When does a fetus become a child? Last night I watched news about a doctor who does abortions during 21- 28 weeks. This bothered me because I am Godmother to twin girls who were born prematurely[21-28 weeks],weighing about a pound.They are almost five now. The idea upset me a bit; but my friend said that a fetus is not a child until it is outside the mother's womb and has taken its first breath.Then it becomes a living soul. I asked how the child moved in its mother's womb.He insisted that it did not breathe.His point was that nobody should tell another person what to do with his or her body. What do you think about such views?
Nobody should tell a person what to do with her/his own body.
Yes they should.
Yes they should.
Ner ner ner ner ner.
Give us a break.
We tell people what they can't do "with their bodies" all the time. Most laws are about exactly that.
Most laws are about how not to meddle with the bodies of others without their permission. Laws about what to do with your own body are an aberration.
Like laws that say it is illegal to kill and dispose of an elderly relative living under your care because he or she may have become an inconvenient burden? Laws like that?
There we go. Once again we see that support for abortion rests on dehumanization to justify taking a life.
No. A fetus is a human. No argument.
But no human has a right to live off another without permission.
The good news is that most women want their babies, even under very difficult conditions. Give them a chance, and they will choose life!
So that elderly relative lives or dies at your whim?
I would argue that the woman tacitly gave the child permission to exist when she allowed sperm to enter her body and cause it to grow.
If she got AIDS, would you agree that she gave the AIDS virus permission, too?
Is a human child a "virus" attacking the body of a woman?
The baby inside of her is not the mother's own body. It's another life in there. Nobody should tell it that it has to die. Any 10 year old child can tell you how babies are made, so it's not like some big mystery. Women should have the choice over whether or not they decide to sleep with someone. If they decide to have sex, they should accept the consequences of that decision. That's where the choice should come in, not when there is another human being's life at stake. Cases of rape or when the mother's life is in jeopardy are a different matter, though.
every child deserves to be wanted. i have read too many cases where women, weirdly enough, thought abortion immoral so they brought their unwanted baby into the world and abused the crap out of it until it died. remember BabyP?
what, it's immoral to have an abortion but NOT immoral to beat and rape a child?
i am talking about BABIES suffering the most unimaginabe abuse, including being raped.
think about that.
in cases like this, it would have been better if they had never been brought into the world.
Just curious, as I've never studied the matter, but isn't there a huge waiting list for new-born adoptions?
that's what i don't understand. these women who don't want their babies, don't believe in abortion, but then keep it instead of giving it up so someone who WANTS a baby can raise it. then they abuse it, let their boyfriends abuse it, etc.
i read a case where this woman got pregnant and didn't want her baby, but she thought abortion was wrong, so she kept the baby and abused it its whole short life, until finally she had him taken out to the desert and shot.
what about these prom-night babies tossed into dumpsters? it would have been better for them if they were never born instead of suffering that way.
How do we know that for sure? I wonder if the baby actually would feel that way? Everyone suffers in life. But through our suffering we grow emotionally and mentally. Without it, we would stagnate. I don't understand why some think death is preferable to experiencing a little pain.
Yes, there are extreme cases when children are abuses and when babies are thrown in dumpsters, but that is not the norm. I think the focus should be on educating women about sex and birth control and abstinence rather than allowing barbaric practices to continue. It seems our society places a higher value on sexual promiscuity than it does on human life. Life is more than sex, shocking I know.
Babies can mean more money from the government for some women. They may not want the babies. They may just want the money.
That's a twisted argument. NOT having an abortion = beating and raping a child? No, ridiculous. You could insert any crime against a person into that equation and say, "See? This wouldn't have happened if we had killed the child."
I agree with you. It is illogical. Just because someone doesn't want a child does not mean that he or she is automatically going to abuse it. And even if that were the case, as a supposedly moral society we should focus on improving the child protection system rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Hard to believe people are honestly repeating variations on this twisted concept.
When a woman becomes pregnant. I think they use the fetus/child stuff to make abortion sound alright. If someone thinks it's still a "fetus" and not yet a "child", it will give them less guilt to get an abortion.
