM
Who pays? Dollars to donuts, I'm guessing that we pay in New York state. Not far from Ohio and abortions are widely available here (although the loonies are here too, see the case of Dr. Slepian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian [wikipedia.org] )
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:39PM (17 children)
Why is it that religious freedom in the US always involves screwing somebody over?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:11PM (6 children)
Most notably, the religious “freedom” here seems to be the freedom of men to presume they may control women's bodies.
Though of course we can't ignore that womyn-born-womyn also vote for these men to make such decisions about their bodies.
At least in this instance, I can trust that feminism will sort of do something close to the right thing, but it'll devolve into holding all assigned males accountable, collectively and severally, for the arrogance of these men.
It's disgusting. Nobody has the right to control another person's body. If the baby can survive outside of the womb, and if Ohio has loads of cash just burning a hole in its pocket, let it pay to have the baby removed and provided for the rest of its life if a woman does not consent to assuming that responsibility. Consent can only happen in the presence of information, which the Down syndrome test provides. It's the woman's right to withdraw consent for providing life support with her own body.
If men really want to exercise this religious freedom of theirs, let them exercise their freedom to innovate artificial wombs. Then they will have the capability to exercise the freedom they claim to have: supposedly saving a life. Instead, they claim that their freedom doesn't end where the woman's nose begins, but that their freedom pervades her body and is inherently privileged over her own freedom.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lgsoynews on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:26PM (3 children)
Not just men, plenty of women support that type of B.S.
And plenty of men & women don't...
Let's not be too hasty to generalize.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
I was considering suggesting that 'men' be replaced with 'US Catholic men' to let most of my gender off the hook.
Considering he's a politician, and I'm with Billy Connolly on who should be excluded from that profession, I could further tighten that to 'US Catholic control freaks'. Sure, there are control freaks in all countries, and other views on who will be recipients of sky-fairy vengeance will also be represented. But for this story, this issue, the mere concept of withdrawing the right to selective informed abortions based on medical information about the foetus, the US Catholic control freaks have probably got the rest of the world beat.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:04PM
Sorry, but it's not limited in the way you suppose. I'd also prefer rephrasing, but I would have said "people" rather than "men". People in power generally seem to get off telling other people what to do. This isn't to claim that some "telling people what to do" isn't necessary, but they tend to go *way* beyond that, and they particularly like telling people who differ from them what to do, with or without justifiable reason.
The problem with Catholics is that they form a powerful unified block of people who get off telling people who differ (from official Catholic beliefs) what to do. This doesn't make them unique.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:30PM
If we're going to use stereotypes I think "Christian" is a way better predictor than men, or women.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:31PM (1 child)
Sounds remarkably similar to an antebellum argument that Nebraska not allowing slavery, plus any enslaved person entering the state would be automatically freed, would infringe on the right of a slave owner to bring his slaves with him into Nebraska. Slavery is of course extreme control of another's body. The US Civil War was won decisively by the forces on the side of freedom. It was won through force of arms, and through superior reasoning and logic, and the large imbalance in industrial might that in no small part arose from the inefficiencies of a slave economy as compared to a free one.
Yet today, 150 years later, there are still fools who romanticize the slave owning side. I wonder if the day will ever come that the slavers are so completely discredited that no one will bother singing their praises. Could be centuries, seeing as how some would even start up the Crusades again, and that's been over 500 years ago. The Confederates were on the wrong side of everything-- the wrong side of decency and morality, wrong side of the Bible (despite there being mention of slavery without condemning it), wrong side of all scientific evidence which showed the Africans were not an inferior race in contradiction to Confederate propaganda that used that notion of inferiority to justify slavery, wrong side of economics with their notion that a slave economy could be more productive than a free one, and on the wrong side of the contest of strength, and in the wrong in being the ones to start the violence. But somehow none of that matters to neo-Confederates. What does matter to them is conformity. If they see they are out of step with everyone else, most will quietly shift. The few remaining noisy ones should not be given megaphones and be allowed to pretend that they have much more support than is actually the case. But on that one, the media can't say no to dramatizing situations as much as possible.
The fight over abortion is much newer. Seems to be rooted in Christian fantasies of how life should work, and not grounded in the harsh reality that pregnancy is risky. It is in a way a backhanded acknowledgement that pregnancy is hard. It's also a very male, militaristic vision. We must produce more Christian Soldiers, every one is needed for ultimate victory over all opposition! Outlawing abortion provides more human cannon fodder for the wars, as if there's no doubt that those children will share their views and be willing to march off to fight and kill heretics. It'd be great if Down Syndrome could be prevented, as well as all kinds of other birth defects and complications. But even if such a happy day comes, we should still allow abortion for many other reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:50PM
Just in case anyone forgot Trump's nonsense on this issue, in the fog of all his other nonsense.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/donald-trump-women-abortions-punishment [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:44PM
In that case, I recommend taking Heinlein's advice:
--RAH
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:59PM (7 children)
Why does no one care when a government fucks everyone over, but it's a problem when people from a religion does it? What's the difference? People are still getting fucked.
