If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.
Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..
I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?
It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.
If it's out of the womb, give it a chance with another parent.
I think the only reason I'm pro-choice is because there are too many damn people in this world.. If it were me, I don't think I could kill my unborn child.
If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.
Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..
I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?
It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.
where is it legal to get a late term abortion?
and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.
Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..
I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?
It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.
where is it legal to get a late term abortion?
and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.
What is the cut off? Term?.. Mis info aside, I think my point was about drawing the line..
and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.
Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.
That said, this discussion goes no where, especially here. The people who are pro-life won't change based on a essay like this, and those who are pro-choice won't either. It's an unfortunate reality. But, to avoid being the party-pooper, I'll add to it...
My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption. In my little world of hope, this would be the law. Abortion would cease to exist, but Mothers could end their pregnancy through the adoption/extraction method mentioned above. In that sense, those seeking termination of their pregnancy, would be offering up a gift to parents who can't have their own. To me, that's win/win. Those seeking a way out of parenting get it with a procedure as simple as an abortion (with this new technology), and those seeking children get one. Also, I think people would think twice about unprotected sex if their child is now being raised elsewhere by parents who actually wanted the child.
Obviously, this is way in the future... but, technology could make abortion a thing of the past. I do think that technology (via ultrasounds) is already changing the ease of mind with regards to abortions. Seeing the fetus being destroyed is not a pretty sight.
One day 99% of the public will look back on the practice of abortion itself as antiquated and repulsive. But, then again, that's my opinion.
My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption.
8 billion people and growing, god, I hope not..
Really the solution is birth control.. Unless of course you consider it wrong and I am aborting every time I jack off..
Where is the line drawn?
We are all dieing.. Let's not pretend its ok to kill a grown man, but not an unborn child... IMO.
We are running out of space on this planet.. Tough decisions to make ahead... Either we make them or let nature make them for us.
Garbage article. No one is committing infanticide. Wtf.
They do it to baby girls in India and the Middle East and other parts of Asia though. Maybe the wack jobs who contributed to that article could re-focus their attention and talk about that rather that trying to sway opinions about women's right to choose by disseminating twisted and false information.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
To the original poster, you have missed the point of your own post by trying to turn it into an 'abortion' pro-life/pro-choice -WOMEN- seeking abortions issue, which it is not. This article is about the medical profession expanding their right to make decisions for you. If you had done some research you would fine that most hospitals already have Ethic Committees, in place that allow medical staff to conduct after birth 'mercy killings' under their 'medical futile care laws' as part of their Advance Directives. So if a child is born with a severe defect, or your son/daughter goes into a coma as a result of a sporting/car accident, or any type of condition requiring long-term life support, the Hospital can decide – without the consent of the parent/family– to pull the plug.
Remember the outcry about President Obama wanting to kill grandma, well your hospitals already had that authority by law to do such. President Obama was giving you the right and the ability to talk to your hospitals and doctors about their Advance Directive policies, which in most cases, you are given a written notice of the Hospital's decision and given 14 days to find alternative care before they make the decision for you.
NOW, insurance companies are lobbying to expand the medical futile laws and take it a step further by eliminating the cost of care before birth takes place. Reminder under President Obama's health care plan, people with a pre-disposed condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. Let me repeat that – People with a PRE-DISPOSED condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. President Obama's health care plan would negate any automatic denial to the right of life due to genetic testing or family medical history. Families, parents, parents-to-be would still be able to talk to their physicians about the quality of life issues as part of their Advance Directive rights.
Y'all get so wrapped up in the word 'abortion' that you miss the bigger picture,I guess its a pre-disposed condition.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.
I don't know any pro choicers who are for "killing a new born" two seconds before it's out. that is just an over dramatized false hood and you know it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.
I don't know any pro choicers who are for "killing a new born" two seconds before it's out. that is just an over dramatized false hood and you know it.
First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.
Second, whether you know people who believe this or not is irrelevant. They exist. For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions. Regardless of his, or other pro-choicers rationale, it does make one question where exactly the pro-choice camp wishes to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? You act as though there is a undeniable consensus in the pro-choice camp. I'd say simply - prove it.... I don't agree at all.
My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption.
8 billion people and growing, god, I hope not..
Really the solution is birth control.. Unless of course you consider it wrong and I am aborting every time I jack off..
