• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Partial birth abortion

Should partial birth abortion be legal?

  • Yes without restrictions

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Yes with light restrictions

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Yes with heavy restrictions

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No without exception

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11
RCRC - FAQs
"Anti-choice groups have used the issue of late-term abortion as fodder in their propaganda war against women.

Statement based off assumptions. Whats the point of the sentence?

They claim that late-term abortion is a common practice.

Of course not, but claim that late-term abortion is usually unnecessary.

In fact, late-term abortions are extremely rare. Ninety-one percent of all abortions are in the first 12 weeks.

0.001% is extremely rare, not 9%.

It is ludicrous to suggest that women would carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then have an abortion on a whim.

Its not ludicrous,

For what reasons are late-term abortions usually perfomed?

Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems.

And I'm quoting from fact, not from opinions stemming from ignorance from a website.

Yet this is the anti-choice argument! On the rare occasions when women have third-trimester abortions, they do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health. "

No, thats your / website's opinion of what they think is the anti-choice argument. I've just stated fact above showing that

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.html said:
The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems.



Everyone is entitled to strive for a better life.

Everyone except a child in the womb?


Everyone who has children wants to provide a good life for them, and doing so sometimes means postponing childbearing until later.

If EVERYONE who has children wants to provide a good life for them, then why do people sexually molest or abuse their own children? Seem as if your statement has absolutely no merit.


Circumstances are different for everyone, only the individual involved can judge.

No, its all about what the liberals in court do.


What does this have to do with late-term abortion? You seem resentful that people have sex for YEARS.

No I don't, I'm just acknowledging that I know people have sex for years and don't want children.

Late-term abortions are illegal in most states except for medical reasons.

I wonder why.

I don't believe that men pay child support for a fetus. They have no responsibility before a child is born, therefore they have no decision-making rights.

Are you unable to distinguish on why the child suddenly automatically becomes half the fathers after its born? Why is that if it supposedly was part of the woman.

Adoption is more emotionally traumatic than abortion.

Thats your opinion, In fact children adopted to be statistically shown to have better lives with their parents.

New Study Finds Adoptive Parents More Invested in Their Children than Biological Parents

13,000 households with first-graders in the family showed that adoptive parents spend more time reading to their children, eating together, and talking with them about their problems.


Pregnancy/childbirth is more dangerous physically than abortion.

Again your opinion that has no common sense backing it.

What women could or should do is a decision best made by them, not a self-righteous stranger.

That statement makes no sense and is based off your opinion. So if woman want to commit crimes such as stealing and killing does that mean that is what they should do?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't.
Nor do men have to share the cost of abortion.
A man has no responsibility in the matter whatsoever, unless and until he is a father.
And he is not a father unless and until a child is born.
A fetus takes what it needs to survive by extracting it from the body of its host, with or without her consent. it will continue to do so even to her detriment; it will continue to do so, even- in rare instances- to her death.
No man can do anything for a fetus. It doesn't need anything from any man.
But a child is a different story; children do need things from their fathers; they do suffer from having absent fathers, and it is correct and justified, in my opinion, that society forces fathers to support their children monetarily (it cannot force them to be present physically and/or emotionally) in instances where they refuse to do so of their own volition.
In situations where a father is the primary caregiver/ custodian, society is correct and justified in forcing the mother to contribute monetarily to the welfare of the child, although again, it cannot force her to be present physically or emotionally.
Both parents can and should be made to contribute financially to their child's maintainance and upkeep. There is no way the state or society can force absent or non-custodial parents to love their children, if they don't. But we can force them to pay money.

All this is irrelevant when it comes to a fetus, however, because a fetus requires nothing except what it extracts from the body of the person it is inhabiting. There is nothing any outside party can contribute which would benefit a fetus in any way. At best, contributions would benefit the pregnant woman- but no, the law does not presently require that men financially support women they've impregnated. It requires that parents of both sexes support their children after their children are born.

I just looked at the first statement of your entire paragraph made up of entirely opinions.

you said "It doesn't."

So in response to my question, men don't ever have to pay child support after a child is born while the woman is the custodian for the child?

Hah, so all the sudden the child somehow becomes "property" of the man?
 
