forced to be mothers, the ones who violate these children need to be castrated... Yes Abortion is needed in many cases, and there needs to be these exceptions. I guess it's OK to kill the babies in the womb and outside the womb as we do in these man made wars.
The problem is most people agree that the 'morning after' pill isn't wrong, and most people agree that aborting a fully formed baby just before birth is very wrong. The problem is precisely where to draw an objective line in the middle- virtually no one agrees on that. Politicians tend to dumb it down to one extreme or the other to keep the issue in play as a political football because they all care more about getting elected on simple concepts, not actually getting anything worthwhile accomplished.
In a general sense, I would say that your opinion is mistaken, on this. That is, I think that both those who support third trimester abortions for non medical issues, as well as those who advocate for abortion limits beneath the full first trimester, are minorities. While there may be much variance among the majority, the agreeable middle ground, is that there should be both access to abortion, as well as limitations on its time frame. Most of those with this opinion, IMO, would place that "line," somewhere in the second trimester (from 13 to 26 weeks). The simplest solution, would be to institute a national minimum standard of availability for the first 13 weeks, and a maximum standard of not beyond 26 weeks, except when certain conditions apply. Individual states could then set their own standards, anywhere within that range, which would yield a system, similar to what it was, prior to the Dobbs ruling-- though some of those, previously with 20-week limits (or the few with lower ones), would undoubtedly lower their thresholds to 13 or 15 weeks.
Oh! Please! Please do some actual reading on this subject, please. Polls overwhelmingly show that public support for abortion is tied to gestation - the earlier the more support. Fine, the rare “late term” (third trimester) abortions are overwhelmingly for foetal abnormality incompatible with life. If that is polled again you have overwhelming public support
Women should get the best, most appropriate care no matter where they live, no mater what stage of procreation. And, that care comes from the woman's views and the doctors best medical advice. There isn't some magical number of weeks after which not medical information is discovered. If a pregnant woman or a fetus has a disease where the treatment won't allow the fetus to live, what percent of life threat will state prosecutors allow as a justification for abortion? And, the same goes for conditions that a fetus may be discovered to have. We've already seen this problem. We've had 10yo girls denied abortion. We've seen women require to carry a dead fetus. We've seen states that demand that doctors not be allowed to use mifepristone, thus requiring invasive procedures that carry greater risk. None of these "national guideline" directions allows for women to have the healthcare that they need. None of these guidelines protects girls pregnant due to rape and incest. In fact, incest victims are often required to get parental permission!!! And, none of these guidelines ensures the ability for OB/GYN doctors to retain their medical licenses when treating women with the best medical approach. In the various legislatures, medicine is the very LAST issue considered in a way that has any validity.
No Pro-Lifer likes the idea or thinks it is acceptable to impregnate a 10-year-old girl against her will. It is very illegal. The thing is, what happens when the baby inside the 10-year-old girl is already 16, 18, or 20 weeks along in gestation? I would say that 10-year-old girl is ALREADY a mother. Wouldn't you?
You have been told over and over that a 10yo is highly unlikely to have the development to carry a fetus to term without serious health ramifications. Abortion before delivery could well avoid permanent damage or be life saving. Plus, a 10yo may well not know that she is pregnant for an extended period of time. Has a 10yo already had enough sex education in school that she would know the activity causing pregnancy, the signs of pregnancy, and what to do about it? Does she understand incest and ways to deal with that situation? When I read the news, it sounds to me like Republicans in many states are highly OPPOSED to this kind of education at that age. >>> I'm really majorly opposed to this idea that we should keep our grade school kids in the dark about sex and THEN hold them to adult standards.
Every method of prophylaxis has a failure rate. We do a very poor job, if any job at all, of explaining to kids how to avoid pregnancy. Those opposed to abortion are often the same people who oppose arming kids in middle school and above with information on pregnancy prevention methods, failure rates, STD prevention and detection, how to detect pregnancy, what they should be doing when they suspect they may be pregnant, what their legal rights are, etc.
Good suggestions. But no reason that these things could not be included, in the basic national guidelines, I'd suggested. For example, I have been appalled, myself, hearing about women whose fetus had died, but which doctors were prohibited from aborting, until the women became septic, and were on the edge of death. This situation, could certainly be a stipulated exception, within the 13 - 26 week format, I'd proposed. You seem to be conflating my suggestion, with what some states are doing. Again, your pointing out of the potential exceptional situation of a very young minor, is a welcome inclusion, to my guideline idea. It should be noted, though, that the incident to which you refer, occurred in a state with a six week limit on abortions, which would have, in that case, been remedied by the 13 week minimum limit, I am advocating. But, if you think that 13 weeks might be insufficient, in some of these cases of a young girl, being raped by a family member, say, and being afraid to tell anyone, so the pregnancy is not known until she is further along, and "showing," I see no reason that some exception, covering this type of situation, couldn't be part of the concept, I'd proposed. Do you?
Do sexually mature people engaging and consensual sex understand that it can possibly lead to pregnancy?
I understand the temptation - it does seem reasonable. However, I don't see how a legislature can write laws on the various healthcare situations in which pregnant woman can find themselves. These situations are judged by doctors. It's most frequent that any care direction isn't 100%. For example, maybe a woman can survive a disease until after birth, and yet be successfully treated. And, today that IS a judgement call. Sometimes it's known that the woman will not survive if she waits until birth. Some women are willing to take the chance - even when it means almost certain death for the woman. Others are not. And, the exact circumstance doesn't involve just one disease or condition. Also, there are similar circumstances for the fetus. Will it survive gestation? Is it projected to be alive, but doomed to a short, painful existence? Is the condition of the fetus a threat for the woman? Will it be seriously deprecated in some way or ways? Is there a chance of requiring constant medical intervention for life? I'm not sure what you mean by "remedied by the 13 week". Maybe the clearest issue with that is that these serious issues with the woman and the fetus can show up into the final weeks of gestation. Doctors can not look at a 6 week fetus and determine that it or the woman will survive. Women and fetuses can have conditions show up late in pregnancy. For one easy example, cancer can show up at any time.
The topic recognizes that 10yo children can become pregnant. Your question just doesn't help with understanding that situation. Are you proposing far more detailed sex education at the grade school level???
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO one should be forced to gestate...NO one. So what?That doesn't refute my post at all...in fact, has nothing to do with my post...
So what if they do or don't ??? Guess what? ...and this will surprise you....getting pregnant is NOT a crime...pregnancy is NOT a crime....
Does NOT mean her life is not at severe risk. If no other reason that the fact that she and the foetus are competing for the same nutrients
Judging by the level of ignorance on this board I.e. condoms are 100% effective, that is more common than you would think. BTW Foxhastings is correct - pregnancy is not a crime
My point was that the anti-abortion outcry is largely over viable pregnancies. The general public doesn't care about this, or stillbirth because there isn't much that can be done either way.
Ooooh! I think you are very very wrong if you think the public “does not care about this”. The case of Savita Halapanavar was the final straw for Ireland and led to the overturning of abortion law in a strongly Catholic country. The case of an 11 year old in Argentina changed their abortion laws People do care
Better than republicans appreciate that a mindless embryo has no inherent moral value, though most people suck at risk assessment/management, particularly for an emotional biological drive like sex, and that failure can be counted on too. Good policy accounts for expected failures. If republicans really understood and cared about the effects of policy, they would harp more on the wide use of contraception than criminalization.