It's all words really...fetus/child. From the moment of conception, a new life has been created..call it what you will. In a few short months, that new life is capable of lving a life on its own, away from the host body that carried it, it's mother.
Abortions from the second trimester onwards should be banned except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.
First trimester abortions are preferrable if that new life really isn't wanted. IMO.
But it's still murder.
consciousness grows. We develop and become more fully aware, given time. The earlier a termination, the better.
Anything that might have upset you, dont feel bad. You cant change the past, you cant predict the future - you can only live in the here and now and do the best you can x
Life begins at conception.
Abortion is killing a child.
It's not a decision to make, except in the rare instances when a choice may need to be made between the mother's immediate death and the baby's, or for scraping the womb in cases of rape.
Life begins when the sperm and egg cell meet, however there are many reasons for abortion,
baby is due to incest
mothers life is in danger
and not merely due to
emotionally not ready
father is unknown
too many children alreadys
I am for abortion only when the mothers life is in danger
As a mother I believe that the baby inside of the womb is alive. It is breathing and living. Beacause a mother can feel the baby inside her. The baby eats and drinks just like we do. They eat and drink everything the mother does. How else do they think a baby grows.
While I technically believe that a person is entitled to choose what happens to their body, personally speaking, I couldn't justify ever aborting a pregnancy except under extenuating circumstances. To me, that means that having the baby would have to pose some kind of a threat to my life or its life. I have a friend who had to get a late-term abortion because the baby was developing with organs outside her body, and in such a way that it would not have survived long outside of mom.
Also, I think that a fetus becomes a child the moment the quickening happens.... that first little stirring that happens around 4 months along, or thereabouts.
Well, first off- let's start on a solid note. The right of choice remains with the mother, because it is SHE who bares the responsibility. It isn't for government or anyone else to determine, besides the doctor(ethically).
This topic continues to be exploited for what damage it can have, so as to separate people from others. This shouldn't be a concern of individual people. You are swayed by emotions and it's leading you to making or imposing your will on others, which is diminishing another individual right to life and right of choice.
The abortion topic is highly controversial and shouldn't even be a topic for debate, because it caused by one person who over steps their own authority, but impose their authority on others. What you feel is right to you only, because it is bias by your own feelings.
A Woman should be able to do what she feels is necessary. However, it should be monitored, so as to not become an over-used tool for abuse or tolerate someone using as a birth control system, as some people fear.
So if a woman goes to work and is in a particularly bad mood and feels it's necessary to chop her boss to pieces with a knife, that's her choice and no one has the right to tell her what to do with her body. Maybe the boss was 'inconvenient,' maybe she wasn't 'ready' for a bad performance review, or maybe she wouldn't give her a raise and so that woman couldn't 'afford' to let the boss live. Who knows? It's her choice, dammit.
Do you have morals? Do you know what they are?
Come on, let's keep it real shall we. Each person can tell the difference between what is wrong and what is right. If you can't, then I would say listen to your conscience more often.
To tear apart humanity's short-comings doesn't negate individuality or the right to life of the woman, or her right to choice.
Imposing on her freedom of right of choice, you diminish her value. Giving her the freedom to choose, allows each person to define their own life. You strip that away, then you might as well throw away the Constitution and everything it stands for.
Not you, and not anyone else, including government, should be allowed to dictate what or how someone is suppose to live. If you think they should? Then you are morally wrong. If you think she keeps her freedom, and is allowed to make her own choice, then you understand right of choice.
Again, ABORTION shouldn't even be a topic for the public to debate about. It's advocate groups who are pointing out the worse of humanity's atrocities, so as to inflame public opinion.
Please see this attempt of business' influence on society and the destructive nature it is having on individual rights. It is literally stripping individual of their right of choice, yet many stand by and let it happen.
And, just to let you know Tksensei- I'm not trying to offend you. I'm making a point, to talk to everyone who is reading the forum. I not directly talking to anyone. I used what you said, for the precursor of my statement. Abortion shouldn't be a topic of public concern.
Well, well, now we're going to talk of morals, are we? That should work out nicely for those trying to justify taking the most innocent and vulnerable human life.