So in response to my question, men don't ever have to pay child support after a child is born while the woman is the custodian for the child?

Hah, so all the sudden the child somehow becomes "property" of the man?

I think you're having some sort of reading comprehension problem; hopefully temporary, because my patience with such is pretty thin these days.
There's nothing unclear about my post.
Try again.

If you try reading it again and still don't understand it, I'll break it down for you, I suppose... but I hope I'll only have to do so once. :?

If it turns out you're being disingenuous or deliberately obtuse (which I recall was one of your favorite tactics when you first joined this forum), I will not be pleased to have had my time wasted.
 
Both times when my wife and I choose adoption over keeping it, we also chose the parents. There was never any adoption home involved. When I think of the option to adopt out a child I think of a mother going through a small catalogue like we did and choosing the parents, not surrendering the child to the system.

It was such a hard thing for my wife to do that she didn't want to see either child after birth until the paperwork was signed. In fact in both instances she didn't see the child until a few days after she had left the hospital.

I went to see them in the nursery, but I'm a hard azz and can stomach this sort of thing. In my mind we had made the decision to adopt, and I was going to see that decision carried out.

I regret the abortions, but the more I think about those adoptions the more I know it was the right thing to do; and the price I pay for it today is worth it.

Its unfortunately that some people would rather not go through a small amount of pain having a pregnancy, it must be too much for them. Talking about pain, I almost lost my leg and got near to crushing my femur one time. Had to stay in the hospital for 3 months, in a wheelchair for another 3 months, and recovering and moving my leg for about 1-2 more months. I would go through such a thing again (if I became a woman and pregnant) to prevent an abortion. Only 8 months that might give the newborn life for 50-60+ years, not end it.
 
I think you're having some sort of reading comprehension problem; hopefully temporary, because my patience with such is pretty thin these days.
There's nothing unclear about my post.
Try again.

If you try reading it again and still don't understand it, I'll break it down for you, I suppose... but I hope I'll only have to do so once. :?

If it turns out you're being disingenuous or deliberately obtuse (which I recall was one of your favorite tactics when you first joined this forum), I will not be pleased to have had my time wasted.

I don't want to waste time replying to nonsense. I think that Granny's post is better than yours. Your posts are just made entirely of opinions, lies, and assumptions about groups of people. Your post here has nothing to do with abortion anyways, same with this reply.
 
I think that most woman that don't want to be pregnant and prefer abortion simply means that they want to have sex again right after the abortion. I think that the baby would make such people look fat and cause some discomfort, so they would rather kill someone for their benefit.

I think that most women have reasons far different than you would expect. They would prefer to have a child when they can adequately care for it, they don't wish to have their lives ruined by a constant drain on their resources (emotional as well as monetary), they concieved the child unwillingly or while under the influence of a judgement-harming subject, they are in medical danger, etc- I could go on and on here. Most importantly though- you may think of the tiny, unthinking organism as a child, but they do not, and that is why you may never understand these women.

I would prefer slavery be legal rather than abortion. I think that other nations (Europeans) out there, especially liberal ones already have feminist in power.

You would rather have humans legally beaten, raped, bought and sold, then have pregnancies terminated? What are you, a Biblical literalist? And will someone please tell me what is wrong with feminism? The equality of the genders is so natural that it's hard to believe a sane person could oppose it- but then again, anything for a fetus. How about we go China and abort just girl fetuses?

I care little about laws and legality that nations have even though they would have an effect on people's sinful acts.

Hint: Check amount of breast (boob) implants and unnecessary plastic surgery and abortion rates.

First abortion, then contraception, and now- breast implants? Trying to stop nonreproductive sex entirely, eh? I can think of more "sinful" acts you can spend your energy on. How about the legal slavery of women in the Arab world (and parts of the US), for starters?

Making an Informed Decision About Breast Implants

Thats shocking, about 123,000 breast enhancement implant surgeries done in 1998, and 255,000 breast enhancement implant surgeries in 2003.

What would cause a doubling in the amount of breast enhancement surgeries done in just FIVE years?

Easier. Cheaper. Safer. Everyone who wants one can get it with more convenience. What's your point?
 
Also killing that child can be extremely emotional, your point?
Yes it would be. I could never kill a child.