Where is the line drawn?
We are all dieing.. Let's not pretend its ok to kill a grown man, but not an unborn child... IMO.
We are running out of space on this planet.. Tough decisions to make ahead... Either we make them or let nature make them for us.
I understand your argument about population being too large. I use to think that way. But, eventually, when I really looked into it, I realized I was wrong. As population on earth has grown, life expectancy and economic well-being has too. In other words, population growth and the well-being of an average person are not inversely related. In fact, they may be positively related. This is factual and data backs it up.
Basically, your argument (which is Malthusian) goes, restrict population growth because there's only so much food, etc. In other words, goods (like food) are scarce. What that does not take into account is technology. Scarcity has all sorts of problems with technology. Look up Thomas Malthus. He preached in the 1800s what you're preaching here and was proven wrong.
Please read this (I think you'll find it interesting, even if you may originally disagree):
Well, in any case, where are these places that drag minutes-from-being-born babies out of women and then stomp on their heads? Where I am, they will not give you an abortion if you are beyond the first trimester unless there is something wrong with the fetus or the mother's health is at risk. I keep hearing anti-abortionist whining about these macabre procedures on practically full-term babies just because the mother suddenly decides she doesn't want it, but have never ever seen them accompany these accusations with any kind of law that allows doctors to perform these acts.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.
Second, whether you know people who believe this or not is irrelevant. They exist. For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions. Regardless of his, or other pro-choicers rationale, it does make one question where exactly the pro-choice camp wishes to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? You act as though there is a undeniable consensus in the pro-choice camp. I'd say simply - prove it.... I don't agree at all.
I meant know of, not know. Either way, while I agree with you that there is no undeniable consensus among the pro-choice movement, I can't agree when you state a "large portion of the pro choice camp" are ok with partial birth abortions. First, that's fucking sick, and second, I'd say simply, prove it.
And I don't think killing a viable fetus that late in the womb is ok. So, no, it's not odd. But the stance you quote is, I agree.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
What is the cut off? Term?.. Mis info aside, I think my point was about drawing the line..
and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.
pretty sure the legal cut off is in the first trimester. not sure though.
In the U.S., Roe v. Wade prevents states from criminalizing abortions before viability. States are allowed to criminalize post-viability abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions.
You have a complete misunderstanding of this issue and why people have opposed these bans, so please stop trying to represent us and our beliefs.
For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions.
You have a complete misunderstanding of this issue and why people have opposed these bans, so please stop trying to represent us and our beliefs.
No, I don't. I simply stated how our President voted in regards to this issue prior being elected President and that a reasonably large portion of the pro-choice community was against a ban on partial-birth abortion (including him).
First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.
You seem to be making a right-to-life distinction here, so could you explain to me your criteria of what a 100% viable fetus and what is not? How is that determination made?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.
You seem to be making a right-to-life distinction here, so could you explain to me your criteria of what a 100% viable fetus and what is not? How is that determination made?
Define the term "viable" and I can properly answer the question. Definitions on that term vary, and in my opinion, the definition is important to determine the answer.
The quote of mine you posted, I was trying to use the term "viable" as a term meaning that it can survive on it's own outside the womb with little to no assistance.
As for what's a "viable" fetus and what is not (based on the definition I just provided), I'd say it's fairly indeterminable to state an exact date when a fetus becomes "viable". That said, certainly a 8.5-9 month fetus is "viable" by the definition I provided.
The example I was providing in the quote was getting at the idea that "birth" is really the start of human life, or not. In my opinion, birth being the start of human life is a silly argument. I tried to point it out with the viability notion I just provided. An 8.5-9 month fetus is just as much an alive human inside the womb as it is outside. So, why anyone would rationalize why it's ok to kill it inside the womb (because it's not born) but not outside, is beyond me.
In the U.S., Roe v. Wade prevents states from criminalizing abortions before viability. States are allowed to criminalize post-viability abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.
You seem to be making a right-to-life distinction here, so could you explain to me your criteria of what a 100% viable fetus and what is not? How is that determination made?
Define the term "viable" and I can properly answer the question. Definitions on that term vary, and in my opinion, the definition is important to determine the answer.
The quote of mine you posted, I was trying to use the term "viable" as a term meaning that it can survive on it's own outside the womb with little to no assistance.
As for what's a "viable" fetus and what is not (based on the definition I just provided), I'd say it's fairly indeterminable to state an exact date when a fetus becomes "viable". That said, certainly a 8.5-9 month fetus is "viable" by the definition I provided.
The example I was providing in the quote was getting at the idea that "birth" is really the start of human life, or not. In my opinion, birth being the start of human life is a silly argument. I tried to point it out with the viability notion I just provided. An 8.5-9 month fetus is just as much an alive human inside the womb as it is outside. So, why anyone would rationalize why it's ok to kill it inside the womb (because it's not born) but not outside, is beyond me.
I don't see how this is relevant. 8.5 - 9 month old fetuses aren't being aborted.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Define the term "viable" and I can properly answer the question. Definitions on that term vary, and in my opinion, the definition is important to determine the answer.
The quote of mine you posted, I was trying to use the term "viable" as a term meaning that it can survive on it's own outside the womb with little to no assistance.
As for what's a "viable" fetus and what is not (based on the definition I just provided), I'd say it's fairly indeterminable to state an exact date when a fetus becomes "viable". That said, certainly a 8.5-9 month fetus is "viable" by the definition I provided.
The example I was providing in the quote was getting at the idea that "birth" is really the start of human life, or not. In my opinion, birth being the start of human life is a silly argument. I tried to point it out with the viability notion I just provided. An 8.5-9 month fetus is just as much an alive human inside the womb as it is outside. So, why anyone would rationalize why it's ok to kill it inside the womb (because it's not born) but not outside, is beyond me.
I don't see how this is relevant. 8.5 - 9 month old fetuses aren't being aborted.
To the original poster, you have missed the point of your own post by trying to turn it into an 'abortion' pro-life/pro-choice -WOMEN- seeking abortions issue, which it is not. This article is about the medical profession expanding their right to make decisions for you. If you had done some research you would fine that most hospitals already have Ethic Committees, in place that allow medical staff to conduct after birth 'mercy killings' under their 'medical futile care laws' as part of their Advance Directives. So if a child is born with a severe defect, or your son/daughter goes into a coma as a result of a sporting/car accident, or any type of condition requiring long-term life support, the Hospital can decide – without the consent of the parent/family– to pull the plug.
Remember the outcry about President Obama wanting to kill grandma, well your hospitals already had that authority by law to do such. President Obama was giving you the right and the ability to talk to your hospitals and doctors about their Advance Directive policies, which in most cases, you are given a written notice of the Hospital's decision and given 14 days to find alternative care before they make the decision for you.
NOW, insurance companies are lobbying to expand the medical futile laws and take it a step further by eliminating the cost of care before birth takes place. Reminder under President Obama's health care plan, people with a pre-disposed condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. Let me repeat that – People with a PRE-DISPOSED condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. President Obama's health care plan would negate any automatic denial to the right of life due to genetic testing or family medical history. Families, parents, parents-to-be would still be able to talk to their physicians about the quality of life issues as part of their Advance Directive rights.
Y'all get so wrapped up in the word 'abortion' that you miss the bigger picture,I guess its a pre-disposed condition.
Well, the authors of the piece refer to the process as "after-birth abortion," so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I'm trying to make the argument about abortion when it is not. As for the rest of your statement, the piece clearly states that such "abortions" should be permitted even in cases where the health of the child isn't an issue.
I posted this piece because I thought it would stimulate some interesting debate. And it has.
As for someone else's comment that the article should be taken in context as a piece of academia, with emotions set aside, I would simply say this: many of the policies of the Nazis also started off as "academic" proposals. I say that to illustrate the danger of such propositions crossing the line from the academic to the pragmatic.
This article clearly was not written as satire, as some have suggested. For truly great satire (that is incidentally cut from the same cloth as the instant argument), I would recommend everyone here read Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on that as well.
Define the term "viable" and I can properly answer the question. Definitions on that term vary, and in my opinion, the definition is important to determine the answer.
The quote of mine you posted, I was trying to use the term "viable" as a term meaning that it can survive on it's own outside the womb with little to no assistance.
As for what's a "viable" fetus and what is not (based on the definition I just provided), I'd say it's fairly indeterminable to state an exact date when a fetus becomes "viable". That said, certainly a 8.5-9 month fetus is "viable" by the definition I provided.
The example I was providing in the quote was getting at the idea that "birth" is really the start of human life, or not. In my opinion, birth being the start of human life is a silly argument. I tried to point it out with the viability notion I just provided. An 8.5-9 month fetus is just as much an alive human inside the womb as it is outside. So, why anyone would rationalize why it's ok to kill it inside the womb (because it's not born) but not outside, is beyond me.
I don't see how this is relevant. 8.5 - 9 month old fetuses aren't being aborted.
Well, if that's true, why aren't they?
Because contrary to the belief (or rhetoric) of pro-lifers, doctors have standards when it comes to performing abortions, and they know as well as anyone else that you don't abort fetuses that are fully viable outside of the womb (um, that`s called a C-SECTION or INDUCED LABOUR!). Believe it or not, pro-choicers don't have a problem understanding the morals around this idea (where the disagreement comes is when a fetus is viable - and of course whether or not it is viable from conception). Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Because contrary to the belief (or rhetoric) of pro-lifers, doctors have standards when it comes to performing abortions, and they know as well as anyone else that you don't abort fetuses that are fully viable outside of the womb (um, that`s called a C-SECTION or INDUCED LABOUR!). Believe it or not, pro-choicers don't have a problem understanding the morals around this idea (where the disagreement comes is when a fetus is viable - and of course whether or not it is viable from conception). Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances.
If you say that abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks... who is performing the abortions after 14 weeks? Statistics show that at least 5-10% of US abortions (meaning roughly 100,000 estimated by taking the percent times the overall number) occur after that. And these are what is "admitted" in survey.
In your opinion, is it wrong to kill a fetus past 14 weeks? Who supports the legality of abortions past 14 weeks? It's clearly not the pro-life crowd.
Because contrary to the belief (or rhetoric) of pro-lifers, doctors have standards when it comes to performing abortions, and they know as well as anyone else that you don't abort fetuses that are fully viable outside of the womb (um, that`s called a C-SECTION or INDUCED LABOUR!). Believe it or not, pro-choicers don't have a problem understanding the morals around this idea (where the disagreement comes is when a fetus is viable - and of course whether or not it is viable from conception). Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances.
If you say that abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks... who is performing the abortions after 14 weeks? Statistics show that at least 5-10% of US abortions (meaning roughly 100,000 estimated by taking the percent times the overall number) occur after that. And these are what is "admitted" in survey.
In your opinion, is it wrong to kill a fetus past 14 weeks? Who supports the legality of abortions past 14 weeks? It's clearly not the pro-life crowd.
<
I said "Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances." After 14 weeks, though, there will be issues that a doctor would be dealing with... whether a an abortion after 14 weeks is done at a clinic or in a hospital operating room would be up to what facilities and procedures are available locally, and what the doctor prescribes. Often, clinics are in hospitals. I don't believe a clinic would be doing a medically necessary LATE term abortion to save the health of the mother or whatever though. I'm pretty sure that would always be done in a hospital, because serious complications are much more likely.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I said "Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances." After 14 weeks, though, there will be issues that a doctor would be dealing with... whether a an abortion after 14 weeks is done at a clinic or in a hospital operating room would be up to what facilities and procedures are available locally, and what the doctor prescribes. Often, clinics are in hospitals. I don't believe a clinic would be doing a medically necessary LATE term abortion to save the health of the mother or whatever though. I'm pretty sure that would always be done in a hospital, because serious complications are much more likely.
You're making a big assumption that all late term abortions occur because of the health of the mother. And even if that's sometimes the case, why is it ok? I mean, if it's really the case that the fetus is considered (even by pro-choice supporters) to be viable (and a human child) at 14 weeks, why is it that approximately 100,000 of these late term abortions occur each year after 14 weeks? That seems like an awful lot of Mothers with health concerns. I don't believe that all are for Mother's health concerns. But, in the cases where they are, why are not the heavy majority of these concerns figured out prior to 14 weeks?
And finally, in these situations where it actually is a health concern, would you admit that they're now killing a child to save a Mother?
Moreover, who supported partial birth abortion? When did the majority of these (term-wise), when they were permitted, occur? I've heard 20+ weeks. That's almost two months after your 14 weeks threshold.
I said "Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances." After 14 weeks, though, there will be issues that a doctor would be dealing with... whether a an abortion after 14 weeks is done at a clinic or in a hospital operating room would be up to what facilities and procedures are available locally, and what the doctor prescribes. Often, clinics are in hospitals. I don't believe a clinic would be doing a medically necessary LATE term abortion to save the health of the mother or whatever though. I'm pretty sure that would always be done in a hospital, because serious complications are much more likely.
You're making a big assumption that all late term abortions occur because of the health of the mother. And even if that's sometimes the case, why is it ok? I mean, if it's really the case that the fetus is considered (even by pro-choice supporters) to be viable (and a human child) at 14 weeks, why is it that approximately 100,000 of these late term abortions occur each year after 14 weeks? That seems like an awful lot of Mothers with health concerns. I don't believe that all are for Mother's health concerns. But, in the cases where they are, why are not the heavy majority of these concerns figured out prior to 14 weeks?
And finally, in these situations where it actually is a health concern, would you admit that they're now killing a child to save a Mother?
Moreover, who supported partial birth abortion? When did the majority of these (term-wise), when they were permitted, occur? I've heard 20+ weeks. That's almost two months after your 14 weeks threshold.
Who says it's okay to abort later term for the health of the mother? ... The mother does. Wtf. Yeah, I think it's totally fine for a woman to decide that. Wow, what a concept. And no, I don't admit that they are now killing a child to save a mother. They are aborting a fetus that is harming or killing the woman carrying it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I said "Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances." After 14 weeks, though, there will be issues that a doctor would be dealing with... whether a an abortion after 14 weeks is done at a clinic or in a hospital operating room would be up to what facilities and procedures are available locally, and what the doctor prescribes. Often, clinics are in hospitals. I don't believe a clinic would be doing a medically necessary LATE term abortion to save the health of the mother or whatever though. I'm pretty sure that would always be done in a hospital, because serious complications are much more likely.
You're making a big assumption that all late term abortions occur because of the health of the mother. And even if that's sometimes the case, why is it ok? I mean, if it's really the case that the fetus is considered (even by pro-choice supporters) to be viable (and a human child) at 14 weeks, why is it that approximately 100,000 of these late term abortions occur each year after 14 weeks? That seems like an awful lot of Mothers with health concerns. I don't believe that all are for Mother's health concerns. But, in the cases where they are, why are not the heavy majority of these concerns figured out prior to 14 weeks?
And finally, in these situations where it actually is a health concern, would you admit that they're now killing a child to save a Mother?
Moreover, who supported partial birth abortion? When did the majority of these (term-wise), when they were permitted, occur? I've heard 20+ weeks. That's almost two months after your 14 weeks threshold.
Who says it's okay to abort later term for the health of the mother? ... The mother does. Wtf. Yeah, I think it's totally fine for a woman to decide that. Wow, what a concept. And no, I don't admit that they are now killing a child to save a mother. They are aborting a fetus that is harming or killing the woman carrying it.
Well, when is it a child then?
Also, maybe I'm incorrect, but you seem to be avoiding the other questions. Why aren't these concerns with a mother's health figured out prior to 14 weeks? You said that was the cut off on viability. Do you really believe that all or even the majority of the 100,000 late term abortions per year occur because of the health of the mother? Do you think the "health of the mother" is ever used as an excuse when it's not really an issue? Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage.
Comments
Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..
I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?
It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.
If it's out of the womb, give it a chance with another parent.
I think the only reason I'm pro-choice is because there are too many damn people in this world.. If it were me, I don't think I could kill my unborn child.
where is it legal to get a late term abortion?
and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.
pretty sure the legal cut off is in the first trimester. not sure though.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That said, this discussion goes no where, especially here. The people who are pro-life won't change based on a essay like this, and those who are pro-choice won't either. It's an unfortunate reality. But, to avoid being the party-pooper, I'll add to it...
My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption. In my little world of hope, this would be the law. Abortion would cease to exist, but Mothers could end their pregnancy through the adoption/extraction method mentioned above. In that sense, those seeking termination of their pregnancy, would be offering up a gift to parents who can't have their own. To me, that's win/win. Those seeking a way out of parenting get it with a procedure as simple as an abortion (with this new technology), and those seeking children get one. Also, I think people would think twice about unprotected sex if their child is now being raised elsewhere by parents who actually wanted the child.
