Thoughts and questions on abortion

[Zandor]

My position is abortion should be allowed through five or six months. At that point, the fetus is passing through to viability/personhood.

Does Roe v Wade guarantee the right to choice for six months or up through birth? I have heard both versions.

How can we assure a certain point at which viability or personhood has not been reached? Whatever the criteria, wouldn't it vary and be an inexact calculation? Put another way, how do we assure we don't err on the side of allowing an abortion when the fetus is viable?

These questions have been posed to me in the past and are difficult to answer.

Thank you in advance.

[RC]

1. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."<1> The decision prompted national debate that continues to this day about whether abortion should be illegal, about who should decide whether it is illegal, about the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional adjudication, and about the role of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade


ROE v. WADE
Decided January 22, 1973
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

[China_cat]

2. Working recommendations for abortion

Up to 12 weeks, at will
3 months to 6 months (second trimester) the later you get the more medical justification you need.
6 months to 9 months (third trimester) medical necessity only.

Of course states are doing their best to get around this, passing all kinds of restrictions to try to stop women from being allowed to make the choice but the above is what it's supposed to be.

[Captain_Nemo]

3. The problem with outlawing late abortions

There are women who need/choose to have late term abortions for health reasons. Their lives should not be secondary to the life of a fetus.
Personally, I know two women who had late term (don''t know exact week it was performed) abortions because of the health of the fetus and the women. (Interestingly, both of these women could have died from complications due to these pregnancies should they have chosen to take them to term.) They chose to terminate the pregnancies with grave sadness. It's difficult to make this choice - especially when you are so far along.
Both of these women had the procedure, are both fine, and have several healthy children now.
When you want to put limits on medical procedures you have to really think it through and be fully informed as to why you are advocating such limitations. In the case of late term abortion should our country deny these women the opportunity/right to save their lives?

[JetCityLiberal]

4. If you don't like abortion don't have one

Period. I am getting sick of these right wing arguments about a woman and her body...it is all about CONTROLLING WOMEN. PERIOD.

On edit: Why are you hiding your gender?????

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. I'm inclined to disagree.

I do not think that arguing that all the people who say that they oppose abortion because they believe that a foetus is a person are actually doing so because they want to control women is a position it is possible to seriously defend.

It may well be the case that part of the motivation of some opponents of abortion could be characterised as "controlling women", but I don't think it's often the case.

Deliberately misunderstanding people makes it much harder to oppose them.

[Control-Z]

63. ...

:rofl:

[Control-Z]

5. Okay, I'm just going to ask.

Do you seriously think there are doctors who abort healthy viable fetuses under anything but the most extraordinary circumstances? While I believe far too many women may find themselves facing unwanted late term pregnancies (for a variety of reasons) I don't believe they have recourse through duplicitous docs.

I always find it odd that people think their opinion regarding abortion is valuable. Roe v Wade established a woman's right to privacy. That she alone could consult with a medical professional in private to make choices regarding her own body with reasonable viability guidelines.

'How can we assure a certain point at which viability or personhood has not been reached?'

*

'Put another way, how do we assure we don't err on the side of allowing an abortion when the fetus is viable?'

We don't. It ain't up to us.

We err on the side of living, breathing, beautiful women, always - by trusting in them and in their doctors.

[Warpy]

6. First, abortion should be allowed, period

just in case severe fetal abnormalities go undetected until the third trimester (getting less rare since so many of us lack health insurance), or if there is such a severe risk to the mother in case of accident or extreme illness that a C section or induced childbirth would kill her. Only a doctor can make these determinations, and the patient would still need to consent.

Both these scenarios are extremely rare. Most lethal abnormalities result in spontaneous abortion or are picked up early via ultrasound. Because of legal considerations already in place, a third trimester abortion is rightly termed a premature birth, as every attempt is made to ensure the survival of the infant, no matter how premature.

