Why would you want to force someone to have a kid? The sane person asks

yup, when the choice is, come on now say it with me, life or DEATH for the baby, then I will choose life. Do you choose death for the baby?

 

Since no babies are invovled in this equation we might as well be talking about basketballs.

 

I think the fact that a person can't find any incidence when a physician has done such a thing helps to provide some evidence that "potential" is at least of some importance.

The right of a person to life is inherent, but it can't be afforded until the requirement of birth has been fulfilled. Yet protections under the law exist.

If a person says to me, I think abortion should be legal because it is a woman's right, I might wonder if that person considers whether or not a woman would wish to have an abortion 39th week of pregnancy?

If the protections are pulled back that are in place then what prevents a woman from exercising her right at 39th week?

Should there be protections for the unborn?

 

In my opinion, the only protections for the unborn should be UVVA type laws (which are really protections for the persons who have a legitimate interest in the creation of that particular person). If you are a woman, the rest of the world does not get to vote on whether you should, or should not, give birth.

Laws that make it illegal to perform an abortion after week X ( even if that is week 38 ) are tilting against an imaginary enemy and creating an undue burden for a woman who has a legitimate need to terminate the pregnancy. Savita Halappanavar did not have a week to wait for the actual birth, and the evidence suggests an abortion would have increased her chances of survival. The law was in place to discourage these mythical last-minute arbitrary abortion decisions, but the logical conclusion is that the law distracted the staff from paying proper attention to their actual patient (Savita).

I would like to read about some verified incidents of women arbitrarily seeking an abortion in the last week of gestation, so I could figure out what alternatives I would suggest instead of abortion. So far, all of the examples I find are related to saving the life of the pregnant woman, or saving the potential infant from a brief and painful life. If some of our pro-life friends could provide links to some real-life examples I might be able to refine my opinion.

 

I meant to respond to this too, but forgot to mention it in the earlier post.

If there are women who actually request an abortion in the final week, and they are turned down by their doctors, that does suggest that many doctors consider it significant that the fetus is so close to becoming a person. Again, it would be useful to know how many women actually approach a doctor to get an abortion at week 38 and get some specifics to understand why they would consider such a thing.

 

I think Pro-Life people feel that without their pressure, abortion procedures and guidelines wouldn't adhere to moral and ethical standards.

They point to things like partial birth abortion.
I think most Pro-Life opinion revolves around the early to mid 90s when partial birth abortion became the hot button issue with Pro-Life people.

Dr Haskell's partial birth abortion procedure is performed week 20 and after, 80% were described as elective in an interview he did with the AMA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...5fa-a319-a9d42d6cd3b1/?utm_term=.92ff7751cbab

Notice Texas chose week 20 as viability. Very possibly to ensure it could prevent the legality of elective partial birth abortions.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree.

Ideally, it is solely up to a woman to choose what happens to her body. It is understood that women make choices based on what is best for their offspring. There is harmony between a woman and her unborn child. Women’s rights are fetal rights.

Although, I am a teensy bit skeptical that it is always the case that she makes choices based on what is best for her offspring.

 

Your point is ....?

I never said abortion is birth control. BTW, over 50% of women in the US who abort were using contraception. Why is it ok? Because pregnancy is not a benign condition. It takes a huge toll on a woman's body, some of the effects can be permanent and/or life threatening. No woman should be forced to gestate and give birth. Ever.

 

Since most "Pro-Lifers" aren't really interested or concerned with any "life" but that of a fetus they should be called """Pro-Fetus rights over anyone else's""...


The opposite is Pro-Choice....

 

There are no fetal protections here in Canada. I challenge you to find even one example of a woman terminating in the 3rd trimester, let alone at week 39, for anything but her life/health or severe fetal anomaly.

 

My point was that fetal protections are encompassed within the ethical code of medical professionals.

 

At the time of this article (1995), I had concerns about partial birth abortion because I wondered if the fetus might be able to experience pain. Now I am aware of research that indicates that is unlikely (until possibly in the last 4 weeks of gestation) and I also understand that late-term abortion procedures now include measures to guarantee that the fetus is dies in a painless way before it is disrupted in any way that might activate its mind.

This Washington Post article suggests that the doctors themselves reported that a lot of their patients requested elective abortions, but a more complete quote from Dr Haskell can be found here:
http://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html
In 1993, the American Medical News-- the official newspaper of the AMA-- conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said:
"And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."

The Washington Post article abbreviates the quote to the point that it sounds like he is saying late term abortions (e.g. week 30) are being performed primarily on an elective basis.

It is interesting to note in the context of this discussion that many of the elective abortions are requested by young girls who hid the pregnancy from their parents as long as possible, but since the Washington Post article is really talking about week 20-24, it seems unlikely that these are the women who are clamoring for an abortion at week 38. I am still looking for examples of women who are fine with carrying a pregnancy for 38 weeks and suddenly (for no legitimate reason) decide they want an abortion instead.


Many women accept pain and even risk death to do what is best for their offspring. Sometimes even the abortion is not what she really wants, but what she thinks is best for the offspring being aborted, or what she thinks is best for the offspring who have already been born. Should a woman really risk her life (and take the chance of leaving her 2 year old motherless) to have a baby with Tay Sachs? Would she be having the baby for its own good (hard to comprehend)... or because she wants a baby so much (selfish)... or because she does not want people to think she is a monster for getting an abortion (selfish)?