Don't talk to me about life. I know more about than you could imagine.
My point is freedom to live one's own life. The right to life and the right of choice.
Because, that is what abortion is really about. It's about other people imposing their own set of moral standards on others. It's not about anything else.
Actually, if you are religious or have any form of religious belief, then your vision will be skewed.
That's why I asked.
That's a separate topic (and one on which you are also confused, I reckon)
Why? You can't?
I can tell what's right and what's wrong. My conscience tells me.
Some people don't listen so well. What happens when two people both insist they are listening to their conscience but come to opposite conclusions?
You have one person who doesn't have all the facts.
Some people dont listen.
That is really funny.
So don't get in her way when she 'chooses' to chop her boss to pieces. That would be 'immoral.'
Stop being foolish and taking it to an extreme. It makes you sound paranoid.
It is exactly on topic. You said morals are absolute, so they should apply uniformly.
You're now playing on words. I don't like game players. If you want to continue this discussion, then stop interpreting my words.
Morals are absolutes. The problem is no one realizes what exactly morals are, because of religious ethics for living, which is where a humankind formed it's own ethics from.
People are told there are no moral absolutes, so that they are confused about what's right and what's wrong.
Taking words at face value is not "playing."
It invades an individual personal space and it's not to be a concern of others.
So does every law. Go live on an unihabited island if you want unrestricted personal space.
When you think you have the right to TELL ME what I can or cannot DO with my own personal body....I'm going to tell you that you are invading my personal space.
No one is an authority of ME. I am my own authority. I answer to myself. And, you don't have the right to dictate how someone else is to live their life. I'm sorry- that's morally wrong.
aren't those the laws you are subject to on a daily basis?
When YOU live in a SOCIETY, guess what? If you don't like it, that island is there waiting for you.
Society can co-exist with my view. It's not a problem. You stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Your skewed vision continues to blind you to the truth that freedoms don't have a value on them, they exist. The right to life and the right of choice must remain with an individual. What one person does with their life isn't to be a basis for society to sham the rest. It's is irrelevant if it is the majority. The majority is wrong, as a collective and over stepped their authority.
And, Yes, I will fight it tooth and nail, each and every step of the way. Why? Because, that's what I do.
Also not how it works. You enjoy the benefits of living in a society by acquiescing to the rules of that society.
Whether you like it or not.
The island option is always there for you.
You seem quite convinced that you are the keeper of "the truth." Maybe you can start a cult there on your island.
Cop out. you know it, we all know it. Its a child. I saw a bumper sticker that read "how can you trust me with a child if you cant trust me with choice" Well, i guess we cant trust you can we. My twin grandkids are five also, hey doc please dont kill em.
I think abortion is simply wrong! If you dont plan on keeping te baby then dont have sex with out precautions!
Its pretty simple! I think that doctors that practise abortions in 21-28 weeks should have his liscense tanken away and banned from practising any type of medical work!
Im a Christian and am 100% against abortion.
LIFE begins as soon as the woman stops having her period, in the event of a miscarige then God chose not to let that LIFE continue, but I think personally that who are we to decide that babys life!
Playing devil's advocate here.... except for total abstinence, birth control methods are fallible. It is still possible to get pregnant while using any of them, or even any combination of them. The chances are slimmer, but it's still possible.
Well, let us know the next time you are pregnant...
If a woman can make a decision to abort a pregnancy, law or no law, I think it is reasonable to trust there is a good reason, if it is illegal, it will still happen. No other law works perfect why abortion? Further, it is an issue that should not be compared in such simple terms. Some of the comments here are plain ignorant and would be more fitting in a society without electricity.
That's fine as long as you do the killing.
While I also think that abortion that late in the pregnancy is unacceptable (not that I'm trying to leap into this debate, I promise you), the idea that life begins at conception is, well..., I mean, if Jesus didn't go into detail about this, in the Gospels, and he should be your primary authority, then I don't see how a Christian can be 100% sure on his position (and, yes, they had doctors, abortion, etc, in those days).
However, when there (may be) evidence that a fetus can suffer after a certain point, then I agree there is certainly an issue here, to be sure...
