Abortion

[Falvlun]

Why stop at children who are still in the uterus....why not allow women to kill their children who are outside the uterus?

It's a child. An unborn child, but still a child.
We don't let women kill children who are born, so why should we let women kill children who are unborn?

If you had to choose between saving 10 embryos in test tubes, waiting to be implanted, vs 1 toddler from a fire, which would you choose?

You can proclaim as loudly as you want that a fetus and a newborn are equivalent, but even our natural human sentiments don't support such a dictionary re-write.

There is also the fact that the big difference between a child that is born and a fetus is that the fetus is essentially a part of the mother's body. It is not autonomous. There is certainly justification for allowing women to have autonomy over their own bodies. There is no justification for allowing women to kill a newborn.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=maninthewilderness;3485937]Why stop at children who are still in the uterus....why not allow women to kill their children who are outside the uterus?

It's a child. An unborn child, but still a child.
We don't let women kill children who are born, so why should we let women kill children who are unborn?

[/QUOTE]

So you would tell a fifteen year-old rape victim that if she is pregnant she has to have the child?

 

[dust1n]

No. The initial police investigation should be sufficient.

I look forward to the surge of false rape charges.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why should it be a restricted choice? Why couldn't a woman have an abortion for any reason? I think you've also illustrated another point-many 'pro-life' proponents are really 'anti-choice'.

My comment was with regards to a 'significant number' of people's opinions. A comment about prevalence in demographics not with regards to my own opinion, nor even the robustness of that position.

Personally I am in favor of a woman's right to abort her pregnancy (not the baby) at any time for any reason, it is merely that I would have reservations about HOW it is done in that I believe if it is to be done for a viable child, then the process should be such as to maximize the child's chances of recovery and completion of development as enabled through our contemporary scientific technologies. Though admittedly given advances in technology there may one day be a need to develop a more nuanced response in order to find some way to discriminate between embryonic developmental stages wand the capacity of technology to advance the development (else no abortions would occur, instead enormous numbers of artificially completed pregnancies and overpopulation would be rampant along with enormous medical bills). I do not believe however that in terminating their pregnancy (rather than the child) a woman has the ability to terminate her responsibilities towards that child should it survive, though she may indeed put it up for adoption as is currently the case.

 

[BSM1]

My comment was with regards to a 'significant number' of people's opinions. A comment about prevalence in demographics not with regards to my own opinion, nor even the robustness of that position.

Personally I am in favor of a woman's right to abort her pregnancy (not the baby) at any time for any reason, it is merely that I would have reservations about HOW it is done in that I believe if it is to be done for a viable child, then the process should be such as to maximize the child's chances of recovery and completion of development as enabled through our contemporary scientific technologies. Though admittedly given advances in technology there may one day be a need to develop a more nuanced response in order to find some way to discriminate between embryonic developmental stages wand the capacity of technology to advance the development (else no abortions would occur, instead enormous numbers of artificially completed pregnancies and overpopulation would be rampant along with enormous medical bills). I do not believe however that in terminating their pregnancy (rather than the child) a woman has the ability to terminate her responsibilities towards that child should it survive, though she may indeed put it up for adoption as is currently the case.

I think I might agree with you if I understood what you're trying to say.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I think it's a "necessary evil". I don't have to like the fact that it is done, but I do support a woman's choice to do so; especially in a safe environment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why stop at children who are still in the uterus....why not allow women to kill their children who are outside the uterus?

It's a child. An unborn child, but still a child.
We don't let women kill children who are born, so why should we let women kill children who are unborn?

Frankly, we do allow it. Nobody is required to violate their bodily security to save the life of another. If your child needs one of your kidneys, some of your bone marrow, a pint of your blood, or even a hair off your head and you don't want to give it, your child doesn't get it.

Even if you die, your child still wouldn't get it. The bodily security of your CORPSE trumps your child's right to life.

 

[DallasApple]

I'm pro choice .I draw a line at later term.

What really ****** me off?Is the pro lifers going ON and ON and ON about abortion and every example is a 23 week old fetus.That is extremely rare .Its rare after 16 weeks.The vast % of abortions are before the 13 wk gestation.

But even though they use these heart wrenching pictures of chopped up "babies" and say "that's the reality" and that you are lied to its a "clump" of cells or a blob..They don't show an abortion (a non surgical chemical abortion) at 5 weeks.When in fact you would need a slide and a microscope to discern what you are looking at.It is not a "baby" .

