Pros and Cons of Abortion?
The question as to whether & when abortion might be right should be largely a scientific question! WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN! Before life begins - It is OBVIOUSLY a woman's right to have an abortion. After life begins - It is OBVIOUSLY killing a human to have an abortion. Not that makes things simple, but that should be the basis of the argument. The arguments on both side are frequently emotional and not thought out. "Choose life; your mother did." The same logic can be applied to not using birth control. "It's not fair to bring an unwanted baby into the world." Haven't you heard of how many people are on a long list for adopting a child? This goes for all races now days. This argument only applies to handicapped kids. Then I wonder, couldn't you apply the same logic to the children after they're born? What is the scientific difference between a late-term fetus and a new-born baby? "The baby you want to abort could be the next Albert Einstein or Martin Luther King" or maybe the next Hitler. "My Body - My Choice" But the fact of the matter is (at least at some stage of the development) there is another human life IN your body. And in the vast majority of the cases, the woman had a choice before getting pregnant! Birth Control! You may religiously believe life begins at conception, but you can't legislate by religion. And just because it isn't fair for a woman to have to have a baby she didn't want just because she waited to long into the pregnancy to make the decision, does that mean it's fair to kill the baby? Even in cases of rape or incest, the question of whether the fetus is a human life, or a lump of tissue should central. I'm not trying to minimize the hell a woman would go through in this situation, I'm just saying the baby doesn't cease to be a baby (IF development is that far along). So what I'd like to see is SCIENTIFIC DATA to determine when life begins.
What are some arguments for and against abortion?
Here are ten of each 10 Abortion Arguments: 10 Arguments For Abortion, 10 Arguments Against Abortion Abortion Arguments from Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Sides & Main Points of Debate By Linda Lowen Women's Issues Expert http://womensissues.about.com/od/reprodu...
Are there pro-choice abortion survivors?
Original Question: Are there pro-choice abortion survivors?No Original Question DetailsLaura Harris’s paranoid fantasies about ire aside, the tales of people like Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden while not fabrications, are grossly misconstrued. The most reputable writeup of Gianna Jessen’s case is in The Telegraph, a right-leaning newspaper from Britain, which got a key fact about abortion in the US wrong. Abortion, even in 1977 was not universally available on demand at any point in a pregnancy.And to believe that women were just ho-humming it and waiting to the last minute is absurd. To believe that women would wait to get an abortion would mean believing that women are both wealthy and masochistic.Furthermore, we do not have access, nor should we have access to the medical records of their mothers, but we do know they were 17 and 19 respectively. Despite all the dumbass rhetoric to the contrary, women’s bodies are not fully developed until their mid-twenties, and women probably should put off childbearing until that age. Pregnancies prior to that age are more problematic, more prone to complications and more likely to be harmful to the woman’s health.The old argument, “well throughout history, women have given birth at young ages” is nonsense. Throughout history society has treated women as property too, which is precisely the state to which anti-choicers want to return us.Yes, Gianna and Melissa survived being aborted. That is going to happen from time to time. But here is the thing—and this is what the anti-choicers missed—once Gianna and Melissa were removed from their mothers’ uteruses, and the doctors realized that they had a reasonable chance of survival, those medical personnel immediately set about taking steps to keep them alive.Intent to kill? Baloney.Anti-choicers once again have a vicious narrative whose endgame is to turn women into rightless breeder sows.
CONTEST: Arguments for/against abortion...?
What is the best/most convincing/most interesting argument you've heard advocating either (or both) of the following positions: (A) that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, even if the fetus IS a human being from the moment of conception, or (B) that a woman doesn't have the right to terminate her pregnancy, even if the fetus is NOT a human being from the moment of conception. Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument is a notable example of (A)--the argument of Don Marquis a notable example of (B). The condition to the argument is crucial. Posting "ABORTION IS MURDER, FETUS IS A PERSON, WHY DO LIBERALS HATE JESUS?" really doesn't answer the question and neither does "IT'S A WOMAN'S BODY, RIGHT TO CHOOSE, THE POPE'S A JERK." Have fun. : )
Pregnant with twins, abortion pill??
It IS possible to tell how many fetuses are carried if an ultrasound is done -- provided they're fraternal twins (I had one done at 7 weeks pregnant to figure out why I was so sick...come to find out it was twins...the doctor was looking for cancer!). As for aborting one, yes it can happen. I lost one twin (spontaneously) at 4 1/2 months, but the other survived the miscarriage and I carried him to term...he's now 15 years old. The abortion pill is another story however. You are right in your assumption that there may be something wrong with the second fetus. It may be still-born at term (or before), or it may be born with defects. Finally, there is a HUGE chance that the bimbo is just lying for attention or revenge. Everyone will know one way or another in a few more months, though.
At what stage of pregnancy do you believe that getting an abortion should be illegal?
