That's right. Hillary Clinton said she'd vote for it if they'd include the provision for the mother's health. They declined.
Well, then they should fix it with strict freaking guidelines as to what constitutes a life/death situation. Then I think we'd all be satisfied.
Where the issue of abortion is concerned I can assure you nothing will or even could happen such that "we'd all be satisfied."
I think in regards to 3rd term abortions, all but the most extreme would be satisfied. That's about as good as you're going to get.
What do you do in the case that carrying the baby to term had a very small chance of killing the mother but had a very high chance of, say, crippling her for life?
Although I'm certain these cases are very rare, I'd still have to say that they should not be allowed to abort. Then, after the child is born, the rehabilitation can begin. BTW, I'd say in 99% of these rare cases, the woman would still want the child. So this is more of a hypothetical question than one that could occur frequently.
There can't be a "strict" definition in ANY medical application about life or death. All a Dr. can say is if a situation is risky or not. A Dr. will NEVER guarantee success or failure on anything. That is why the only reasonable conclusion is it has to be left up to the Dr. since each situation is unique in its own ways. The mother also needs input because it is her life potentially in jeopardy. Is it fair to force a mother into a surgery that 35% of the time risks her life to save the life of the unborn who only has 20% chance of survival? If you don't like my percentages, move them up or down to make an argument. Point being, the Dr. and expectant mother need to be the ones to decide if a procedure is "life threatening"...not some bureaucrat in Washington and definitely not some flaming liberal or conservative nut job!
What I said was my general belief, obviously in extreme cases like these, there are tough decisions that no person should have to make. In the case of the woman's life being threatened severely and there being no other viable options I suppose I would be able to sympathize with such a scenario. It is not an option I agree with, but desperate times do call for desperate measures.
To be fair, I don't think there are a lot of pregnancies out there that are going swimmingly in the first two trimesters, but go seriously wrong in the third. Again, an extreme rarity. In those cases, if you're noticing problems, and are concerned for your health, than abort in the first two trimesters. Again, most of these "what ifs" are extremely rare, indeed. Most women in their third trimester are willing to risk their life if this should come up. I'd say the only way it would be acceptible to abort in the third is if there is an immediate and apparent threat to the mother's own livelihood. Percentage-wise? Damn near 100%, IMO.
Potential Life < Actual Life Potential Life > Actual inconvience Rocket River . . . after that it is just math
Rare, but you are acknowledging NOT IMPOSSIBLE. And for that reason, the Dr. and woman need to be allowed to make case-by-case decisions ...in those rare situations. Since they are rare... by definition... the circumstances surounding the abortion can't be legislated. You just can't make a blanket rule under the guise that it "rarely" happens therefore it is acceptable to sacrafice the lives of those expectant mothers. Afterall, if you allow the mother to die, so does hope of fertilizing her remaining eggs. It is paramount that the mother's life takes precedence over the unborn for probably a dozen reasons.
So he disagrees with you (albeit with a lot of bravado) and that makes him small minded? Nice retort.
I don't think we are all that far apart, Fatty, but that little bit may as well be a chasm. When it is a choice between the health of the mother, it is ultimately her body and her decision. I don't envy those women one bit. For anyone who thinks these decisions are easy, you're wrong. I could be for restrictions on late-term abortions, if it is just for "convenience," and that is a long way from the position I've held most of my life. If there is any question about the mother's health, they need to make that decision, not politicians, who are overwhemingly male, in any case. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil
The black and white labeling of people and actions as murderer etc. is not a conviction, it's a personal judgment.
I'm in favor of outlawing ALL abotions except in the case where the mother's LIFE is in serious jeopardy (ie much more than would be expected in an ordinary pregnancy). Under those circumstances, the mother should have the option of having an abortion, or not (just as one has the choice to defend themself or not when confronted with any other life threatening situation). In any other circumstance, abortion should be considered murder. Hopefully this is one step along that path.