Now your making the assumption that all unwanted children have bad lives, worse than those lives in nearly every part of the world including China, India, middle east, and Africa.
I made no such assumption. I stated that my personal experiences played into my decision.


Thats your justification for having an abortion?
Not at all. I need no justification for having one. I have no one to answer to but myself. The justification needed was that I wanted one.

However, I stated some of reasons for having one.

Nice try

If they fired you, you would have a good case for lawsuit, in fact you should be HOPING that they fire you!
Not a matter of firing. I would have been physically incapable of performing my job.

Adding unwanted child? How about having sex with someone who wouldn't want a child from you but sex instead?
What do I care what he wanted? *I* didn't want a child. I still don't, which is why I use birth control. I have sex because I enjoy it, not to procreate.

Its called marriage so these events don't happen.
These "events" happen in marriages too. Marriage doesn't automatically make one able or willing to have a child. It's not some magical state of being.

Woman should have the burden of taking care of a "unwanted" child because of lack of responsibility in their lives.
Ahhh.. so we get down to it now. The "punishment" argument. You want to apply your personal morals onto me and force me to live by your judgement. You, who do not know me, my situation, or anything about my life deem it okay to cast judgement down on me simply on the basis that I had sex when I didn't want to procreate.

You are free, of course to feel that way. In fact, at a young age I felt much the same way, so I do understand. Even though my views of the world have changed as I've grown up, I still fully support people holding such opinions. I just do not support them writing them into law.

Who I have sex with and why is my business.


So your saying that not a single woman has chosen to have an abortion to look fat, perhaps you need to re-read my statement. Thats your opinion that I am misogynistic. Your entire post is just based on your opinion and assumptions stemming from your bias towards woman.
No, I didn't say that not a single woman has had an abortion for that reason. You, however, stated it as your opinion as to why "women" (generalized) have abortions.

However, if a woman has an abortion because she doesn't want to "get fat", that's her perogative. It's not my place to judge them for the reasons for having a perfectly legal and legitimate procedure.

That makes no sense. Everyone has a say in such issues.
No, you really don't have much say in whether or not I follow your religious morals.

I didn't declare any of this wrong, your just mis-interpreting my post.

You implied it was with your post. If that was not what you were intending to imply, then please clarify why you brought voluntary, cosmetic procedures into the debate.


Both times when my wife and I choose adoption over keeping it, we also chose the parents. There was never any adoption home involved. When I think of the option to adopt out a child I think of a mother going through a small catalogue like we did and choosing the parents, not surrendering the child to the system.

It was such a hard thing for my wife to do that she didn't want to see either child after birth until the paperwork was signed. In fact in both instances she didn't see the child until a few days after she had left the hospital.

I went to see them in the nursery, but I'm a hard azz and can stomach this sort of thing. In my mind we had made the decision to adopt, and I was going to see that decision carried out.

I regret the abortions, but the more I think about those adoptions the more I know it was the right thing to do; and the price I pay for it today is worth it.

And I commend you for that, Jerry. I really do. I think you and your wife made some terribly difficult decisions. Personally, I don't believe I *could* give a child up after carrying to gestation and giving birth. That's *me*. I do not, however, fault anyone who does. That was your choice and another couple may be much happier because of it. But this, like many things, is a very personal matter. If I had given a child up for adoption, it would be something that I think would have haunted me to my dying day... something I would never have been able to get over. That's *me*. That's why I made the decision I did, because of my values, my situation, and how well I know myself.
 
Yes it would be. I could never kill a child.

You oppose abortion then, as a fetus is a child.

And I commend you for that, Jerry. I really do. I think you and your wife made some terribly difficult decisions. Personally, I don't believe I *could* give a child up after carrying to gestation and giving birth. That's *me*. I do not, however, fault anyone who does. That was your choice and another couple may be much happier because of it. But this, like many things, is a very personal matter. If I had given a child up for adoption, it would be something that I think would have haunted me to my dying day... something I would never have been able to get over. That's *me*. That's why I made the decision I did, because of my values, my situation, and how well I know myself.

...your's is Moral Relativism at it's finest.
 