The fact is that an abortion stops a beating heart and that is murder, but the law says its ok.
I.M.O. From the moment of conception it is a human being,not a kangaroo or tree or anything else.When we cross the line and justify killing its a short step to including other undesired humans on the list.Where does it stop?
Where does it stop?
Well, to be honest and forthwith you about it. Again, as I said before- I understand where you're coming from. But, society isn't that civilized yet. Not to mention, everything else it effects/affects.
When a civilized society finally reaches it's own atonement of morality- then a Life will be considered a Life at conception.
Since, very few people understand true morals of Human Life, you can not have this debate. And, just to let you know- yes there is an absolute set standard of morals for the human race.
It's the people who form their own moral judgements based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the meaning of Life.
I realize- in a civilized society- per se "perfect", abortion doesn't exist, because crimes like rape don't exist. But, I also realize the ignorance born into oneself's nature, and that's another story all together.
But, in our present day society- it is the DUTY of citizens to uphold our landmarked freedoms. Again, this shouldn't even be discussed, because the right to life and the right of choice is to be given to the mother. It is for her alone to deal with and none of anyone else's business.
When society evolves it's way of thinking, then abortion will be dead or non-existent. You want to help make that happen- then I suggest you help others get informed and more knowledgeable about it, so they can help themselves, should the time arrive.
YOU, as a person, have no right to interfere into someone else's life. It isn't a right of yours. You, are not, an authority figure, yet you put yourself in as one. That is what's called- USURP of power at the hands of another.
Think about it?
I understand your point of view and agree that no one has the right to tell another what to do with there own body.I was pro choice until a few days ago when I watched a medical training film on the proper abortion.
As you know Cag,I am a marine who saw the worst things humans can do to each other.I fell apart when I saw those tiny tiny parts of a person in that tray after they vacuumed that woman's womb.I'm not saying I have the answers,I'm just saying you should have seen those tiny hands,almost like they were reaching for help.We,the human race,Failed that person...tiny little hands Cags...
Overpopulation is killing this world, and may quite possibly lead to the death of MANY MANY people.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. --Spock
worried about overpopulation? instead of killing a unborn child or supporting its whole sale availability. try this instead. suicide . i hear its painless
I guess you've never been to Canada??? We have like 2.2 people per square kilometre here. Lots of room for the masses...if you can stand the cold that is.
We got more than that in Australia, no cold
Should be fine
If it gets bad enough I'll go back to England.
Overpopulation is not a problem, and in the coming decades the exact opposite will greatly affect many nations.
None of which changes the primacy of human life.
Are you serious? Overpopulation is not a problem. How do you come to that conclusion?
Wow, really? I didn't know that! Thanks for telling me!
I didn't watch that program you mentioned because I didn't want even hear what the doctor had to say. To me, that's way, way, too late to ever perform an abortion. Yes, until the baby is born it's called, "a fetus"; and once it's born it's called a "newborn" or "neonate"; and it's true that being delivered too, too, early means some babies can't survive outside the womb.
As someone who had a second-trimester miscarriage, I have to say that the fact that my fetus/baby never breathed didn't make me think it had any less of a "soul" (if anyone has a soul at all); but I don't think it's about souls anyway. It's about killing a fetus/child once it has gotten to a point where it's no longer so incomplete it's a clump of cells, or else in a very, very, primitive/incomplete stage.
Besides, the thing that turned my 34-week "fetus" into a "premature baby" was nothing more than being delivered. My own view is that early, early, abortion should be legal because I think sometimes it's better to end a life early in the first trimester than allow a baby to born to a mother capable of ending its life anyway, or else a mother so ill prepared to be a mother she'll raise a child with a lifetime of psychological torment. With regard to your friend's (and a lot of people's) line about "their own body"; when I was expecting my daughter and so desperately in need of sleep, and my unborn child kept me awake because she was apparently in the mood to kick and move around, that highlighted to me the fact that my child and I were two completely different people. Of course, a mother who is capable of truly loving her child even before s/he's born respects that child enough to realize s/he is a separate little human being and not "part of her" (or else something comparable to an inconvenient tumor).
