I would hate to hear of a case of an abortion of a full term normal fetus, ..

That's called "child birth".

LOL:))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

One of the most difficult situations is where it is confirmed that the birth will produce a Down's Syndrome (trisomy 21) Child. In most cases it is born perfectly healthy, and can lead a fulfilling life albeit partly restricted in capability. But modern early screening often results in termination. Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral not to abort, others disagree. Downs

I've done some work with Downs people, and yes, they can have fulfilling happy lives. So I think Richard Dawkins' stance is a little extreme on this. However, to be honest, if by some misfortune I fell pregnant at my age I would have serious doubts as to whether to go through a healthy pregnancy. If the child was disabled in any way I would most likely not go through with it. There is more to being Down's than just mental retardation, which for an older couple is concern enough. Would I be capable of taking care of a retarded person as I go into my 60s or 70s? Downs people often have other health issues such as heart problems. I could not do it...and at my age there is more of a risk of me having a Downs child to start with.

So even though the decision would be heart breaking and terrible, I would not carry a Downs child to term. Hell, I would have to think very seriously about carrying a healthy child to term. I've raised my children, I know exactly how hard it is. I really do not want to start over again. Nope Nope Nope.

My friend has a severely (and I mean severely) disabled child. He is trisomy 22 I think. He wasn't supposed to live past 18 months. He is now 15. He is blind. Deaf. Severely retarded. He is like a giant baby that never grew up. She loves him to death, but her life has been so hard. The child has had to undergo many painful surgeries as his bones have grown into his body and threatened his organs. In the end she made the incredibly brave decision to put him in care because she was simply not capable of taking care of him. She has another son with actual ADHD (not what people think ADHD is) and could not care for him properly and his older brother.

I think she is a hero and know that I could never go through what she did and remain sane. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't force anyone to do it.

This whole subject is a minefield and I'm glad that as a mere male, I don't have to draft any legislation upon it.

I don't think anyone should.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral not to abort, others disagree. Downs

Richard Dawkins is a blatant sexist but more importantly, he's not a parent of someone with Down. He is in no position to tell people what to do or judge them afterwards. Really, telling people its immoral not to abort their baby is just as horrible as someone who tells people it is immoral to abort.


That aside, I believe in abortion being a woman's choice, and I do oppose legislation that would restrict abortions. I'm fully convinced that someone who chooses a late term abortion does so for the best of reasons. That said, I just don't like opponents of abortion getting accused of having a false moral agenda, simply because they have different morals than I do.

I think we can all agree that where there are good medical reasons for terminating pregnancies however late, it is basically acceptable. As in the cases of rape or underage situations. What most people find wrong is "social engineering" where male babies are preferred over female ones so the female ones are got rid of. But that is a culture thing of the society the woman lives in, which will probably never change.

There are cases where a couple have a son, then want a daughter or vice versa, and will abort until they get what they want. But modern medical science tells us the men have equal X and Y reproductive capability, and the woman's PH at conception is more likely to affect the outcome with an alkaline ph more likely to produce girls.

One of the most difficult situations is where it is confirmed that the birth will produce a Down's Syndrome (trisomy 21) Child. In most cases it is born perfectly healthy, and can lead a fulfilling life albeit partly restricted in capability. But modern early screening often results in termination. Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral not to abort, others disagree. Downs

This whole subject is a minefield and I'm glad that as a mere male, I don't have to draft any legislation upon it.

I would hate to hear of a case of an abortion of a full term normal fetus, ..

That's called "child birth".

see http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/

That's a weird case, he was breaking a lot of laws beside the abortion law. Also, I see no mention of full term abortions. Full term is around 36-37 weeks.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I would hate to hear of a case of an abortion of a full term normal fetus, ..

That's called "child birth".

see http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/

---

I would hate to hear of a case of an abortion of a full term normal fetus, ..

That's called "child birth".

---

Reality Internet Personality

Back in 1776 time frame when the USA came into being, abortion was not legal for the mother, but for the father he could abort up until the 21st year after birth. Of course in 1776 the midwife made sure "monsters" did not take their first breath.

Today, the father has no rights in abortion, and the mother has all choice. As to a limit on when, I don't like hard and fast rules. I would hate to hear of a case of an abortion of a full term normal fetus, but I can't envision every possible human condition in advance.

I think every advocate of restricting abortion should be placed in a lottery and the prize is to adopt and raise any baby that their restrictions force to be born.

---

It is just that I don't think that
is a good reason to lose a child....

Well it was obviously good enough for her not to have a termination. Her family were dead set against an abortion. If she had had one she would have been sidelined. As it was she ended up resenting her own child.

Yet none of you seem to be reading the article on why people feel it necessary to go through with a late term abortion.

Excuse me I did read that article you posted. The main thrust was that some babies can go full term and are born dead, some babies just will not survive very long after birth for many reasons, or be so incapacitated that they have no meaningful life. In those cases termination even if late, is probably the the sensible option. But isn't the point here that better and earlier diagnosis in those cases is called for?

So your arguments are actually irrelevant and full of assumptions as to why someone would need to do that.

Possible reasons why any woman at any stage might choose to terminate a pregnancy, can be as long as your arm, and any one could be valid for an individual in their particular circumstances. There can't be any hard and fast rule that takes into account every situation.

ostracised from the family

It is just that I don't think that
is a good reason to lose a child....