 

look at Andrea Yates, child birth has risks too

or how about the women that lost all her limbs from child birth or those that lose their lives

having a child and giving it up causes many distress too, not knowing where the child is, if being abused, ect.....

this is a choice for the women, not the government...


...

 

I didn't mean to offer a link to debate the details of it. I have been reading on the subject as well since the early 1990s. I just thought I'd toss out a link that I quickly googled since you suggested I offer one.

I think McMahon performed elective abortion up to 26 weeks for elective abortions. Edit: And seems like there was testimony by Dr Haskell to congress. I haven't read up on it in a while but you can find a lot of Pro-Life arguments find their origins there.

I would still suggest that Pro-Life people feel that without their pressure, abortion procedures would be basically a free for all without limits. That would be my only purpose in offering this bit of info to chew on.

 

Oh, that request was more directed toward the pro-life posters who generally claim we need restrictions on third-trimester abortions to keep women from running to the abortion doctor in the last week before the due date. They want laws in place to prevent that, but none of them have offered an example of a woman who has ever requested an abortion at week 38 without good reason. It makes it difficult to offer alternative solutions without knowing what would drive a woman to make an arbitrary decision of that importance at week 38.

 

you are free to fool yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

the choice of death for the baby

 

AGAIN, did you have a point ?

No baby dies in an abortion no matter how many times you say it does....you do not trump science and facts.

A fetus dies in abortion which is the whole point......


You are free to insist that what looks like a Gerber baby is aborted but that isn't the case. You are free to have any illusions....but why you bring them here is a mystery...

 

As an Atheist Pro-Life person I treat the unborn as a valuable national commodity a labor unit who will more likely than not add to the nations labor force, and barring forced sex (incest by coercion or force and rape) or to spare the life of the mother as the existing productive unit being at risk pregnancy is largely preventable with the regular use of birth control and/or abstaining from the sexual act especially when pregnancy would be undesired (single woman, low income or other issues). So I would argue taking the work unit out of action for the selfish desires of the mother who ,barring the issues I noted, could have avoided the pregnancy is a loss to the nation. And there is always a chance the future working unit might be of unusually high value to society developing achievements of value far over many others put together.

 

FYI, women are not obligated to produce "work units" for the good of the country. You are back to "a woman should be punished because", and the because in your suggestion is that she failed to use birth control (You don't know that anyway.) and you think she should have. Women are also not obligated to behave as you think they should. Here's another thought for you: what's good for women is usually what's good for the country, and it's definitely not good for women to be forced to give birth.

 

Isn't that selfish of you to want women to be forced to give birth to provide "worker units" for the country?

 

Do you know what blows my mind? Everyone for the past couple thousand years as a whole have not questioned how giving birth is a natural occurence and shouldn't be abused im any way shape or form. You morons don't know how to control your sexual desires and keep your pants zipped up, then when this natural occurence takes place, you blame everyone else for not letting you surgically stop the birthing process? There is nothing sane about this, it's animalistic, unnatural, and dare I say weak...and for rape bvictims. I say before you murder the unborn child (yes it is by definition classified as a human being past 6-8 weeks)you go out and murder the rapist, then by all means if you're fine with doing the same with the child, be my guest. You know, when it came to slavery the slave owners (pitiful and lazy human beings) said something. "If you are on MY property, then you then become MY property," basically saying they own and decide everything about and for them. It's sad that our women nowadays are not using their self control (which of course is their decision, I'm not saying not to do it, I'm just calling yall out) and saying that same thing, "you are in MY body, so I decide everything that will happen to you, no matter the consequence." Just pitiful how this is even a damn discussion, just keep your private parts private until you're able yo act civilized and raise a family the right way.

 

You *do* realize that abortion has been around for as long as women have been getting pregnant, right? It's not a new phenomenon.

And it's not murder if it's legal. It CANNOT be.

 

Actually some people have questioned it, where have you been?
And your "couple thousand years" should give you a big clue that abortion isn't about to stop.

Your misogyny and lack of knowledge about who gets abortions is noted.

No, the "last couple thousand years" of humans having sex have proven people won't control and don't have to control their sexual desires.

WHO is blaming anyone?

It's human from the moment of conception, what else would it be ? And a fetus is not considered a "person" with rights until birth.

.


Uh, no one needs your permission to have an abortion.

Yes, the fetus is in the woman's body, not yours...so she can do with as she pleases.

Speaking of slave owners, they ALSO forced women to give birth.

Many married women have abortions......civilization has always had abortion.

Uncivilized people force others to things they don't want to do.

 

Do you think it should?

She can but the question is whether she should or not.

Civilisation has always been dependent on child birth.

Yup, like paying tax to fund abortions for example.

 

Do I think what should what?

That's up to her...it's HER body....or did you buy her and now want to control her????

Another "dislocated" comment. I posted ""Many married women have abortions......civilization has always had abortion. """

What has that got to do with your answer????

No , we weren't talking about laws we were discussing abortion....it's uncivilized to force your own morals and opinions on others....


...and taxes aren't used to fund abortions but they are used to slaughter innocent people in war....OK with that? Why? That would be weird..

 

That a fetus should have rights.

Blah blah blah.

It has everything to do with it.

And please stop using mulriple question marks and quotation marks, makes you look like a hysteric 13 year old. Just sayin'.

I agree.

Where I am, they are.

Nope, I am principled - nothing should be funded by tax.

Serious question, what do you think about Asian women chposing to abort girls?