For those who are pro-choice, what limitations should be put on a woman's right to choose abortion? (radical, compare)
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 the mother chooses to have an abortion for any reason other than verifiable major debilitating medical deformity/genetic disorder compromising life of child in the long term, or imminent danger to the mother's life, or incest/reported rape (with LE report), then I feel she should be required to have her tubes tied in conjuction with the abortion.
Abortion should not be a birth control procedure of convenience, but of necessity. Contraception control and personal responsibility of both sexual partners in practicing contraception control is the key to reducing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, IMO.
Mandatory sterilization should be reserved for the 2nd abortion and it should not apply only to the woman but also the man who got her pregnant (regardless of whether or not he wants the child). I think people should be entitled to one mistake. It would be like saying, you got a moving violation and now we are going to take away your driver's license forever. And birth control methods do fail quite often - even combinations of them. Somebody might just have the bad luck to get a bad batch of pills (or had to take antibiotics) and a bad condom at the same time.
Anyways, I'm pro choice and pro abortion in general but I think 2nd trimester is a wee bit too late, except in the cases of medical necessity/rape/deformity/genetic defect/teratogen exposure. Most people should probably have figured out that they are pregnant by that time. They should educate people better on how to detect early pregnancies. Pregnancy tests are like 50 cents each so there is no excuse for not knowing. People should really take them every month or something. Before the zygote turns into a fetus is much more preferable.
Viability/progression in the pregnancy. Other than that it's not my business why a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy
Let's be honest: anyone who is pro choice is really pro murder. Abortion, when performed correctly results in death 100% of the time; "pro-choicers" support this. Name me one other "right" that results in guaranteed death?
If something can't live on it's own, it's not "alive" in the general sense, so you're not killing anything.
Am I pro murder because I think it's acceptable to seek treatment for cancer? That too is cells growing inside you that can't live on it's own.
The only limit I would apply is if the fetus c/would be viable outside the womb, then an abortion should be prohibited. The only exception would be if the mother's health would be substantially compromised, i.e. she could die. I don't see that exception being applied much these days in the US as the death of women during childbirth seems rare.
I'm personally 99% pro-life and only support abortion in extreme cases such as incest, rape or if pregnancy directly puts the mother's life at risk. For those of you who are pro-choice, what limitations should be placed on the woman should she choose abortion if any? Do you support a woman's right to abort her child/fetus due to detected deformities of the child? Would you still support a woman's right to choose if she wanted to abort a child due to the sex of the child and nothing else?
If homosexuality were positively determined to be genetic and doctors were able to determine the future sexual orientation of a child prior to birth would you support a woman's right to choose if she chose to abort a child because they would likely be born gay?
OMG, so to you a gay child is so less desirable that abortion might be a good option? The mind boggles. Are you about love or hate?
But no, few things are created more easily and cheaply than a human fetus. It doesn't take love or money, you don't even have to be healthy.
It's more difficult to grow cantelope than a human being.
So I'm all for eliminating the biological mistake under any circumstances.
you sound confused, perhaps you need to research more so you are sure
No not confused at all maybe you are!
In the early 90's in NV I know women were getting them as late as 5/6 months of pregnancy. Just because they wanted one no other reason.
Starting in the mid 1990s, 31 states enacted laws prohibiting so-called partial-birth abortion procedures.
In all, 36 states prohibit abortions after a certain point in pregnancy. Of those, 23 ban abortions at viability; five ban it in the third trimester; and eight ban the procedure after 24 weeks.
They should pay for their own abortions. I am Pro-Choice but I do not believe that taxpayers should be funding abortions. Women should always have the right to choose to have an abortion or not. It is not the Gov place to choose that for us women.
My understanding is they aren't paid for by government funds now, so why the campaign against them? (not by you per se, just in general).
"For those who are pro-choice, what limitations should be put on a woman's right to choose abortion?"
None! Ever.
For you and Stonecypher, regardless of whether these abortions are available, you would support the woman's right to choose up until what point exactly?
The only limit I would apply is if the fetus c/would be viable outside the womb, then an abortion should be prohibited. The only exception would be if the mother's health would be substantially compromised, i.e. she could die. I don't see that exception being applied much these days in the US as the death of women during childbirth seems rare.
For you and Stonecypher, regardless of whether these abortions are available, you would support the woman's right to choose up until what point exactly?
Thought I answered this plain enough in my first post; No limitations ever. Woman's body, woman's decision.
Thought I answered this plain enough in my first post; No limitations ever. Woman's body, woman's decision.
Yes, your first post was very plain, though not precise. I suspect that you believe the government should protect the child at some point in its life. I was just attempting to find out when you feel that should be. 1 day old? 1 year old? When it exits the birth canal? When the cord is cut? Are either of these close?
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.
