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.
For the purpose of enacting a law you must pick a date. What date do you choose?
I'm not the one with a problem here. I am satisfied with a date based on viabilty, which conceivably may change, though there is a physiological limit. Fetal lungs with no alveoli will never support life.
Here is a discussion of resuscitation of newborns delivered due to spontaneous preterm labor:
... we must know when to draw the line and not prolong a situation in which resuscitation would be futile or result in unnecessary pain and suffering of the infant. Considering a 1% to 10% survival rate in infants of 22 to 23 weeks gestational age and a 100% severe morbidity rate in this group, one could argue that the benevolent act would be to allow the infant a peaceful, pain-free death."
(Remember gestational age is calculated from the date of the pregnant woman's last menstrual period, not the date of conception.)
I would use 24 weeks as the cutoff for an elective termination, though a lower limit of 22 weeks could probably be justified. For any pregnancy with a lethal anomaly, termination of the pregnancy at any time should be a decision made by the pregnant woman and her doctor. The law should stay out of it.
I would probably argue for 20-22 week to be on the safe-side for elective abortion. 5 months is plenty of time to get your act together, there really isn't any justification for waiting even that long.
Yes/No....Yes/No.....Yes/No....Yes/No.....Yes/No.....Yes/No...Yes/No....Yes/No...Yes/No...Yes/No...
OK so no one will ever agree. Can this topic be closed now? There is a lot of redundant conversation taking place.
Yes/No...Yes/No...Yes/No...Yes/No...
Then at the point where a fetus is always viable, you would have to be against abortion.
There is no point where the fetus is always viable.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.If "if's" and "and's" were pots and pans,There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.
And If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground, but frogs don't have wings.
Viability is not the only consideration for or against legal abortion and the meaning of viability is not cut and dry. Certainly some fetuses at legal late term abortions are viable as in able to live. The definition of viability is subjective. It can mean ability to live, live without assistance, the duration of life, the quality of life.
I would probably argue for 20-22 week to be on the safe-side for elective abortion. 5 months is plenty of time to get your act together, there really isn't any justification for waiting even that long.
So gestation is calculated from your last menses that could possibly add two weeks. Given many women dont realize they are pregnant until 4-8-16 weeks (not everyone has regular periods). Given it can take weeks to get an appointment a women could be at a legal 18 weeks before she has a pregnancy confirmed. And you in you ultimate authority believe 2 to 4 weeks is plenty time to "get your act together" and actually get an abortion.
No, I do not support abortion being illegal. Why? Because women are going to have them whether they're legal or not, and it's better that they are safe, legal and affordable.
There are numerous contraceptive methods and anybody can have access to them. There's no need or reason for an abortion except for a health risk. Most unwanted pregnancies happen because of irresponsibility.
If a woman doesn't want a baby then should prevent a pregnancy rather than killing an innocent that didn't have a choice about being in the womb.
There are numerous contraceptive methods and anybody can have access to them. There's no need or reason for an abortion except for a health risk. Most unwanted pregnancies happen because of irresponsibility.
If a woman doesn't want a baby then should prevent a pregnancy rather than killing an innocent that didn't have a choice about being in the womb.
If you had read the thread you would know that half the women who seek abortion were using contraceptives. Also, a significant number of people who oppose abortion also oppose many of the more effective contraceptives, such as the IUD. Their extreme views make them classify those methods as abortifacients. They do the same with the postcoital contraceptives.
These same fanatics are trying to get Planned Parenthood defunded, thus making it difficult for people with no insurance to get access to those more effective contraceptive methods. You cannot just walk into a drugstore and buy an IUD.
The presumption that everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy is irresponsible is false.
If you had read the thread you would know that half the women who seek abortion were using contraceptives. Also, a significant number of people who oppose abortion also oppose many of the more effective contraceptives, such as the IUD. Their extreme views make them classify those methods as abortifacients. They do the same with the postcoital contraceptives.
These same fanatics are trying to get Planned Parenthood defunded, thus making it difficult for people with no insurance to get access to those more effective contraceptive methods. You cannot just walk into a drugstore and buy an IUD.
The presumption that everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy is irresponsible is false.
I know contraception may fail but when people are having sex they are assuming a risk of getting pregnant either way. If I drive a car and hit someone accidentally I can't just run away and refuse to aid the person I harmed. Similarly, he woman still has a duty to aid her fetus and can't neglect it to death. That's just immoral.
I know contraception may fail but when people are having sex they are assuming a risk of getting pregnant either way. If I drive a car and hit someone accidentally I can't just run away and refuse to aid the person I harmed. Similarly, he woman still has a duty to aid her fetus and can't neglect it to death. That's just immoral.
a car accident and pregnancy are far different things. a pregnancy brought to term is an 18 year commitment, a car accident is a ding on your insurance. if you want to compare the two, the abortion is insurance for an unwanted pregnancy.
If you check the DNA of the unborn, it is human and it is different than the mother, the father, or anyone else. It is not viable, but then again, how viable is a day old infant without someone to take carer of them?
It is ending a distinct human life. I am opposed to that, as I am opposed to capital punishment....
... (t)he woman still has a duty to aid her fetus and can't neglect it to death. That's just immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusnh
If you check the DNA of the unborn, it is human and it is different than the mother, the father, or anyone else. It is not viable, but then again, how viable is a day old infant without someone to take carer of them?
It is ending a distinct human life. I am opposed to that, as I am opposed to capital punishment....
You two are entitled to your viewpoints. However, not everyone believes as you do, and it is wrong to impose your view of morality on others.
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.
