Every baby deserves a chance to Live !

We should leave it up to science, definitely.

Some women need medical intervention to prevent miscarrying, perhaps if they have a blood clotting condition.

I don't see why it should be left up to nature of the technology is there - just as I don't think we should leave whether heart attack victims ( for example) survive up to nature.

 

Only problem is legal definitions vary from state to state, country to country. So its impossible to say one is correct and another isn't.

 

I certainly dont support mothers being forced to die for birth, and I think most pro lifers don't. The thing with science is that it can be used for bad and for good. This is where law comes in.

 

Which is my point and why it's better to use the proper terms.

For example, only born people are legally persons everywhere, but sometimes born people are also legally known as human beings.

That is why it's best not to refer to embryos and foetuses as human beings, in case it is assumed they have the same rights as people.

You probably know the state of Mississippi tried to get personhood status extended from birth to conception. This was eventually abandoned as it was such a stupid idea.

- - - Updated - - -

True. The law should never be used to prop up bad science or personal opinion.

 

"Personhood" and the state of being a "human being" varies cross culturally. So which cultures legal terms shall we stick to?

 

No, personhood has a definite legal meaning and only ever refers to human beings born alive.

Once you start believing that unborn human entities have the same rights as born people, then that only clouds the argument.


I

 

Science can be used for good or bad , BUT that doesn't CHANGE it ...and YOU can't
it change it no matter what your opinion is.

 

Actually it is far higher number than that - if you count all of those fertilised eggs that do not implant to start with the numbers are more like 70% of fertilised eggs do not survive

AS for leaving it up to "nature". If that is so we should leave EVERYTHING up to nature - from fertilisation of eggs through to non use of antibiotics. I know that is an all or nothing approach but simply put we have let the genie out of the bottle as far as medical intervention in our lives goes - no good trying to stuff in back inside if it does not want to go there

You can check this out for yourself - google up Bayliss and abortion

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-protects-abortion-doctors-20090901-f5qf.html

Mind you prior to 1985 women went to NSW for their abortions - because NSW, although it had similar laws was not prosecuting - much for the same reason as Queensland now no longer prosecutes

And if you REALLY want an eye opener look at the Bertram Wainer story

http://www.abc.net.au/abccontentsales/s1580205.htm

 

And it is exactly this point that makes laws unenforceable. I know my state of Queensland Australia has some pretty tough anti-abortion legislation. Been on the books since mid 1800's (yeah we will get to it one day). The rate of abortion here though is much the same as America - and it is all
legal". How can that be? Well once you put the phrase "For the life and health of the mother" into any legislation then you might as well rip up the law and throw the pieces to the wind.

 

No. I never said we should leave everything up to nature. It was a question. Some parts of life should be left up to nature, some parts are made better with science. Science means we can save a mothers life by terminating her unborn child if it threatens her. It also means we can save the unborn from living a life of pain and suffering. Both good uses of science. Killing an unborn child because daddy wanted sex to feel better and didn't use a condom is not a good use of science.

 

You are contradicting yourself. Your argument is muddled and badly thought out.

We either leave pregnancy to science or mother nature.

You cannot have it both ways.

 

And i am fine with that condition on pregnancy. If a respectable, qualified dr says the pregnancy will cause the mother to be in such a terrible mental state that she might commit suicude, then that is a life threatening pregnancy. Same if the pregnancy is going to permenantly and totally disable her in some way. Problem is the majority of abortions are not done for either of these reasons. And if pro choicers had their way a woman could have an abortion at any time and for any reason. I could never accept a law that gives one type of human complete and absolute control over the life and death of another type of human.

 

An abortion should only be legal prior to the fetus having a heart beat or where the mothers life is threatened if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. And never does any surgeon perform an abortion without doing an ultrasound immediately prior to the procedure, he/she needs to determine the location of the fetus and the age of the fetus, and give the mother the option to continue with the procedure or decide, based on the results to continue the pregnancy.

If you miss a period and immediately see your gynecologist/obstetrician, there is likely only an embryo without a heart beat. If you wait another month, you have waited too long IMO. Where the mothers health is not in jeopardy and there is a heart beat, abortion should not be an option.as it is no longer not just an embryo but a living being that has the right to live and thrive. Most women seeing a heart beat and fetus via ultrasound would have a difficult time aborting the fetus.

It is essential that the woman be provided all factual information regarding their pregnancy and status of the fetus to enable them to make an informed decision.

 

No your argument makes no sense. Of course we can have it both ways, we do right now. If we leave prehnancy to nature, more women die in child birth. We leave it to science and we no longer procreate until they invent an artificial womb and synthetic semen (which they are working on by the way) have you read Aldous Huxley?

Obviously we need a balance of science and nature in just about every aspect of life, including pregnancy.

 

Again, people responded to this in the wrong way. Instead of getting to the root of the problem and finding out why women were willing to risk their lives in backyard abortions, they instead decided to make it legal.

To lower the elective abortion rate we need to focus on education, contraception and social outcomes for parents. Allowing more access to elective abortion will not decrease the incidence of elective abortion.

Elective abortion is just a bandaid solution to a much bigger problem.

 

Who decides? Who decides what level of health impact is "acceptable" and what "not acceptable"? Surely that is us to the woman herself to decide and if pregnancy means she will end up homeless - is that not also a factor. Now the other night on the news they were opening a new "homeless" shelter for women and they stated that although 60% of the homeless on our streets were women there were 10 times the number of shelter beds for men as for women. Who are you to decide if the reason for an abortion is "good enough"? I think you might be under some mistaken misconceptions in relation to why women choose abortion

 

Hmmm and one of the misconceptions here is that conception is not used by women seeking abortions whereas a large and significant proportion have been taking contraception in the month's before pregnancy (google guttmacher institute for some reason it is not opening for me)

 

Then women should also be FORCED to see what pregnancy means to their health and the damage it does to their body....every detail, every possible and probable disease and complication, and it's considerable so it will take awhile. It should be complete with graphic photos of what her body will be like , inside and out, after birthing children...

 

Yes

No, they're not.

I've also read Agatha Christie.

We need science to give nature a helping hand.

 

Women were seeking back street abortions because they couldn't get one legally.

Wealthy women could afford to pay surgeons to skirt round the law. Unscrupulous surgeons charged what the thought the woman could pay.

Abortion was made legal because it was finally recognised women should have the right to take charge of their own reproduction

It will decrease the number of women harmed by back street abortions.

It's a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.