Page 1 of 1

Bizarre Ohio abortion ban

Posted: December 17th, 2017, 4:25 am
by Cornfed
You have to wonder is this can possibly be serious. Presumably to expand their population of future potential voters, Ohio Republicucks have banned the abortion of retard babies. Of course the abortion of healthy babies deemed inconvenient to the female’s career as a bar-hopping slut is still fine.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... diagnosis/

Re: Bizarre Ohio abortion ban

Posted: December 17th, 2017, 11:45 am
by gnosis
Why is a retarded fetus considered sacred but a healthy fetus isn't? The women who want to abort their retarded baby will just do it in another state.

I never liked Ohio. This doesn't really surprise me.

Re: Bizarre Ohio abortion ban

Posted: December 17th, 2017, 5:51 pm
by MrMan
It sounds like a step in the right direction. Maybe they hope a judge won't want to knock down a law designed to protect babies with Down Syndrome. Who wants to do that?

And maybe they hope that the law will nudge the country toward doing away with murdering babies altogether.

Re: Bizarre Ohio abortion ban

Posted: December 18th, 2017, 12:55 am
by Cornfed
gnosis wrote:
December 17th, 2017, 11:45 am
Why is a retarded fetus considered sacred but a healthy fetus isn't?
You have to wonder whether the Repugs want to sabotage their own party. It seems it is fine by them if a female goes in to kill her healthy baby who might grow to be a Nobel Prize winning scientist in order to emotionally torture her boyfriend. I mean, what is tax funded health care for if not things like that? But if a female wants to abort a tard in order to save society a fortune and have a normal child in its place, that is apparently just evil. And this preference for retards over healthy children is what they imagine is going to appeal to voters. Just unreal.

Re: Bizarre Ohio abortion ban

Posted: December 18th, 2017, 2:14 am
by MrMan
Cornfed wrote:
December 18th, 2017, 12:55 am
gnosis wrote:
December 17th, 2017, 11:45 am
Why is a retarded fetus considered sacred but a healthy fetus isn't?
You have to wonder whether the Repugs want to sabotage their own party. It seems it is fine by them if a female goes in to kill her healthy baby who might grow to be a Nobel Prize winning scientist in order to emotionally torture her boyfriend. I mean, what is tax funded health care for if not things like that? But if a female wants to abort a tard in order to save society a fortune and have a normal child in its place, that is apparently just evil. And this preference for retards over healthy children is what they imagine is going to appeal to voters. Just unreal.

I suspect a lot of lawmakers who are in favor of this want to protect the healthy babies, too, and are hoping to use an emotionally charged issue to nudge in that direction. Maybe they hope the discrimination aspect of discriminating against babies with Down's Syndrome will deter liberal judges from striking it down. I can understand why someone would approve any anti-murder legislation that came across in cases where murder is legal. Supporting this bill is not support for killing healthy babies. It's a vote against killing babies with Down's Syndrome.

Re: Bizarre Ohio abortion ban

Posted: December 18th, 2017, 2:14 am
by MrMan
MrMan wrote:
December 18th, 2017, 2:14 am
Cornfed wrote:
December 18th, 2017, 12:55 am
gnosis wrote:
December 17th, 2017, 11:45 am
Why is a retarded fetus considered sacred but a healthy fetus isn't?
You have to wonder whether the Repugs want to sabotage their own party. It seems it is fine by them if a female goes in to kill her healthy baby who might grow to be a Nobel Prize winning scientist in order to emotionally torture her boyfriend. I mean, what is tax funded health care for if not things like that? But if a female wants to abort a tard in order to save society a fortune and have a normal child in its place, that is apparently just evil. And this preference for retards over healthy children is what they imagine is going to appeal to voters. Just unreal.

I suspect a lot of lawmakers who are in favor of this want to protect the healthy babies, too, and are hoping to use an emotionally charged issue to nudge in that direction. Maybe they hope the discrimination aspect of discriminating against babies with Down's Syndrome will deter liberal judges from striking it down. I can understand why someone would approve any anti-murder legislation that came across in cases where murder is legal. I haven't read the bill, but I assume supporting this bill is not support for killing healthy babies. It's a vote against killing babies with Down's Syndrome.

It's also a way to get the extreme feminists and other liberal protesters on film in support of killing unborn babies with Down's Syndrome. It is a drop in the bucket, but it might help encourage public sentiment against their extreme views.