You oppose abortion then, as a fetus is a child.
You can call an embryo or fetus a child if you wish, it doesn't make it a sentient, individual entity. You can even call a fertilized egg a "child" if you want to, that doesn't make it one.

This horse has already been beaten. Dictionary definitions offer support for both beliefs; biological definitions state that a child is someone between the ages of birth to puberty.

Regardless of what you consider a child to be (and according to Websters, your definition is legit), I consider it to be a person outside the womb (which is also legit according to Webster).

...your's is Moral Relativism at it's finest.
Oh, without a doubt. :mrgreen:
 
You can call an embryo or fetus a child if you wish, it doesn't make it a sentient, individual entity. You can even call a fertilized egg a "child" if you want to, that doesn't make it one.

This horse has already been beaten. Dictionary definitions offer support for both beliefs; biological definitions state that a child is someone between the ages of birth to puberty.

Regardless of what you consider a child to be (and according to Websters, your definition is legit), I consider it to be a person outside the womb (which is also legit according to Webster).

Oh, without a doubt. :mrgreen:

Actually, since you endorse the definition to that end, if I want to call a fertilized egg a child, that does make it a child.

A post birth human is also a child, of coarse, but Webster does not rule out a pre-birth human.

In any event, I was speaking of fetuses, not zygotes, so we need not address fertilized eggs at all.

Since you accept the legitimacy of Webster's definition, it can be accurately said that abortion kills a child, and you said that you would not kill a child, you therefore would never have an elective abortion.

Since society can not tolerate people killing children on a whim, you and I, 2 people who do not condone the killing of children, must oppose abortion.
 
Actually, since you endorse the definition to that end, if I want to call a fertilized egg a child, that does make it a child.

A post birth human is also a child, of coarse, but Webster does not rule out a pre-birth human.

In any event, I was speaking of fetuses, not zygotes, so we need not address fertilized eggs at all.

Since you accept the legitimacy of Webster's definition, it can be accurately said that abortion kills a child, and you said that you would not kill a child, you therefore would never have an elective abortion.

Since society can not tolerate people killing children on a whim, you and I, 2 people who do not condone the killing of children, must oppose abortion.

Wrong. The definition of a child also supports the fact that a fetus or embryo is NOT one. And the biological definition of a child supports the fact that a fetus or embryo is NOT one.

I disagree with your application of the definition, just as you disagree with my application of the definition. We are still both free to use either definition, it makes no difference to me. I still firmly believe that no child is killed in an abortive procedure. So, my statement that I could not kill a child, as per my application of the definition, stands and is perfectly legitimate.
 
Wrong. The definition of a child also supports the fact that a fetus or embryo is NOT one. And the biological definition of a child supports the fact that a fetus or embryo is NOT one.

I disagree with your application of the definition, just as you disagree with my application of the definition. We are still both free to use either definition, it makes no difference to me. I still firmly believe that no child is killed in an abortive procedure. So, my statement that I could not kill a child, as per my application of the definition, stands and is perfectly legitimate.

I'm not seeing any exclusion of a pre-birth human in any dictionary...perhaps if you could point it out?
 
I'm not seeing any exclusion of a pre-birth human in any dictionary...perhaps if you could point it out?

*sigh*

Child - definition from Biology-Online.org
child
a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool.

child: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com
child (chīld)
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl'drən).

1. a) A person between birth and puberty.
b) A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2. a) An unborn infant; a fetus.
b) An infant; a baby.


child - definition of child by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

child - Definitions from Dictionary.com
child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

Definition of child - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
child
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age


Human development (biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Terms for stages of age-related physical development include, with their approximate age ranges:

Zygote, the point of conception, fertilization
Blastocyst the period between conception and embryonic stages
Embryo; the embryonic period starts at three weeks and continues until the end of the 8th week of pregnancy
Fetus; the fetal stage begins at the end of the 8th week and continues until childbirth
Birth
Child
  • Neonate (newborn) (0-30 days)
  • Infant (baby) (1 month-1 year)
  • Toddler (1-4)
  • Primary school age (also called prepubescence) (4-12)
  • Elementary school age (also called middle childhood) (4-8)
  • Preadolescence (preteen, or late childhood. The child in this and the previous phase are called schoolchild (schoolboy or schoolgirl), when still of primary school age.) (9-12)
Adolescence and puberty (teenage) (13-19)
Young adult (19-25)
Adult (exact minimum age may vary)
Early adulthood (20-39)
Middle age (40-59)
Advanced adult/Senior citizen/Old age (60+)
Death (occurs at various ages, depending on person)
 
Oh boy... The Abortion Semantics Game, Round 2500.
My favorite. :roll:

You know, Jer... even if you manage to prove, definitively, that the Webster's Dictionary says a "child" means a fertilized egg, do you really think that's going to change our stance one iota?