The way I see it, it needs to be on demand through the first 3 months, on the advice of a physician the second and last three months.

(the last late second trimester abortion I saw was a mother who had developed a very rare pregnancy related clotting disorder. It was heartbreaking. She really wanted her baby.)

[Ind4now]

7. My thoughts

I have always thought this, for any abortions, we must decide when "life" starts. The question of when life has started, for legal definitions, would obviously be a hard one. I think we should look at the opposite, when do we consider life to have ended? We allow the shutting off of artificial life support when we can prove the person is dead. One of the primary way's of doing this is with brain waves and brain activity. Therefor I would say that doctors must get together, decide when brain activity reaches life, and that would be used to guide others with abortions.

No matter what anyone thinks, no one should be allowed to murder anyone. And I think that the abortion of an unborn child is murder. Using this guideline, anyone who is raped or is a victim of incest, has time to get her abortion. And anyone who decides that she got pregnant at an inconvenient time can do likewise. Yet we protect life!

The woman has the choice, I think it should just be made sooner rather than later!

And, just to clarify, I obviously agree with the exception for the womans health!

[JetCityLiberal]

9. Abortion is NOT murder

but hey keep up the right wing spew....

[Ind4now]

13. The "right wing spew"??????????????????????

What the hell, just because I may disagree with you, you lump me into the "Right wing" shit heads! Please pay attention!

Yes, by definition you are correct. Abortion is not, and can not be, murder. Murder is "The unlawful killing of a human being..." blacks Law Dictionary, sixth edition. So sure, a legal abortion is obviously not murder. Some say "the death penalty is murder." This to is not true because it is a legal killing. I think you would have understood my point if you would have read my whole post and not just that one line. I guess I will have try to expand and explain myself.

Not too many people believe that a woman that is 2 weeks from her due date should be able to abort and kill the fetus. If you believe that, please let me know and I will ignore you! Anyway, not many people believe that. And, not many people believe that a woman that is 2-3 weeks pregnant should be stopped from geting an abortion. Same thing applies here if you do believe that!

This means that somewhere in between these two times, abortion becomes wrong. This country has for many years attempted to figure out when that time is. Some believe it's early, after the first trimester. Some believe later, after the third. Up to now, everyone has fairly arbitrarily placed time restraints on it. ie. 1st / 2nd/ or 3rd trimesters. I think that it should be more along the lines of when life starts. Many feel that the appropriate time to stop allowing abortions is when the fetus becomes "Viable." Viable "is having the appearance of being able to live," and a "viable child" is an"unborn child who is capable of independent existence outside womb." And there are states where a viable child is considered a person under homicide laws. therefore, under this case, an abortion of a viable child in those states would actually be murder!

This is very close to my own feelings.

Now, we take that knowledge, and the fact that I assumed that you (JetCityLiberal) would be able to read between the lines, and we can easily figure out that I meant some abortions, ie. late term or when the child is viable / alive, should be considered murder, which is some states they are.

I hope this straightens it out a little!

[noamnety]

15. "This means ... abortion becomes wrong"

:eyes:

It doesn't matter what YOUR own feelings are. At all. Unless you are a female, and you are pregnant, and you are discussing the medical procedures that you yourself are opting in or out of, your opinion is not relevent here.

Hope that clears things up.

While you're here though, if you would like me to decide on some medical procedures for you to have, I am happy to offer that service. I'll expect you to abide by my decisions, and foot the bill for those decisions. Hope that's okay.

[Ind4now]

16. I need a question answered please,

do you think that society does or does not have the right to stop a woman from having an abortion and killing the fetus 2 weeks prior to its due date? (Please do not bring up the whole medical need thing, as I have said, that is always an exception!)

[noamnety]

17. "Society" doesn't have a right to mandate the use of organs

for any purpose, or to mandate medical procedures based on the morals of the day.

If "society" had that right, they could FORCE you to donate blood or bone marrow or kidneys at their convenience and your expense - with the justification that "society" has the right to claim the use of your body for the higher cause of saving a third party's life.

