LATE TERM ABORTION A CHOICE? I have been told that late term abortion is a subject that some pro-choicers don't want to talk about. But late term abortion is in the forefront of todays hot topics concerning abortion. It all boils down to CHOICE. I would like to start off with excerpts from Randy Alcorn's book, Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments concerning CHOICE. Any civilized society restricts the individual's freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person. Freedom to choose what? Most pro-aborts on this forum classify themselves as prochoice. But are they really? A small minority oppose choice...by wanting to restrict a woman from making the decision to get a late term abortion. Can they then be pro-choice when they enslave the woman, tie her hands and make it impossible to do what she morally feels is right? Aren't they like Alcorn says....narrow-minded and bigoted for doing so? If abortion did not kill unborn humans...there would be no debate and people would not be opposed to early or late term abortion. And there are two sides to this issue....those who condone killing and those who don't. The hypocrisy comes to the table when those who condone killing then flip-flop on the issue by wanting as I said to deny women their rights. This is exactly what is happening today but with a different moral issue. The battle cry.....You don't have to have an abortion but don't tell anyone else they can't have one. It's every woman's right. Well not every women...only the ones who abort during the first 24 weeks. Hypocrisy a part of the proabort position.
The facts are, late term abortions, abortions that occur after 21 weeks actually, are extremely rare. They account for 1% of all abortions and they are mainly done for life saving medical reasons and out of choice by the mother to spare her child the pain of living with horrific birth defects and the fact that they would have to go through innumerable amounts of surgery. I don't know why anyone would chastise or blame any woman for choosing an abortion for these reasons and I don't understand why it is so important to you and why after months and months of going around in circles with us you continue to rehash this same argument.
This is not about how many women would get them. Who knows how many women, if they were legal would get them. Who knows how many get them now. All we have reporting are biased abortion sites like Guttmaucher. Why I bring this up? I am not satisfied with the debate we have had on it. We have not really discussed the underlying issue....and that is woman's rights concerning it. Oh I have heard excuses....not many would get them...so it does not matter...but it does really if one makes the point...It's a woman's body, her decision. Because is it? Is it ultimately the woman's decision? No, it is not. Canada recognizes this fact because they don't have any restrictions. So this issue must have come up to be put on the table with them. So with the pro-abort position, CHOICE, does matter. And for the majority, at least on this forum, they want restrictions. And those restrictions enslave, prohibit the woman from FREE CHOICE concerning her body. Even though a small percentage of people are gay...even though a small percentage would get married, we are changing laws to accommodate the ones who would. Why? Obviously because it is their right, and should be their CHOICE. So why not with abortion? Canada does it, why shouldn't we? As far as going around in circles.... This is what happens in abortion threads. People argue the same points over and over. Nothing new really ever comes to the table on this. So I am not doing anything...anyone else has not done, or is doing. I have a point....I have supported that point with examples...and yet few want to address it. Why don't people want to change our laws to accommodate and make legal something that women have the right to get? The number of women doesn't matter....this has to do with basic human rights, the kind that some proaborts on this forum talk about.
I love what Mark Crutcher says about this in a blog about Gosnell, the late term abortionist. "Today, legalized abortion is like a chicken bone that's stuck in the throat of the American people. The abortion lobby will never be able to make them swallow it, and the pro-life movement will never let them just ignore it. And every once in a while, something comes along to remind them of those two realities." This issue will never go away....and late term abortion and abortionists are not going away either. "At this moment in history, that "something" is the Gosnell trial. It is forcing the intellectually honest members of our society to ask themselves why they can be so horrified by what this guy did to these babies outside the womb, but so accepting of the fact that the same things are done to babies inside the womb every day in abortion clinics all over the country. Either the American people are legitimately blind to the hypocrisy and irrationality of that, or they have made a conscious decision to look the other way. If it is the latter, they have no right to be outraged when the Kermit Gosnells of this world come along and rub their noses in it."