Nobody seems to mind when ivory-tower liberals demand mom-and-pop stores bake cakes, or run gay weddings. And nobody seems to notice those same ivory-tower liberals conspicuously don't apply the same logic or laws to... Muslim cake stores.
And then you realize... oh... that's why the religious people band together to enact laws. Because they're sick of getting fucked.
And I say all this as someone who DOESN'T support Hobby Lobby's scumbag bullshit, "We don't want to cover completely moral birth control because of 'religious reasons'" But, hey, you asked a question, and I delivered.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:42PM (2 children)
"Ivory tower liberals" is a phrase that only highlights you as a "mud crawling hypocrite." Not every opinion gets the same weight, and as a society we've decided the religious bullcrap gets shirt shrift in the public domain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:50PM (1 child)
How typical. Unable to address the point at hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:43PM
How typical, trying to dis-rail the conversation by talking about something off topic.
(Score: 4, Funny) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:32PM (2 children)
You must be new here.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Funny) by new here on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
no, i am new here
(Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:27PM
not with that UID :P
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:38PM
I, at least, do care. I hope you aren't looking to SJWs who just hate Christianity because it's trendy and love Judaism and Islam because it's trendy for anything approaching a self-consistent interpretation of the world.
It's just that the monotheistic religions heavily steeped in thar culture [uwgb.edu] are so utterly persistent in their belief that invoking a sky wizard or other imaginary friend somehow causes their rights to extend past my nose and into the sanctity of my body, voiding my goddess-given [wikipedia.org] right of “my body, my choice.”
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:02PM
Mainly due to 'religious freedom' actually meaning a form of theocracy based on the religion of those pushing for it.
They ALL seem to forget that for true religious freedom to exist, an equal freedom FROM religion has to coexist.
Anything else is a form of theocracy.
A pox on all superstitious cults calling themselves a religion.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:49PM (14 children)
Five years from now:
Massive rise in babies with special needs abandoned or put up for adoption.
Why bother to test for it, if there's nothing you're allowed to do about it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:04PM (13 children)
Because no one is stopping pregnant women from taking a bus over the state line.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:18PM (7 children)
> Because no one is stopping pregnant women from taking a bus over the state line.
No one, except money and time :/
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:52PM (6 children)
Ohio isn't that big. You can drive from northeast corner to southwest corner in about six hours, without speeding. So, if a woman lives right smack in the middle of the state, she can be out of state in three hours or less. So - a half day's travel at most to get to a clinic and back. If she can afford to pay Planned Parenthood to abort the baby, the added travel cost probably doesn't mean much.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:28PM (4 children)
Regardless of where you live in the US, even if abortions were many times as expensive and inconvenient, they'd still cost less then even just delivering, let alone raising, a child.
Overall, anti-abortion laws are just like the tough-against-crime demagogy. Less about Christian morals and more about casting the first stone. After all, what would Jesus say about a state budget that spends so much on cops, courts and jails and so little on healthcare and welfare? Would he approve the current rich and corporation favoring tax-codes? If given the choice between a right-to-bear-arms or an occupy-wallstreet event, which would he have attended? How would he have looked at a law that seeks to jail a mother for aborting her fetus for 30 years instead of giving her the money to support her child for 20?
I'm sorry. But the Ohio electorate needs to get their morals, constructive measures and priorities straight. Cause right now they're failing at everything.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:20PM
You're thinking of a different Jesus then they do. [beliefnet.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)
I've only got one small nitpick about your post: who the fuck would use a mythical demi-God called Jesus as the arbiter of anything? Why not use fucking Zuul off Ghostbusters instead.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:13AM
I dunno man....
Seems to be an easy choice :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:06AM
Delivering a child is free. I did 4 of mine that way, peacefully at home.
Raising a child can be profitable. Federal law allows child labor if the child is working for the parent. Subcontracting... :-)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:39PM
Are you intentionally obtuse about the state of poor people in the US, even after Katrina and other disasters showcasing how some people just can't afford the time or money to go ?
Oddly, poor people (biased for color) seem to be the ones that the same party would want less of, and therefore should be helping abort. The self-contradicting R currents never cease to amaze me.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:30PM
For people with money and a decent job, it's no problem at all.
Yes, poor people can probably find a way too (for NOW) -- but the point is to keep throwing up obstacles. Criminalize abortion in stages until there is almost nothing left about it that is legal.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:36PM
After from the other states also legislating the same rubbish.
And her condition.
And her torment and stigma in having to do so because her doctor would be jailed if he helped her.