Second-trimester abortion isn't the way to deal with any over-population problem; besides, what will "kill the world" is more likely increasing lack of respect for life. "Better we all die with clean hands than live in a world full of people with blood on theirs." - Me. (Let's not forget that Spock is make-believe, and his creator dealt in fiction and fantasy.)
The Spock line was taken from John Stuart Mill. Its not a star trek creation.
I hear what you are saying and I do not wish to mock your personal story but it is that, a personal story. The ethics of overpopulation is a far greater issue than singular life.
I'm not sure I'm on board here, I have to say. Overpopulation is occurring exactly in places where clinical abortions are a pipedream, where, heck *clinics* of *any* kind are a pipedream.
In any case, I am not sure any development economist has ever seriously suggested abortion as an appropriate response to the overpopulation issue...
Hey cool, I didn't know that. Thanks bovine.
Lisa, I'm so sorry you went through that.
I'm against abortion in general, but especially abortions performed after the first trimester. It doesn't seem as cruel to abort a clump of cells as it does a fully formed tiny human who can move and react to his environment.
Habee, thanks. It was all ages ago (which is why I pretty much talk about it as if it's nothing more than talking about a loaf of bread or the weather). I'm not above bringing up life experiences to make a point, though. (May as well get some use out of them. )
from the time my son was the size of the period at the end of this sentence, i adored him and protected him and he was definitely a child to me.
that being said, a woman should have the right to choose instead of being forced to give birth to a child she does not want. HOWEVER, i think women should not abuse this and have like one abortion after another, and i certainly cannot condone partial-birth abortions or anything like that unless the mother's life is in imminent danger and there is no other recourse.
oce an egg is fertilized, it is a child..its alive ..and a fetus is a child..I won't debate this topic, I get touchy on this subject..
If you don't use protection its your fault you made a new life..and even if you did use it and that life was made..it has to be for a reason..
This is a one-size-fits all statement (not that I have a fixed view on the matter, frankly, as it is a very difficult one, I think).
For me, abortion early on may or may not be acceptable, but I do think abortion late in the game (of pregnancy, not that it's a game, I know, I know) is a dicey proposition, and not one I'm comfortable with
and I respect your views on this because we are all entitled to have our own views, thoughts and oppinions on each and evry possible subject, no matter how touchy the subject is, out there..
My answer is influenced by the fact that I had a partial hysterectomy from cancer at 18..and I got pregnant at 16 while on birth contrl and the father of the child was wearing a condom..so that life was made for a purpose at that time..because I did not know that 2 years later I would lose my chances of having more children...
So thank you for not being judgemental and respecting everyone's answer...this is a right we are entitled to, freedom of choice..no matter how we choose to make any decision or choose to feel a way about a certain issue..
In Canada (where I am) in the eighties (the law has changed), I think that the procedure was that a panel from the hospital, made up of doctors, and the mother, decided on a case by case system.
Of course this is a lot easier in a country where health care is free. And I am not sure the father was given a say (though, I hope so, not that it should be so in every case, but often).
Frankly, this seemed like a good solution.
i like your post alot b c . ill go one step further last time i checked a sperm is alive . and so is a unfertilized egg .so any debate as to when life exists to me seems futile.
humans for some reason have a very narrow view of life. i dont tho i see life big
cosette your talking the exceptions not the rule. the #1 reason abortions are carried out worldwide is gender. girls die boys live . the rape excuse is fubar
Female infanticide leads to a shortage of women and hence polyandry. So things have a way of correcting themselves.
But in the less developed parts of the world, don't they wait until after the birth to determine the sex of the child?
if it were a mans right to chosse this man wouldnt want that right or support it. i find it odd that women who would never have a abortion still fight for other women to have it
The right to choose includes the right to choose not to do it. It's only when the choice is present that a woman can choose to reject it.
what about my rights the father ? you know the guy that is held responsible for the child if the woman has it?
what about my rights the father ? you know the guy that is held responsible for the child if the woman has it?
The man DID choose to become a father if he had sex.
He may have been told that she was on the pill. He may have been told that she was infertile.