Let us look to our neighbor to the North Canada. They recognize free choice and freedom because they give both to every woman. I am wondering how many think Canada's laws go to far? "The Mulroney government introduced a bill in 1989 to restrict abortions to those required for health reasons with maximum jail sentences of two years for doctors who violated the law. The bill passed in the House of Commons but died on a tie vote in the Senate. Since then, abortion has been unrestricted in Canada, legal through all nine months of pregnancy up until the point of birth. Most abortions are funded by taxpayers through the publicly funded health system. There are now over 105,000 abortions a year in Canada. We are one of the few countries in the Western world that does not have any legal restrictions on abortion." Isn't this what is missing in America? Tax-funded abortion on demand at any time and for any reason? Or are our laws more moral than Canada's? They know the facts about the life in the womb...yet they strictly want abortion legal because it is the right of every woman to be able to kill, to terminate, to end the life they carry. http://abortionincanada.ca/history/legal-abortion-in-canada/
Here something for you to chew on, in the USA there is NO restriction on a woman getting an abortion. That above quote comes from one of your very own pro-life sites - http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/RoesupportersspeakUVVA.html So you see there is no conflict in the USA about choice, it is irrelevant what individual pro-choicers feel about the time frame for abortions, just as people within the pro-life camps have differing opinions on some things so do pro-choicers, as one of your own pro-life cohorts, who you have supported and "liked" numerous times says; "So you take "pro life" to mean an absolute ban? Well I know that suits your simple minded memes, but it just isn;t true. there is some variety in the pro life ranks" End of discussion.
This is at least your second thread on late term abortion and all your discussions have "conveniently" failed to mention late term abortion for foetal abnormality http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/30/the-firestorm-over-late-term-abortions.html Seems that I have heard your song before -
Fetal abnormality isn't the issue. The reasons are not either...or should not matter, what matters so says the pro-abort is THE WOMAN AND HER ABILITY TO CALL THE SHOTS. I want to focus on Choice...and Freedom...not why some woman would want to abort in late terms. Is it, or should it be any of our concern why she might want to abort? If so, why? In Canada they don't care, they give women total rights to their uterus. They see it as a CHOICE...FREEDOM issue. My question is why don't we in America see the issue like they do? Pro-aborts here, well the majority are against late term abortion. Why? This goes against the position that a woman has the freedom to decide. She either owns her body or she doesn't. And they( like the pro-lifers they bash because they are against abortion altogether.... ) do the exact same thing. So please address these things: Freedom, Choice, enslavement of the woman, if Canada got it wrong, and the inconsistencies of the pro-aborts who wan restrictions on abortion. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY WOMEN MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT WANT A LATE TERM...or FOR ANY REASON. We have no idea how many women get late term abortions. We do know that more and more clinics are being discovered across the country. Gosnell is not alone. But that isn't the point either. It's the freedom given to women to decide....thats the issue.
Do you at least admit that many pro-aborts...the ones who want to deny a late term abortion to a woman, are taking away HER RIGHTS...to decide. Will you at least agree that when a pro-abort says...it's a woman's choice, one that should only be between she and her doctor...it's wrong? Our laws don't support this. It is not just up to the woman. The law prohibits her from doing this, making the decision in late term. Will you at least admit this has nothing to do with privacy? That there is NOTHING Constitutional about the right to privacy? That right is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
I see, well I know you do not trust Guttmacher but do you trust the Centers for Disease Control more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy So they do not know exactly between what weeks how many abortions are performed in the third trimester or leading into the third trimester, but they do know that 1.4% occur after 21 weeks. Guttmacher just speculates how many are done after 24 weeks, so feel free to ignore this one since you don't trust Guttmacher. But the other statistics come straight from the CDC. And quite frankly you probably won't ever be satisfied with the responses you receive because if you expect people to say what you want to hear you probably won't ever get it. Canada has no laws restricting abortion but they also do have very few to no providers who will perform elective late term abortions except for serious medical health reasons. Yes but you won't even bother arguing any other aspect of the abortion debate, you don't seem to care very much that 88% of all abortions are done before 12 weeks. Your focus is all just late term abortions. I am starting to think that you too are pro-choice up until viability considering you only care about what happens to a fetus in the third trimester. Because thus far the majority is satisfied with our laws the way they are and there is no huge demand for "abortion in all trimesters on demand". If we saw that there was a push and a demand for it then maybe you would have a valid point here but as it currently stands nobody but you cares that abortion in the third trimester is not legal across the states.
You can't take away someone's right to decide something when they no longer want to make that particular decision in the first place, thus the idea that you are chasing a fantasy, something that is not real, purple unicorns. There is no demand for elective abortions in the third trimester. Show me where there has ever been a push for this in the US.
You mean a woman does NOT have the right to decide to abort if the baby will never liver or will only live in agony? You are trying to stop euthanasia by re-branding it "murder" Trouble is that in the fantasy that all late term abortions are somehow being done for "convenience" you are ignoring these real interventions done for love. Done for love? Yes! Of course! The women, the parents did not want their little one to suffer. Often if they WERE "born alive" i.e. beating heart the parents could cuddle the child and say good-bye This is the equivalent of trying to make out every case of euthanasia is for inheritance and so is a murder
No it is simply that the pro-lifers have muddied the waters to try and make it about selfish women - even those who are against late term abortions bur for early term abortions will change their minds when foetal abnormality is discussed
The guy in your OP asks if women should have the right to kill innocent children if they want to. He bases his whole stupid argument on that. A fetus is not a person, so his entire argument gets thrown out the window, stomped on, burned, and scattered to the wind.
1% of a huge number is still not a small number. In China alone, there are a half million late-term abortions every year. Would you consider that rare? I do not have proof, but the preliminary research I did into this subject some time ago suggested this is not the case. Even most abortions done between 16-24 weeks are still done for elective reasons. That might not be considered "late-term" by some, but it is still rather late into the pregnancy. I consider it a baby at this point, btw Just responding that they are rare and only done for health reasons seems like a deflection of the issue to me. Do you support elective late-term abortion or not? A question most pro-choicers do not want to answer.
We all know there are PLENTY of women out there who ridiculously delay their abortions, for one (elective) reason or another. The Gosnell clinic certainly had no trouble finding all these women. You can go to various places on the internet and find pictures people have taken with their cell phones of obviously very pregnant women about to walk into an abortion clinic.
I don't have a problem with abortions done for love. But if they were truly done for love, we have to ask ourselves, would we euthanize a newborn baby with these same health problems? Would we euthanize a little child? If not, I suspect the abortion is not actually being done out of love for the fetus.
No I would consider it a problem because many of those are wanted babies. But China is coming to it's own problem - too many boys - but at least they have population control and that may give them the "last laugh" No they are not late term abortions and most of those are delayed due to lack of access Post -viability abortions are almost completely done for foetal abnormality - so yes elective is fine
Actually we do. We wrap them and give them to the parents but often they are not fed (and many will not feed in any case) they are changed and cleaned but they are allowed to pass in peace. Euthanasia means "gentle death" and it is a gentle loving death that we allow to occur. Many of those that are aborted were found to have organs outside the body or missing and those wee things - how can you say they would not be in pain?
Just wanted to mention that, by the very definition, the fetus has a 50% chance of viability at the "viability point". So the fetus can still be viable "pre-viability". That being said, What if most "post -viability" abortions are done for foetal abnormality? Well that still implies that some of them are not. Is that not concerning?
The baby might be in pain, but it should be born and allowed to suffer and die as God intended. God wants it to be born and to suffer otherwise you are going against Gods will, blah blah blah. A mercy killing is sometimes the most humane thing to do.
Forget China with it's forced abortions - how many are done in the USA after 24 weeks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy And you see consistently across the world it is around 1% Interestingly where abortion is more accessible it seems that the percentage having abortions later is smaller which supports the contention it is most often because of accessibility As for viability - that number drops for every day before 24 weeks and halve that percentage if you have been unable to give the mother corticosteriods to mature the foetal lungs
I do not have a problem with mercy killings, provided it is done in the appropriate situations. But you know Churchmouse was not referring to mercy killings in this thread. Stop deflecting her question.
Fugazi said, There are restrictions. Guttmaucher is biased....but even they acknowledge restrictions. There is a conflict. This is a quote of yours. "(I believe that every woman has the choice whether to terminate her pregnancy up to the point of viability (currently set at around 24 weeks), after that it should only be approved if the womans life is in danger or the fetus has something making it incompatible with life. If pro-lifers were to be campaigning on a reduction in that 24 weeks, due to the survival of at least one premature birth at 21 weeks & 5 days, to 21 weeks then I believe they would get far greater support for that action, even more if they coupled it with proper sex education, including celibacy & safe sex, and access to free contraception for any sexual active person. If in the future medical science progresses where a fetus younger than 21 weeks could survive then I would feel that that upper limit should be reviewed, if again in the future medical science progresses to the point where even at conception the cells could be removed and gestated artificially then abortion would not be necessary and would have no need to be made illegal." If there are no restrictions...then why did you said what you did? You mentioned upper limit....this would be a restriction. Reduction? In reference to what? A restriction. - - - Updated - - - Reported
Yes, Hitler felt he did a lot of mercy killings too. And for the pro-aborts...over 55 million mercy killings have taken place. This term....softened what the position condones. Mercy killings....have nothing to do with this topic. We are talking about RIGHTS AND CHOICES. And the pro-abort side denies both to some women. They obviously don't see any reason to give the woman who wants a late term...any mercy.