And Rivr, even if we prove to Jerry that if it ain't breathing, it ain't called a "child"... do you think that'll change his stance? Because I don't think it will.

These definitions are subjective, ergo this semantics debate is both irrelevant and unwinnable, therefore pointless.
As always.
 
In Kansas, the law says that abortions are legal after 22 weeks when a baby in the womb becomes viable, only if there is "irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."

Now that's a pretty high bar. But there is the mental health exception. And that is where Dr. Tiller lives.[/COLOR]


Last year, Dr. George Tiller reported aborting 240 viable fetuses at his Wichita clinic because the pregnant woman was at risk of irreversible harm.

The 30 charges Kline filed against Tiller — all misdemeanors — center on 15 of those patients. According to court records, all were approved for abortions because they suffered anxiety or had experienced an episode of "major depressive disorder." Among them were several young teens and one 10-year-old, all of them in their late second or early third trimesters.


Suicidal depression is pretty much risk of irreversible harm.
 
*sigh*

Child - definition from Biology-Online.org
child
a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool.

child: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com
child (chīld)
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl'drən).

1. a) A person between birth and puberty.
b) A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2. a) An unborn infant; a fetus.
b) An infant; a baby.


child - definition of child by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

child - Definitions from Dictionary.com
child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

Definition of child - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
child
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age


Human development (biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Terms for stages of age-related physical development include, with their approximate age ranges:

Zygote, the point of conception, fertilization
Blastocyst the period between conception and embryonic stages
Embryo; the embryonic period starts at three weeks and continues until the end of the 8th week of pregnancy
Fetus; the fetal stage begins at the end of the 8th week and continues until childbirth
Birth
Child
  • Neonate (newborn) (0-30 days)
  • Infant (baby) (1 month-1 year)
  • Toddler (1-4)
  • Primary school age (also called prepubescence) (4-12)
  • Elementary school age (also called middle childhood) (4-8)
  • Preadolescence (preteen, or late childhood. The child in this and the previous phase are called schoolchild (schoolboy or schoolgirl), when still of primary school age.) (9-12)
Adolescence and puberty (teenage) (13-19)
Young adult (19-25)
Adult (exact minimum age may vary)
Early adulthood (20-39)
Middle age (40-59)
Advanced adult/Senior citizen/Old age (60+)
Death (occurs at various ages, depending on person)

Non of those are exclusionary. They show various applications for "child", but non come out and say that a "child" is not applicable pre-birth.

Proves my point :mrgreen: Thanks for doing my dirty work :cool:

"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", spicificly, a “mother”.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".
RvW Section 9a kicks in and bans all abortions where the mother's life is not in jeopardy. PL wins the logic arena.

Now then, you said that you would not kill a child; therefore since a fetus is conclusively a child, you would never abort an unborn child.

See, every time PC come out from behind their "current legal standing" shell, they get smashed. Just stay there, it's the only place where an intellectually fulfilled pro-choicer can exist.
 
Oh boy... The Abortion Semantics Game, Round 2500.
My favorite. :roll:

You know, Jer... even if you manage to prove, definitively, that the Webster's Dictionary says a "child" means a fertilized egg, do you really think that's going to change our stance one iota?

And Rivr, even if we prove to Jerry that if it ain't breathing, it ain't called a "child"... do you think that'll change his stance? Because I don't think it will.

These definitions are subjective, ergo this semantics debate is both irrelevant and unwinnable, therefore pointless.
As always.

No kidding, which is why I said the application of either definition is legit.

