Once a pregnancy is past 20 weeks, the overwhelming majority of abortions are heartbreaking decisions made by the parent(s). They're almost always done to either save the mother's life or prevent the birth of a child whose life would be painful and short (i.e. a few days to a few years in length). The few remaining abortions at that point are usually abused women or minors who had to first escape a bad situation, or otherwise lacked access to abortion before then. The incidences of anyone getting an abortion in the late 2nd or 3rd trimesters for any other reason amount to extremely rare anecdotes. For that reason, attempts to put restrictions on abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters are unlikley to do much good and will almost certainly cause severe physical and emotional harm. That's why I am against any abortion restrictions at all. If a reputable study comes out showing that wanton abortions make up 20% or more of procedures at those stages, then I might change my mind.
FoxHastings said: ↑ In SCIENCE a fetus becomes a baby at birth....see, it's called stages in life and the fetus is no more a baby than it is a teenager.. No, I never said that anywhere ...what I said is shown above.. Just because I proved you wrong doesn't mean you can twist my words...
Yes, there's a difference. Different stages in life have names. Using "baby" in place of fetus is just an emotional ploy to get people thinking that what is aborted looks like the Gerber baby...a dishonest representation.
Have you reported these "murderers" to law enforcement officials? If yes, how many women, who've had abortions, have been arrested for murder?
You are incorrect. From the dictionary. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAJegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0fQ05Mh0lnXzlUyEVAdE2b FETUS: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kindspecifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth BABY: an extremely young child Also just a heads up. Murder is defined as unlawfully killing a person. Since abortion is a constitutional right it can't be unlawful and thus is not murder. I think you have been emotionally compromised by anti abortion groups who use those terms to illicit an emotional response.
Aren't you glad you also didn't have to suffer the further trauma of being pregnant with the rapist's kid? Or forced to birth it..
I think it should be limited to the first 20 weeks (except if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is not viable). My position is based on the fact that what makes an embryo human (brain activity of the type measured with an EEG) has never been detected before the 22nd week. So a 2 week buffer just in case there is an oddity. Brain activity before 20 weeks is not possible. The "hardware" is not there.
The receptors alone don't produce pain unless the signal gets to the brain. The connections that run up the spinal cord to the frontal lobe is necessary for there to be pain. These generally develop on the 23rd or 24th week. Never earlier than 22nd week. But I think a 2 week buffer is appropriate.. just in case. https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
I think this is the perfect example of something that should be decided at the state level. I consider myself pro-life, but I am not so blind I can't see the other side of the argument also. Let the states decide. For me, I can't ignore the taking of a life that did not ask to be here because in may be inconvenient or unwanted. That argument could be used to empty out the nursing homes as well.
No, the states canNOT decide women have no right to bodily autonomy....women should have the same rights as everyone else no matter what state they are in. . NO one asked to be here...a ZEF can't think nor decide anything. No, nursing homes have BORN people with rights in them.
One more time. Spend a day at your local abortion clinic, collect all the women who weren't raped (got that? NOT raped), and ask them who forced them to conceive a child they didn't want. It's YOU who is claiming these women will be forced to have children they don't want, so YOU need to explain how they're forced. If you don't have this information, I suggest you do as suggested and go directly to the source. Ask NOT RAPED pregnant women, who forced them to conceive a child they didn't want. Go ahead, I'll wait here.
Some people believe the unborn child has rights. It is not just about the woman when she is choosing if another life lives or dies. So what, doesn't mean we get to just kill it. A one month old baby can't chose life either. Being born does not make you any more or less a human life. I understand your argument, but if it was clear cut it would not be a point of contention. I value all life and can't just dismiss it away like you can.
Different people fear different things, you may have no issues giving your children up to a stranger, others might, to each their own that is why I think it should be their choice, not mine
Agreed. Killing children is illegal. Aborting a fetus however, is protected largely by the right to privacy granted by the 14th amendment. Roe v Wade. Check it out.
People can think what they like, the unborn do not have rights and that is the law.... And it IS all about the pregnant one... No , it means it can't decide....I never said that means we can kill it.. . A one month old is a BORN PERSON WITH RIGHTS. I never said that. Being born means you are a person with rights. The only reason it's a point of contention is because there are those people who don't think women have rights and want to foist off their personal feelings on others.. Ya, I value all life, too EVEN WOMEN'S.....I believe they should have the same right to bodily autonomy that you and everyone else has. Now, what rights do you want a fetus to have.....that do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in?
Changing the name of something dose not mean you get to kill it. The 14th does not say anything about aborting children, or that there is any difference between born and unborn "people". Roe was flat wrong. The 14th was intended for all human beings. This is perfect example of activism in the courts creating law.
I'm amused by your twisted logic ie 'it can only not be a baby if we interfere'. Every woman produces many eggs that can be fertilized every month and each month all are disposed of in the monthly cycle. Abortion for a fertilized egg is well inside the first month, 22 days being the norm. It takes nine months to produce a child, at 22 days it's just a collection of dividing cells ie one divides and two to four and so on. Any coparisment to a grown fetus af after 22 days is ridiculous. The males on this thread who are only too keen to air their views when knowing that it is impossible for them to face the decision a women has to make, I't really gets to me. Keep your snout out, it has nothing to do with you. Oh, and I'm a male.
So don't change the names of things. You are the one doing that. Things having different names does not mean you can kill it. It's status does. ""Aborting a fetus however, is protected largely by the right to privacy granted by the 14th amendment. Roe v Wade."" There's a BIG difference between born and unborn, the unborn are part of a BORN person's body....it's theirs and NO one else's.
You changed the name, not me. The conservitive majority that decided roe v wade was judicial activism? If you say so... "The 14th doesn't say anything..." It doesn't have to specifically mention it. That is why we have the 9th amendment. From James Madison... ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' And thus the 9th amendment was born. https://constitution.findlaw.com/am...he Constitution,others retained by the people. Based on your logic the federal governmemt could revoke our right to travel or deny marriage rights to all citizens, because you know, the constitution "does not say anything" about those rights.
