Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenFrom the site:
http://www.drhern.com/ourservices.asp there for one...I like the qualifier that late term abortions are done for "fetal abnormalities"...that justification is very vague and could be used for many reasons.
Medically indicated termination of pregnancy up to 36 weeks from last menstrual period (including fetal anomalies, genetic disorder, fetal demise, or severe medical problems)
It may be vague but it requires a professional and qualified opinion. Those are not ordinary circumstances. It's obvious that there are cases where it's dangerous for the mother or the fetus is very anomalous (i.e. no brain, absence of vital organs,etc.) and again I would have no problem with abortion.
Originally posted by torch71So why aren't "pro-lifers" advocating contraceptive use amongst teenagers and young adults? Did you know you can reduce abortions by 90% by getting people to use the contraceptive pill and/or condoms?
Oh so you are saying that the baby does not count? Ok I understand your point of view. In my opinion there might be a reason for an abortion in extreme circumstances, but not for women that fail to use a condom or "like to party".
Originally posted by MissShellKilling the most precious things on the planet seems like a bad deal to me. Taking someones life for the sake of convienience is the ultimate in selfishness. Using Clinton tactics such as warping definitions, to justify ones actions is psychotic. I would say it is bad.
yes or no?
is abortion wrong?
want to see what most people think about this...
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think that giving positive incentives will do wonders for birth control.
So why aren't "pro-lifers" advocating contraceptive use amongst teenagers and young adults? Did you know you can reduce abortions by 90% by getting people to use the contraceptive pill and/or condoms?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is a socialistic kind of thang. Offer free college education for those not having a baby before a certain age. If a person breaks the contract then they have to pay back the money. After that certain age if a person has 1 child then they have to pay half back. If they have two children they pay it all back. It they have an abortion then they pay it all back. There could be all kinds of grants for certain things like housing etc... that could have this. There is enough wasted money by govt that could be used for this instead.
What do you mean by "positive incentives"?
Originally posted by joe beyserYeah, pushing young mothers into poverty would be a great idea.
This is a socialistic kind of thang. Offer free college education for those not having a baby before a certain age. If a person breaks the contract then they have to pay back the money. After that certain age if a person has 1 child then they have to pay half back. If they have two children they pay it all back. It they have an abortion then they pay it a ...[text shortened]... that could have this. There is enough wasted money by govt that could be used for this instead.
How about simply providing free contraceptive pills for everyone?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt would give incentive to take the pill. It wouldn't push anybody into poverty. In fact it may do just the opposite. It is just an idea though. There could be other ways.
Yeah, pushing young mothers into poverty would be a great idea.
How about simply providing free contraceptive pills for everyone?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBeacuse pro-lifers are not interested in saving lives. They just want people to suffer who made mistakes. If someone does not want to be a parent, forcing them to be one does not make for a better society.
So why aren't "pro-lifers" advocating contraceptive use amongst teenagers and young adults? Did you know you can reduce abortions by 90% by getting people to use the contraceptive pill and/or condoms?
Originally posted by quackquackWhat?! They are not interested in saving lives?! What do you think they do all day?! What the doctors that's a mistake right there, then they should have thought of that before, but killing people isn't going to make a better society either, but worse.
Beacuse pro-lifers are not interested in saving lives. They just want people to suffer who made mistakes. If someone does not want to be a parent, forcing them to be one does not make for a better society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Controversy
According to a BBC report about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, "government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus."[31] An article in Harper's magazine stated that, "Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban... requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman's body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years' imprisonment, or both."[14] The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X remains legal as long as there is first an "injection that kills the fetus."[1]
There is also controversy about why this procedure is used. Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (February 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[32] Some prominent pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.[33]
In support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a nurse who witnessed three IDX procedures found them deeply disturbing, and described one performed on a 26½-week fetus with Down Syndrome in testimony before a Judiciary subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, where she stated "[t]he baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking," right before the procedure.[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Partial-birth_abortion
In the U.S., a federal statute defines "partial-birth abortion" as any abortion in which the fetus is extracted "past the navel [of the fetus]... outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," in order to cause death of the fetus. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the terms "partial-birth abortion" and "intact dilation and extraction" are basically synonymous.[8] However, there are cases where these overlapping terms do not coincide. For example, the IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g. due to a miscarriage or feticide) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.[1] Removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal legal definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."[24] Additionally, a doctor may extract a fetus past the navel and then cut through the neck. This could fall within the terms of the statute, even though it would not result in an intact body and therefore would not be an intact dilation and extraction.[14]