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.
Thank God... which mentally healthy person would kill a baby after 20 weeks (5 months) pregnancy?!
I support abortion rights, but in general I agree. If the abortion is just a "convenience" abortion of a woman that doesn't want a child, yes, 5 months should be more than enough time to decide. That includes rape cases.
However, what about cases where a fetus is diagnosed with significant or severe medical conditions? Downs, physical abnormalities, Spina Bifeda, hydroencyphilitis(sp?), etc? And what if those conditions are not detected until some months after that? The mother/parents should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy, rather than being sentenced by the state to raise a special needs child they may not be prepared or capable of.
Unless, of course, you are volunteering to adopt every special needs child the mother/parent would decide to put up for adoption that they might otherwise abort? Are you financially, physically and mentally willing and able to do so?
Oh, and most of the (few) survivors end up brain damaged and requiring special education or medical care for the rest of their lives.
They aren't viable in the practical use of the word.
And, yes, despite my absolutist stance. I agree that a woman who hasn't made up her mind after five months and has an abortion for reasons other than serious birth defect or risk to her life isn't the most responsible or sensible person. That being said, it is her body and her choice on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy.
So, are people who contract a disease or are in an accident and not "viable in the practical use of the word" no longer people or have no human value?
It's unfortunate that they waste their time on things that are going no where and divide the parties rather than doing something useful like tax reform. Sure looks like this is just pandering to their right wing constituency once again. I doubt this makes it through the senate.
It's unfortunate that they waste their time on things that are going no where and divide the parties rather than doing something useful like tax reform. Sure looks like this is just pandering to their right wing constituency once again. I doubt this makes it through the senate.
Completely agree here. Boehner knows it has zero chances of becoming law and even if it did, it would do nothing.
It's unfortunate that they waste their time on things that are going no where and divide the parties rather than doing something useful like tax reform. Sure looks like this is just pandering to their right wing constituency once again. I doubt this makes it through the senate.
Agreed. And if it does pass the senate, I hope Obama would be smart enough to veto it. We don't need a federal government of ever increasing power meddling in medical decisions.
Although I approve of this bill overall, I think further exceptions are needed for fetuses who (1) have SEVERE diseases/deformities that would mean either NO real quality of life and/or would result in severe lifelong pain for the child, (2) for fetuses who would be stillborn, and (3) for those who might live for not more than a year after birth (and in all cases, whether to have an abortion would be left to the parents, of course).
I support abortion rights, but in general I agree. If the abortion is just a "convenience" abortion of a woman that doesn't want a child, yes, 5 months should be more than enough time to decide. That includes rape cases.
However, what about cases where a fetus is diagnosed with significant or severe medical conditions? Downs, physical abnormalities, Spina Bifeda, hydroencyphilitis(sp?), etc? And what if those conditions are not detected until some months after that? The mother/parents should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy, rather than being sentenced by the state to raise a special needs child they may not be prepared or capable of.
Unless, of course, you are volunteering to adopt every special needs child the mother/parent would decide to put up for adoption that they might otherwise abort? Are you financially, physically and mentally willing and able to do so?
You addressed my concern: severe special needs. I know it's easy for those on the outside to say that that's not an issue, but being around special needs children (my sister has very mild spina bifida), it is so saddening to hearing parents of special needs kids and the myriad of problems that ensues. The divorce rate is astronomical among parents with special needs, and the other non special needs kids often have problems because the kid with special needs gets all the attention, time, and money.
And the most depressing part is hearing after the countless hours spent on a kid with special needs, often times when that kid grows up, they do not take basic care of themselves (you got me as to why they don't, but it's very common among adults with spina bifida), which leads to numerous health problems like bladder failure. I'm just so thankful that my sister has such a mild case that she can avoid a lot of those problems.
Abortion should always be an option for those parents who are faced with the possibility of a severe special needs kid.
BS I know "liberal" women who don't believe in abortion at all.
BS? You are agreeing with him, or don't you know that? He said some from both sides and he is correct, I personally know several Conservative women that have had and still believe in a woman's right to abortion. Not all Cons believe in banning all abortions no matter how much you want it to be so.
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.