Many more women want children than men. Most women want children so badly they will do almost anything to have them.
that being true the father should have the right just as the woman does to choose not to .
When two people have sex, they take a lot of chances, including that they will get a STD. There is an obligation to the other person of full disclosure. If someone has a STD, but assures the other that it is safe, then he is responsible for transmitting the disease.
If someone is fertile but pretends not to be in order to trick another into a parental obligation, there should be some recourse, too.
Yes, people can be sickening. I still think the babies should live and the criminals should be killed off. A baby may turn out to be a psycho but there's still that (hopefully) more likely chance that it will be normal.
i agree, the father should have some say-so, i mean, what is he really wants the baby?
but what if she doesn't? can he force her to carry it to term? hmm i wonder if anything like this has ever happened.
Has to be case-by-case -- by which I mean, (and I guess this is so obvious it's hardly worth saying), rapists don't get to have rights...
my opinions on this subject stem from this . i have two grown sons i would have had a third but after 10 years of marriage when my now x wife got pregnant with my third child . her wanting a divorce , not another baby,without my consent or knowledge murdered my child. and the law supported this act.if your pro choice you are complicit to this . how do you feel? knowing this?
Aware, I'm sorry for your loss. If you were still married, then you should have had a say in the matter.
Hearing your situation makes me feel horrible, it brought a tear, well more than one, to my eye..
You deserved to have say over that child..it was yours too..divorce or not, you would of cared for that cchild ( no doubt in my mind ) ...she is an evil, dark person for what she has done to you...sorry, I had to butt in after reading this
of course she should have told you. are you trying to make me feel guilty for something your wife did? i wouldn't do anything like that.
Every soul has a right to life...the soul is present from conception on...even if the pregnancy was an accident and/or not wanted, that soul has the RIGHT to a chance at life. There are many people out there that would adopt a baby.
It is only a excuse of self centeredness and/or fear and lack of support that causes women/girls to abort. Rape I could understand the desire, but if the female could focus on the child's life apart from her feelings about the rape she could feel better about giving life to that soul...it could even go a long way toward her healing from the rape.
If people were taught from day one a respect for the process of life, they would choose better how to deal with their sexuality, sex lives, and partners...but as long as sex is only looked upon as a means of power over another, male or female, it is not a psychologically healthy situation to begin with.
There is abundant controversy among people from all over the world of many different faiths as to when the sould enters the body (assuming there is a soul, of course).
One thing's for sure, I am not sure this is the grounds on which to make a decision on this matter -- sounds too much like Iran to me -- religious pronouncements from state authorities: dicey stuff.
A much better question would be (and is) when is a fetus a person. This is much easier to deal with, as not everyone accepts the soul, and those who do argue about it, but everyone accepts that a "person," by definition, has certain rights
A corporation is a legal person. It's a legal fiction just like the soul.
The difference is that a corporation *shouldn't* be a person, because that is a piece of lunacy on the level of giving rights to little green men, just in case there are any, if you ask me.
Yes, belief in the soul makes all the difference...especially to that soul! As a mother of four there is no doubt in my mind that the soul exists and is very important...it is sad when others don't recognize a soul's worth and that there are businesses making millions snuffing out the life chances of a soul.
I am not denying the existence of the soul. I am saying that in a country of 300 million people, you need a point upon which everyone has to agree -- otherwise how can you have a debate at all: I think that (almost) everyone agrees that a "person" has "natural" rights. If you built a law based on a fetus having a soul, then someone could say -- well I don't believe in a soul -- but who, realistically, is going to say, "oh, but wait, I don't believe in 'persons with rights' "
Yes, you have just made the ultimate point of the many aspects of the downfall of civilizations...no spiritual perception of life and the rights thereof...once upon a time people intuitively "knew" such things as moral and right...now days its all confused and "iffy" from imbalanced logic.
and yes, in my situation the father was given a say..and 15 yrs later he is a winderful father to his only child..
he loves his daughter, she is his main priority in life
There are Dr. Suess books that represent both sides of the argument. It's not an argument that can be won, but it might help each side to appreciate the position of the other.