Non of those are exclusionary. They show various applications for "child", but non come out and say that a "child" is not applicable pre-birth.
I stated quite clearly that it was perfecly legitimate to use the world "child" for the unborn. Just as it perfectly legitimate to consider only the born to be a "child". Neither are mutually exclusive and both of us are legitimately using our chose applications of the definition since both definitions apply. It's merely semantics. Words frequently have more than one definition. *shrug* I really don't see the issue and I don't see what it is you're arguing about.
 
Statement based off assumptions. Whats the point of the sentence?

The point of that sentence and the ones following is to show that abortion opponents lie about the facts.



Of course not, but claim that late-term abortion is usually unnecessary.

They also falsely claim that it is frequent. Claiming that MANY women frivolously wait until late in pregnancy to make an elective choice.



0.001% is extremely rare, not 9%.

Are you deliberately distorting the numbers or are you really this dense? You see 91% of abortions occur in the 1st 8 weeks, 9% occur in the WHOLE remaining 7 months.

The Raw Story | Partial-birth ban America's favorite feel-good, bad law

" Partial-birth abortions (see, you can have your silly, unscientific name, and I’ll still win) account for less than 0.2 percent of all abortions in the United States. Of those, most are performed at 20-24 weeks of gestation, or late into the second trimester but within the Supreme Court’s time frame. A study conducted in 1996 could only locate two cases of “partial birth abortion” performed after 24 weeks in that year in the United States. "




For what reasons are late-term abortions usually perfomed?
And I'm quoting from fact, not from opinions stemming from ignorance from a website.

Isn't nrlc.org a website? Coulda fooled me, of course, it's NOT a trustworthy website. Try this one for some real reasons:
The Raw Story | Partial-birth ban America's favorite feel-good, bad law



*The fetus had died late in development, and delivering it through natural means would have harmed the mother both physically and psychologically. (This type of procedure is not prohibited under the ban, but accounts for many, and possibly a majority, of the procedures included in statistics.)

*The fetus suffered from anencephaly, meaning that while it would carry to term, it would not have developed most of its brain. If not still born, such a child will usually die less than five days after birth. This defect is not usually discovered until late into the second trimester, when a partial birth or dilation and evacuation are the only options. The ban then leaves mothers with a choice between dilation and evacuation, or giving birth to their brainless child, then watching it die. Your compassionate conservative President’s proudest accomplishment, ladies and gentlemen.

*The fetus developed a severe case of hydrocephalus, a swelling of the skull (due to a flooding of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain) which in extreme cases makes it impossible to pass through the birth canal. Many (about one in 500 American children) suffer from milder cases of the disease, but the ban does not make exceptions for cases wherein the mother would suffer permanent debilitating injury (swelling can go up to 250 percent normal size), only to give birth to a hopelessly brain-damaged, if not stillborn, infant. I think it would be interesting to see how Congressmen would feel about their wives or daughters being permanently handicapped in order to go through the trauma of giving birth to a deformed, dying child.

There are many other possible reasons for a late term abortion, of course


If EVERYONE who has children wants to provide a good life for them, then why do people sexually molest or abuse their own children? Seem as if your statement has absolutely no merit.

OK, I will give you this one. EVERYONE EXCEPT for a few NUTCASES.


No I don't, I'm just acknowledging that I know people have sex for years and don't want children.
I wonder why.

A multitude of reasons, that's another thread.



Are you unable to distinguish on why the child suddenly automatically becomes half the fathers after its born? Why is that if it supposedly was part of the woman.

It becomes half of the fathers' RESPONSIBILITY after birth. He has NO responsibility BEFORE birth.



Thats your opinion, In fact children adopted to be statistically shown to have better lives with their parents.
New Study Finds Adoptive Parents More Invested in Their Children than Biological Parents

The emotional trauma from giving up a child for adoption is greater for the BIOLOGICAL MOTHER than having an abortion. There are, however, some emotional problems for some adoptive children because of the adoption.
 
The point of that sentence and the ones following is to show that abortion opponents lie about the facts.

Lie about the facts? What facts were lied?


They also falsely claim that it is frequent. Claiming that MANY women frivolously wait until late in pregnancy to make an elective choice.


I did not claim that it is frequent, nor have I claimed that many woman wait until late pregnancy to make a choice.

