Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:42 PM
Wed Dec 2
51 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/18/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
pro choice = pro woman = pro family
04/17/09
That's riiight, Sarah. 'Cause your sister's special needs child was just a throw rug in your eyes until you had your own politically charged pregnancy, uh-huh.
I give her 6 months more in the spotlight before she takes herself down with such idiotic contrivances.
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
Anyhoo...I've always admired anyone who raises kids with Downs and others disabilities with love (my sister-in-law teaches a lot of kids who are abused in every possible way by their families), whether they knew that's what they were in for ahead of time or not.
But here's an issue you don't hear much discussion about from the anti-legal-abortion camp: what about the other chromosomal disorders (Trisomy 16 and 18, I think), that cruelly take your child within a couple of years. That, to me, seems like the much more difficult decision. Not only do you have the heartbreak, but the medical care required is such that, in this great land of ours, you are almost certain to be bankrupt for life when your kid dies.
Also, why does the anti-legal-abortion camp remain mum on in vitro fertilization, which creates "life" (in their definition, in order to discard it (but not for research, of course). Too many contradictions.
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
But give that woman a gun and she's happy to point at her own fool head.
04/17/09
04/17/09
I mean sure, it would sever the Republican party from its main reason for support among evangelicals. And it would remove the major source of fundraising ammo for the "Christian" "Right," but, aside from that, it just seems like the reasonable thing to do.
This is an old debate. Let's move on.
Also, speaking from experience, if you choose to procreate after a certain age and have attained an IQ above 90, you pretty much know Downs and other chromasonal abnormalities are a higher possibility and plan accordingly. My wife and I, both of whom have cousins with Downs, made the decision going in that we would raise whoever came our way. That "choice" was made before conception. But it was our choice.
04/17/09
That pretty much answers that question. I keep running into a huge anti-contraception attitude, as well. My mother's church decided to tell her last year that birth control kills implanted embryos. Sure enough, science be damned, those parishioners were running around trying to convince us all to get off the pill. And these were not marginalized crazies. Just people who believed what came out of their corrupt pulpits. And considering the attitude a whole lot of us have faced buying Plan B, pharmacists think we're trash if we use it.
04/17/09
But seriously, inception? I've known that the anti-birth-control tack is the anti-legal-abortion movement's next frontier. But really, are any women going to follow them there?
04/17/09
[www.marchofdimes.com]
"The risk of Down syndrome increases from about 1 in 1,250 at age 25, to 1 in 1,000 at age 30, 1 in 400 at age 35, 1 in 100 at age 40 and 1 in 30 at age 45 (6). Women over age 35 have been traditionally considered most likely to have a baby with Down syndrome. However, about 80 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born to women who are under age 35, as younger women have far more babies (2)."
No stats here for teenagers, obviously, but there is clearly a real chance that they can have Downs babies. The fact that is is less frequent than it is for someone Sarah Palin's age does not mean it is impossible.
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
Do you guys like me more?
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
***blushes, bats eyes***
04/17/09
Making abortions illegal doesn't eliminate abortions - it just drives them underground. Being pro-choice often just means you favor of safe, legal abortions over the back alley, unsafe procedures of more ignorant times.
Making alcohol illegal didn't eliminate alcohol - it gave us bootlegging and related criminal activity. Pot and coke are illegal, but I can score either within the hour. Criminalizing abortion won't stop abortions, but it will render the procedure much more unsafe. If anyone is actually pro-life - that all lives are precious - then they should focus on providing alternatives, not on making the procedure more life-threatening.
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
The problem with this line of reasons is...well...the word 'reason.' I suppose i could say that the anti-choice crowd is fundamentally unreasonable, and they might agree with that. So wrapped up in their notions of life and its dignity that they cannot focus on anything else, like the life and dignity of the mother, for example. If she's pregnant out of wedlock, she shouldn't be. If she seeks a back-alley abortion and gets septicemia or hemorrhages, then the wages of sin is death. or something.
You're trying to make a rational point with true-believers. And you can't.