Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 18, 2007.
Full law text
Good. This type of abortion is disgusting and horrid.
Agree with that 100%. I think that anyone contemplating it should have to watch it performed first, but this is a good development also.
Elections have consequences. A SCOTUS tipped more toward the radical right is just one of them.
In your book, that would apply to:
Why should they be forced to watch something when their lives would be at risk from going to term?
I have words for you, but I would get banned. You want to tell me why a woman should be required to die in order to give birth? Is this another Libertarian belief?
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement"
Maybe because a late term abortion kills the living being who is aware and feels pain. Killing the baby is just as bad as stabbing the mother in the head and sucking out her brain. These type of situations are sad and rare.
I'll ask you as well, why is it that you feel it's OK to make that decision for the mother? "Hey, sorry- giving birth is going to kill you. You have no choice in the matter." That's pretty totalitarian of you.
You missed my point. That late in the pregnancy the baby is as much a human being as the mother.
*Note: I realize that this is what "the debate" is about.
I didn't miss your point. I asked you a question. Please answer it if you can. None of you who support this seem to be willing to explain yourselves. Wonder why?
I want to see the stats on women dying by the droves giving birth. This is just last minute birth control in 99.9% of the cases and everyone knows it. Required to die my eye.
According to Lee and others she's probably got one foot in the grave anyway. I vote for saving the baby. Sounds like a higher probability of success.
Wow- why don't you go look then? You're going to tell me that no one ever dies from giving birth? REALLY? Can you prove your 99.9% statistic? I'd love to see that one.
Clap clap clap. Good job justices on this one
I did answer your question. I don't know how else to clarify it.
I don't see how. I asked you to tell why you thought it was OK to tell a pregnant woman she had to die in order to give birth and why you thought you should make that decision and not her.
Could you possibly be any more callous? Whatever, Mr Anti-Government Interference.
Ok, here goes nothing.
Person A and Person B meet.
A few months later, Person A gets diagnosed with a life threatening disease.
Person B has something inside him that will save Person A.
In order for Person B to save Person A, Person B must die.
Life threatening diseases suck but no doctor would allow the above to happen, so why do some people think it's acceptable in late term abortions?
This debate goes to the basics of people's morality/ethicality (if that's a word) and isn't going to be answered on a forum.
Because it's a fetus, not a person. It can't live on it's own.
I still don't see how this is the government's place to interfere.
I didn't mean to imply that NO ONE dies, but I'd like to compare it to the number of people that die just having a tooth extracted or some other medical procedure. The pro abortionists want us to believe that funeral homes are packed with poor women that attempted to have a baby against the advice of their doctors.
I'm still waiting on that 99.9% statistic. Having a hard time finding it?
In this day in age premature babies are being born earlier and earlier and still end up living. My wife is a good example. She was born premature and wasn't expected to survive. She was so small she fit in her fathers hand and had to wear doll clothes because they don't make infant clothes that small. A lot of the babies that were being killed in late term abortions could easily survive today.
Personally, I don't buy statistics from either side. They can be made to mean anything anyone wants.
I sure wouldn't want someone telling me how to handle the situation. It will never be my right to intervene on a situation like this despite how awful the situation might be.
If the fetus/baby can be kept alive outside the womb via incubators or other procedures that should be the path to take. If the baby is not viable and there is an issue that threatens the life of the mother the procedure should still be an option.
If a 12 year old kid breaks into someone's house and threatens the family with a gun are the cops allowed to shoot him?
Edit (better scenario): The same 12 year old breaks into the house of an 89 year old man and holds him at gun point, are the cops allowed to shoot the kid?
The non-viable fetus/baby is either a direct threat or an impediment to a potential treatment than the option to terminate the pregnancy should be on the table. I do not wish that decision to be put on anyone's shoulders and I'm not sure what my wife and I would do if we were put into a situation like that but I don't think it's a place where legislation should limit the options.
Upholding the ban is only going to lead to a lot of late term miscarriages brought about through questionable means. How do you think a lot of people are going to handle finding out that they will likely die if they carry the baby to term and there's nothing that the doctors can do about it since they're pregnant?
Can't they just induce labor early?
The term "a lot" is probably a stretch, but I wouldn't doubt that it would happen.
The problem is that a life has already been formed. Just because it hasn't breathed air is doesn't mean the mother has the right to terminate a life just because hers is threatened.