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.
While that's true, you can see how urban thugs think NOTHING of killing others for their own convenience because the abortion advocates have been excessively screaming the exact same thing: It's OK to kill another if they're an inconvenience to you.
So you’re pro choice until after 24 weeks. Good to know
No not 24 weeks. Scientific data no suggests fetus feel pain by that point. I would be pro choice for elective abortions for a shorter duration than 24 weeks, before the fetus has developed. First trimester or shortly there after maybe something between 12-16 weeks. Being pregnant for 3 or 4 months should give a woman enough time to decide whether or not to have a baby. Obviously any serious medical condition that would develop can be reason to abort after that time frame.
No not 24 weeks. Scientific data no suggests fetus feel pain by that point. I would be pro choice for elective abortions for a shorter duration than 24 weeks, before the fetus has developed. First trimester or shortly there after maybe something between 12-16 weeks. Being pregnant for 3 or 4 months should give a woman enough time to decide whether or not to have a baby. Obviously any serious medical condition that would develop can be reason to abort after that time frame.
There are arguments on both sides as to when an elective abortion could be done, whatever the reasons. There are also some that want a woman carry a dead fetus the full term. Imagine their logic.
Why do you bring up Kavorkian? There are 10 states plus DC that allow Death with Dignity. Many oldsters with no hope of recovery are quietly given large doses of drugs at the end, usually at the request of family. Just make him comfortable is what they tell the doctor. .
Abortion is a totally different issue. Generally it is to stop the development before it gets started; before the fetus is viable outside the mother's body. In late term, it is usually due to a severely deformed fetus or mother's life is at risk. It's not "elective" at that point.
Its not, the great majority of what people on the right call late term abortions are just that, babies who would be born with a defect or die shortly after it.
There are arguments on both sides as to when an elective abortion could be done, whatever the reasons. There are also some that want a woman carry a dead fetus the full term. Imagine their logic.
I know there are. I'm not saying Im right. Just my opinion, and I'm trying to take a balanced approach at the same time acknowledging a woman's right to choose with the right for unborn babies past a certain stage. I know the viability argument would suggest 22-24 weeks in most cases but there have been babies that survived birth before 24 weeks and also new research suggest babies can experience pain before 24 weeks. Significantly before even.
This abortion doctor goes into detail as to how a late term abortion is performed.
One thing no nobody has been able to convince me is that there is a Constitutional right to end a pregnancy per 14th amendment. I can't see how that amendment would even apply based on the language below.
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How does society make sure women carry to term? Mandatory pregnancy test for all females ages 12 to 45? Then supervised until birth?
Any leeway on rape or incest?
That's a bogus argument.
Of course...like with any law, you can never completely determine or assure full compliance.
But that isn't a reason to have no law that proscribes certain acts.
Again...by that logic (impossible to determine or assure absolute compliance), we wouldn't have any laws at all.
No society should simply allow evil deeds, just because they can never prevent all of them.
Here...let me use the logic I see always used relative to abortion, but I'll switch it up:
Since we can never supervise all men, all the time, to make sure they never sexually assault anyone...we should have no law against rape.
I mean...do you really want men to remain sexually frustrated & unfulfilled and give in to abstaining from rape against their own will?
Nobody should be able to tell a man what he can do with his body!
This ^^^ is the same kind of arguments I see used all the time to justify abortion.
And it could be applied to any evil deed.
Just because there are those that are so evil & depraved that they would kill a innocent gestating baby, and we could never prevent every occurrence of that...is no reason to allow such a barbaric act.
Full exception for rape/incest/life of the Mother...that's a matter of self-defense. Society allows killing others in that case.
2) If there is so much financial support for poor women to get abortions, why do they have such a LOW rate of abortion in the event of an unintended pregnancy at only 8.6%? Why aren't they taking that supposed financial support hand over fist to abort their babies?
Mississippi and several other states have abortion bans. Pretty tough to get an abortion when there is no clinic in your state.
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.