---

Yet none of you seem to be reading the article on why people feel it necessary to go through with a late term abortion.

So your arguments are actually irrelevant and full of assumptions as to why someone would need to do that.

---

Reality Internet Personality

she said it was either that or be ostracised from the family

Humph, it was that or kill a human being!

(Edit:
(Just my opinion mind you...)

---

(i.e. an unborn baby's life has more worth than the mothers).

Well I don't think it does, but doesn't it have a right to life? After all it didn't ask to be created.

I just thought of another reason why an abortion could be asked for. A woman gladly gets pregnant then some months down the line, her relationship breaks up permanently. She can't face the thought and responsibility of bringing a child up as a single parent family on her own, so she terminates it. Right or wrong?

I had a work colleague once many years ago who told me that she got pregnant by her boyfriend who promptly did a runner. She wanted to terminate the pregnancy but her strict christian family refused to hear of it and insisted she went through with the birth. At that time the child was 5 years old and she could only work part time because of school runs. She said she had been offered promotion with a full time job but it meant travelling which she couldn't do. She said that she got invited to nice holidays abroad with girl friends but couldn't go etc. She felt that the child had really curtailed her life, but as she said it was either that or be ostracised from the family. Lose/lose situation.

Every single case is different. What I feel is wrong that abortions happen because a pregnancy is simply an irritation or a nuisance, or an encumbrance to a preferred lifestyle. That holds life very cheaply to me.

The only result will be to do harm to people in the name of a false moral agenda (i.e. an unborn baby's life has more worth than the mothers).

Hardly a false moral agenda. When we are talking about late term abortions, we are essentially talking about what we prioritize, a human life that only needs to get out of the mothers womb to survive, or the mother itself. There is no real objective reason why prioritizing one is better than prioritizing the other. It comes down to personal preferences.

So lets not accuse the other side of having a false moral agenda simply because their morals are not your morals.

That said, it hardly comes as a surprise that the GOP is going after abortions. My guess is that this is partly done to please the voter base, and partly for in the unlikely case it would not get veto'd out by the President, a potential way of challenging Roe vs Wade, now that the Supreme Court favors conservative viewpoints more. And given how they have gone after abortions on a state level, this is hardly surprising.

Abortion whether legalised or not is a very difficult subject at the best of times, which really needs its own thread. In the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, or medical reasons endangering life for the pregnancy to continue, I don't think anyone anywhere would argue against it. If it was a genuine mistake and the child was never wanted there is a good case for that as well. Also in cases where the mother is classed as of diminished responsibility, or the mother is under age. But when it comes down to I've simply changed my mind about having the child, that brings all the moral issues into play.

Only in the sense that bringing an unwanted child into the world is immoral.

What we don't want is non-legalisation to maintain the trade in back street abortions, with all the risks that those pose. I think before xx weeks it should be legalised, the sticking point is what should XX weeks be? Yes it is a womans own body and her decision at the end of the day, and she may have to accept others disapproval of her decision, but she should still be allowed to make that decision.

To be honest I am not sure that there should be an XX weeks limit. As pointed out in the article I posted, there are many good reasons why someone would need a late abortion.

In Canada there is no laws at all on abortion. They were all struck down and never replaced. We have a situation where a woman can legally get an abortion at any point, however, finding a Dr. willing to perform a late abortion without very good reason is another matter entirely. This seems to actually work and hasn't resulted in a rise in late abortions.

Considering that even in the UK the numbers of late abortions is very small, I wonder what the real agenda is in making this an issue. The only result will be to do harm to people in the name of a false moral agenda (i.e. an unborn baby's life has more worth than the mothers).

---

Reality Internet Personality

Abortion whether legalised or not is a very difficult subject at the best of times, which really needs its own thread. In the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, or medical reasons endangering life for the pregnancy to continue, I don't think anyone anywhere would argue against it. If it was a genuine mistake and the child was never wanted there is a good case for that as well. Also in cases where the mother is classed as of diminished responsibility, or the mother is under age. But when it comes down to I've simply changed my mind about having the child, that brings all the moral issues into play.

What we don't want is non-legalisation to maintain the trade in back street abortions, with all the risks that those pose. I think before xx weeks it should be legalised, the sticking point is what should XX weeks be? Yes it is a womans own body and her decision at the end of the day, and she may have to accept others disapproval of her decision, but she should still be allowed to make that decision.

GOP LOver said:

1967 Governor Ronald Reagan signs bill legalizing abortion in California.
Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.

Hard to find a real member of the GOP today.

---

I thought they were voting to put a limit on when abortions could occur, the US is about the only country that allows abortions late into the pregnancy.

At 24 weeks there is a 50% chance the baby could survive a premature birth, and at 27 weeks the chances of survival are over 90%. So limiting abortions to before 20 weeks seems sensible and would mean the US has caught up with the rest of the world on this subject at last. Isn't it about time to get out of the 19th century;-)

There is no limit on abortion in Canada. It is between the woman and the Dr.

I really doubt there are any women in the world who would go lightly into getting a late abortion.

There are some very valid reasons in this article why a late abortion might be necessary. Columnist Is 'Ashamed' of Senator Uncle's Hideous Anti-Abortion Bill

---

Reality Internet Personality