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.
An ad Hominem attack and now a straw man argument...such a waste of bandwidth!
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand your comment, and thought you meant I had literally called you worse than Hitler. That is my mistake, but I stand by the rest of my comments.
No, it will not happen, because no provider is going to be willing to do it for trivial psychological reasons. Such babies are placed for adoption.
Are you new to humanity? Of course there will be people willing to do this....money trumps all.
No one would do it. If she does not want the baby, it would be offered for adoption. Prior to 24 weeks she could do it for any reason.
Yes, people will do it.
You have never heard of "pulling the plug?"
A fetus incompatible with life is it's own challenge. With proper medical care it would be discovered early and wouldn't need an "up until birth" law on the books.
A fetus incompatible with life is it's own challenge. With proper medical care it would be discovered early and wouldn't need an "up until birth" law on the books.
No, there will not be providers who will do it. There are only a handful of people in the US who even do late term abortions at all.
If someone gets to full term and decides she does not want a baby, she will go into labor, deliver, and give the baby up for adoption.
There has been at least one case reported in one of the several threads about this law where abnormalities were found relatively early, but the severity only became apparent with further monitoring over time.
The idea that abortion of a healthy fetus will be performed "up to birth" for maternal reasons is a figment of the anti-abortion imagination.
The idea that abortion of a healthy fetus will be performed "up to birth" for maternal reasons is a figment of the anti-abortion imagination.
TBH I think this is giving too much credit. It is not some misunderstanding about the law, it is a repeated and malicious lie. Just look at the people spouting it here, well known and obvious trolls. They know they are lying, they don't care because they aren't here to have good faith discussions, they are here because they like to "troll the libturds". It really couldn't be more obvious IMO.
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand your comment, and thought you meant I had literally called you worse than Hitler. That is my mistake, but I stand by the rest of my comments.
Great, now see if you can answer my question.
Which disability resulting from the under-developed brain of this child would justify killing the victim of an automobile accident with similar disabilities?
Here's the rub, sister. The law didn't define what 'health' means. But the Supreme Court did define it in another ruling. "Health" can include the current 'emotional state' as defined by the mother. So all a woman has to is say "Oh, I'm not emotionally prepared to raise a child", and that's legally enough.
So it's time for YOU to stop spreading the lies.
Nonsense; no doctor, no court, or judiciary body assigned the responsibility to adjudicate such a case is going to base it's decision on the mere utterance of; "Oh, I'm not emotionally prepared to raise a child".
It's not a lie. A woman can kill a 100% healthy child at birth under this law. All she has to do is claim emotional unreadiness.
Pardon us for questioning the efficacy of statements made by someone claiming their prayers to God prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected President.
On what legal basis can they stop it now? You can't say 'common decency' would prevent it. Democrat lawmakers sure didn't display common decency when they passed this law.
So your a supporter of SSI disabled children, SNAP, ACS, and other programs and agencies to provide for the welfare of children born with defects or poverty to allow for mother's to have these kids ?
Nonsense; no doctor, no court, or judiciary body assigned the responsibility to adjudicate such a case is going to base it's decision on the mere utterance of; "Oh, I'm not emotionally prepared to raise a child".
But you already know this, don't you?
"is going"
This is soothsaying. One might also call it "slipperiness."
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.