Of course, that would never happen, because then MEN would be expected to miss work, whether or not it resulted in them getting fired, get stuck with $10,000 hospital bills for procedures they didn't want or need, and so forth.

So we very nicely limit it to "society has the right to force a woman to use her uterus to save a third party's life" - that way we can make sure only women are oppressed while pretending we aren't being sexist. "Well, you know, *shrug,* only women have a uterus, that's why they don't get a choice."

[Ind4now]

25. Organs????

You consider an unborn baby that is two weeks from its due date as an "organ?" Wow.

[Scout]

27. no, more likely the UTERUS it is inhabiting, inside the WOMAN

is what is being referred to ... not the fetus.

You can't morally require a woman to provide the use of her uterus to a fetus.

:eyes:

[Ind4now]

38. I agree, but

most everyone here is saying that the answer is an abortion! Which is to kill the baby.

[Scout]

39. the answer is to leave the choice up to the woman....

and yes, sometimes she will choose abortion, and when she does, it is none of our business.

[Kerrytravelers]

40. Abortion is not killing a baby. Are we really starting this again?

Abortion is terminating a fetus which is not viable. It is not a "baby." This is what we mean when we refer to right-wing spew. You are drawing a medical conclusion where the medical profession clearly makes distinction. A fetus and a viable fetus are two separate things, and they aren't "babies."

I'd love to see some links to where you are getting your facts. Please, enlighten us.

And again, what is with all the exclamation points? I don't think you're at all "independent for Now." I doubt you've ever been independent. Your comments on this pro-choice board are quite telling.

[uppityperson]

43. I disagree with part of your statements.

"Abortion is terminating a fetus which is not viable. " What is a late term abortion then? Terminating a fetus which is viable to save woman's life? Yes, I know it rarely happens, but I disagree with your statement quoted above.

[Kerrytravelers]

44. I was specifically responding to a post that stated:

most everyone here is saying that the answer is an abortion! Which is to kill the baby.




I said nothing about late-term abortions specifically. I was responding in a general manner.

[Ind4now]

47. So what your saying is

you can something not quite true, but I cannot? You said an “abortion is terminating a fetus which is not viable.” And you go on to say that I am drawing medical conclusions while throwing out “right wing spew,” and that the medical profession makes a distinction between a viable and non-viable fetus when referring to abortions. Anyone who reads you post gets the obvious and undeniable impression that you think all abortions are of fetuses that are not viable…because that’s what you say! So, as you would say, “I would love to see some links to where you are getting your facts. Please enlighten us.” Show us anyone who says that an abortion only refers to non-viable fetuses!

I am not allowed to post an opinion that a fetus that is days from its due date is a baby. I don’t care what you think, a fetus that is that close to birth IS a baby! It is a living, thinking, feeling human being that deserves all the protection as one that was lucky enough to pop out of it’s mother. Technically it is called a fetus. But it is a baby.

And to answer your question, an exclamation mark is used to express an exclamation.

[Scout]

50. thinking

what, pray tell, is it thinking about?

how is it expressing thoughts to itself without knowing the language of human beings?


roe v. wade already allows the regulation of third-trimester abortions.
women do NOT ask for an abortion of a healthy third-trimester fetus.

you ARE posting right wing spew whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not, and no one here will take you seriously as long as you continue to do so.

[Kerrytravelers]

53. *sigh* Are you back?

Let's be very clear. This is a pro-choice site and you are on the Choice board. The one that needs to be providing links is you, since you are not coming to us with a pro-choice view.

Seriously, why are you here? I don't get it. Are you trying to convince us of something? Because, my friend, it isn't working.

[appleton14]

60. Viable Fetus vs. non-viable

Where is the magic line when a non-viable fetus becomes a viable fetus. Is it one day, one week or what? Amazing how one day you are a non-person and the next day you are a person.

