Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First, there are very few abortions that take place after about 24 weeks. 41 states have laws banning these sorts of abortions, and perhaps more importantly, very few providers exist to perform them. The number of abortions that take place at the 36 or 37 or 38 week point is so small as to not merit national conversation.
However, the small number of providers who do exist to perform these late term abortions typically have their own criteria that must be met. These aren't simply women who couldn't decide whether they wanted an abortion. They may have found out some terrible news about the outlook for the fetus or their own health late in the pregnancy.
If one finds out that their baby is going to have major life-altering defects that will strongly affect the child's happiness and the quality of life for the mother, I see no ethical problem with performing an abortion at any point -- including partial birth abortion, assuming certain precautions are taken to limit the suffering of the baby.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First, there are very few abortions that take place after about 24 weeks. 41 states have laws banning these sorts of abortions, and perhaps more importantly, very few providers exist to perform them. The number of abortions that take place at the 36 or 37 or 38 week point is so small as to not merit national conversation.
I don't think anyone argued that it was anything but rare.
Quote:
However, the small number of providers who do exist to perform these late term abortions typically have their own criteria that must be met. These aren't simply women who couldn't decide whether they wanted an abortion. They may have found out some terrible news about the outlook for the fetus or their own health late in the pregnancy.
"Health" according to Doe v Bolton can mean she no longer wants to be pregnant. That's the reason for Hyde Amendment.
Quote:
If one finds out that their baby is going to have major life-altering defects that will strongly affect the child's happiness and the quality of life for the mother, I see no ethical problem with performing an abortion at any point -- including partial birth abortion, assuming certain precautions are taken to limit the suffering of the baby.
Nobody has the right IMO to take the life of another outside of direct defense of your own life.
"Health" according to Doe v Bolton can mean she no longer wants to be pregnant. That's the reason for Hyde Amendment.
The abortion providers who perform late term abortions have the right to screen women based on their own fitness criteria. The legal definition of "health" is irrelevant. I have read several articles by physicians practicing these sorts of abortions. Every single one has said they will not do them simply because the woman no longer wants to be pregnant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Nobody has the right IMO to take the life of another outside of direct defense of your own life.
Why not? I can think of a lot of cases where one should be able to do so.
The abortion providers who perform late term abortions have the right to screen women based on their own fitness criteria.
RvW and our laws says that they don't.
Quote:
The legal definition of "health" is irrelevant. I have read several articles by physicians practicing these sorts of abortions. Every single one has said they will not do them simply because the woman no longer wants to be pregnant.
It's not irrelevant. It's why we have laws.
Quote:
Why not? I can think of a lot of cases where one should be able to do so.
No it doesn't. 41 states have laws against late-term abortions. The courts have not held that a ban against late-term abortions is a violation of RvW. Abortion providers are under no legal obligation to perform late term abortions if they don't want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It's not irrelevant. It's why we have laws.
But the laws surrounding late term abortions don't say what you seem to think they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It's not yours to take.
That has nothing to do with whether it should be taken. Let's imagine there is a person who is certain to die a very slow, painful death. You have the power to instantly end their life without pain. You're saying that you should allow them to go through torment rather than end it quickly? Ignore the laws here -- we're talking about the ethics of the decision.
No it doesn't. 41 states have laws against late-term abortions. The courts have not held that a ban against late-term abortions is a violation of RvW. Abortion providers are under no legal obligation to perform late term abortions if they don't want to.
I didn't say they did. I commented on this.
The abortion providers who perform late term abortions have the right to screen women based on their own fitness criteria.
They do not have that right.
Quote:
But the laws surrounding late term abortions don't say what you seem to think they say.
Because you say so?
Quote:
That has nothing to do with whether it should be taken. Let's imagine there is a person who is certain to die a very slow, painful death. You have the power to instantly end their life without pain. You're saying that you should allow them to go through torment rather than end it quickly? Ignore the laws here -- we're talking about the ethics of the decision.
The abortion providers who perform late term abortions have the right to screen women based on their own fitness criteria. The legal definition of "health" is irrelevant. I have read several articles by physicians practicing these sorts of abortions. Every single one has said they will not do them simply because the woman no longer wants to be pregnant.
Why not? I can think of a lot of cases where one should be able to do so.
And yet, it has been reported there are some doctors that will accept most any excuse as a "life threatening" issue. If you hold the position that it's ok for any reason at any time then why is it murder when someone kills a 2 hour old baby?
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,262 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First, there are very few abortions that take place after about 24 weeks. 41 states have laws banning these sorts of abortions, and perhaps more importantly, very few providers exist to perform them. The number of abortions that take place at the 36 or 37 or 38 week point is so small as to not merit national conversation.
However, the small number of providers who do exist to perform these late term abortions typically have their own criteria that must be met. These aren't simply women who couldn't decide whether they wanted an abortion. They may have found out some terrible news about the outlook for the fetus or their own health late in the pregnancy.
If one finds out that their baby is going to have major life-altering defects that will strongly affect the child's happiness and the quality of life for the mother, I see no ethical problem with performing an abortion at any point -- including partial birth abortion, assuming certain precautions are taken to limit the suffering of the baby.
And yes, the most horrendous part of this is we are indeed talking about a baby. This said medical staff have these rare cases to deal with.
What about the conjoined twins which are sharing organs? Splitting off one of the twins often time kills the other.
Overall, by all means dwell heavily upon this matter which was settled long ago.
Let it fester and be your main reason to support or not support your GOP candidate.
What you are witnessing is exactly what happens to a major US party when a small issue group hijacks the entire agenda.
Notice how many posts are about this topic compared to debating global warming or California's drought.
And yet, it has been reported there are some doctors that will accept most any excuse as a "life threatening" issue. If you hold the position that it's ok for any reason at any time then why is it murder when someone kills a 2 hour old baby?
1. There are very few doctors who perform late term abortions, and I am doubtful that any of them will accept most any excuse as "life threatening."
2. "Murder" is defined as illegal killing. Murder is a legal concept, so it is illegal to kill a two-hour old baby because our laws say it is. What you should be asking is why is it wrong to kill a two-hour old baby if it isn't wrong to kill a baby that is about to be born. My answer is that it isn't wrong in some cases. I think our laws should permit physicians, in certain circumstances, to end the lives of babies that have already been born. NICUs regularly see babies that have conditions that are incompatible with life. These babies have care removed from them, they are given expensive stays in one of the most expensive wings of a hospital, and they are allowed to die slow deaths. No one is under the delusion that they have any chance of living, so why shouldn't they be killed in the quickest, most painless and most inexpensive way possible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you hold the position that it's ok for any reason at any time then why is it murder when someone kills a 2 hour old baby?