And the fact that she's not aware of that, if her doctor isn't allowed to advise her on it.
And money.
And time.
And the inevitable follow-up law that punishes the mother for just that.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:08PM (2 children)
... except that the neighboring states of Kentucky, Indiana, and Pennsylvania will probably quickly adopt the same laws if this passes judicial muster.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
From Ohio, through a corner of PA, it's not much further to New York, where the "pro-life" movement is a pretty small player politically.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:40PM
That helps those in the northeastern portion of the state, for those willing to drive about 4 hours round trip. It's no use whatsoever for everyone else. The only other bordering state is Michigan, which is also very much in the thrall of religious zealots right now.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:49PM (7 children)
So it's fine to have an abortion if it'd be a baby without any known genetic defects?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:24PM (6 children)
Yes, but eugenics doesn't work.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:36PM (2 children)
"The report asserted Iceland had come close to "eradicating" such births."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:33PM
We've had that discussion before. Iceland itself has not eradicated anything, it's its inhabitants choosing aborting when considering the options. [snopes.com]
Iceland offers free pre-natal screening for down syndrome. Doctors are required to tell pregnant women that they can be screened.
Some of them do. Some of those that do, get the unfortunate news that there is something out of the ordinary, such as Down syndrome.
As it turns out, of those that do opt for prenatal screening, AND that screening finds Down syndrome, a large percentage choose abortion.
Quoting snopes:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:19PM
When they say "Iceland has almost eradicated such births" you should read it as "babies with Downs syndrome are aborted".
Now I, in particular, think that's probably a good thing. Let's analyze this as if it were a financial problem faced by a corporation:
If the mother, who has the greatest sunk investment cost, thinks it's time to stop throwing "good money after bad", she's probably right. Were she to give birth, would the state be willing to take the entire cost of raising and caring for the kid? (Even that is asking her to spend more on what is at best a dubious investment.)
That said, Iceland *is* a special case, due to the extensive inbreeding of the population. But you don't get rid of Downs syndrome that easily, as it continually recurs via spontaneous mutation. It's rather like hemophilia that way. It's a severe enough disability that people who possess it don't usually reproduce, so it has an inheritance that's nearly zero. But it spontaneously recurs. (Actually hemophilia is worse, because it's most common cause is a recessive mutation. So carriers can pass it on without themselves showing the symptoms. But it's sex linked, and in a way that causes all male carriers to express the trait. Even so it's so strongly selected against that it's rarely inherited.)
So you don't get rid of Downs syndrome babies by cleaning the gene pool, because it's a developmental problem. Chromosomes improperly assorting during meiosis. And it can crop up in ANY family. Including yours.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:59PM (7 children)
This smells of "we can't ban abortion, so let's put as many restrictions on it as possible". Sleazy.
Whether you personally think abortion should be legal or not, right now it is the law of the land. It is in everyone's best interests (and way more important to society than the issue of abortion) that cheap tricks not be allowed to skirt the law. If you believe the current law is wrong, the correct avenue is to try to get justices who would overturn Roe.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:57PM (3 children)
As a resident of the great state of Ohio, yes, banning abortion is exactly what this is about.
The state government and many of the constituents they represent would like to make abortion completely illegal. They can't, so they do everything they can to make it illegal that they think the court system will let them get away with. They also periodically do things that they know the court system won't let them get away with, so that they can go to their constituents and brag about passing the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, which will be struck down but by then they've won re-election. This situation is not atypical for areas of the US under the sway of right-wing religious nutjobs.
One other thing to know is that when you talk to these people, you figure out fairly quickly that this isn't really about abortion, or about controlling a woman's uterus. You can tell this because they are thoroughly opposed to many measures that would reduce the number of abortions: comprehensive sex education in schools, easy access to birth control, and rape prevention programs. What it actually is about is controlling women's vaginas, and making it so that for a woman to have sex with anybody other than her lawfully wedded husband, for any reason, is to make her a "fallen" woman and ruin her life. Forcing her to have a child that she doesn't want is very much part of the purpose of doing that. Oh, and don't think for a minute that cases of rape, no matter how forcible, will change their minds about that: In this moral framework, being killed is supposed to be preferable to being raped, so if somebody was raped and didn't get killed in the process she must not have really objected strenuously enough.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:29PM (2 children)
I hate to say this but my mom goes to abortion clinic protests. To them it's about not killing babies. Someone needs to protect them. At least she also supports adoption centers as well.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)
If your mom were to stop protesting and offer those women that go there to take care of their babies after birth, I could sympathise.
I've never heard of an abortion center protester that actually offered a viable solution. Where with viable I mean "right now you're choosing to not be involved in this life. How about you do exactly the same, but we pay for all medical expenses, you go through with birth, and then we'll take great care of the child, raise him/her in a loving, upper-class family, send him/her to the bestest schools, etc."