[Kerrytravelers]

62. *sigh*

Enjoy your brief stay.

[shimmergal]

52. I understand your point, and

agree with it in large part.

But you do realize, don't you, that once we perfect a "uterine replicator" which would substitute for a woman's uterus in nourishing and sustaining a fetus thru much of the nine months, this whole argument will become moot?" And who's going to pay for these high-tech devices?
The right-to-lifers whose ideology they would seem to benefit?

[iverglas]

56. if and only if ...

But you do realize, don't you, that once we perfect a "uterine replicator" which would substitute for a woman's uterus in nourishing and sustaining a fetus thru much of the nine months, this whole argument will become moot?"

... they also come up with the transporter to get the zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever out of the woman's body without touching it.

;)

[Scout]

57. "Beam It Out, Scotty."

if only

;)

[Nobody]

59. They did that in a Voyager episode

Too bad they can't do that in the real world.

Beam the fetus into the uterus of a anti-choice woman. And no, she doesn't get a choice, she's against choice after all. Age is not an issue, health is not an issue, no exceptions when you're number comes up.

Now all we need is a way to include men in this, so we can beam unwanted fetuses into anti-choice men so they can have the joy of gestating.

[uppityperson]

21. When has that happened?

[Ind4now]

26. When?

Your obviously missing the point! I realize that the exact situation I put out has likely not happened. The point is, at some point in time, it becomes wrong to kill the baby. Society must decide when that time is. My point was to express the two extreems, the day after conseption / two weeks prior to birth, and then ask when the point between those two extreems is that the woman should not be allowed to abort.

[Nobody]

51. Society already has

When it is born.

That is the day that goes on record as the day you begin to exist as an individual. 18 years later, you get to vote. 21 years later, you gain the right to drink alcohol and are considered a full adult with all the rights and responsibilities of full adults.

Before that, it is in someone else's body. Anything can go wrong, and sometimes that the woman whose body it's in might have her health damaged, either temporarily or permanently, or she may die.

Did you know that the USA is the industrialized nation with the highest number of deaths in childbirth? Now that the Supremes have ruled, that number will only increase.

How many people on this board are personally acquainted with someone who has had a late-term abortion and lives to tell the tale because of it? I know two.

I know there are those who don't agree with my answer. You probably don't, based on what I've read here. There is no society on this planet stating that a child isn't fully a child until it's proven viable and has passed its first birthday.

For there to be a pre-birth line drawn, there would have to be a significant and obvious threshhold. There are too many variables involved, and some of them include the possibility that the woman will be harmed.

Once she gives birth, the baby no longer has any chance of harming the mother.

If a woman wants to give birth come hell, high water, or a good chance of dying in the process, that's up to her. Most women want to live. Most women's husbands, partners, existing children want her to live. Let's trust women for once. Let's assume that women are responsible people as a whole. Let's value women's health first. And most importantly, let's value women.

[Scout]

22. I trust WOMEN to make the right decision. No woman carries a pregnancy

up until two weeks before the due date and then aborts a viable fetus unless there IS a medical need.

Find one case where a woman not only asked a doctor to do this, but the doctor also complied and aborted a 40 week viable fetus where the pregnant woman is in good health and likely to remain so through labor and delivery.

I double dog dare you.

Edit: btw, Roe v. Wade already limits 3rd trimester abortions (or, allows the states to limit them).

[Kerrytravelers]

23. Notice there hasn't be a reply lately?

Gee, I wonder why. Pro-birthers have no logical argument that isn't wrapped up in their own delusional interpretation of reality. When asked to defend their stance, there is no response.

[Ind4now]

24. No response?

No, I realize you do not peruse the forums looking for my posts, but as I have said before, I do have a life outside the DU and I can't continuously check back on a daily basis to respond. I have no problem with being shown to be wrong! Unlike some people, I keep an open mind as best I can and have been wrong (in other forums) before!

If you give me an argument that I can not debate, I will admit it, right here in a response. I just can't get on all the time.

I'm sorry.

On another note, why is it I am constantly bombarded with insults? I have an opinion that I am expressing. I welcome any debate and will consider any point of view and will rarely insult someone directly.

I don't plain on leaving the DU anytime soon, but it sure is leaving a bad taste in my mouth for the other members! I came here looking for some freinds...

[Scout]

28. if you feel posters are insulting you, making personal attacks and/or

breaking DU rules, you should alert on the post so the moderators can review it and take any appropriate action.

[Kerrytravelers]

29. No one is insulting you. However, you are wanting us to proclaim some arbitrary date.

Why should we? What a woman and her doctor decides has nothing to do with me. If and when the situation should occur in my life, I'd like to allow my doctor the freedom to advise as necessary so that I and my husband can make a decision. I don't need an arbitrary date from a legislator, anyone standing outside picketing, anyone on Du or you. It's that simple.

And, you're not really looking for a debate. You are posing leading questions and we're not responding to them. If that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then that just has to be the way it is. I don't get led into questioning of this nature. And by the looks of it, neither are the other posters. We're responding to your posts, but just not in the way that you want.

And yes, you can have a life outside of DU. But when you bring up such a topic, you can't be surprised when one wonders where you went. I, myself, will be away from DU for the next week. And therefore, I'm not starting a debate. And, I won't be responding to any return posts made here for at least a week.


On edit: A search of your user name shows posts that are not unlike the opinion expressed in this thread. Your name claims you as an independent, and that is fine, but this is Democratic Underground. It houses the opinion of people in the liberal/progressive/left/Democratic camps. So, you shouldn't be surprised that we are very clearly pro-choice on this board, and especially on the "Choice" board.

[Control-Z]

31. Hey, Kerrytravelers!

I didn't read your post before posting, essentially, the same. Don't ya love these guys?

[Kerrytravelers]

33. Hi Dancing Alone!

:hi:

It's that time of year again. Spring Break. And soon, summer break will come. What will the bored little kiddies do then? :shrug:

[Control-Z]

30. This is the Choice forum.

The "pro" Choice forum.

The "opinions" you've been spouting here are in line with the pro-birth, pro-fetus, anti-choice crowd - same "right wing agenda/talking points".

Now you're insulted by our (collective) response to you. Did you really think you would find a receptive crowd here?

I would suggest you lower your expectations.

[Kerrytravelers]

37. I know I've lowered my expectations reading some of our new pal's posts.

Their hearts just aren't in it anymore. It's not even fun asking what you'd like on your pizza anymore.

[Warpy]

32. Do you think ANY doctor will do that without medical need?

This question is beyond silly. The medical profession won't comply with any request of this nature. The expectation would be that the woman in question is insane with rage or jealousy or even clinical conditions.

If you have a serious question about late term abortion, please post it. Don't keep trotting out stupid hypotheticals that have no basis in real life medical practice.

[Kerrytravelers]

41. There is no serious debate at all. This is simply a half-hearted attempt to goad someone into a

series of leading questions.

Yawn. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Yawn.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

34. ! ! ! Exclamation points are fun!

The only people putting arbitrary dates on choice are pro-birthers who have no place butting into a woman's private medical decision made with her doctor and those who she chooses to confide in.

So, when exactly does life start? Is every sperm sacred to you? What is this magical date to which you refer?

And what is your medical training? Are you a practicing doctor? What is your practice? What training do you have in women's health needs? What makes you qualified?

You have come to the pro-choice forum, spewed right-wing talking points, feigned insult and righteous indignation and have attempted to lead others into questions that are clearly rigged to twist our words around, another typical right-wing tactic. What did you expect? :shrug:



On Edit:

I notice your gender is listed as male. Is it the fact that women don't have to consult you or that the woman gets to make the final decision? Which one really gets your goat? Whenever a man begins pontificating the right-wing talking points, it always comes down to one of these two reasons. Or a lovely combo of both.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

54. Then don't. And go away.

It's clear you can't. You've come to the wrong place.