People seem to have a problem understanding the meaning of abortion and the concept of abortion. Meaning of Abortion:The term Abortion has been defined. Every country has make a clear distinction of what an abortion is and when it happens regardless of abortion laws. And that is:"The termination of a pregnancy that doesn't end in birth, of a fetus that weights less than 500 grams or has 20 - 24 weeks or less"In the US, the termination of a pregnancy at or before 20 weeks is considered an abortion. In Chile, the termination of a pregnancy at or before 22 weeks is considered an abortion. In other places, 24 weeks makes the cut. But most agree on the 500 grams mark. And why is this differentiation made? Viability. A fetus that's any smaller than that, has no chance of survival outside the uterus. Concept of Abortion:When you say abortion, people immediately pictured an induced abortion, but in reality, this is a generic word to refer to all those pregnancies that don't end in birth. There are Spontaneous Abortions, Induced Abortions, Therapeutic Abortions, Retained Abortions, Septic Abortions, Incomplete Abortions, Complete Abortions, Iatrogenic Abortions, Medical Abortions, Surgical Abortions, Illegal Abortions, Legal Abortions, Safe Abortions, and so on, and so on. People have created their own terms to make some sort of distinction between one and the other, but in reality, that's simply inaccurate. Now, with this question I assume you're referring to induced, legal and safe abortions. But here's the catch. You're asking at what point during pregnancy getting an abortion should be illegal, but you can't have an abortion during the entire duration of a pregnancy. Any termination of a pregnancy beyond the legal definition of abortion, isn't an abortion. You can't abort a 30 week old fetus, or a 28 week old fetus or a 37 week old fetus. Because that's not an abortion. That's an Induced Termination of Pregnancy, and that pregnancy will end in the Premature Birth of a Viable Premature Newborn. With that being said, I strongly believe that an induced, legal and safe abortion should be allowed for as long as the medical definition of abortion applies.
NEW YORK NEW ABORTION LAW?
That is absolutely horrid. Killing a baby once it’s a full grown fetus? Wtf? And yeah, killing a baby AFTER it’s born is NOT OK. What’s the difference between in the womb and out of the womb? Nothing besides being born. It’s still a baby with a human life. It deserves to live. Let’s define murder shall we. Murder: killing of a human being by another. A doctor is killing a baby. Which is a HUMAN BEING!!!! But no it’s not murder because “my body my choice” WRONG the baby is not your body it has its own and taking the life of it is murder and is wrong. And at 9 months its full grown! It is not a blob of cells considering you have to wait a few months for the fetus to grow to get an abortion. Idk how people could possibly think this is all ok and its a woman’s choice to make. ITS NOT OK!!!!
If abortion is not considered murder, then why is it considered double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed?
Ah, the good old double standard.Democrats say it is a woman’s right to have an abortion. Republicans don’t. They call it murder. But, they both agree that when a man kills a woman, who is pregnant, he should be punished. To make sure he gets a “fair” punishment, they nail him with two murder charges, even if he didn’t know she was pregnant. She might even not know it. It’s how “our” system works.Now, I can see it if she’s clearly pregnant and, knowing this, he kills her. But, politicians and others are exempt from this, even if they KNOW she’s pregnant. In fact, this is the reason some women have been murdered in the first place.To me, it’s simple. The baby hasn’t taken it’s first breath. Until it is apart from the mother, it’s part of the mother. Her choice. Now, I’m against abortion. But, the woman has to carry and care for the baby for 9 months, give birth, and then watch after it if she decides to keep it for up to 18 years. She decides on its treatments, what it eats, what it wears, and so on. If she decides that it should have a vaccine that kills it, will she be punished? Now, if she doesn’t have the vaccine, there are those who would have her lynched, but not the other way around.Years ago, Roe v. Wade decided this. Now, it’s up for debate again. We have a right winger in office and it’s endangered. So, it’s double murder. If a sane democrat got in, it wouldn’t be. The fact is, it’s better and safer if it is legal and left to the mother than the state. Of course, the state doesn’t care how many women die during illegal abortions, or how many get sick and injured. They claim it’s a matter of safety and all that, but it really is about their power and getting votes.We need sanity in this government. It is either murder for having an abortion AND a double murder if a man murders a pregnant woman (might help stop violence against women, but I doubt it) or it isn’t murder for an abortion and the man doesn’t face a double charge.But, we have a two party system and it’s messed up. This is one of those debates that split most people up and keep the same old problems going generation after generation. I’m actually surprised the republicans aren’t for Prohibition again and the democrats aren’t against it. Or, to make it interesting, the democrats are anti alcohol while being pro drugs. Anything to confuse people, you know?
Why does Hillary Clinton say 3rd term abortions are permissable when third term C-sections are routinely done to save the life of the mother?
Allowing abortions after 20 weeks gives parents and doctors a chance to try to get the high-risk fetus to the magic moment of viability. If parents have to make the decision whether or not to have an abortion before 20 weeks, they will more often have one to reduce the risk to the mother’s health, of having a severe or fatal birth defect or of a traumatic pregnancy loss. If the option is kept open, they will be more likely to risk going forward with the pregnancy in hopes of getting the baby to survivability. Those ten weeks between twenty and thirty weeks gestation can be fraught with risks that do not surface earlier.Women do not have late-term abortions for the sake of birth control, for fun or because they just don’t want a baby. They have them because the baby is discovered to have some sort of high-risk or fatal defect or because the mother’s life and/or health has become compromised by the pregnancy, for example: pre-eclampsia, amniotic fluid embolism, low amniotic fluid, gestational diabetes and of course the whole raft of complications that comes with twins or other multiple births.We can set up pre-natal support programs that make it easier for women to be able to go through healthy pregnancies and to deliver healthy babies, but we will never be able to completely eliminate all the possible complications. Some times the easiest solution to those sad, serious and sometimes life-threatening complications is to terminate. Some women will choose to terminate, others will choose to run the risks in the hopes of beating the odds. We none of us have the right to make those decisions for the families who must face them.When you say that you have heard of lots of people who have had late-term C-sections, let me say that I hope you never encounter the complications that have been described. Medical science is making great progress and many previously non-viable pregnancies can be saved. Sadly, not all can be. May you never discover this the hard way. Please stress to your state’s lawmakers to leave in peace those who have and to stop passing legislation which makes a horrible situation even worse.