Otherwise, you're protesting people's life's decisions that you yourself aren't willing to carry the burden of. Why should you expect other people to carry those burdens if you wouldn't be willing to?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @06:01PM
This exactly. You want to protest about it. FINE, you take that burden then. Should almost just assign kids for adoption to the protesters and then charge them with child neglect if they don't take care of it properly.
These protesters just want the "feel goods" of judging someone elses actions and finding them lacking.
Remember Jesus will judge you on your actions, not your complaining about others actions. Put your money where your mouth is and take in a few more mouths to feed. Its what Jesus would do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:57PM (2 children)
No. The correct option is to amend the constitution. We shouldn't overrule precedents willy nilly, unless they are obviously wrong.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:49PM
I completely agree!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:48PM
> obviously wrong.
[bible citation needed]
You'll always find someone to find any decision "obviously wrong". It's getting excessively hard to find exceptions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:29PM (7 children)
In any other context, this would be prima facie stupid: Test for a problem, and if a problem is found, you are NOT ALLOWED to fix or eliminate the problem. Even in the context of abortion, and the religiously-based effort to prohibit abortion, this seems politically backwards; they might get some fence-sitters if they tried to ban abortion UNLESS a specific problem was found. This way, they're guaranteeing a lifetime handicap, which nobody really wants.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:41PM (2 children)
Would be interesting to see what the abortion laws are in jurisdictions that offer free healthcare. I bet they'd be leaner.
Because in such places, I guarantee you, they'd rather not have to pay to support a child who is unwanted, unlikely to ever lead a normal adult life, or where the birth process would cause more damage to the mother.
I imagine only in places that can profit from you being forced to give birth, and then forced to look after a child with much greater medical and other requirements for their entire lives, and/or forced to be subjected to a harrowing process likely to affect your health, would anyone ever support such a motion.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:48AM (1 child)
In Canada, there are no abortion laws. After we got a Charter of Rights, the Supreme Court threw out the old laws and no government has dared to introduce new ones. Simply, a fetus is not a person in law.
Understand that before the the Charter (1982), there was one famous abortionist (Henry Morgantelor sp?) who got off through jury nullification, twice IIRC, the citizenry made such a huge outcry about the double jeopardy that was used to jail him that the government illegalized double jeopardy and eventually enshrined it in the Constitution. Generally Canadians are in favour of legal abortions.
We also have fairly comprehensive sex education and availability to birth control, because face it, almost no one actually likes abortions and prevention is the best way to avoid them.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:16AM
Pretty much the same in the UK - so long as it's before a certain way into the pregnancy (by which point you generally know you're pregnant), which I don't think is a bad thing.
Ireland, however, is an entirely different matter. In fact, the mothers often ship themselves over to the UK just to do it and then return to their home country. There are clinics set up just to allow that.
Nobody wants to abort a baby.
Nobody with a brain wants to bring a baby or mother into life-long suffering, either.
Abortion because of rape? Hell, why are we even discussing it? Of course they should be able to.
Abortion because of medical conditions, danger to the mother? It's pretty simple to understand.
Abortion because otherwise the child is born to a mother who doesn't want it? That's quite literally choosing a life of abuse and neglect for the child, unless you want to make it so that she can give up the baby, discretely, no questions asked, no stigma attached.
But, surely, if the child stood a chance, had a reasonable parent, who could cope with the birth and the giving away, where it was something they could go through and would be willing to give the child to people who could look after it, that's what would happen, whether abortion existed or not.
I never got the philosophical issue at all. Even the term is unnecessarily loaded. Termination. Abortion.
You chose not to continue be pregnant. What a difficult, intellectual, measured, reasoned, sensible decision, if you don't think it's the right thing for you or the child.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Virindi on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:46PM (2 children)
Nope. After you get the test, since there is no penalty for the woman getting the abortion, you can just go to another doctor to get the abortion. If you don't tell them about the test, they cannot be guilty of this crime because they had no idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:58PM
I like the way you think.
Still, this would require withholding from your new doctor all your medical records. Assuming you have health insurance (which under Obamacare we are all supposed to have)... this may not be possible. The push is for electronic records that are sharable.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:29PM
I'm afraid they may have already thought of doctor shopping. All they'd have to say is that doctor shopping is suspicious enough behavior or come up with some other tangential reason to be suspicious, as shown in the text below:
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:19PM
That's because you're thinking like a rational person, not a religious nutjob. But rational people are not these legislator's constituency.
A religious nutjob generally thinks that the affliction of Down's Syndrome is the result of God punishing the parent(s) for some sin, particularly having sex outside of wedlock. So they want to make it impossible to use abortion to avoid that punishment. Hence banning abortion in this context is *more* important than banning abortion of healthy babies.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin