Should females be allowed to have a choice to abort a fetus? (ethic, elect)

[Hapa1]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

No reasonable person drowns their baby in the bathtub, so should it be legal?

Pedro, are you seriously comparing the two?

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by greatblueheron

Should a woman be ALLOWED (!) TO MANAGE HER OWN BODY?

Keep YOUR LAWS off MY body.




[/b]

Not concerned with your body, that was YOUR job! Concern is with the baby being ripped from the womb and discarded in the trash.

Originally Posted by Hapa1

There are actually people who think women shouldn’t have a choice? It’s her body after all!

Actually, one can't do with their body whatever they wish. Think about the laws.

Originally Posted by momonkey

Women always have a choice.


The first is abstinence.


The second is effective contraception.


The third is motherhood.


The fourth is adoption.


There is no practical need for any other choices outside of medical emergency.


The overwhelming number of abortions are preformed as a matter of convenience for someone that has passed on the first two choices and is unwilling to consider the third and fourth options.






When you say, "women should always have a choice.", why would any choices beyond the four I've listed be needed?

How dare you suggest these women practice "personal responsibility"! They will never go for that.

Originally Posted by CAjerseychick

Irreplaceable damage?
If he wont wear a condom and doesnt believe in abortions, he should get a vasectomy if he wants to stay in a relationship with her-

they are reversible.

Child birth, is not without risks of its own to the woman- something that is fairly often ignored by such as your self.

Considering the psychological aftereffects, when a woman actually comes to terms that it was more than a "clump of cells", well, that seems to be a risk one wouldn't suffer from going through a pregnancy. Sadly, the life of the baby is forgotten in your scenario.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

What is the risk of an abortion to a baby in the third trimester?

When they talk about a baby being able to live outside the womb, 21 weeks and 4 days, now a thriving 3 year old:

https://blogs.babycenter.com/pregnan...ng-3-year-old/

Originally Posted by Hapa1

For some odd reason, men like to make women’s bodies their business!

As a woman, I am not concerned about what another woman does with her own body, but when it comes to the body of her infant, that is another issue.

Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress

If the fetus can live outside the womb, no abortion. If you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption. There are lots of couples desperate to take it.

Fetuses and babies which are defective and likely to die anyway should be kept alive until body parts can be harvested to save viable babies.

You would need to define "defective" as I am the mother of an adult child with Down syndrome.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

At a point, yes. And even past that point, there are some very limited circumstances where it is justifiable. You can’t ask or demand a woman sacrifice her life. There can also be some extreme medical conditions for the baby where it’s arguably justifiable.

Hoping again that "extreme medical conditions" does not encompass Down syndrome.

Originally Posted by aries63

We don't have to debate whether women SHOULD have that right. They DO have that right. It is the law of the land since 1973.

I am male, I was an illegitimate child given up for adoption, at a later time I might have been aborted. Nevertheless I have campaigned in favor of abortion rights and agree with Gloria Steinem that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

I believe adoption is a great choice. But unfortunately over 100,000 children in the US are waiting to be adopted and about half will never find their forever family. If you are against abortion, then adopt some of these kids:
https://www.adoptuskids.org/

Ever tried to adopt the waiting children? I have, and I know many other families who have. They won't let that workcount go. Sadly, jobs depend on children being in the system, kind of like how we poverty has become an industry, so we can never let that go either. After trying to adopt from the state, we adopted an infant with Down syndrome through a private agency. Trying to make calls on the photolisted children, child of the week, etc. was a very sad experience.

This agency helps match up families wanting to adopt an infant or child with Down syndrome, they do a great job and one rarely sees a child with DS on the adoptuskids website: Home - NDSAN

Originally Posted by NCN

I had two of my own and we took care of them. Save your guilt trip for someone who does not know who is responsible for the children that are conceived. Both people who made the baby are responsible. With all the birth control in America I think it should be a crime to abort a baby. Abortion is a barbaric act that reminds me of something the Vikings might do. Civilized people should not participate in such barbaric acts. Our nation has become a very uncivilized place.

Isn't it amazing that so many used to be able to prevent pregnancy with rather primitive birth control widely available at the pharmacy and the big box stores, even some quick stops, yet now there are so many "accidents". Well, knowing you can have an abortion if you get preganant, perhaps that feeds the "accident" rate, not to mention drunk and drugged sex.

When they realize it was not a clump of cells, I hope all the advocates are still there for them.

Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust

Well said. This is exactly why I don't want to have kids. It doesn't make sense to me when there are already so many kids out there.

When my husband and I are done focusing on ourselves, we plan to adopt.

If you are seriously considering this, do your research early on. It is almost impossible to get an infant and can cost upward to $25,000 to $50,000. Adopting kids out of the system? Getting them to return a phone call/email would take an act of God. We were determined to get a couple of kids out of the system, but they made it impossible. We were approved, already parenting a child, yet we just could not get a child out of the system. The state agency went under a congressional investigation due to our complaints.

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Ah, it's so easy to write those words from the comfort of your chair. If you are really concerned with all your heart and soul about all the unborn babies being slaughtered in the wombs every day, then why don't you go stand in the doorway of your nearest abortion clinic, in order to block all pregnant women wanting to enter?

Actually, one would get arrested for doing that. Not sure how that would help.

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Even some women do. So how would those women like it if they became pregnant against their will, for instance, after a vicious rape?

I still wouldn't order the death of a baby that was a part of me, and would want to protect another's baby if I could.

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

So if you get murdered, it must have been due to God's will to allow it to happen.

It is the free will that God gave man. Sadly, that same free will has resulted in the deaths of many infants, but in the end.........

Originally Posted by G1..

Women should be the only ones with a choice.

Both men and women have a choice whether to practice birth control and/or have sex.

Originally Posted by moneill

Without question. Let's focus on sex education, avoiding getting pregnant, birth control access, etc.

All those things will lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, STD's, etc.

Making abortions illegal just sends them to the back streets and increases the potential for young women dying from unregulated procedures.

You mean women who don't value life anyway, so............. I am a woman who believes that a mother should do everything they can to protect their child from harm.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

So, do you want it to remain illegal or for it to become legal?

Many posters here want elective late term third trimester abortions to be legal. Do you?

That was part of what many saw as a positive with Hillary Clinton, her stance on abortion and not having a limit, so I would say they are fine with such abortions where the child could live outside the womb. They just want it dead, and forget about the details.

Originally Posted by GregW

YES - A woman has to have control over her own body to be a free person.

Fine, as long as it doesn't entail harm to another, thus the divide.

Originally Posted by pretty in black

I don't understand how what a woman chooses to do with her body, uterus, and fetus is anyone's business but hers. It's really puzzling how people get so bent out of shape over issues that don't affect them or their lives whatsoever.

fetus: the unborn young of a mammal as defined by the online dictionary. A living being. "Abortion stops a beating heart", even PP agreed to that. STOPS A BEATING HEART, which is something that generally the law had not allowed.

Originally Posted by hothulamaui

No, there is not always two murder charges it varies from state to state. And may hinge on viability

An abortion is a voluntary act, murder is not.

True, it does differ by state, and the abortionists really want to see that changed since it impies, and rightly so, that the baby in the womb is a person.

Ordering the death of another is murder, abortion is the ordering of the death of another.

Originally Posted by GregW

Getting murdered is involuntary. Committing murder is voluntary. Bit of a difference.

A baby dies either way. Not that big of difference for a baby.

I know that God has given us free will and set up restrictions on how we are use that free will. It is sad that despite how hard many have tried, babies die this horrible death, but in the end...........

[skins_fan82]

Absolutely they should.

[Hapa1]

Look, I’ve been considered somewhat liberal here at C-D, but this may put me in the ultra-lib range. I really think it’s a woman’s choice, and strangers have no right telling her what to do with her body or fetus.

[Cantabridgienne]

LOL, AnywhereElse. What year was it when all pregnancies were wanted, women never had abortions and no one had "drunk or drugged sex"?

(Let me guess--you think it was sometime in the 1950s?)

[gentlearts]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

So, does that mean you want them legal for any reason at any point, or you want restrictions that increase as the pregnancy goes further?

I would ideally feel better if they were done only within the first trimester, but again, I would use the argument that in heinous circumstances, there could be exceptions. So, if there could be exceptions, who should decide for me?

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by momonkey

If he won't wear a condom, don't **** him.

Condoms break or slide off all the time...

And the morning after pill doesn't always work. In fact, it's completely ineffective for women over 150 lbs (I think that was the cutoff, it was somewhere around there).

150 lbs is not an unreasonable weight for a 5'10 woman.

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

So, infanticide should be legal because it’s nobody else’s business.

I see.

You want a clear cut line?

22 weeks. Genetic disorders can be tested for before that point, and the foetus develops the ability to experience sensation after that.

[mikeyyc]

Given the choice between no under any circumstance or yes no matter what, then I opt for yes, and hope for the better of human nature.


The reality for me personally would be to have essentially no restriction, escalating to the point of viability, which would require hurdles to accomplish. In the event of disability or disfigurement, that is a decision solely between the woman and her physician.

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress

Fetuses and babies which are defective and likely to die anyway should be kept alive until body parts can be harvested to save viable babies.

So women would be forced petri dishes?