Obviously, this is way in the future... but, technology could make abortion a thing of the past. I do think that technology (via ultrasounds) is already changing the ease of mind with regards to abortions. Seeing the fetus being destroyed is not a pretty sight.
One day 99% of the public will look back on the practice of abortion itself as antiquated and repulsive. But, then again, that's my opinion.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Really the solution is birth control.. Unless of course you consider it wrong and I am aborting every time I jack off..
Where is the line drawn?
We are all dieing.. Let's not pretend its ok to kill a grown man, but not an unborn child... IMO.
We are running out of space on this planet.. Tough decisions to make ahead... Either we make them or let nature make them for us.
They do it to baby girls in India and the Middle East and other parts of Asia though. Maybe the wack jobs who contributed to that article could re-focus their attention and talk about that rather that trying to sway opinions about women's right to choose by disseminating twisted and false information.
Wikipedia speaks on late term abortion after viability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termi ... _pregnancy
my brother in law has saved micro premmies in this age range
he is a miracle worker most wonderful man
http://preemies.about.com/od/preemieage ... Week_2.htm
Remember the outcry about President Obama wanting to kill grandma, well your hospitals already had that authority by law to do such. President Obama was giving you the right and the ability to talk to your hospitals and doctors about their Advance Directive policies, which in most cases, you are given a written notice of the Hospital's decision and given 14 days to find alternative care before they make the decision for you.
NOW, insurance companies are lobbying to expand the medical futile laws and take it a step further by eliminating the cost of care before birth takes place. Reminder under President Obama's health care plan, people with a pre-disposed condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. Let me repeat that – People with a PRE-DISPOSED condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. President Obama's health care plan would negate any automatic denial to the right of life due to genetic testing or family medical history. Families, parents, parents-to-be would still be able to talk to their physicians about the quality of life issues as part of their Advance Directive rights.
Y'all get so wrapped up in the word 'abortion' that you miss the bigger picture,I guess its a pre-disposed condition.
I don't know any pro choicers who are for "killing a new born" two seconds before it's out. that is just an over dramatized false hood and you know it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.
Second, whether you know people who believe this or not is irrelevant. They exist. For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions. Regardless of his, or other pro-choicers rationale, it does make one question where exactly the pro-choice camp wishes to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? You act as though there is a undeniable consensus in the pro-choice camp. I'd say simply - prove it.... I don't agree at all.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I understand your argument about population being too large. I use to think that way. But, eventually, when I really looked into it, I realized I was wrong. As population on earth has grown, life expectancy and economic well-being has too. In other words, population growth and the well-being of an average person are not inversely related. In fact, they may be positively related. This is factual and data backs it up.
Basically, your argument (which is Malthusian) goes, restrict population growth because there's only so much food, etc. In other words, goods (like food) are scarce. What that does not take into account is technology. Scarcity has all sorts of problems with technology. Look up Thomas Malthus. He preached in the 1800s what you're preaching here and was proven wrong.
Please read this (I think you'll find it interesting, even if you may originally disagree):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larahoffmans/2011/10/31/7-billion-reasons-malthus-was-wrong/
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I meant know of, not know. Either way, while I agree with you that there is no undeniable consensus among the pro-choice movement, I can't agree when you state a "large portion of the pro choice camp" are ok with partial birth abortions. First, that's fucking sick, and second, I'd say simply, prove it.
And I don't think killing a viable fetus that late in the womb is ok. So, no, it's not odd. But the stance you quote is, I agree.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Who is this guy?!
In the U.S., Roe v. Wade prevents states from criminalizing abortions before viability. States are allowed to criminalize post-viability abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
I'm not sure what the policy is in Canada though.
You have a complete misunderstanding of this issue and why people have opposed these bans, so please stop trying to represent us and our beliefs.
No, I don't. I simply stated how our President voted in regards to this issue prior being elected President and that a reasonably large portion of the pro-choice community was against a ban on partial-birth abortion (including him).
I think you have issues with facts.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You seem to be making a right-to-life distinction here, so could you explain to me your criteria of what a 100% viable fetus and what is not? How is that determination made?
Define the term "viable" and I can properly answer the question. Definitions on that term vary, and in my opinion, the definition is important to determine the answer.
