That could also apply to a late stage fetus. Yeah, but let's face it, life insurance on a child, even an 18-year-old one, is pretty rare.
I did find this: Pre-natal cover is the generic name of an innovative product that has emerged in Asia in recent years to insure an unborn life from the early stages of a pregnancy through to birth and for the rest of a child’s life. The juvenile market (ages 0-19) has traditionally been an important segment for insurers in Asia. It forms between 15% and 24% of all insurance business in Asia. In countries such as Vietnam and Philippines, the juvenile market accounts for as much as a third of the insured pool. In the face of increasing competition, the ability to offer coverage before a child is born offers an ideal way of capturing more of this market earlier. https://www.genre.com/knowledge/blog/unborn-child-insurance-how-early-can-coverage-begin-en.html It also goes into insurance companies being reluctant to cover an unborn child because of the potential risk of the mother to intentionally sabotage that pregnancy, for the money. For example, a mother who's already thinking about having an abortion may instead wait and then get the insurance policy. So the companies don't believe it's a good business practice or ethical to do this.
No, there are other practical considerations why a company will not cover them. The woman can kill for the insurance money, and if she is caught the repurcusions will be far less severe than if she did the same to a child outside the womb. So this is an outcrop of legal issues. I showed you that story in another thread how even a woman who killed past the viability point, in a pro-life state, was only sentenced to 1 year.
It's a simple question that makes cowards out of leftists... You don't like the logical conclusion of it, because you happen to approve of something that is morally apprehensible.
and can only be justified with lots of euphemisms and contorted logic. If it weren't for the rape thing, I don't think it would ever have managed to become legalized in the first place. (The truth is the judges in Roe v Wade only made that ruling because the woman, through her lawyers, made empassioned pleas claiming she had been gang raped) But the genie's out of the bottle now.
It means the fetus could probably survive at that point, if allowed to be born, but the woman chooses to kill it anyway.
Are you under the impression that there's never been a funeral and burial for an unborn baby? How does life insurance help emotional trauma?
I should have said that I'm not aware that any of the laws are about violating a woman's right to be a parent. Clearly you're not aware of any either.
How the hell is it impossible? Of course it's possible! What does miscarriage have to do with abortion? So a life has to be terminated in order to guarantee that a woman doesn't have long term health effects? Then why shouldn't a woman be able to have their BORN kid killed if her career is negatively affected, or if they are suffering from post-natal depression? Why the hell mention death when you know perfectly well that abortion would always be available if the mother's life was in danger?
Then why did you say that a man's approval "has nothing to do with women's right to abortion" if I didn't say the opposite?
I'd like to hear the answer to that one. Maybe they mean that all pregnancies carry a tiny chance of death. (but then again, abortions do too)
I'd like to know what the statistics are for pregnancy causing death, when we exclude all the really high risk pregnancies (which a woman would be allowed to have an abortion for anyway). Now I do have to point out, despite what everyone thinks, it is very rare there will ever be a pregnancy where a woman needs an abortion (medically), so it is probably true that a very large percentage of the total deaths are from pregnancies that were not predicted to be high risk. But again, no woman is being forced to have a pregnancy that will probably kill her. No pro-life proposals are advocating that.
Does that include vaccination? Does that include a 12-year-old girl whose parents want her to get an abortion but she doesn't? How about psychiatric commitment due to self-harm or suicide attempts? (very common in many states) How about a woman who signs a contract to be a surrogate mom and is carrying another couple's baby? Does a woman have a right to be a prostitute? Take illegal drugs or drown in alcohol while she is pregnant, putting her future baby at risk of lifelong fetal alcohol syndrome?
Sorry, but that just is not true. You are misinformed. Maybe you need to ask a doctor if there exist certain possible situations where they could treat a small child without the parent's consent. In some of these hospital situations, the parents could temporarily lose custody. http://medicalkidnap.com/2014/12/30/medical-kidnapping-billion-dollar-adoption-business/
I believe further unbiased study is warranted to determine exactly when they experience pain. The academic research setting is so politicized, many respectable researchers would be afraid to publish their results, for fear it might hurt their careers, or later hurt their chances of receiving research grants. Plus a disproportionate number of these researchers are strongly pro-abortion and don't want to do or publish research that could potentially affect the cause. I think the only way we're going to have an unbiased study is to outsource it to another country, like China, where abortion has never been a political/social issue. If it's determined the fetus can experience pain, then at the very least they're going to have to modify the abortion procedure to reduce/avoid the pain.
, But she MUST HAVE for the state to FORCE her to gestate There's that misogynistic take, " she got out of " carrying the fetus ...like she committed a crime and need to be punished BUT YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT THE CRIME IS... cd8ed said: ↑ What crime did the woman commit that it is acceptable for the state to force her to carry a fetus to term? YOU haven't answered...
ALL pregnancies carry the risk of death and all carry permanent bodily damage. Sometimes women don't know a pregnancy can kill them until they're dead. I know Anti-Choicers say, "it's only a tiny percentage" because it isn't their loved one and/or just don't care that women suffer and die.....that is misogyny in it's sickest form..
If abortion was illegal why wouldn't perpetrators be prosecuted? Because it's quite difficult, if not impossible , to tell if a woman had a miscarriage or an abortion. If someone is beating you do you not do what you can to stop the damage ….or just let them beat you because you believe there will be no long term effects? Because BORN persons have rights, like the right not to be killed. See, there is a difference between UNBORN and BORN...sad you can't see the difference... """"cd8ed said: ↑ Do you think it would be wrong for the government to deny medical treatment for something that can cause life long bodily damage, psychological trauma, crippling medical debt, or even death?""""" You ignored """ life long bodily damage, psychological trauma, crippling medical debt,"""" Why?
What a load of unsubstantiated claptrap.. Really!? Uh, did you know China has NO problem with women having abortions... They do now.
Which is why ONLY the pregnant one gets to decide to gestate or abort....How many times, in how many different threads do you have to be told that...??