1. Pro-Life: "A peson's a person no matter how small" form Horton Hears a Who.
2. Pro-Choice: "no freeloaders" Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose
or euthanasia thats illegal too. wheres the pro choice rs on that?
Though, I don't think suicide is ever justified, there is a difference between making the choice to take your own life and to take the life of another human being.
Cosette, the woman you describe sounds mentally ill. Most women don't behave that way, even under very difficult circumstances.
Its against the law to commit suicide in Texas, I don't think there has ever been a successful prosecution of this violation of the law.
Until the 1830's, abortion was in widespread use. The laws were passed preventing DOCTORS from performing abortions, not women from having them.
There is no proof that the soul exists from conception. A fetus' brain waves show no human activity until the 3rd timester. You may not like it, but laws cannot be written on such conjecture as yours.
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade that the laws passed in the 1830s were no longer valid. Why? Because back then, Doctors would go from handling diseased people (often with some form of VD) to performing abortions. Germs were unknown as were anticeptic procedures. More women were dying from doctor performed abortions than self-induced abortions.
The final deciding factor was this: Women (who had abundant sources of money) were having abortions at hospitals with impunity. How? Because of the confidentiality rules. An abortion would be performed under the guise of another procedure.
My wife had a bad pap smear, and needed to have one of those procedures. Are you going to have a pollice officer check out every women that does?
Since you can't really investigate this, How would you enforce any abortion law?
It would be impossible.
Therefore Roe vs. Wade still stands.
So, how do you stop women from having abortions? Do you tie them to a bed until they give birth?
Hmmmm, thats how I got my ol lady pregnant,ahhh memories!
No, but you can make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions.
At least we wouldn't be condoning it as a society.
So the life of an unborn fetus is worth more than the life of a pregnant woman?
So, you would rather let a woman die than her unborn child?
Rape, incest or the life of the mother and that must be approved by an appropriate medical athority.
In order to prove that someone's been raped or suffered incest, you'd basically have to set up a courtroom trial.
Given that trials generally tend to take months rather than days, the woman would probably end up carrying the baby to term before things were resolved.
Much as I dislike the idea of abortion myself, I'm afraid your suggestion doesn't wash. In a choice between two evils (unwanted child or abortion), the mother's freedom of choice should override other considerations - at least where you're talking about an abortion during the early stages of pregnancy.
BTW, isn't it weird how the most vocal pro-life people are always men?
I'd rather neither of them die. Take a moment to consider why that didn't occur to you first.
It needs to be addressed from all angles...greater education spiritual, emotional and physical from early life onward, in balanced ways, across all media...and SUPPORT, SUPPORT, SUPPORT, and more SUPPORT for her situation, so that she knows about all possible choices and can make a truly informed choice not out of fear.
Hard to disagree with that, on the face of it, I must say. Unfortunately, I don't see much support out there for those in unfortunate circumstances, in general, in American society (not that I'm there, so I don't know; though God knows it must be better than in undeveloped parts of the world, of course). Well, it's complicated, no two ways about it...
Of course, "you can't stop it" is an empty argument that could be applied to any crime.
True. We can't stop a murder from taking place. But we can execute the murderer. Do you advocate executing all women who have ever had an abortion?
Is execution the only punative action available for all crimes?
No. But if you support the death penalty for murder, and if you don't support the death penalty for abortion, then you don't really believe that abortion is murder!
That is not correct either. Not every murder is a capital crime.
I was going to comment, really I was, but I know when to keep my trap shut, so I'm leavin'. The smell of a butt sniffer is in here. Did I step in dog poo?
Once conception occur, a woman is now carrying her unborn child.
oh boy. I'll just grab some cookies and coffee and be on my way.
yeah Denno..best to stay away from this thread..I learned the hard way
I would only approve of abortion if the mothers life is in danger, what if she has other children and the family she will left behind, what will happen to them?
I hopw this will never happen, it is a tough choice between fetus and the mother,
as I have said as there are many reasons for abortion,
baby is due to
raped, incest, mothers life is in danger (difficult to decide in these cases)
not so strong reasons like
not ready financially, not ready emotionally
father is unknown
too many children
I find it interesting that a lot of people who are against abortion are also against birth control. More birth control=less abortions.
