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.
Advancements happen all the time. You have no way of knowing what will be possible a few years from now.
And that wasn't the point of the question.
The reasoning used for a cut-off point was viability.
Isn't using "viability" as the cut off just a race to kill before the baby gets to the point where she can survive?
there will be no medical advancements that will make a ten week fetus viable outside the womb. not on your life time or mine. it is beyond hypothetical to the point of ridiculous.
viability isn't a race. as you know most abortions happen WAY before viability.
Because it is not a baby. A heartbeat doesn't mean that a person is in residence.
A 12-week old baby wasn't hit by a motorcycle. This isn't a baby? If it isn't, what is it?
YOUR PREGNANCY - 12 WEEKS Your pregnancy: 12 weeks | BabyCenter
I believe a human life is invaluable. I'd support a system where the costs of pregnancy were 100% free. Doctors' visits---free. Prenatal vitamins---free. Maternity clothes----free. Ultrasounds----free. Baby clothes, bottles, formula, babyfood, baby furniture----free, daycare---free. Because I believe a baby is precious. And I believe that women who are faced with these overwhelming costs feel helpless and defeated, and when you throw in the additional health risks (and make no mistake about it, pregnancy is much riskier than abortion), I can understand why a woman, already raising a child, would consider abortion the best choice available to her.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, do something to make going through with a pregnancy the best choice.
Or how about using birth control!?!? and/or a little bit of restraint?!? I place the utmost value on human life but at the same time I dont think that having a child is a right that the rest of us should subsidize, especially in todays world where overpopulation is the biggest threat to our survival as a species. I grew up with very little money and focused on career and education so I could get a job that paid well as a way to break that cycle. And used inconvenient birth control methods and even said no to sex a few times to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Everybody wants to do whatever they want when they want without any moral, emotional, or financial consequences.
And do you have any idea how many hours and how much help some of us give to families in need, whether it is working at food pantries, helping with kids needing extra attention in school or helping people get to doctors appointments? Do you give hours a week of your time to help those in need? I do and so do many of my friends.
BTW. what do you think the answer is for addressing child hunger? Are we supposed to be so pro abortion we force women to have them? Many of those who choose abortion could easily afford their babies, they just don't want to be bothered and are too selfish to choose adoption? Those depending on help from the community could care less.
And yet you still aren't giving enough. Children are still going hungry in this country.....so much for your pro-life.
I think it is important to let women decide for themselves if they wish to birth a child into this world.
You should think about how many people are having sex every day. If millions of people have sex, and use birth control, and birth control isn't 100% effective, even vasectomies and other sterilization procedures, then it stands to reason that every day, some people's birth control methods are going to fail, not because they failed, and some of these people are going to get pregnant.
do you really believe that the 1,000,000 or so abortions done every year are due to failed birth control? especially with many of those being repeat procedures? bottom line is that many women are now densensitized to abortion and dont get overly concerned with birth control because abortion is easily available.
if a woman really wants to not get pregnant she can double down on birth control methods and pretty much ensure it wont happen.
there will be no medical advancements that will make a ten week fetus viable outside the womb. not on your life time or mine. it is beyond hypothetical to the point of ridiculous.
viability isn't a race. as you know most abortions happen WAY before viability.
I highly doubt that you qualified to make such a claim. The impossible is many times interrupted by people accomplishing it.
And you avoids the point of the question, and instead chose to focus on something else entirely not relevant.
You could replace 10 with 12, 14, or 16. The number isn't the point.
The point is that if viability is the cut off, and not life, then support for abortion for the length of viability is indeed about a race to kill.
Before 8 weeks, one can make an argument that the ban is a mass of cells because they haven't found their function yet. The baby isn't a tiny human yet.
But you believe the cut off point should be viability. So then it's not about removing a blob of cells. It's about killing before the baby gets to the point where it can be rescued.
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.
get a dictionary. abortion is not murder.
