Jan 19, 2010 -- 2:09PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

 

As a woman, who do you want deciding whether your decision is 'compelling' enough? What if the judge who hears your case doesn't think that having a child with Tay Sachs disease is a compelling reason to have an abortion? What if your doctor says that he thinks that Downs syndrome children are adorable and you're an evil human being if you know in your heart that you just can't possibly parent such a child?

What if the counselor who makes that decision is Catholic and refuses to sanction any non-emergency abortion?  What if the person who makes the decision has been waiting to adopt a child for the last two years?  

Who decides? Well, the way it is now, you do.  YOU get to decide who your support system is.  YOU get to decide who gets to hear your fears and your pain.  You get to decide whose moral standards prevail.  You get to decide whether you talk to a priest, a psychiatrist, a doctor, and abide by his or her decision ... or not.  Nobody is going to force you to watch the development of a normal fetus even if yours isn't; no one will question your motives.  No one will make you relive the incest that got you pregnant; no one will accuse you of child abuse when you disclose that you drank too much in the first three months of pregnancy.  

I have trouble understanding why any woman would willingly submit to anyone else's authority in this most personal decision. 

Well said, TS... bolding your last statement for emphasis.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 3:40PM, Erey wrote:

I am also OK with the current law - as I understand it.  Now I am lead to believe I have a wrong understanding.  I was under the impression that a woman could choose an abortion for any reason at all (lack of money, poor timing, vacation plans, anything) up to the end of the first trimester.  AFter that first trimester the woman needed a complelling medical reason, that reason could be a grave disease with the fetus or it could be some serious medical complication on the mother that would create extreme hardship to carry the child to term.  But basicaly a serious medical condidtion would be the only reason a woman could elect to terminate a pregnancy past the 1st trimester.

Now I am hearing that is might be perfectly legal for a woman to terminate for any reason at any latter stage - I am not for that.  It seems perfectly monsterous to do something like that.  I believe only a moraly bankrupt society would make such a thing legal. 

According to the Guttmacher Institute 38 states currently limit abortion after viability (an undefined point in most laws) to threats to the life or health of the mother.  This is fully in accordance with Roe v Wade which stated that abortion could be restricted by the state in the second trimester only for the protection of the mother but after viability in any case other than threat to maternal life or health.  In other words states can say that after 13-14 weeks abortion must be performed in facilities with certain staff and/or equipment present but could not restrict the reason an abortion was chosen until the point of viability.  At this time medical opinion places that point between 24-26 weeks depending upon the context in which it is being discussed.

Again per the Guttmacher Institute in 2008 90% of all abortions occurred in the first trimester and all but 98.9% 20 weeks or earlier.

A brief note of explanation.  A lot of you are aware of our local guidelines that can be found in the self titled sticky thread and also the sticky information thread titled "Please read before posting on this board". For those of you who may not be aware of the local guidelines here, please take a minute and read them.  Because this thread was moved here from the Hot Topic Zone where rules are very relaxed, there are some obvious violations of our local guidelines in this thread.  I changed the title that contained one of those prohibited words when it got here, but have not yet cleaned up the thread as a whole, but it will get done. If any of the original participants of this thread follow it over and see that some of your posts have been removed, this note explains why and will replace any private messages.

Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Abortion Debate Board

Jan 27, 2010 -- 8:37PM, IDBC wrote:

Howdy Grin

Jan 9, 2010 -- 10:45AM, Grinandbearit wrote:

Definition of the H-word : any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life. 

That is ONE of the definations of h-word.  And the defination of the h-word violates local ROC guidelines.

 I do not believe that abortion qualifies because I do not think that abortions performed under proper medical conditions is a "slaughter".   I also am deeply offended by the comparison of a medical proceedure being called a "slaughter".   It hurt my feeling and made me cry.  It therefore may be in violation of ROC guidelines.

Now if abortions were performed on the pool  table of a bar by a bartender using a coat hanger, because abortions were illegal, then it would be a "slaughter". 

And I would not object to you referring to it as a slaughter. 

2.	The brutal or violent killing of a person.

Having a c-section or even giving birth naturally is brutal and violent. 

I don't think that most legal abortions are reckless. 

1.	utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually fol. by of): to be reckless of danger.

2.	characterized by or proceeding from such carelessness: reckless extravagance.

 

 

Jan 9, 2010 -- 10:45AM, Grinandbearit wrote:

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million

 

Your figures are inaccurate.   By appoximately twentynine  years.    There have been appox. 40+ abortions since 1973 NOT PER YEAR. 

       www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatisti...

You are only off by 111,000.  There are appox 4,000 abortions performed each day.