Which of these women should not have an abortion

If that was a reliable method there would be no more birth defects. If you are that confident, then perhaps pro-life religious groups should setup a fund to encourage women to keep their Tay-Sachs pregnancies. If a woman contacts your pro-life group, you can pray for her so she does not get an abortion, but if she has the baby and it does have Tay-Sachs, your pro-life fund will pay for all associated medical fees for that pregnancy until the death of the child.

 

I *am* calm. Why would you think I'm not?

A woman terminating her pregnancy (abortion) is not murder in any state.

Once again, murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. The ONLY instance where killing a fetus is murder in your country is where there are specific laws making the killing of a fetus murder and that is when someone kills it against the woman's wishes. Meaning, NOT legal abortion.

I never said that you said abortion is illegal. You said that it is murder, which it isn't.

I AM calm. And I am conservative.

 

Good post...especially that last line....might shut him up ....funny how he thinks we're the upset ones....

 

Why not we switch and if she aborts those who advocate it would have to pay?

 

Thanks. I don't know why some anti choicers ASSume that all pro choicers are liberals. Conservatives are supposed to be for less govt. intrusion in our lives, so it makes sense to be pro choice if you are conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

Pro choicers don't demand a woman abort. In your country, she does pay for the abortion.

 

And the overwhelming reason for late term abortion - foetal abnormality incompatible with life

 

And same to you. You appear to want to try and "save the lives" of what can only be termed potential humans but seem to have little regard for those who are already living

And again I ask what if theses potential humans are not destined to be perfect little white babies born into families living above the poverty line?

 

and you seem to ignore the reality that no person can be forced to undergo a procedure that they do not want to under go, oh and BTW the risks involved in abortion are far less than the risks involved in giving birth . .whether by caesarean or not.

There are at least three medical procedures associated with late-term abortions: Dilation and evacuation (D&E) Early labour induction (sometimes called "induction abortion") Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion", none of these have as much risk as a caesarean, and irrelevant of any risks no person can be forced to undergo a procedure that over rules their perception of what risk is acceptable to them.

 

Yes really, perhaps you should look a little closer at the link you provided. There is no a single state in the US that does not impose restrictions on not only late term abortions but on all abortions.

Those restrictions range from waiting periods to an out-right ban after a certain gestation period.

 

As I said if the female consents then there is no murder, find a single convicted case of a person who had consent from the female to terminate her pregnancy.

UVVA type laws are all based around consent of the female.

 

Uhhhh, you don't have to pay for a baby that has been aborted

 

My point is that we know prayer and faith are not reliable methods to combat disease and/or birth defects. Even people who advocate prayer as the solution do not have the confidence to put their money where their faith is (otherwise we would already see pro-life funds of this type).

I do not doubt the power of faith and prayer. I, too, have known people who were healed after prayer... but I have also known very good people who have prayed for a child and had a miscarriage, or prayed for healing and did not receive it. If the pro-life religious groups do not have the faith to setup a fund like that (putting their money where their words are)... why should the rest of the country have faith in prayer as the solution?

 

If the abnormality renders the fetus non-viable, the discussion is moot. Otherwise, in the 9th month birth rather than abort and allow the child to be adopted rather than dead.

 

Great right up until the 9th month when, if the fetus is determined to be viable, you are in fact killing a living being. Capable of breathing, eating, and sentient thought.

I was born slightly more than five weeks premature.
My brother just under 4 weeks premature.
My oldest son almost 6 weeks premature.

Abortion of a viable fetus is murder. It is murder under the common law and it is murder by any moral definition. Absent a clear threat to the mother's health or life viable fetus should be birthed not killed.

And if you've a problem with that concept then I suggest earlier and better decision making.

 

Are you too dumb to count or too dumb to read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-abortion-restrictions-state-by-state/448098/

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...-late-term-abortion/abortion-restrix-2000.png

 

Be careful what you ask for...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/appeal-indiana-woman-convicted-having-abortion

 

Correct, if you want to change that reality then I suggest you start thinking of proposing a change to the Constitution, specifically the equal protection clause .. but then of course if you manage to do that it is no longer an equal protection clause.

Whatever time you or anyone else is born is irrelevant.

It simply is not murder under common law, and as far as a moral definition is concerned then that is just your moral definition, not mine .. there is nothing morally wrong in stopping a person from injuring you, and as to your "clear threat to the mother's health or life" it must be pointed out to you again, that there is no "mother" unless she already has born children, and again deadly force in self-defence is also justified in the case of serious injury and/or loss of liberty, pregnancy is already legally deemed a serious injury in some cases ie equivalent to a gun shot wound and/or a broken limb.

I have no issue with the concept at all .. however, it is nothing more than an opinion with zero standing in law and is in reality a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the right of individual self-defence found under the 2nd amendment.

You may "suggest" what ever you wish, the reality is that the gestation time of the fetus is 100% irrelevant IF the unborn were ever to be legally deemed as persons.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/appeal-indiana-woman-convicted-having-abortion

 

Neither, but it appears you are.

Let us just take one of these so called no restriction states .. Alaska -

In Alaska, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of December 1, 2015:

A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion before the procedure is provided.

The parent of a minor must be notified before an abortion is provided.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/2015/state-facts-about-abortion-alaska

Are you attempting to assert that the above restrictions don't apply to late-term abortions?

 

Under appeal .. be careful that you don't assume victory before the battle is over.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't address anything I wrote, and that case is under appeal .. be careful that you don't assume victory before the battle is over.

 

What's with all the references to "posteriors".....

I mean besides using it to duck those inconvenient questions??

 

Have you any evidence that abortions are happening in viable late term pregnancies?? Trawl through the Internet and you will see that of the 1% of abortions that occur in the third trimester less than 1% are for foetal abnormality and of those a very large proportion are conditions such as munchausen syndrome

 

No they don't, it is nothing more than a bumper-sticker spin story because in the end that is all they have.

 

Yup that old hoary idea that airhead teens suddenly decide in the last trimester that they just HWVE to fit into a bikini so they will have an abortion. Of course this picture is always of a middle to upper class white girl. Never of an under age coloured girl who is already living below the poverty line