Late term abortion is an issue?

[DerekWilson]

I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think it comes from needing to have a total commitment to the right to choose. If you limit the right to choose in some cases then you open the door to other cases.

It?s sort of the slippery slope argument.

If it?s wrong to kill a baby at 6 months then why is it ok to kill the same baby at 5 months and 29 days etc.

 

[DerekWilson]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think it comes from needing to have a total commitment to the right to choose. If you limit the right to choose in some cases then you open the door to other cases.

It?s sort of the slippery slope argument.

If it?s wrong to kill a baby at 6 months then why is it ok to kill the same baby at 5 months and 29 days etc.

i'm sure it's got to have something more to it than the avoidance of self-contradiction. It's too easy to say that if the fetus doesn't survive the early termination of a pregnancy that it was it's own inability to do so without the support of it's host that caused it not to live, and the host has the right to choose whether or not it will continue hosting the fetus regardless of the impact on the fetus ... I mean, I don't agree with this personally, but it doesn't seem like you NEED to say that all abortions should be legal because some abortions are legal to be consistent and avoid a slippery slope.

but to say that a viable fetus doesn't have the right to have a chance at living even though the host chooses not to carry it anymore is just so hard to fathom in my mind.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think you underestimate the power the pro-abortion crowd has on the Democratic Party. Remember both Al Gore and Bill Clinton were pro-life early in their political careers and both changed their views when they decided to become national candidates.

I think any candidate who is not 100% pro-abortion would never survive on the national stage of the Democratic Party.

BTW did you know that Harry Reid is pro-life, but you never hear anyone talk about this fact.

Bill Clinton: "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong."

Al Gore: "During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal."

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you underestimate the power the pro-abortion crowd has on the Democratic Party. Remember both Al Gore and Bill Clinton were pro-life early in their political careers and both changed their views when they decided to become national candidates.

I think any candidate who is not 100% pro-abortion would never survive on the national stage of the Democratic Party.

BTW did you know that Harry Reid is pro-life, but you never hear anyone talk about this fact.

Bill Clinton: "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong."

Al Gore: "During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal."

There is a difference between being "pro-life" and being "anti-choice". While the latter movement has succeeded in stealing the term that best describes the former, that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many other Democrats are in fact ACTUALLY pro-life...in other words, they personally oppose abortion and would like to reduce the number of abortions through any method short of making abortion illegal. That's the distinction that's lost in this debate, opposition to anti-abortion laws doesn't mean you can't also be "pro-life", it just means you don't think it's a problem that can be solved by legislation.

 

[jonks]

I think you'll find the vast majority of those who are pro-choice are not in favor of third trimester abortions as a matter of convenience. Even Roe v Wade allowed states to ban third trimester abortions except in the case of the mother's health.

Only 11% support third trimester abortions according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections...ortion_poll030122.html

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

I feel the same way about the mentally impaired. I have this plan that would involve killing all of them (since they're mostly just burdens on society), and unless you're willing to take on the burden of caring for them yourself, you have no right to oppose me. After all, you need to put your money where your mouth is!!

 

[StageLeft]

I thought only total lunatics supported late-term abortion except in dire medical circumstances. It is unequivocally murder. Children are regularly born at 25 weeks now (late term is 20 weeks+) and despite a great liklihood of serious illness, they are quite able to grow and grow, speak, walk, interact, etc; real people. Just as we protect a new born child, so to at the very least and agreeable by all, should we be able to protect a child who, if not given late-term and instead simply cut out of the mother, would have a pretty good chance of living and become a full grown adult.

The fact is that viability continues to decrease and at a fairly good rate. It's generally around 25 weeks now, but a decade or two ago it was basically a death sentence. In time viability will creep down lower and lower and abortion may become less palatable.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought only total lunatics supported late-term abortion except in dire medical circumstances. It is unequivocally murder. Children are regularly born at 25 weeks now (late term is 20 weeks+) and despite a great liklihood of serious illness, they are quite able to grow and grow, speak, walk, interact, etc; real people. Just as we protect a new born child, so to at the very least and agreeable by all, should we be able to protect a child who, if not given late-term and instead simply cut out of the mother, would have a pretty good chance of living and become a full grown adult.

