• 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!

Setting the record straight on late term abortion

rwee2000 said:
But aren't the kids the RESULT of not getting an abortion? So again why are there ANY kids waiting? And we haven't even touch on how it cost more to adopt a white baby vs a black baby, or how it takes longer to adopt a biracial, Latino, Asian or Caucasian vs a black baby.

So again those against aborting tend to say once it's born it not my problem.
Click to expand...

There’s a big difference between domestic infant adoption and foster care. Pregnant women wanting to put their baby up for adoption can use domestic infant adoption, which lets her set the child up with a family prior to birth with plenty of assistance. You will not fail to find an adoptive family this way. Foster care is essentially for children who have been taken from their parents for legal reasons. These children are a little older and have a lot of difficulty getting adopted. About half get reunified with their parents, however, which is the ultimate goal of foster care. So bottom line: if you’re pregnant and you want to put your baby up for adoption, you won’t have a problem and can’t use the foster care system as an excuse for killing him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
minnie616 said:
The youngest babies to ever survive were 21 weeks and 5 days and 21 weeks 6 days.
They were considered medical miracles.

The law requires all abortion clinic doctors to check for viability of fetus before performing an abortion after 20 weeks.

Doctors determine if a fetus is viable. Not lawmakers.

From the following :


Arizona’s Ban on Abortions Struck Down in Federal Court - The New York Times



Roe v Wade allows states to take a compelling interest and ban abortions past viability except in cases where the woman’s life is at risk or when irreparable damage to one of her major bodily functions would occur if the pregnancy continued.

A non viable fetus ( one that is dead , dying , or would not live if it survived birth more than a few hours or minutes ) puts the woman at risk to a life threatening infection.

Examples of irreparable major bodily functions of the woman would include, stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, kidney damage or liver damage.
Click to expand...

Roe makes it very clear that states can kill babies after viability without any restrictions whatsoever. That’s a simple fact you won’t be able to escape from.
And, again, I’m happy to talk about the concept of viability and its definition, but it’s irrelevant here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
forthecause said:
There’s a big difference between domestic infant adoption and foster care. Pregnant women wanting to put their baby up for adoption can use domestic infant adoption, which lets her set the child up with a family prior to birth with plenty of assistance. You will not fail to find an adoptive family this way. Foster care is essentially for children who have been taken from their parents for legal reasons. These children are a little older and have a lot of difficulty getting adopted. About half get reunified with their parents, however, which is the ultimate goal of foster care. So bottom line: if you’re pregnant and you want to put your baby up for adoption, you won’t have a problem and can’t use the foster care system as an excuse for killing him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So I can put you on the list of foster parents for Down's syndrome children who's mother was denied an abortion?

My daughter has Down syndrome. The anti-abortion movement is using her to restrict both of our reproductive rights.
 
forthecause said:
Lol obviously you haven’t read it then. Go do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have read it, specifically, the part where it states that in the third trimester, states may ban abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. This means that Roe v. Wade does not protect third trimester abortions from state laws banning them. It provides no specific permission for late term abortions. Quote the opposite.

Furthermore, the trimester system of Roe v. Wade is actually out of date and no longer used for determining the legality of abortion law. It was replaced by the fetal viability system in Casey V. Planned Parenthood.
 
forthecause said:
Roe makes it very clear that states can kill babies after viability without any restrictions whatsoever. That’s a simple fact you won’t be able to escape from.
And, again, I’m happy to talk about the concept of viability and its definition, but it’s irrelevant here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There are only 4 doctors and 3 clinics in the US that perform abortions past 24 weeks ( the limit of viability ).

They do not perform abortions for just any reason.

By law any fetus past 24 weeks must be dead before labor is inducted or an extraction of the fetus begins.