[uppityperson]

42. I wish people would use "viablitiy" and not "life" since "life" encompasses too much.

Just a general wish, not aimed just at you but at most everyone but me since I am perfect. ( :sarcasm:) Sounds like you use viability=life, while others will say "but my mole is alive" and others call "life" when the "soul" enters the body.

[Kerrytravelers]

10. The doctors must get together?

Which doctors? Who decides?

Please. This is just reich-wing talking points with an attempt at putting a softer tone on it. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Yawn.

[Ind4now]

14. Can anyone actually post an opinion

and not just say "right wing agenda/talking points!"

Many here say it's between the woman and her doctor, and therefor have the same or similar opinion as me! I don't know what doctors, the same one's that decide who is viable. (see my post just above this one in response to JetCityLiberal) I am also not saying that this would be a perfect solution. I think it would be better than the one we have. We have to decide, in my opinion, what is life, because all life is worth protecting. Somewhere in the gray haze that is the 9 months of pregnancy, life starts. We must define it, as a society, and than protect it.

[noamnety]

18. "We must define it,"

Nope.

I believe what you meant to say is "I WANT to define it."

There's no reason that you MUST define it.

[Kerrytravelers]

19. We are posting opinions. You just don't like what we're saying.

The opinion is very clear. The decision to terminate is between a woman and her doctor and those in which she chooses to include in the decision. That means it doesn't include the arbitrary opinions of people outside the situation, like me, you or legislators.

And yes, I have read your posts. And my opinion still hasn't changed. Your argument simply isn't that convincing nor is it a pro-choice opinion. Pro-choice means, very simply, that the choice belongs with the people intimately involved- the woman and her doctor. Not me, not you and not legislators or people picketing outside women's clinics.

But please, continue. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Yawn.

[bliss_eternal]

46. Ind4now...

Quote:
I think it would be better than the one we have. We have to decide, in my opinion, what is life, because all life is worth protecting.

This is clearly a talking point of those that are anti-choice.

[Scout]

8. I support Roe v. Wade ... it IS the common ground. n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

11. "We" don't have to worry about it. That's why doctors go to medical school.

They pick up pretty quick on things like... is this a viable fetus... what is the health and condition of the mother... is it safe to carry to term... is this person capable of making a rational decision or is she being coherced...

Your post is suggesting that people carelessly terminate after viability. I find that premise highly suspect and without merit as there are no links to reputable sites.

[Nobody]

12. Who says that strangers get to know all the pertinent details?

The pertinent details such as:

How much of a chance that permanent physical harm will come to the mother

How much of a chance that the fetus isn't going to make it anyway

Whether or not someone or some organization has been creating delaying tactics

Anything else that might arise

These details are necessary to know in order to make a decision about what to do next. The general public and our government has no right to this extremely confidential information. Therefore, only the doctor, the woman, and any confidant that the woman comes to for advice get to know all the details and therefore they get to make recommendations (doctor and trusted confidants) or make the decision (the woman).

Whether or not to give birth or abort a pregnancy is not up for referendum. We the general public do not have a vote.

To answer your question: "how do we assure we don't err on the side of allowing an abortion when the fetus is viable?"

We don't.

[Control-Z]

35. Ind4now does...

...apparently.

'Who says that strangers get to know all the pertinent details?'

He/she appears to think we were all just waiting to be enlighten by his/her opinion.

[Kerrytravelers]

36. I know I'm sitting here, holding my breath, waiting for that magical date.

And like any good pro-birther, I bet we're also against sensible sexual education in this country that teaches people about their body and how it works and also against social safety nets to help women who choose to carry to term afford the care of their babies.

I just love how pro-birthers have all the answers.

[Nobody]

45. They're not qualified to live my life

The pro-birthers not only have all the answers, they also know better than you do how you should live your life.