The fact is that viability continues to decrease and at a fairly good rate. It's generally around 25 weeks now, but a decade or two ago it was basically a death sentence. In time viability will creep down lower and lower and abortion may become less palatable.

Yeah, I'm pretty pro-choice (although I personally don't like abortion), but I can't imagine supporting the right to late-term abortions unless there was a serious medical reason for it. I didn't used to think this way, but I changed my mind when I met a girl who's currently one of my best friends. She was born around 20 weeks, and she's basically fine as far as health and development goes (she's in her 20's now). I know this is slightly unusual, but it's hard to make the argument that a 20 week old fetus isn't a child when it can survive and grow into adult-hood.

I also have some trouble buying the argument that this in any way impacts the choice a woman should have regarding pregnancy. There is plenty of time to decide to have an abortion before "late-term", unless it's for medical reasons, I don't see why a woman would hold off and then suddenly want to have an abortion that far along in her pregnancy. I suppose some women might change their minds or something, but since she's had several months up to that point to figure it out, I don't think prohibiting late-term abortions by choice impacts her rights very much.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

In addition to that...

Do you know how much easier and cheaper it is to adopt a black vs. a white baby? (white baby was upwards of 30k, black baby under 5k) Its labeled by most as simple suppy and demand. There was a white employee where I worked who was shocked to find out when he started the adoption process with his wife. While money wouldn't have been an issue with a white child, he adpoted a black baby on principal alone, and because there was no wait list. All that love people have to give, but, not to that child.

What do you suppose we should do with all the unwanted children?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

Just b/c a child does not get adopted does not mean it should be killed.. That is kinda sick logic you are using

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There is a difference between being "pro-life" and being "anti-choice". While the latter movement has succeeded in stealing the term that best describes the former, that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many other Democrats are in fact ACTUALLY pro-life...in other words, they personally oppose abortion and would like to reduce the number of abortions through any method short of making abortion illegal. That's the distinction that's lost in this debate, opposition to anti-abortion laws doesn't mean you can't also be "pro-life", it just means you don't think it's a problem that can be solved by legislation.

That's a good point. :thumbsup:

I think Prof is 100% correct, however, that no Democrat would get by on the national stage as against a woman's right to choose.

Ah well. This isn't a personal key issue for me, and the dancing and bobbing and weaving that politicians (on both sides) do with regards to abortion always amazes me.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

I actually know a few people that "protest" abortion clinics. They ALL are foster parents and have adopted children. You need to get out more.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

I actually know a few people that "protest" abortion clinics. They ALL are foster parents and have adopted children. You need to get out more.

A few =/= majority.

If the majority that holds up the give adoption a chance did as they preached then that be a different story, but most don't. And since there are hundreds and thousands of kids waiting to be adopted seems most of these anti-abortion preachers don;t seem to really care about the children, just THEIR issue and cause.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There is a difference between being "pro-life" and being "anti-choice". While the latter movement has succeeded in stealing the term that best describes the former, that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many other Democrats are in fact ACTUALLY pro-life...in other words, they personally oppose abortion and would like to reduce the number of abortions through any method short of making abortion illegal. That's the distinction that's lost in this debate, opposition to anti-abortion laws doesn't mean you can't also be "pro-life", it just means you don't think it's a problem that can be solved by legislation.

That's a good point. :thumbsup:

I'd disagree. The point of the criminal code isn't so much to stop crime (although that's part of it, obviously), but also for society to set a consensus standard on the morality of an action. Legislation hasn't stopped murders, rapes, or robberies either, but no one is suggesting those laws be repealed simply because they haven't worked.