The skull is too large and hardened to perform a Dismemberment abortion so the woman either needs to go through very painful contractions ( they are more painful to the woman since the fetus is dead ) or an intact D and E must be preformed which is legal since the fetus is already dead.
 
forthecause said:
Yeah, it’s their favorite argument on the other side, and when you give one of those examples they never can deal with it. They just change the subject or something or call it ridiculous and not warranting a response lol
I like to use the fat rolls example, though, because it highlights something that very few people realize, which is that the uterus (similarly to the mouth and anus and rest of the digestive tract for that matter) are not actually inside the body. Maybe it’s counterintuitive for people that haven’t studied the human body in depth, but it’s certainly inconvenient for their arguments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There are far too many people that will go to any length to maintain their selfishness over their responsibility. They are prime examples of the decay of morals in our society... Fat rolls is a good example too...
 
forthecause said:
The study linked below seems to be widely regarded as the best information on the topic of late term abortion. In it you’ll find some inconvenient truths for the pro-abortion camp. Among those are: 1) there are (at least) several thousand late term abortions every year in the US conducted for flippant reasons, i.e. not having to do with fetal anomalies or the life of the mother being at risk; 2) at least a few thousand late term abortions are performed each year in the US simply because the mother is already a single mother and doesn’t want to be raising another child on her own. (The reasons for the other half of the unnecessary late term abortions aren’t any better); and 3) there is no shortage of abortion clinics offering late term abortions. (Women seeking a late term abortion contacted 2.2 clinics on average before finding one that would perform their procedure as opposed to 1.7 clinics for women seeking first trimester abortions).

—-https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013—-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

@ thread OP....There really is no 'pro-abortion' camp. There is a 'pro-choice' camp, and there is a big difference in the two labels. You're thread OP is intellectually dishonest and disengenuous from the git-go.
 
Indie guy said:
No, personhood doesn't legally begin until birth and this has been the case long before Roe vs. Wade. Look at the Census statistics every 10 years or so. It doesn't officially count a person as a person unless it is born. Why do you think people celebrate birthdays and not conception days?

You also make a frequent point to say that this is an issue dominated by the left but you're absolutely wrong. Barry Goldwater was was pro-choice, his wife was one of the founding members of Planned Parenthood, and he was also a loyal supporter. While he was a senator his nickname was Mr. Conservative.

I'd say this is an issue that has been taken over by the pseudo conservatives more than anyone else - and I emphasize pseudo because a true conservative wouldn't be in favor of more government control on matters like this. Abortion has been legal for over 46 years and it's high time to get over it, accept the fact that it's legal, and if you're against it then you don't have to participate in it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, infanticide is something I can’t just “get over,” and if you’re a constitutional conservative you should be ashamed to be shirking the most basic constitutional protection of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.
Abortion is very clearly a left-right issue today.
Census rules aren’t law. They’re just procedural codes.
Celebrating conception day is a little...awkward...if you catch my drift.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
minnie616 said:
The study was about women seeking a legal abortion before viability who fetus did not have defects.



Women who were seeking abortion care for a fetal abnormality or demise were not eligible for the study.

Turnaway Study | ANSIRH
Click to expand...

Yeah...you said that...then I said it’s pretty insulting to suggest people with deformities should have been killed in the womb...then you said that again...then...is there an echo in here or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Irredentist said:
Current Supreme Court precedent permits States to ban abortions in the third trimester, after fetal viability, except to save the life of the mother. See, Casey v. Planned Parenthood. So what is your issue again?
Click to expand...

No, it’s not just life of the mother, but her “health” too, which, as I’ve said, can include mental health and can be a very subjective measure. And that’s what Roe says too. So I have no idea why you’re bringing up Casey. My issue is the same as it’s always been. You’ve added nothing, as always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
forthecause said:
It’s a “fact” that nobody except you and a few other radicals seem to agree with. Interesting...

Yes, a woman’s uterus is no more inside her body than the space between two fat rolls or the inside of your mouth. Seriously. So easy to blow a lib’s mind lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm not a "lib". Notice my lean under my avatar?

