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.
You mean the baby once viable,the woman takes second place to the baby,except in extraordinary circumstances?
When the baby is so deformed that you are actually doing it a favor by putting it out of its misery before it has to experience the PAIN of being born, when a mother will die if this parasite is not removed immediately? Yes. And people, if you think a 9 mo old fetus/newborn can feel pain, then it can feel the immense pain of being squashed out the birth canal, and let's not mention the forceps and suction on the head they use to get it out sometimes, not to mention suctioning the crap out of it's lungs and nose. NICE. Why do you think they are usually stunned and screaming?
Quote:
Would you agree that as medical advances occur,the age of viability will be pushed back,obviously not too far back but it could go a few more weeks or so?
Would this then mean the latest an abortion can take place should be pushed back as well?
And I apologise to y'all if I was too....pushy in my postings,it just seemed like it was going round and round without any real answers.
To add.
I could see tying abortion to viability,although I would prefer to err on the side of viability,meaning if a baby is viable at 24 weeks, then abortion is legal at 20 weeks...
I completely think the date for abortions is every changing. As medical science performs earlier miracles, they will definitely need to change the latest date abortions can be performed. And someday when they can do a womb to womb transplant of a fetus, or create an incubator, they won't need abortions at all, you can just sell or donate the fetus immediately.
Rarely does birth control fail when both consenting adults are utilizing it correctly. If a woman doesn't want a baby then the woman should learn her fertility cycle, monitor it, and avoid even protected sex during that brief monthly interval; or, if she is too irresponsible, she should have her tubes tied during her 1st abortion.
If a man does not want children, he should cut his wiener off. I mean, he should not be having sex if he does not want children because birth control can ALWAYS FAIL.
If people don't want to be fat, we should start taking the food right out of their hands when they start to put it in their mouths.
You cannot dictate what other people do because it is what YOU would do or would like them to do. This is America and we have some degree of Freedom here.
Edit Nonsense that should be taken to the correct thread. No HIJACKING and making this into a welfare thread. UGH
I am suggesting that perhaps just some forethought and care and diligence we might not need 1,000,000+ abortions a year....
Personally that would indeed be the case.
Acknowledge what?
I am not sure what you are even stating here....LOL
Edit,okay this is the question:
Do you support pushing back the time period one can have an abortion as viability is also pushed back?
Well...yes life begins at conception,when else would it start?
Yes, abortion prior to serious development is about it.
It is like this,a chicken egg can actually be fertilised by the rooster even when you eat it,but you cannot tell,however once there is a little chick in there that is nasty.
you are putting your values on other people telling them if they have sex they should have any baby that might result no matter what the situation. sex is and can be purely recreational, there is no reason for someone to have a baby and all that entails if that is not their choice. people will have sex, there is no stopping it.
none of your business if someone seeking an abortion used birth control or not. ideally yes, people should be more responsible but you are talking 'what if", "should do" when that is not how life works.
then you say it is ok to abort until serious development? who get to make the ruling of when something is viable especially when some think at conception it is a viable baby, when indeed it needs a womb to survive?
the answer to your question is I leave the decision to abort or not up to a woman and her doctor. what I would do or what I wish others would do is just my opinion and should not be put on some woman I don't even know or contribute to her life in any way.
I think the restrictions we have in place now are adequate. when viability becomes less than it is now I would bet, just like now the quality of the baby's life will be a case by case basis. do you want babies born so premature and only kept alive by artificial means costing thousands of dollars?
these things are best left to the woman, her doctor and her god. privacy
This man was performing ILLEGAL abortions and was arrested for it. I stress ILLEGAL because that the isssue, not the entire topic of abortion.
If they make abortion illegal, there will be hundreds of people like this operating from their garages, and they won't ask how far along the pregnancy is.
If they make abortion illegal, there will be hundreds of people like this operating from their garages, and they won't ask how far along the pregnancy is.
I imagine this abortionist is the ONLY one in all the USA that was doing this.........
Abortion IS legal even when the baby is viable....
Yes, but abortion on demand is not available "subsequent to viability", per Roe v. Wade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
Not interested in the legal decisions,asking proponents to support THEIR position.
You haven't yet,others have.
I have stated my position repeatedly. I agree with abortion on demand up until viability, after that only in certain circumstances. The law is very clear, and I agree with it. Late-term abortion is extremely rare, extremely dangerous, and extremely traumatic for all involved. It must however remain accessible for those that really need it. The majority of abortions are performed before 12 weeks, and that is as it should be. None of these decisions are any business of mine, and are between a women and her doctor. I have no problem with abortion records being scrutinized though to prevent atrocities such as these, and to prove that providers such as George Tiller are within the bounds of the law, as was proven in his case.
Yes, but abortion on demand is not available "subsequent to viability", per Roe v. Wade.
I have stated my position repeatedly. I agree with abortion on demand up until viability, after that only in certain circumstances. The law is very clear, and I agree with it. Late-term abortion is extremely rare, extremely dangerous, and extremely traumatic for all involved. It must however remain accessible for those that really need it. The majority of abortions are performed before 12 weeks, and that is as it should be. None of these decisions are any business of mine, and are between a women and her doctor. I have no problem with abortion records being scrutinized though to prevent atrocities such as these, and to prove that providers such as George Tiller are within the bounds of the law, as was proven in his case.
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.
in my postings,it just seemed like it was going round and round without any real answers.
