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.
Personally, I would suggest that if a woman wants an abortion to do it ASAP. I dont like the thought of it being done too late into the pregnancy but I still stay behind my belief that it is the woman's choice.
You have 2 or 3 months to decide if you want it or not so make it early as possible.
EDIT- To the people who voted "Illegal in all circumstances", are you against abortion even if the mothers life is in danger?
You make everything about religion while failing to realize that there are many non-religious people who are pro-life.
They have every right to be. The right that they don't have is to compel that opinion upon anyone else. Personal opinions and beliefs do not need to stand any test at all. Even so much as commending them to others does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Then you state a "greedy fetus" wishes to "barge in where it was never wanted and does not belong." Except in the case of rape, the woman did in fact choose to engage in an action knowing that a fetus could result. She (and her BF/husband/one-night-stand partner, etc.) created it; it didn't barge in.
No, the old no-sex argument holds zero water at all. Sex is a normal and healthy part of life. Everone has a right to it. Unless you wish to compel every woman toward the biological maximum of bearing 18-20 children over the course of a reproductive lifetime, women have the personal right to pick and decide which potential child they will bear and which they will not. No fetus has any more right to enter unbidden into the personal domain of a woman's uterus that is greater than the right of a burglar to enter unbidden into the personal domain of my living room. In most states, I may use as much as lethal force against the perceived threats of the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Contraceptive use, including Plan B, should be strongly encouraged, as should sterilization for those who want it. Adoption should also be encouraged.
Yes, everyone would seem to wish for there to be fewer and safer (i.e., earlier) abortions. None would be a good number. But only because no woman felt the need for one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
But, like it or not, the fetus didn't simply "barge in" and it's not greedy...IT JUST WANTS TO LIVE!
By what means not located between your own ears does this fetal-wanting manifest itself? A fetus itself has no means for experiencing or recognizing "want" of any sort, and "want" is hardly the only thing that is on that list. You are magically projecting onto a fetus emotions and capacities that you happen to have, but that no fetus does.
This is a semantic point with no actual relevance. For one thing, there is no accepted definition of fetal demise in the US, and for another, abortion is a medical procedure. It would be entirely common for a case of fetal death at a point up to 28 weeks to be treated via the insertion of laminaria followed by the performance of a dilatation and extraction. If you don't want to call that an abortion, fine.
No, you are wrong. The common procedure following fetal demise between 18 -28 weeks is induced labor then normal delivery at the ob ward at the local hospital, after which you can expect a visit from a social worker who will fill out the states fetal demise certificate. If the pregnancy lasted through 25 weeks, a death certificate would be issued.
The picture of the newborn is quite appropriate --- but would you consider the same infant a baby only hours prior to when that picture was taken - when that same baby was still encased in the gestational sac?
Your position on semantics seems to waver some. A fetus is not a baby. If it were, it would at most be a premature baby. But every actual definition of premature baby reflects the concept of birth. Sort of odd. Otherwise, what I would consider is of no relevance to anyone but me and perhaps those who might seek my counsel. Further, you are asking that bright lines be drawn where none in fact exist. Life is a continuum, not a series of discrete steps or phases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
A zygote is not an embryo which is not a fetus which at a certain point becomes a baby. That point is considered at viability -- an age that has flucuated greatly since Roe V Wade.
A fetus is still a fetus post-viability, and the point of viability has changed rather little. Improved technology has upped the odds for survival of very early preemies to certain milestones -- such as ever leaving the hospital, or reaching the age of one year -- and, while still very poor in most cases, it has made some improvements in the quality of life that those who do manage to survive to such milestones can expect to experience. But the point of earliest viability itself has not moved much at all, and it is not likely to absent the development of an entirely new technology. There is a point past which the simple basics necessary for independent survival are not yet present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping!
I don't believe many people are comfortable outlawing abortion in the first trimester --- but I do believe most people are at best uneasy if not completely repelled by abortion past viability, whether the actual fetus in question is viable or not.
Abortion past viability is already illegal in virtually every state except under certain, typically narrowly-tailored, circumstances. Nationally, only about one clinic in five even offers abortion services past 20 weeks. At 24 weeks, it is more like one in twelve. Fewer than one abortion in a hundred is performed so late in term. You are raising an argument from the outliers.
How is an abortion responsible for the births of your two nieces?
It's fairly simple. Had their mother been forced to carry to term, she would never so much as have been in the circumstances under which she eventually met the girls' father. Right-to-lifers regularly fail to recognize that where abortion is used as a means to select from among perhaps 20 possible children -- in this case choosing not to have an unwanted #3 and later choosing to have a very much wanted #8 and #11 -- compelling young women to carry to term merely enforces a different choice. In this case, it would have enforced #3, but only at the direct cost of both #8 and #11. Who is the baby-killer in that latter scenario?
Your own statistics, however, do show the number doubling in the four years from 72-76.
Yes, which is a far cry from increasing ten-fold in one year. Meanwhile, the number of annual abortions peaked in 1979-80, and has been declining since. There were once 29.3 annual abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age. More recently, there have been fewer than 20.
I don't remember where I read it, but I didn't dream it up. I'll look for it later.
Your own statistics, however, do show the number doubling in the four years from 72-76.
The comparison is between legal abortions during the period where they were illegal in most states and the period where they were legal in all states. It doesn't consider the illegal abortions that were being done, and I assure you illegal abortions were being done everywhere they weren't legal.
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.