When they choose for you a choice that leads to misery for you or happiness for you, they'll choose misery for you all the bloody time. They'll decide your fate, expect you to obey them, and won't life a finger to help you live the life they want you to live.

I'm not just talking about pro-birthers, this applies to any busybody who thinks they can decide for another who to love, when and how many kids to have, even where to live.

Professional busybodies think that other people's lives are call-in reality TV shows and they will do nothing to help, in fact many of them agitate for laws that make it harder to live with decisions they make for you.

[Ind4now]

49. Again

I am not sure how to respond to you.

You ignore what I post,

you make unwarranted conclusions about me,

you lie about what I have posted,

you can't have a simple conversation about anything.

And now you've lumped me into some new category of "pro-birther." It would be nice to see the intelligent side of you after you actually read my posts and understood what I say.

It's also amazing how I get worse every time you comment about me. Give it a few more months and I'm going to believe (according to you) that women should be locked up in there bedrooms while pregnant and that they should bow their heads while in my presence.

I'll give you this, your always good for a laugh.

[Kerrytravelers]

55. Still can't respond, huh? Let me make it simple for you.

Here is a simple question for you. Why are you here, at DU, on the Choice board?

Post #49 was an attempt to get me mad and to start a flame war. Then, you have now magically changed the subject and have caused a distraction. The distraction is necessary in order to avoid the questions posed to you on this thread. However, it's an old trick and one I don't fall for. Especially when I can the trick coming a mile away.



Again, here are the other questions I've posed to you on this thread.

So, when exactly does life start?
Is every sperm sacred to you?
What is this magical date to which you refer?
And what is your medical training?
Are you a practicing doctor?
What is your practice?
What training do you have in women's health needs?
What makes you qualified?
The doctors must get together?
Which doctors?
Who decides?


And when you're done with these, perhaps you'll start responding to the posts by the other DUers in a straight forward fashion.


While you're here though, if you would like me to decide on some medical procedures for you to have, I am happy to offer that service. I'll expect you to abide by my decisions, and foot the bill for those decisions. Hope that's okay.

what, pray tell, is it thinking about?
how is it expressing thoughts to itself without knowing the language of human beings?
When has that happened?

Find one case where a woman not only asked a doctor to do this, but the doctor also complied and aborted a 40 week viable fetus where the pregnant woman is in good health and likely to remain so through labor and delivery. I double dog dare you.

Did you really think you would find a receptive crowd here?

Do you think ANY doctor will do that without medical need?

Who says that strangers get to know all the pertinent details?




But I doubt you will. You're here to give us more from the right-wing playbook. We have seen it before and I'm sure you won't be the last.

[Kerrytravelers]

58. Seems that DU decided to make it easier on everyone...

So long, you won't be missed, and you will soon be forgotten.

[fenris67]

64. A few questions for you too

You ask how we can be certain at what point a fetus becomes viable/human and point out the difficulty in it, yet seem confident in your own belief that viability/personhood happens at 5-6 months. I'm curious how you personally come to that decision. What do you base it on?

My own personal decision would never be abortion--although it is my body, i would find it morally reprehensible if i killed my unborn child. That said, i do not have the right to tell someone else what to do with their own body.

However--and this is key--. While society may not have the right to keep a woman from having an abortion, it does have the right to keep others from performing an abortion on a woman. A woman may have the right to do with her baby whatever she wants, but that does not mean she should be able to force someone else to abort her baby for her(otherwise one should argue that abortions should be free, and not as expensive as they are). Therefore, society is well within its rights to limit the time of pregnancy that a doctor or anyone else can legally perform an abortion on a woman, for whatever reasons it deems fit.

I realize that this may result in women finding ways to kill their own child themselves, which may be very dangerous and even life-threatening--but any risks she carries out on herself are her own and are her own decision to make--as has and should always be the case, it is her choice.