True I believe in science and science does not have us having a fully functioning brain until after 20 weeks and with not frontal lobe there is no person, that is why pro-lifers will never get abortions banned before that point, it is the same cutoff point set by most conservative States such as mine. That said that does not mean one should not be able to have an abortion after that time, just not for convenience but that does leave other real reasons. Be happy with what your side has gained, go beyond that flies in the face of logic.
ANYONE can take care of a two year old, that's called social dependency. ONLY the woman the fetus is in can take "care " of it, that's biological dependency. They are two different things. With your reasoning then anyone should be able to take care of a fetus..... When are you going to volunteer to disrupt 9 months of your life with pain and discomfort, temporary and permanent damage to your body, financial loss, time off work, possible job loss, career and education setbacks, all to give someone else a kid....(and just so some stranger can feel all self-righteous? That would be stupid.)
The so called sex education in the US is pathetic with the majority of states not implementing anything more than the most simplistic requirements, what is required is a comprehensive sex education program mandated so that all states have a legal requirement to teach it, this could easily be incorporated in the states duty of care to it's people. It is not coincidence that 6 of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancies are states that teach predominately abstinence sex education with no reference to the emotional or relationship aspect of sexual intercourse. What must be realized is that the interference of mainly religious doctrine has no place in sex education. - - - Updated - - - You forgot to quote the whole item. "A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. The exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term, however, is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[2][3] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[4] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
You cannot compare abortions after Roe to abortions prior to Roe as there are no records detailing the number of abortions prior to Roe, and I can quite confidently state that the total number of abortions in the USA prior to Roe far exceeds the number after Roe. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967, of course this figure is only an estimation as no figures were taken prior to Roe. - - - Updated - - - Oh so wrong http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/ - - - Updated - - - What a load of crap, fetus is the correct designation for the unborn between 8 weeks and birth, it has nothing to do with "dehumanizing" them, by your logic calling you an adult is dehumanizing you.
The point is it can not survive on its own any more than a fetus can. - - - Updated - - - All pre natal care books speak of the mother and her baby not the mother and her fetus. Hey when is your fetus due
The difference is the fetus must use another specific person's body to sustain it's life. The two year old does not use another person's body parts to sustain it's life nor does it need a specific person to care for it. Do you believe you should be forced to donate a kidney or any body part to sustain another person's life? Science and law are not based on what pre-natal books call a fetus.
Then you have no idea how rates are calculated, the population level has no effect on the rate. - - - Updated - - - What a pile of BS - - - Updated - - - Then apply it to ALL types of clinics that involve women .. including dentists etc.
Informal usage does not make it correct, and most if not all people will ask when the "baby" is due .. ie asking about FUTURE happenings. In the end you and others can call the unborn what ever they wish, that does not change the reality that the unborn between 8 weeks and birth is a fetus, just as you after the age of majority are known as an adult. Each stage of human development has a specific designation, the designation of the unborn between 8 weeks and birth is fetus not "baby" Is calling you an adult dehumanizing, because that is where your so called logic leads. BTW. A mother is only a mother if she already has born children. A woman who is pregnant for the first time is not a mother until after the birth. Mother - A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother
Its called semantics. The reason Drs use baby is its more humanizing when speaking to the expectant mother . Even your trying to say they are not mothers is dehumanizing. For all you claim to care about women why dont you ask one who has miscarried if that was her baby she lost and tell her she is not a mother.
Not at all Fugazi, go read her quotes and tell me she was anything but a contradictory, self-loathing and hateful prejudiced piece of work. Even for her time period, she was a disgusting human being and I don't hesitate in the least to say that. That her ideology is still alive is repulsive.
Can you force a woman to give blood to a dying person if it would save their life? Ahem, No, you cannot. So please feel free to stop enforcing backwater religious hysterics on the rest of us. And - halt - don't tell me that the crusade against abortion isn't a religious issue. Like everything else in this country, it is a symptom of seething malice, a religious cancer from the massive constituency that supports christianity - a symptom, similar to prohibition, that keeps the rest of us entrenched in a never ending struggle for rights at the hands of christian oppressors. Get over it. Our constitution doesn't give you the right to enforce religious beliefs on me or anyone else.