I don't understand how someone can be personally pro-life but publically pro-choice. Aren't all pro-lifers pro-life because they believe the fetus is human, and has rights (unlike say, 5 pounds of fat removed from a body during liposuction, a similar procedure no one is protesting)? Thus, if the fetus has rights, doesn't the state have the right to protect that life? It's no different than the state exercising the same rights in taking minor children from unfit/abusive parents. I can understand, for example, an Orthodox Jew saying he considers eating pork immoral, but wouldn't want it to be illegal, since the 'sin' only affects one person - the person who eats pork - but if there's anything immoral about abortion, it has to involve taking the life of another, and who opposes the state's right to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

Just b/c a child does not get adopted does not mean it should be killed.. That is kinda sick logic you are using

I don?t think he is suggesting they should be killed; just trying to get people to think. No one seems to have planned for the future.
Unwanted children won?t go away. Something has to be done with them if they are not adopted. Most of them go from foster home to foster home. Once they reach the age of eight, their chances of ever being adopted are pretty slim. Once they are 18, they are on their own. Most of them find their way on to public assistance by the age of 19, for themselves alone or with their kids now. Adoptions and foster care are not all like the peachy made for TV movies. Obviously, if more unwanted children go into the system, there will be more costs and more requirements to take care of them. No one seems to have thought this through. One hand is saying let?s cut public assistance, people need to take care of themselves. The other saying let?s add more fuel to the fire. The problem isn?t going to go away if we all just think happy thoughts.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
A few =/= majority.

If the majority that holds up the give adoption a chance did as they preached then that be a different story, but most don't. And since there are hundreds and thousands of kids waiting to be adopted seems most of these anti-abortion preachers don;t seem to really care about the children, just THEIR issue and cause.

And you've talked to all of them and know this, I'm sure. :roll:

And why do you continually cling to this illogical strawman argument? By your own admission, there are "hundreds and thousands of kids waiting to be adopted" - how many have you adopted? And if the answer is none, does that mean you have no moral standing to oppose maltreatment of them? Of course not.

 

[Noobtastic]

I relish in the "murder babies" policy but at the same time champion the minorities who breed the most children.


Man, if only I could rationalize murder. How awesome would that be?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

And how many kids have you and your anti-abortion friends adopted now?

Probable the same number as about 50+ people that stand on the side of the road every year saying abortion is death, and give adoption a chance, etc...

NONE.

Put your money where you mouth is, if they mean that much then get yourself fixed and adopt all these kids that are in foster homes and keep getting moved around till they are 18. If not put a cork in it.

I actually know a few people that "protest" abortion clinics. They ALL are foster parents and have adopted children. You need to get out more.

A few =/= majority.

If the majority that holds up the give adoption a chance did as they preached then that be a different story, but most don't. And since there are hundreds and thousands of kids waiting to be adopted seems most of these anti-abortion preachers don;t seem to really care about the children, just THEIR issue and cause.

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip
Just b/c a child does not get adopted does not mean it should be killed.. That is kinda sick logic you are using

1. The vast vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester and it's the evacuation of a few cells, which even if you refer to as life, is not a thinking, feeling, conscious person.

2. Of that vast majority of women, they make the choice between going through 9 months of general discomfort, social stigma, time consumed, personal behavior modification, health risk, topped off with the most excruciating natural process man can experience, only to give the baby away versus having the pack of fetal cells vacuumed out. It's not between adoption and killing a baby.

3. Funny though how so many of the people who are anti-abortion are also small government anti-welfare conservatives that would want their elected leaders to vote down measures that allocate public money to care for other people's children. So they shouldn't be killed, but they shouldn't be on the dole either. Some on this board equate taking their hard earned tax dollars and using it to care for other people's mistakes with slavery. I completely disagree, but at least that's consistent.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

 

[hellokeith]

Where is DMcowen saying "Save the cells! Save the cells!" ?

Baby not born = no rights
no rights = not human

So really, those who support abortion should be fine with abortions up to a minute before birth.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

Pay wages like everyone else. Done! Next?