Its "life' .But its not a "child" there is a difference.If I got pregnant tonight and in 2 weeks I miscarried I did not have a "baby" that died.I had a life inside me that died.

This whole "killing a child " "killing a baby" thing is carrying it to far.Having said that I'm against "late" term " abortions.

 

[DallasApple]

Pro lifers? Trying to restrict? They will not only cause more children to be born to parents who are not prepared..but later term abortions..and botched abortions..its idiotic.

 

[DallasApple]

why not allow women to kill their children who are outside the uterus?

A fertilized egg,a zygote,an embryo is not a CHILD.

An OH my God cant believe I'm going to get in this argument again.Sigh...

 

[DallasApple]

If you had to choose between saving 10 embryos in test tubes, waiting to be implanted, vs 1 toddler from a fire, which would you choose?

The toddler.Or the adult.

 

[maninthewilderness]

A fertilized egg,a zygote,an embryo is not a CHILD.

An OH my God cant believe I'm going to get in this argument again.Sigh...

So if a lunatic stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, killing the unborn child but not the pregnant woman, it's not murder?

Of course it's murder!

He stabbed the unborn child to death.

 

[DallasApple]

So if a lunatic stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, killing the unborn child but not the pregnant woman, it's not murder?

Of course it's murder!

He stabbed the unborn child to death.

Because he had NO RIGHT!

Get it ?RIGHT ...NO RIGHT!

OH and by the way its RARE anyone is charged with "murder" when they cause the death of a 5 week old embryo../.Check it/..

 

[DallasApple]

When is it murder 2 that a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant is killed? If that's the case LOTS of guys got off.

 

[DallasApple]

POMPOUS!

Is the word.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEf a lunatic stabs a pregnant woman in the belly,][/QUOTE]

Can you get the difference?

Apparently our leaders can.

 

[maninthewilderness]

You can try to justify your believe any way you can...you still know that it's wrong.

Apparently our leaders can.

"our leaders"?!?!?

Who exactly do you mean by "our leaders"?


I don't have any "leader" who endorses abortion.

 

[NIX]

I am in favor of a woman having access to safe and legal means to terminate a pregnancy at any stage. Therefore, I support abortion before viability, and induced labor after viability, to put it simply.

I always wonder though, who will pay the thousands of dollars necessary for preemie incubators, care and life support? If the mother is expected to pay it, I think you'll see lots of coat hangers. I'm okay with the state paying for it- or new adoptive parents. It's a detail that I can't recal having seen anyone address.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Abortion is kind of a layered issued. It isn't always as simple as a yes or a no.

Most anti-choicers make it sound like all abortions are done by radical feminists at 8.9 weeks. That's just so far from the truth as to be laughable. The reality is that most abortions are done in the first trimster and that morally and logically, the abortion of a two-week-old fetus may be different than what you think about abortion of an 8.9 month old fetus.

My personal view is that abortion should legal at all stages of pregnancy and for any reason.

Certainly the most important issue, from a moral standpoint, is whether or not a fetus is a conscious person that should have a separate right to life.

Anti-choicers claim that since a 8.9 month fetus has a beating heart, an active nervous system, and "can feel pain," that it is "conscious". This is not really a convincing argument. Many animals can feel pain, but they do not have legal rights on top of humans. A fetus is not a conscious person. Therefore the mother's rights therefore supersede the fetus'.

In my opinion, a person should have the right to do whatever they want to their own body so long as they're not hurting someone else. All drugs should be legal, for example. So given my answer at layer one, this is an easy question for me to answer: a woman should be able to do whatever she wants.

 

[averageJOE]

If someone breaks in to my home and steals all of my stuff, should I have to wait til the burglars are apprehended, trialed, and convicted before my home owner's insurance pays for me to replace my stuff?

If I am shot in a drive by shooting, and the bullet breaks my left femur, do I have to wait until the shooter is apprehended, trialed, and convicted before the surgeon will repair my broken femur?

Your question is a strange one.

Say what you really want to say.

I'm asking, in your logic, if a woman says she want's an abortion because she was raped (one of the only reasons to get one in your opinion) will she be able to get one just by making the claim without having to prove that she was actually raped? Not all victims of rape are left bloody and bruised up you know. Some have no choice in the matter. And if she points at someone as the attacker and he says "I didn't rape her! She consented!" What then? She still gets the abortion anyways?

Just trying to understand your logic.