Claiming that anti-abortionist falsely claim that it is frequent has no backing. Your just making prejudices about anti-abortionist. 1069 said in a post that anti-abortionist woman are all fat.

For what reasons are late-term abortions usually perfomed?

Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Note that the study was not conducted by nrlc.org. nrlc.org is simply reporting the study, is there something wrong with that?


No, even I don't claim that, I said that the reason some might choose to have late term abortion later is because some woman did not realize that they were pregnant until later and that some woman





Are you deliberately distorting the numbers or are you really this dense? You see 91% of abortions occur in the 1st 8 weeks, 9% occur in the WHOLE remaining 7 months.

Lies

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2005). The CDC estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.5 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2005).

Hmm, how many months are in a week and whats 100 - 88.5? Looks like your the one thats distorting facts.

9% (or 11.5%) isn't extremely rare. The combination of the words extremely rare should be used when someone wins the lottery.


The Raw Story | Partial-birth ban America's favorite feel-good, bad law

" Partial-birth abortions (see, you can have your silly, unscientific name, and I’ll still win) account for less than 0.2 percent of all abortions in the United States. Of those, most are performed at 20-24 weeks of gestation, or late into the second trimester but within the Supreme Court’s time frame. A study conducted in 1996 could only locate two cases of “partial birth abortion” performed after 24 weeks in that year in the United States. "

hmmm, I wonder which source is correct

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2005). The CDC estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.5 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2005).

The CDC or a website being ran by a liberal?




Isn't nrlc.org a website? Coulda fooled me, of course, it's NOT a trustworthy website. Try this one for some real reasons:

The rawstory is not a trustworthy website, I've cited Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. which contradicts rawstory in facts and figures. The figures from plannedparenthood.org come from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .



All of those reasons you cited account for less than 2% of late term abortions.

There are many other possible reasons for a late term abortion, of course

Of course there are, such as a need to get rid of a human.

It becomes half of the fathers' RESPONSIBILITY after birth. He has NO responsibility BEFORE birth.

Thanks, for the comment, I'll be making another thread shortly about the double standard that our legal system has.


The emotional trauma from giving up a child for adoption is greater for the BIOLOGICAL MOTHER than having an abortion. There are, however, some emotional problems for some adoptive children because of the adoption.

The emotional trauma varies from person to person. I don't care how long someone cries, it doesn't make murder ethical.
 
Lie about the facts? What facts were lied?

That late-term abortions are common, frequent, and for frivolous reasons is a LIE. Say it once and you might be mistaken, keep saying it and you are a LIAR.


nor have I claimed that many woman wait until late pregnancy to make a choice.

This statement from your source says that many women wait until late pregnancy to make a choice:
"and it is well established that the great majority of late-term abortions do not involve any illness of the mother or the baby. They are purely "elective" procedures-- that is, they are performed for purely "social" reasons."




9% (or 11.5%) isn't extremely rare. The combination of the words extremely rare should be used when someone wins the lottery.

Your own source says 1.4% of abortions are performed at 20+ weeks, most of those are going to be before 24 weeks.



The emotional trauma varies from person to person. I don't care how long someone cries, it doesn't make murder ethical.

True, and statistics show that women are more likely to suffer emotional trauma from giving up a child for adoption than from abortion. We aren't talking about murder here.
 
Curiosity

"Curiosity"
Both times when my wife and I choose adoption over keeping it, we also chose the parents.
....
I regret the abortions, but the more I think about those adoptions the more I know it was the right thing to do; and the price I pay for it today is worth it.
Jerry,
Is there a discloseable reason why adoption was chosen?
 
Re: Curiosity

"Curiosity"
Jerry,
Is there a discloseable reason why adoption was chosen?

Having accepted the premise that aborting our own children was morally unacceptable, it was ruled out as an option. Our only 2 remaining options were adoption and keeping the children.

The reasons we chose to adopt were similar to the reasons many women choose to abort. The 3 main reasons were 1) she and I both felt that we were to young to have children (ie; immature, unfinished education, no established career), 2) we wanted to retain our independence, and 3) under no circumstances did we the father’s side of either of our broken families to be involved in what we foresaw to be a hard struggle raising children at that time.
 
I wonder if the people that voted yes even know what PBA is........
 
Back
Top Bottom