"After-birth abortion"...

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

the whole point of this discussion is to try get pro choicers to somehow "admit" that abortion is murder.

so I guess I didn't really have scrambled eggs for breakfast, I had scrambled chicken.

[LikeAnOcean]

If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.



Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..


I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?


It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.


If it's out of the womb, give it a chance with another parent.


I think the only reason I'm pro-choice is because there are too many damn people in this world.. If it were me, I don't think I could kill my unborn child.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.



Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..


I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?


It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.

where is it legal to get a late term abortion?

and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.

[LikeAnOcean]

If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.



Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..


I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?


It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.

where is it legal to get a late term abortion?

and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.

What is the cut off? Term?.. Mis info aside, I think my point was about drawing the line..


and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

What is the cut off? Term?.. Mis info aside, I think my point was about drawing the line..


and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.

pretty sure the legal cut off is in the first trimester. not sure though.

[inlet13]

Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.

That said, this discussion goes no where, especially here. The people who are pro-life won't change based on a essay like this, and those who are pro-choice won't either. It's an unfortunate reality. But, to avoid being the party-pooper, I'll add to it...

My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption. In my little world of hope, this would be the law. Abortion would cease to exist, but Mothers could end their pregnancy through the adoption/extraction method mentioned above. In that sense, those seeking termination of their pregnancy, would be offering up a gift to parents who can't have their own. To me, that's win/win. Those seeking a way out of parenting get it with a procedure as simple as an abortion (with this new technology), and those seeking children get one. Also, I think people would think twice about unprotected sex if their child is now being raised elsewhere by parents who actually wanted the child.

Obviously, this is way in the future... but, technology could make abortion a thing of the past. I do think that technology (via ultrasounds) is already changing the ease of mind with regards to abortions. Seeing the fetus being destroyed is not a pretty sight.

One day 99% of the public will look back on the practice of abortion itself as antiquated and repulsive. But, then again, that's my opinion.

[LikeAnOcean]

Abortion is wrong, period.

My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption.

8 billion people and growing, god, I hope not..

Really the solution is birth control.. Unless of course you consider it wrong and I am aborting every time I jack off..


Where is the line drawn?


We are all dieing.. Let's not pretend its ok to kill a grown man, but not an unborn child... IMO.

We are running out of space on this planet.. Tough decisions to make ahead... Either we make them or let nature make them for us.

[PJ_Soul]

Garbage article. No one is committing infanticide. Wtf.

They do it to baby girls in India and the Middle East and other parts of Asia though. Maybe the wack jobs who contributed to that article could re-focus their attention and talk about that rather that trying to sway opinions about women's right to choose by disseminating twisted and false information.

[pandora]

to late term abortion questions

Wikipedia speaks on late term abortion after viability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termi ... _pregnancy

my brother in law has saved micro premmies in this age range

he is a miracle worker most wonderful man

http://preemies.about.com/od/preemieage ... Week_2.htm

[puremagic]

To the original poster, you have missed the point of your own post by trying to turn it into an 'abortion' pro-life/pro-choice -WOMEN- seeking abortions issue, which it is not. This article is about the medical profession expanding their right to make decisions for you. If you had done some research you would fine that most hospitals already have Ethic Committees, in place that allow medical staff to conduct after birth 'mercy killings' under their 'medical futile care laws' as part of their Advance Directives. So if a child is born with a severe defect, or your son/daughter goes into a coma as a result of a sporting/car accident, or any type of condition requiring long-term life support, the Hospital can decide – without the consent of the parent/family– to pull the plug.

Remember the outcry about President Obama wanting to kill grandma, well your hospitals already had that authority by law to do such. President Obama was giving you the right and the ability to talk to your hospitals and doctors about their Advance Directive policies, which in most cases, you are given a written notice of the Hospital's decision and given 14 days to find alternative care before they make the decision for you.

NOW, insurance companies are lobbying to expand the medical futile laws and take it a step further by eliminating the cost of care before birth takes place. Reminder under President Obama's health care plan, people with a pre-disposed condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. Let me repeat that – People with a PRE-DISPOSED condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. President Obama's health care plan would negate any automatic denial to the right of life due to genetic testing or family medical history. Families, parents, parents-to-be would still be able to talk to their physicians about the quality of life issues as part of their Advance Directive rights.

Y'all get so wrapped up in the word 'abortion' that you miss the bigger picture,I guess its a pre-disposed condition.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.

I don't know any pro choicers who are for "killing a new born" two seconds before it's out. that is just an over dramatized false hood and you know it.

[inlet13]

Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.

I don't know any pro choicers who are for "killing a new born" two seconds before it's out. that is just an over dramatized false hood and you know it.

First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.

Second, whether you know people who believe this or not is irrelevant. They exist. For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions. Regardless of his, or other pro-choicers rationale, it does make one question where exactly the pro-choice camp wishes to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? You act as though there is a undeniable consensus in the pro-choice camp. I'd say simply - prove it.... I don't agree at all.

[inlet13]

Abortion is wrong, period.

My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption.

8 billion people and growing, god, I hope not..

Really the solution is birth control.. Unless of course you consider it wrong and I am aborting every time I jack off..


Where is the line drawn?


We are all dieing.. Let's not pretend its ok to kill a grown man, but not an unborn child... IMO.

We are running out of space on this planet.. Tough decisions to make ahead... Either we make them or let nature make them for us.

I understand your argument about population being too large. I use to think that way. But, eventually, when I really looked into it, I realized I was wrong. As population on earth has grown, life expectancy and economic well-being has too. In other words, population growth and the well-being of an average person are not inversely related. In fact, they may be positively related. This is factual and data backs it up.

Basically, your argument (which is Malthusian) goes, restrict population growth because there's only so much food, etc. In other words, goods (like food) are scarce. What that does not take into account is technology. Scarcity has all sorts of problems with technology. Look up Thomas Malthus. He preached in the 1800s what you're preaching here and was proven wrong.

Please read this (I think you'll find it interesting, even if you may originally disagree):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larahoffmans/2011/10/31/7-billion-reasons-malthus-was-wrong/

[PJ_Soul]

Well, in any case, where are these places that drag minutes-from-being-born babies out of women and then stomp on their heads? Where I am, they will not give you an abortion if you are beyond the first trimester unless there is something wrong with the fetus or the mother's health is at risk. I keep hearing anti-abortionist whining about these macabre procedures on practically full-term babies just because the mother suddenly decides she doesn't want it, but have never ever seen them accompany these accusations with any kind of law that allows doctors to perform these acts.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

First, you misunderstood the part you quoted. I was implying that's there's really no distinction between "in" the womb and "out" of the womb in many cases (like when the fetus is 100% viable). So, saying it's ok to kill a viable fetus in the womb and not so out of the womb is odd. Like this article, my point gets at "birth" being the origin of life vs. conception.

Second, whether you know people who believe this or not is irrelevant. They exist. For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions. Regardless of his, or other pro-choicers rationale, it does make one question where exactly the pro-choice camp wishes to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? You act as though there is a undeniable consensus in the pro-choice camp. I'd say simply - prove it.... I don't agree at all.

I meant know of, not know. Either way, while I agree with you that there is no undeniable consensus among the pro-choice movement, I can't agree when you state a "large portion of the pro choice camp" are ok with partial birth abortions. First, that's fucking sick, and second, I'd say simply, prove it.

And I don't think killing a viable fetus that late in the womb is ok. So, no, it's not odd. But the stance you quote is, I agree.