The quote of mine you posted, I was trying to use the term "viable" as a term meaning that it can survive on it's own outside the womb with little to no assistance.
As for what's a "viable" fetus and what is not (based on the definition I just provided), I'd say it's fairly indeterminable to state an exact date when a fetus becomes "viable". That said, certainly a 8.5-9 month fetus is "viable" by the definition I provided.
The example I was providing in the quote was getting at the idea that "birth" is really the start of human life, or not. In my opinion, birth being the start of human life is a silly argument. I tried to point it out with the viability notion I just provided. An 8.5-9 month fetus is just as much an alive human inside the womb as it is outside. So, why anyone would rationalize why it's ok to kill it inside the womb (because it's not born) but not outside, is beyond me.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
I don't see how this is relevant. 8.5 - 9 month old fetuses aren't being aborted.
Well, if that's true, why aren't they?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Well, the authors of the piece refer to the process as "after-birth abortion," so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I'm trying to make the argument about abortion when it is not. As for the rest of your statement, the piece clearly states that such "abortions" should be permitted even in cases where the health of the child isn't an issue.
I posted this piece because I thought it would stimulate some interesting debate. And it has.
As for someone else's comment that the article should be taken in context as a piece of academia, with emotions set aside, I would simply say this: many of the policies of the Nazis also started off as "academic" proposals. I say that to illustrate the danger of such propositions crossing the line from the academic to the pragmatic.
This article clearly was not written as satire, as some have suggested. For truly great satire (that is incidentally cut from the same cloth as the instant argument), I would recommend everyone here read Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on that as well.
Because contrary to the belief (or rhetoric) of pro-lifers, doctors have standards when it comes to performing abortions, and they know as well as anyone else that you don't abort fetuses that are fully viable outside of the womb (um, that`s called a C-SECTION or INDUCED LABOUR!). Believe it or not, pro-choicers don't have a problem understanding the morals around this idea (where the disagreement comes is when a fetus is viable - and of course whether or not it is viable from conception). Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances.
If you say that abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks... who is performing the abortions after 14 weeks? Statistics show that at least 5-10% of US abortions (meaning roughly 100,000 estimated by taking the percent times the overall number) occur after that. And these are what is "admitted" in survey.
In your opinion, is it wrong to kill a fetus past 14 weeks? Who supports the legality of abortions past 14 weeks? It's clearly not the pro-life crowd.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I said "Abortion clinics do not perform abortions for fetuses older than 14 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances." After 14 weeks, though, there will be issues that a doctor would be dealing with... whether a an abortion after 14 weeks is done at a clinic or in a hospital operating room would be up to what facilities and procedures are available locally, and what the doctor prescribes. Often, clinics are in hospitals. I don't believe a clinic would be doing a medically necessary LATE term abortion to save the health of the mother or whatever though. I'm pretty sure that would always be done in a hospital, because serious complications are much more likely.
You're making a big assumption that all late term abortions occur because of the health of the mother. And even if that's sometimes the case, why is it ok? I mean, if it's really the case that the fetus is considered (even by pro-choice supporters) to be viable (and a human child) at 14 weeks, why is it that approximately 100,000 of these late term abortions occur each year after 14 weeks? That seems like an awful lot of Mothers with health concerns. I don't believe that all are for Mother's health concerns. But, in the cases where they are, why are not the heavy majority of these concerns figured out prior to 14 weeks?
And finally, in these situations where it actually is a health concern, would you admit that they're now killing a child to save a Mother?
Moreover, who supported partial birth abortion? When did the majority of these (term-wise), when they were permitted, occur? I've heard 20+ weeks. That's almost two months after your 14 weeks threshold.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Who says it's okay to abort later term for the health of the mother? ... The mother does. Wtf. Yeah, I think it's totally fine for a woman to decide that. Wow, what a concept. And no, I don't admit that they are now killing a child to save a mother. They are aborting a fetus that is harming or killing the woman carrying it.
Well, when is it a child then?
Also, maybe I'm incorrect, but you seem to be avoiding the other questions. Why aren't these concerns with a mother's health figured out prior to 14 weeks? You said that was the cut off on viability. Do you really believe that all or even the majority of the 100,000 late term abortions per year occur because of the health of the mother? Do you think the "health of the mother" is ever used as an excuse when it's not really an issue? Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="