Aftermath of Abortion

WHEN (not if) someone who is not qualified to drive/fly/perform surgery, there is a VERY high likelihood that they will hurt or kill someone.

No if there at all.

You obviously have not seen the extensive research that MADD does. People who do not attend driver training are FAR more likely to be reckless and dangerous when driving. That is a fact, not an if.

Give me evidence that the fetus can "live" outside the womb and IMO the mother should have no say. As long as it cannot live outside the womb, it does not qualify as a "life" for me.

 

Andymoon- I don't think you have thought through your statement here- and you probably need to retract your offer.

If you don't mind instead of the word fetus I am going to use the word baby, don't let this throw you, when I use baby just insert fetus into your own thinking.

1. I think what you are saying is that a baby can't live on its own outside the womb without the assistance of the mother or surrogate provider. Because if you are not saying this then you are saying that no baby can live once it is outside the womb.

You see pre-mature babies as much as 5 months old have lived outside the womb. Some babies are born 3 lbs. and live.

The truth is babies need the mother or surrogate mother from conception on. A baby born at 42 weeks cannot live outside the womb without the same provision and protection of the mother afforded inside the womb.

2. If you mean that a baby will die if taken outside of the womb and left on the maternity table, you are correct. Every baby will die if not cared for from conception to about 2-3 years of age.

If this is your definition of viability then no baby is able to function independent until they can get there own food and water, and change themselves.

A fertile egg has no chance of survival, a 3 week developing embryo has no chance of survival. So if you are making the arguement that abortions should not be allowed if the baby has a chance of survival outside the womb you are eliminating most all abortions.

If your are making the arguement that a mother has the right to decide if the baby should live or die up until the time the baby can live on its own outside the womb. Then you are advocating that mothers should be able to abort up to the age of 3 yrs old (or there abouts)

I am sure what you are thinking is 'out of sight out of mind'

As long as you cannot see an ultrasound or you are only looking at a pregnat womans large abdomen you will not acknowledge the life of the unborn child.

If the unborn child is not alive before birth, it will not be alive after birth.

I witnessed the birth of 5 babies, the logic is easy once you are actually a witness to the event.

Every doctor that has delivered a baby can explain to you better than I that it is a life they are so carefully protecting and that it cannot live without constant feeding and care. - Inside or outside the womb.

So if life begins for you when the baby can get by without the mother. Then you have re-defined the starting point.

Some teenagers are still not viable.

 

I never said "if the fetus can live entirely on its own," I said "if the baby can survive outside the womb."

That is the point at which I believe the fetus is viable and as such, is the only point at which I feel comfortable taking choice away from the mother. I am already on record as being against late term abortions and would personally prefer that all elective abortions take place in the first eight or so weeks.

 

Man, you guys keep sucking me in.

I think what he means is, even if given the care that a person is capable of offering, the baby will still die. Yes, you need to feed and change it...but a fetus...no matter how much feeding and care you offer it, it will still die.

 

No, no if at all. When someone without the requisite training embarks on any of those tasks, they WILL have an elevated risk of causing great harm.

Actually, driver training is not required for people 18 and over, only for people who get their licenses at 16 and 17.

Again, no if at all. People who do not attend driver training are FAR more likely to drive dangerously and recklessly. Proven fact, no if at all.

And I cannot believe that you are so comfortable using your finite, imperfect, flawed knowledge about human life to impose your opinions on the lives and bodies of other people.

 

So you think the Roe decision was TOO restrictive? Remember, that it limited abortions conducted past the first trimester. Or at least that's what it said it did.

 

That is my personal preference, not how I would write the legislation if it were left up to me. I believe that if you are to have an abortion, you should make and execute that decision as soon as possible.

With the current political climate, I wouldn't suggest legislation along those lines because one side would scream about too much restriction and the other side would just try to use it as a springboard to a full ban.

Personally, I would suggest legislation to improve education regarding sex and contraception in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, abortions.

EDIT: I misunderstood you. I think the Roe decision (the way you explain it) is a good compromise. First trimester would work for me, but see the caveat above regarding political climate.

 

If you simply ban the abortion...you still have aftermath. How many of these babies will end up in poverty or in foster care? You have yet to address THIS aftermath.

If you prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, there is no aftermath.

 

Got you, I can understand your feelings.

I think that is a very good preference and would make a big difference to so many babies who are aborted.

Thanks for clarifying your thinking.

 

Irrelevant. Apples and Oranges.

Requiring licenses of any sort does not eliminate freedom. An outright ban on abortion DOES eliminate freedom.

 

I think all the discussion here is a very good thing.

No one who favors any limits on abortion should do so without carefully considering the larger picture, all the interwoven problems and issues.

Any limit to abortions or ban must include a comprehesive plan to protect all affected parties- mothers, children at risk etc.

The only ones we don't need to protect are those who are profitting billions of $$$ in the abortion industry.

And any limit or ban on abortions should be carefully implemented in phases that do not traumatize those affected. A gradual implementation of effective measures would greatly enhance the over all appeal of any restriction to the current practices.

Those who don't want babies killed.
Those who are concerned about unwanted pregnancy
Those who are concerned for mother's health
Those who want limits on late term abortions.

All groups have some important imput.

 

Unfortunately, some (or most) of those groups are absolutely intransigent and will not bend or waver from their positions to make a reasonable compromise possible.

 

Agreed. Most pro-choice groups are open to certain compromises particularly if we can acheive the same or better results with different methods. But certain anti-abortion groups are unwilling to compromise unless new law in enacted outlawing all forms of abortion.

 

I disagree to an extent. Most pro-choice groups I see or hear from are nearly as inflexible as the pro-lifers, citing a "slippery slope" or some other such nonsense. This is a bit strange to me since most pro-choice people I know are open to compromise. It is the GROUPS that seem to be the problem, not the PEOPLE.

 

No because I believe Shakespeare was right when he wrote that the only way to have justice is to kill all lawyers.

Sidenote:
Giddyup, I enjoy debating with you but could you consider using the quote function to respond instead of bolding? Its getting a bit confusing following a point by point response.

 

What kind of logic is that?

How can you compare going to school with abortion? If we must make analogies, lets keep them at least semi-realistic.

But I'll play your game...if I found this out to be true and there were no alternatives, you bet you bottom I would do everything I could to prevent MY child from attending law school.

 

That's true but there are some key differences. A fetus is pretty much a parasite feeding directly from the body of the mother. OTOH if the fetus is viable to the point that it can breathe, take in nutrients, and eliminate waste on its own then its care can be transferred to anyone. Yes the now born baby still needs help and will likely die without that its no longer directly biologically drawing off of the mother.

I raised this in another thread about abortion, think of it this way. If someone were dying of liver failure there have been techniques developed that it is possible to cycle their blood through another persons liver. In this case the person with liver failure is directly biologically dependent on the other person. Under our laws we can't compel somone to allow someone else to live off them this way and if the person with the good liver could decide to voluntarily detach even if it means the death of the other person.

So people do have rights in regard to their own bodies even if that might lead to the death of someone else. Given that pregnancy is somewhat different situation but just pointing out that in the abstract we do have a right to how our bodies are used.