I totally agree with you UW, they should contracept/protect themselves in the first place so that they can avoid unwanted pregnancies
hi sexy pretty tantrum, wheres xtasis again? writing poem??, is she not tired writing poem always, does she go on date on weekends>
I am totally against abortion, life begins at conception, children are beautiful, look at mine, I have lots of them by the way,
People should use contracept to avoind being pregnant if they dont like it in the first place
if it is a result of rape or incest, mothers life is in danger then, I might have to think about it,
Why couldn't someone be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?
I think... and whoa.... don't think I'm crazy...
That it doesn't matter to me right now. If a woman is put in that scenario then she will decide. I am Pro-life in the sense that abortion should not be used as a method of birth control, should not occur late in term, shouldn't be a rash decision and should probably be followed up with some counseling. But what I think "should" happen, and what women actually do is obviously different.
Do I have strict rules? Yes, for myself. Everyone else, your opinion is YOUR opinion. And even Sarah Palin said she understands why women would consider having an abortion in particular situations. So if you aren't in someone's shoes... then you don't know. Have your opinion.
If I were a woman I would disagree with abortion; but I'm not, I'm a man. I have absolutely no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. It is her choice. It's my choice whether to have sex with a woman, possibly impregnating her. After that initial mutual choice we can talk about the fetus (potential child), but the choice of continuing its life is truly, and always has been, the woman's. It is physically part of her body for roughly 9 months. I can only empathize during that time.
So, you couldn't sit on a jury (regardless of the crime) if the defendant were a woman? If you were a police officer you could never arrest a woman? If you came across a woman beating an elderly person in the street you would pretend not to see it and walk away?
You make some very curious assumptions. They are quite revealing.
Rather then picking the bits of a statement you like to make a point with, it's best to read the entire thing; perhaps understand the context. There is no comparison between the acts. Does a person disagree with war because they don't like killing? Does a person kill themselves because a member of our species commits atrocities? Humans are much too complicated in all of their attitudes, morals, philosophies, and personal experiences for black and white to do anything but deceive and promote ignorance. Rather than attempt to force others to abide by a personal code that is not theirs, try for a moment to learn.
Still no answer to my question. I guess we CAN tell women what they can do with their bodies in some cases but not others. Seems like in every other instance where what they do with their bodies causes the death of another person it's ok to have rules, but...
To me telling a woman it's her choice to kill off a child because her body is involved is like telling a man it's his choice to rape a woman because it's his body to do with as he pleases. It's NOT just the woman's body involved while carrying an as-yet unborn child any more than just his body involved in a rape.
Well, I have to say that if you've never been there, you just can't know. But even if you do what you think is the only right thing you can do when faced with a decision like that, you are often faced with horrible, life-altering consequences afterward.
Abortion is a horrible, dark, immensely difficult subject to get into and I honestly believe that if you've never been there, don't judge.
I don't think its the best way to go, guilt is a hard thing to deal with...and thats all I got to say about that.
Abortion is a contradiction of life. How do you teach children morals that it's wrong to kill when they see abortion being legal killing? Do you lie and tell them the baby wasn't alive yet?
You don't want to see a comparison because you cannot balance that equation.
by Scott S Bateman 3 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal choice.I have met quite a few people who think they belong to one or the other....
by Jackie Lynnley 17 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Dave Mathews 8 years ago
Abortion and euthanasia, and suicide all require a cessation of life. For abortion it is a requirement for the cessation of life of the fetus. For euthanasia and suicide, it is a requirement by an already living and viable human being for life to come to an end, or to bring their life to an...
by kathleenkat 7 years ago
Abortion rights have always interested me. There are many reasons why people have them. I have heard that, in other countries, people will have an abortion as soon as they find the sex of the baby to be female. Do we have abortions for such reasons of vanity, here in the US? How much freedom should...
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
It is a start in the right direction as I believe.I believe everyone has a right to life. Everyone! Thankful for the progress made. I cannot express how thankful I am, not here. All Lives Matter!
by LailaK 8 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|