judeboy101 wrote: » there is a correlation between abortion rates and participints with particular syndromes that are identifiable in early pregnancy e.g DS
AtomicHorror wrote: » And is there a general correlation between abortion rates and level of participation or are these two pretty unusual countries that suited your position? I withdraw the hyperbole then and correct: Plenty of countries with ready access to abortion participate fully in the Special Olympics.
judeboy101 wrote: » Denmark and Iceland have made it public policy to be DS free by a particular date. the increasing popularity, accuracy and detail provided by early 1st trimester blood screening e.g harmony test can only lead us down a very scary road.
RayM wrote: » I follow a lot of pro-repeal people on Twitter and I'm not seeing any meltdown. [/IMG]
AtomicHorror wrote: » That's a fair point, the rates of DS are lower in countries with abortion. I think that indicates a serious problem with how we perceive special needs, how we support parents and children after birth and throughout life. If society makes raising a DS child difficult, abortion rates for DS pregnancies will be high.
BabyCheeses wrote: » But it would mean when they are in control they can protect the little babies. Surely that's great for them? Assuming they still exist at that point.
judeboy101 wrote: » north korea and sudan have abortion ( better abortion than our own regime) but dont do Special olympics So it cant be ALL countries, can it?
RayM wrote: » I follow a lot of pro-repeal people on Twitter and I'm not seeing any meltdown. Renua aren't happy:
RobertKK wrote: » Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.
infogiver wrote: » Just not Downs Syndrome
tigger123 wrote: » On the one hand you're criticizing people for not entering into an online debate in a mature manner, and on the other hand you're deliberately using language to goad those who would argue against you.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Odd, all the countries with abortion still seem to send athletes to the Special Olympics.
somefeen wrote: » We've been arguing about this for what, 20 years now?
BabyCheeses wrote: » Majority support abortion up to 12 weeks without reason. Support in cases of rape and FFA. I think there's going to be a meltdown but not as the OP thought.
masculinist wrote: » I wanted to be a good dad and take responsibility for the consequences of my actions which I did. I think women should do the equivalent, to be good mothers and take responsibility for their actions. If they think their partner isnt a good person or cant support a child then they need to reconsider the morality of creating an innocent human life with the intentions of snuffing it out because it doesnt suit their lifestyle and pasttimes. The typical sjw/feminist argument is to immediately switch to personal attacks. If you disagree with them then youre a terrible person. Emotional arguments wont sway intelligent people who matter. Logic should wing the decision and nothing else. Theres an awful lot of ad hominem and intentionally misread posts on this thread coupled with emotional claims of being ''insulted'' by an expectation that adult women should be responsible adults. Maybe this overemotional reaction is due to guilt which cant be expressed because its ignored - guilt at creating an innocent human life with the intentions of snuffing it out because it doesnt suit their lifestyle and pasttimes. Maybe some have already had an abotion and dont want to face the reality of what they did . Its all irrelevant to the fact that at some point you have to face the facts that theres 2 bodies at stake and when that second body was invited in then this isnt some sort of game or situation where one can avoid responsibility.
jaja321 wrote: » Majority of CA vote for abortion without restriction as to reason. A far more progressive vote than many on the repeal side could have hoped for.
LexieOnRale wrote: » Did you want the baby?
judeboy101 wrote: » Unrestricted abortions up to 12 weeks, good bye special olympics
masculinist wrote: » I can only tolerate hormonal type arguments from women who are actually pregnant.
masculinist wrote: » I wouldn't agree with that. When I heard the news that I was going to become a dad, the little finger in one of my hands went numb immediately and for months. Doctors still have no explanation. My blood pressure , heart rate , body fat, bloodwork etc is perfect. I then cut back a lifestyle where I went away for the weekend, Prague , Berlin , etc etc 15 or more times a year to working every hour I could get so she can have a nice home and go to a nice school, afterschools etc. I then went and looked for huge levels of life insurance because I cant go wandering around the world carefree about what I leave behind any longer. I took responsibility for my baby. The level of stress is directly related to what type of person you are. People who dont care about their kids dont have any stress. And feminists think the worst of men who are supposed to ''man up'' and ''keep it in their pants''. But a woman can just walk away any time she wants, drop the kid into an orphanage etc while being offended at any suggestion that she has a responsibility towards anyone but herself .
LexieOnRale wrote: » ultimately a man does not have to go through the physical trauma of pregnancy or childbirth, nor the mental stress that goes with it. The woman is 100% alone here. We have no right to push her to put her body through that and it isn't comparable to a man having to open his wallet for the next 18 years, I'm sorry
masculinist wrote: What about a man facing an unplanned pregnancy ? What if he cant afford it and if its not the right time for him ? What if he doesnt have the mothers support in things like access , and access to his wallet etc ? Thats 18 plus years of torture for him or even longer if the kid goes to college. The feminists who demand he either ''keeps it in his pants'' or ''mans up'' and pays child support dont have any demands of adult women who consented to that situation and are morally and ethically responsible for it.
Barbie! wrote: » me_right_one wrote: » Even if that means killing someone else's body? Woman's body-Woman's choice. The fetus is not a person till its born. Up to about 25 weeks it wouldn't survive without the mother so it is part of her and if she doesn't want that part of her anymore thats her choice.
me_right_one wrote: » Even if that means killing someone else's body?