We could end this immediately by simply replacing the "abortion" procedure with "surgical separation" of the fetus from the woman's body. Yes, it will cost a lot more but "surgical separation" removes the fetus "unharmed and intact" and doesn't destroy human life. While it is true that often the fetus will die of natural causes after removal that's a medical issue and not a moral issue. So the question is whether anti-abortionists would support "surgical separation" where the fetus is removed unharmed and intact from the woman's womb?
I'm sorry science means little to you or the English language for that matter .. if your arguments are sound then you should have no reason to basterdize the English language and ignore science to make you point. As far as this subject is concerned I don't deal in emotional hyperbole .. I leave that to the pro-lifers, after all they have nothing else to use.
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_abortion.htm While many Christians do cite their religions beliefs in opposing abortion those beliefs aren't really based upon the teachings of Christianity as noted above. Jesus very well could have been Pro-Choice on the issue of abortion as he was very much about people in his teachings and the woman is a person. But, but, but, there are those (like Kim Davis, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee) that believe that the United States is a "Christian" nation and that the Bible, not the US Constitution, is the Supreme Law of the Land.
It would survive the medical procedure but for how long is always questionable. It could survive for years or minutes but in either case it becomes a baby (person) once removed unharmed and there are no guarantees when it comes to how long a person will survive. You seem to believe that such guarantees need to exist but that's contrary to nature. All I can do is remove any "moral" reason for opposing abortion which is what surgical separation accomplishes. We can give the "fetus" it's liberty and establish it's "right to life" as a person by surgical separation but no one can provide any guarantees or even a "realistic chance" of survival after that. Of course you would be free to donate to medical research that would improve the realistic chance of survival and perhaps, someday, even a zygote can be removed unharmed and intact and nurtured to full development but the moral argument can't rest on medical technology.
The teachings of jesus are irrelevant, as are the bible, and thus my point. The seething hordes of christian oppression are the primary occupants of the "pro-life" movement and no one can say with any validity otherwise. The issue here is the track record of religious institutions and their adverse impact on human life as well as public policy - which, in this country, has been drastically impacted by religion in a very detrimental way. We don't see public policy that supports or uplifts the poor, despite this "being a christian nation". Instead, we see public policy, influence by religious demagogues, that supports oppression and evisceration of the common man's rights to befit a constituency of misdirected, delusional ideologues who believe their right to practice religion freely means they have a right to enforce it upon us with the likes of "anti-abortion" laws and "anti-consumption" laws that would make salfist Wahabbi muslims proud. And many others, though less outspoken, plus the millions of demagogue charlatans preaching the word while cruising in private jets enjoying tax exempt status that is to the rest of our detriment. Why should I as a tax payer who no longer believes in the mythologies of jesus and yahweh have to pay to subsidize them and their anti-humanist crusade?
No, I'm not looking for any guarantees at all. None of us have a guarantee. Life expectancy for a Person is XX years...but youc an die anytime before that. I'm not seeking any guarantees in that regard. Noone can guarantee that. However, removing the baby at say 1 week....versus maybe 20...it's a huge difference. one has 0 realistic chance to live, so at that point you may as well have just used traditional abortion procedures. Thats all i'm saying. Dont seperate it when you know there there is no chance.
I disagree - there are good ways to die and there are appalling ways to die Termination of a pregnancy in early stages does not always rely on surgical intervention At the latter stages - it is overwhelmingly done for foetal abnormality incompatible with life - in that case euthanasia in the strictest term of 'gentle death' should be applied - - - Updated - - - They both have virtually 0 probability of survival
I agree that the Catholic church in particular has interfered with the rights to contraception and, if necessary, termination of pregnancy. IMO this is a clear cut example of a lack of church-state separation, and the interfering parishes should not be eligible for the usual tax-free use of their churches.
No, sorry. As exampled below, this isnt true at all. http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/baby-born-at-21-weeks-survives-how-young-is-too-young-to-save/ We're talking people here.
21 weeks is not 20 weeks - believe me every hour counts. Plus IF we know the pregnancy is at risk we can give the mother corticosteroids to mature the baby's lungs - but a 21 weeker only has a 1:million chance - and that means for every ONE baby that survives intact about one million are going to die.................................horribly And those million babies that die - are still going to cost thousands of dollars PER DAY to treat in NICU
