Comment: Down syndrome means 90% chance of abortion in Opinion: Poll Shows Catholics Support Abortion Funding in Health Care on Opposing Views

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

(Opinion) Poll Shows Catholics Support Abortion Funding in Health Care

By Jon OBrien

You are seeing 30 Comments. See all 33 Comments on this Opinion.

Regarding Comment

Scottsman

Down syndrome means 90% chance of abortion

Let me ask you this, Mr Book, if I told you because of your facial characteristics or intelligence, you had a 90% chance of being killed, would you feel targeted?

- Leticia Velasquez October 2, 2009 8:15AM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Futile.
  
  Nothing you can type will convince Mr.Book to reexamine his stance that the convenience of the mother is worth less than the life of the child. He has made up his mind that the "woman's right to kill her baby if she thinks she needs to" outweighs the "constitutionally guaranteed right of the baby to live."
  
  Mr.Book and I have gone round and round and no amount of fact or discussion will shine a light on that dark corner of his brain.
  
  - SolarSanitizer October 3, 2009 2:21AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Hold on
    
    Well, I think it's more the fact that he doesn't consider a fetus a baby than the fact that he thinks a baby's life is less important than the mother 's. Don't be misrepresentin yo! I personally am pro-choice , and I approve of debate as long as you frame it around the actual point of disagreement.
    
    - Doublecheck October 3, 2009 4:18PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - No, no. He actually
      
      Considers it as I framed.
      
      I was not attacking your belief, I was attacking his stated position.
      
      I'm not misrepresenting anything, yo.
      
      Regardless of whether you approve of how I debate or not, I stated a fact of which you are seemingly unaware.
      
      Here is my position:
      A woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control in order to spare herself the challenges of raising a child she didn't want, is killing life because she would be otherwise inconvenienced. I find this decision wrong and unjustified.
      
      A woman who uses abortion to save her life or save her reproductive ability; to remove a child conceived due to rape or incest is killing life, but it is justified.
      
      Now, if you disagree with my stated position, and would care to debate the merits of your position, I am willing.
      
      - SolarSanitizer October 4, 2009 1:23AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - We have a constitutional right to live now?
    
    Where's that?
    
    - quantummechanik October 3, 2009 5:24PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Rights
      
      Hay did you move back to the states?
      We may lost that right some day if we keep letting washington take way our other rights
      
      - countryboy October 3, 2009 5:42PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - I'm visiting for a bit
        
        And frankly I like the flag more.
        
        This is what fascinates me the most about political philosophy--The concept of applying a rights-based morality to governance. Locke-style, baby! First of all--where does it say, in the constitution , we have a right to life?
        
        - quantummechanik October 3, 2009 6:34PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Glad to have you.
        
        Make yourself at home.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 3, 2009 9:55PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        life
        
        In the bill of rights Amendment 14 section one.
        Welcome back
        
        - countryboy October 4, 2009 7:04AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Yes, since 1791. Let me show you.
      
      "Amendment 5
      
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime , unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
      
      The SCOTUS erred, imo, when they opined on Roe v. Wade.
      
      I have forever maintained that the right to life should be sacrosanct, but the court thought that the right to abort was more important.
      
      - SolarSanitizer October 3, 2009 9:45PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Question though
        
        To whom does this document apply, specifically?
        
        - quantummechanik October 4, 2009 12:14AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Since the Amendment
        
        Begins with the words 'No person' and it is describing prohibited actions of the government, it protects all people from actions by the government and finds unconstitutional any laws to the contrary.
        
        Furthermore, it is Due Process (or Common Law, or Law of the Land) that the Bill of Rights are rights guaranteed to the people or to the states respectively. The right to life cannot apply to the states, because states are not living beings, so it must apply to the people. Seeing as how there are a plethora of laws protecting the unborn from assault, by attaching further punishment to a person guilty of assaulting a pregnant woman in which the assault injured or killed the child, then it is Due Process that the 5th Amendment also protects a child from the government even when the child is inside the mother .
        
        Therefore, I assert that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.
        
        - SolarSanitizer October 4, 2009 12:38AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Buuuuut
        
        The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. The definition of a US Citizen is either a person who was born in the US, or born to one or more US parents, with some little bits of details added on--However, the law specifically says "Born". Doesn't apply to fetuses. Fetuses are not citizens, and thusly, get no constitutional protection--no more so than any other noncitizen.
        
        - quantummechanik October 4, 2009 2:55AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
- 99
  
  “Let me ask you this, Mr Book, if I told you because of your facial characteristics or intelligence, you had a 90% chance of being killed, would you feel targeted?”
  
  [Citation Needed] on that 90%...
  
  Of course if I had been born with Downs Syndrome then I would not be me, further by being aborted I would have had no desire to live… which is to say that if ‘I’ had Downs Syndrome and had been aborted then I would not have an opinion on the matter.
  
  Do you want to force a woman to raise a child that she can not care for?
  
  - MrBook October 3, 2009 11:44PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Interesting question.
    
    "Do you want to force a woman to raise a child that she can not care for?"
    
    Would you approach killing, or placing into foster care, a 7 year old if the mother was single, became permanently disabled, and her income , now fixed and inadequate, insufficient to support the 7 year old with the same fervor you display when the question is about killing the child pre-birth?
    
    Also, suppose a pregnant mother could not work due to circumstances and would not be able to after the birth, and the father could not financially support the soon-to-be family member. Suppose that the woman would refuse an abortion . Knowing that the Equal Protection clause prevents one group of people from being treated differently than another group, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause ) would you agree that the father has the right to abort the child for the exact reason you are now arguing?
    
    Do you want to force a man to raise a child that he can not care for?
    
    You see, your emotions blocked your logic on this entire issue. You are entitled to your opinions, but you should at least know that you are wrong.
    
    - SolarSanitizer October 4, 2009 4:46AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.