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.
And you think that for women who have to travel hours to an abortion provider, taking off from work, that it's no burden to take off one day, meet with the abortion provider, get your mandatory counseling (which is insulting, because women know their options and understand what an abortion is), go home, then, three days later, take another day off from work, and travel hours to the abortion provider to have the procedure performed. That's not forcing women to jump through hurdles.
People have to jump through more hopes to get less done.
This thread is about abortions in the second trimester.
No one decides on a whim to abort during the third trimester. First, there are already laws regulating late-term abortions. Second, women have decided to have the baby if they carry it to the third trimester, the baby is wanted. It is when a woman discovers that she is at risk (yes, women die of complications from pregnancy), or that the baby is severely compromised, that a late-term abortion is considered. These situations are heartbreaking for the parents, and pro-lifers like yourself simply add to the pain with your blithe assumptions about them.
Your screed didn't limit your comments to the second trimester. So yes, you are moving the goal posts.
How any decent human being could support killing a baby after 20 weeks gestation is utterly beyond me. It's disgusting, ghoulish, and completely indefensible given what science tells us about the viability of a fetus at 20 weeks and later.
Why are pro-abortion liberals anti-science?
It is about bodily autonomy and to a lesser extent the viability of the fetus.
As I said earlier, a fetus born at 20 weeks is not viable. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a case where that has happened. I have seen one or two cases were a few "miracle babies" were born at 21 or 22 weeks and survived.
This THREAD is about 20 week abortions. My "screed" was on this thread, and ON TOPIC.
Babies at 20 weeks and later include babies in the second AND third trimesters. Your defense of killing babies after 20 weeks includes a defense of killing third trimester babies.
So, no, your screeds aren't on topic if you are limiting their applicability to the second trimester. Didn't you claim to be a lawyer? If so you need to choose your words more carefully.
Babies at 20 weeks and later include babies in the second AND third trimesters. Your defense of killing babies after 20 weeks includes a defense of killing third trimester babies.
So, no, your screeds aren't on topic if you are limiting their applicability to the second trimester. Didn't you claim to be a lawyer? If so you need to choose your words more carefully.
And there is already legislation regulating third trimester abortion. So, the new legislation moves the debate into the second trimester. The thread topic.
And I find it interesting that you try to demean my posts by calling them "screeds", rather than actually posting an argument. Can you rebut my remarks?
And there is already legislation regulating third trimester abortion. So, the new legislation moves the debate into the second trimester. The thread topic.
And I find it interesting that you try to demean my posts by calling them "screeds", rather than actually posting an argument. Can you rebut my remarks?
What federal legislation exactly are you referring to when you talk about regulation of third trimester abortion?
You're aware that King Obama supports killing babies in the third trimester, correct?
It is about bodily autonomy and to a lesser extent the viability of the fetus..
So you are saying it's ok for a woman to choose to end the life of a child 8 or 9 months into her pregnancy., because it is her own body..... What if someone attacked a woman who was 9 months pregnant, and killed her unborn child, that person should not be charged with murder?
Why would anyone oppose this? I read the bill. It is short, to the point, and allows exceptions for rape and the health of the woman. It also explains the research. I don't see why the senate or anyone else would be against bans on mutilating a fetus for no good reason.
Maybe because the bill's unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution is Congress given the power to restrict abortion? State governments have this power, but the federal government does not.
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.
