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.
A fetus isn't a child until it is viable outside the mother's body. Whether it can think or feel does not change the fact that it is parasitizing another organism, and that organism should have the dispositive right to terminate the parasitic relationship at that organism's option. People who are dying waiting for an organ transplant think and feel quite a bit. Yet no one, not even their parents, may be forced to make a donation. Uteri should be no different.
Whether it can think or feel changes EVERYTHING.
And now that children HAVE survived outside the womb in the second trimester, how can you possibly justify allowing fetuses the same age to be aborted?
And I never said counseling would be required, maybe just some pamphlets about adoption services, assistance available to unwed mothers, etc.
Do you think abortion should be allowed during the third trimester as well? What about a mother simply being allowed to drown her child in a bathtub because she doesn't want it if say...the child is less than 30 days old?
The USSC is more conservative now. Ms. Roe herself is against abortion now. I'd say pro-life people have a better chance now.
Actually, no. Overturning Roe v. Wade would have disastrous consequences for the pro-life movement, and the SC knows it. As for Roe being against abortion -- who cares. As is true of all Supreme Court cases, it wasn't about her.
And now that children HAVE survived outside the womb in the second trimester, how can you possibly justify allowing fetuses the same age to be aborted?
A fetus is not viable before the 26th week -- which is the very last week of the second trimester. You are arguing that abortions should be illegal after the 12th week -- which is clearly long before the fetus can think or feel anything, to say nothing of surviving outside the womb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
And I never said counseling would be required, maybe just some pamphlets about adoption services, assistance available to unwed mothers, etc.
Unless handing out such literature would create a binding obligation on the state to get the child adopted or to provide the mother with assistance precisely as described, it's just another deceptive practice meant to dissuade women from making choices someone else disapproves of.
Hahaha. How would you feel if someone could just come along and kill you knowing that you can think and feel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
A fetus is not viable before the 26th week -- which is the very last week of the second trimester. You are arguing that abortions should be illegal after the 12th week -- which is clearly long before the fetus can think or feel anything, to say nothing of surviving outside the womb.
Do you think abortion should be allowed during the third trimester as well? What about a mother simply being allowed to drown her child in a bathtub because she doesn't want it if say...the child is less than 30 days old?
Subject to the doctor's judgment, yes, third trimester abortions should be allowed. According to the CDC, less than 0.02% of all abortions were performed in the third trimester before the procedure was federally criminalized -- a very tiny fraction. A third-trimester abortion is a major surgery that requires a hospital admission of several days (which also means that it is either a huge emergency, or there is a period of two or three days before the decision to perform it is made and the procedure itself.) It is not a procedure that is prescribed or undertaken lightly. In all documented cases, there was a dire need for it -- namely, the need to eliminate a danger to the mother's life or avert major injuries. Moreover, where the mother's life or health are in danger in the third trimester, a doctor will routinely prescribe a c-section. Third-trimester abortions are reserved for cases where the fetus is not viable (thus, there could never be a baby to be drowned in the bathtub). So it's not like millions of flippant and emotional women who don't know what they are doing have third-trimester abortions in a fit of pique -- it is another sexist stereotype that has nothing in common with reality. The fact that the law criminalizing such abortions made no exception for preserving the mother's life or health (which, in all fairness, describes practically all such abortions), is utterly disgusting.
Hahaha. How would you feel if someone could just come along and kill you knowing that you can think and feel?
I am a grown human being, not a fetus. Even if I were in a situation where I couldn't think or feel, it would still be illegal to kill me. I don't require anyone else's bodily organs or fluids to survive. How would you feel if someone could just come along and dig a kidney out of your body because someone who can think and feel needs it to continue living?
That fetus is still nearly 22 weeks old -- not 12, which you want to make the cut-off. And, the fact that there is one case of survival does not mean that as a matter of medical reality, a 22-week fetus is viable.
The fact that the law criminalizing such abortions made no exception for preserving the mother's life or health (which, in all fairness, describes practically all such abortions), is utterly disgusting.
Preserving the mother's life is an exception I WOULD agree with as long as the child is not viable.
As far as a mother who was willing to go through the intensive procedure just because she felt like it, NO WAY should that be allowed (in the third trimester).
That fetus is still nearly 22 weeks old -- not 12, which you want to make the cut-off. And, the fact that there is one case of survival does not mean that as a matter of medical reality, a 22-week fetus is viable.
Medical advances are going to continue to push the age back. Would you concede that once the age is pushed back, the limit for an abortion should also be moved earlier accordingly?
As far as a mother who was willing to go through the intensive procedure just because she felt like it, NO WAY should that be allowed.
If a woman feels like going through the intensive procedure of aborting a non-viable fetus because she feels like not having a major infection that can result in organ failure, that is her prerogative. As long as you view women as flippant, lascivious and unthinking creatures who go under the knife left and right for the hell of it, please don't talk to me about how the fetus has thoughts and feelings that should be respected above all else.
Redisca.. excellent posts!! I'm too lazy to read through the whole thing but what I've gotten (which is about 3/4) through is fan-f*ckin-tastic!!
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.