Please, please, please take an anatomy course. Where the heck do you think the uterus is?
 
forthecause said:
I told you exactly where to find the statutes. You can look them up for yourself. You’re obviously not interested in doing that so I offered you an out, which was to say that the double standard I’m exposing within you doesn’t require you to look up the exact statute, just to acknowledge what I’m sure is obvious to you, that killing slaves has been legal somewhere at some time. I wish you WOULD go dig up the statutes. The links I provided will tell you exactly how to. But you won’t. This has become a red herring to keep you from contending with the point in making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Links to the statutes, please.
 
forthecause said:
Well, no, that’s actually scientifically incorrect. Every living being has a genus and species. A zygote has a unique dna and is certainly a living being, as are an embryo and a fetus. They’re genus and species are Homo sapiens, meaning they’re humans. “Personhood” is the legal term that determines when a living being has constitutional protections. What you MEAN to say is that one isn’t a person until one is born, not one isn’t a human being until one is born. But you’re very confused and likely don’t have much of a clue at all what you’re saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Proof that it is not a human being until live birth in my country. (I believe Minnie has proof about the USA)

When child becomes human being

223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Marginal note:Killing child

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 206

Criminal Code
 
Irredentist said:
If the people of a state wish to ban all abortion after viability they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. That seems fair to me, do you dislike democracy?
Click to expand...

I like the constitution and the rights our democratic republic is charged with protecting. You don’t care at all about the most innocent and vulnerable in our society having their most basic and most important constitutional right violated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
year2late said:
What don’t you understand about pro choice? Many women who use contraception clearly feel they are not in a position to maintain a pregnancy.Some feel like if they get pregnant they can make the pregnancy work with the support they have. It is called choice for a reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they can CHOOSE to abort their embryo or not. A fetus is different than an embryo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
forthecause said:
Yeah, and they can CHOOSE to abort their embryo or not. A fetus is different than an embryo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well they can abort the fetus too. Perfectly legal
 
year2late said:
How about finding a study where most of the source material is this decade.
Click to expand...

Studies don’t have source material. Studies ARE source material. The larger PAPER the study is a part of makes use of reliable information collected by past research to put the study’s findings in perspective. You’ve been hung up on this idea for a very long time and you still don’t get it. You’ve obviously never conducted research or written a scientific paper, so I’ll just clue you in: there’s nothing unusual about citing reliable sources over a decade old, especially when it’s a subject with very little previous research, as this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
minnie616 said:
From Romper:




By the way an early delivery of a non viable fetus is still called an abortion.

A c- section of a non viable fetus is also called an abortion.



Abortions at or after 24 weeks are sometimes needed medically. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. – Dr. Jen Gunter
Click to expand...

Someone else said the same thing. I’ll just copy and paste my response:
“Lol ok, you go with the hardcore liberal doctor’s anti-trump blog post quoted by romper. I’ll go with the eminent researcher on the topic who’s the left’s favorite person to quote on the matter in a guttmacher institute and UC-San Fran study. You know, the fact is, there’s little conclusive data on the topic of just what percentage of late term abortions are due to fetal anomalies and threat to the mother’s life. The researcher and piece I’m quoting suggest that taking a broad look at all the data leads to the conclusion that those are most likely a minority of late term abortions. But I don’t doubt that taking a more narrow view of such limited data could give someone the impression that it’s a majority, especially someone who clearly has an axe to grind on the subject, like your Dr. Gunter.”

I don’t see the relevance of your final point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Irredentist said:
I have read it, specifically, the part where it states that in the third trimester, states may ban abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. This means that Roe v. Wade does not protect third trimester abortions from state laws banning them. It provides no specific permission for late term abortions. Quote the opposite.

Furthermore, the trimester system of Roe v. Wade is actually out of date and no longer used for determining the legality of abortion law. It was replaced by the fetal viability system in Casey V. Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

Lol obviously you didn’t read it, or didn’t understand it. It says states are permitted to ban abortion after viability (viability is the standard that started with roe, not casey), unless the mother’s life OR HEALTH are at risk, which can be as subjective as mental health. It also says states are permitted to not have ANY restrictions on abortion after viability. (There’s the “specific permission for late term abortion” you demanded).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
minnie616 said:
There are only 4 doctors and 3 clinics in the US that perform abortions past 24 weeks ( the limit of viability ).

They do not perform abortions for just any reason.

By law any fetus past 24 weeks must be dead before labor is inducted or an extraction of the fetus begins.

The skull is too large and hardened to perform a Dismemberment abortion so the woman either needs to go through very painful contractions ( they are more painful to the woman since the fetus is dead ) or an intact D and E must be preformed which is legal since the fetus is already dead.
Click to expand...

Relevance? Are you saying you’re against the law of the land laid out in roe? Why not overturn it then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom