Assuming there's adoption available for every baby, what need is there for abortion?

Assuming there's adoption available for every baby, what need is there for abortion?

 

Life/health of mother, rape/incest just to name a few.

 

If a woman is going to die, then I would say, save the mother. But I can't see killing a baby because of rape or incest. Isn't that capital punishment for a crime the baby didn't commit?

 

*shrugs* If you want to continue torturing an already tortured woman (someone who will experience PTSD) and who will probably have it worse while an extremely unwanted pregnancy grows out of her control, by all means, go ahead and be the person to do that to her.

Although I doubt anyone who writes the laws to try and end abortion altogether will also try to deny a raped woman the right to end a pregnancy that was quite literally forced upon her. Most people aren't that heartless.

 

I've heard that women who abort a child after a rape are even more traumatized after the abortion because now they've also committed an act of violence. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I know two women who aborted after rape and it saved their lives, both went on to lead happy lives, got married and had three children. =)

Sometimes what you 'hear' isn't always true and abortion is not a 'wrong', especially in this situation. In fact in this situation sometimes it is the right choice to make.

 

Being pregnant isn't fun. Childbirth isn't fun. Recovery from childbirth takes about a year. Why should a woman endure all that just to hand the baby over to someone else so she can wonder about him/her the rest of her life? Studies have shown adoption to be MORE emotionally traumatic for a woman than abortion. What need is there for you to control the decisions of women?

 

If a woman was raped, there's no excuse for getting an abortion past one month. If you were raped, you know there could be a pregnancy, and if you are planning to get an abortion you should take care of it as soon as possible.

What I just can't understand is why there are exceptions in the law allowing a woman to get an abortion past 24 weeks if she was raped.

 

He hears what he wants and trolls the board. He will put you on ignore if you call him out.

 

Neither is it some terrible arduous ordeal. Why so much tocophobia?

Plus, if the woman does not want to give birth, she still has to go through an abortion. Either way, her cervix will have to be forced open, and the contents of her uterus removed.

Pro-lifers just want the baby to come out in one piece. Is that really too much to ask?

 

The vast majority of abortions do not happen because of rape/incest, or the life/health of the mother.

 

Why is there restrictions for aborting a fetus past 24 weeks? Because it's a person after that time, I guess. However, if it's a person after 24 weeks, by making a law that's saying that it's okay to abort the fetus after 24 weeks, if it was conceived from rape, that's like saying that it should be legal for a woman to kill her own newborn child if it was conceived from rape. If a pro-choicer says that they support a woman's right to an abortion if she was raped, that's one thing. They don't even believe that the fetus is a person in the first place. However, to say that, "abortion should be banned, with the exception of rape", that's like saying, "it should be illegal to harm a child, unless the child was conceived from rape".

 

I know some people who are pro-choice. Even they don't support aborting viable fetuses. Why? Because even some pro-choicers believe that viable fetuses are persons. If the fetus is viable, then a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort it, even if she got pregnant as a result of rape. Why? Because viable fetuses are persons. To say that it shouldn't be legal for a woman to abort a viable fetus, unless it was conceived as a result of rape, is very hypocritical and inconsistent.

Im so heartless because I care about viable fetuses?

 

Even if you are 13 and raped by your father?

 

Then is it really the woman's own choice to get the abortion? Or is she being coerced into it? The molesting father in this case has a strong incentive to want to make sure that baby is aborted, to cover up his crimes.

You might have an argument, if we were talking about those under the age of 18, who have been removed from the custody of the person who was molesting them.
That being said, this is normally not the case.

 

No, it really is a terrible arduous ordeal, at least for some. Whether a woman has a takophobia or just doesn't want to give up a year and a half of her life, doesn't matter. Most women who choose abortion will have one in the first trimester thereby avoiding the worst of pregnancy and childbirth. Not that abortion is fun either.

If pro-lifers were all that concerned about the fetus coming out in one piece, they wouldn't have objected to D&X or partial birth abortion, which is a procedure designed to get the fetus out in one piece so the parents can grieve for a whole baby. Prior procedures required chopping the fetus into pieces for removal.

 

A year and a half of her life?? You act like she is being locked away in a Siberian gulag. Half these women don't get their abortion until they are already 2 months into the pregnancy, some much later than that. It's not as if a pregnancy is completely immobilizing.

How can a woman who is trying to abort 5 months into her pregnancy complain about being forced into a 9 month pregnancy??
If a woman is already 5 months pregnant, it would be better for her to wait 2 more months and then have labor prematurely induced, than to get an abortion.

I don't have to argue that pregnancy is not that bad. All I have to argue is that pregnancy is not that much worse than an abortion.

How many women who get abortions actually care to keep their baby's body? Most of the time the abortion clinic won't even let them keep it. It is considered "biohazardous" material that cannot be taken off site, except to be incinerated. And I would also imagine the clinic is extremely reluctant to even let the woman see it.

I only wish these women were required to grieve over the body. Or at least attend a little mandatory funeral service, with the fetus on open display in a casket before being cremated.

Yes, lord only knows why us pro-lifers object to that

 

This is already covered by "wrongful pregnancy" laws where a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is seen as an relevant continuation of injury to the woman. In these cases the pregnancy is seen as a cost of the sexual act not a benefit.

As far as consensual sex is concerned the law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk, and sex only creates the risk of pregnancy, therefore it can be argued that a pregnancy (injury) resulting from the risk (sex) gives the woman the right to use deadly force in order to protect herself from injury (pregnancy), and the injuries resulting from a pregnancy more than meet the criteria laid down for the lawful use of deadly force.

 

I am left to wonder how many times you have gone though it, that you "Know" what it is like?

Two of my children were born at home with me acting as the midwife (yes, I studied beforehand), and from the experience I will tell you quite clearly....she was in great pain and suffered greatly for some time before, during, and after.

 

Most women give birth at hospitals, not at homes, nowadays.

 

There is not adoption available for every baby.
By having a baby you don't want you are basically making it so a baby somewhere else dies in the streets instead of being adopted.
It is the same as when someone buys a dog instead of adopting one.
You are just indirectly putting another dog to death, or in this case human.
The real question you should be asking is if it is better to live a year then be killed, or to have not lived at all.

 

first, there AINT adoption for every baby, not even close. second, the US is horribly overcrowded with messed up people So you'd wish for the 30 million unwanted fetuses to have grown up? third, are you willing to be taxed exhorbantly more to pay for all the welfare and imprisonment that would take, and to pay the women to undergo the hassles and risks of pregnancy? Say, $20,000 each?

 

Wow, you started an old one but welcome to the fray !

Warning: if you get a response from an Anti-Choicer they will deny that 9 months of pregnancy is detrimental to women.

 

It isn't possible to put up an embryo for adoption.

 

You GOT to be kidding with that question. You can't be that dumb and still know how to type.