Question About Late-Term Abortion

[johnnys4life]

Every year thousands of viable, late-term unborn infants are killed by abortion. At that point,

having an abortion is more dangerous to the woman than giving birth naturally. It is not an

emergency procedure. In late-term abortion, the cervix is artificially dilated over a period of

DAYS. C-sections are emergency procedures which take only minutes to perform, and leave the child

alive. At the point this is happening, or very shortly (like a week or two) afterwards, the

child can live outside the womb.

Premature infants:
22 weeks: 0–10% survival rate
23 weeks: 10–35% survival rate
24 weeks: 40–70% survival rate
25 weeks: 50–80% survival rate
26 weeks: 80–90% survival rate
27 weeks: greater than 90% survival rate
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00061790.html

And yet abortion is legal in the United States
up until the very end of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever.

At a minimum, more than 165,000 abortions are done each year to unborn babies who are in the second and third trimester. See: http://www.frtl.org/abortion/articles/abortion%20statistics%20paint%20a%20grim.htm Over 10,000 are performed after 22 weeks, and in many of these cases, there is no physical problem with either the mother or baby. See:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm
http://www.frtl.org/abortion/articles/abortion statistics paint a grim.htm

http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00061790.html

So for people who support the agencies which perform late-term abortion, (such as Planned Parenthood or Naral) and for those of you who think it ought to remain legal as it is, I ask you,

why?

I would really like to know how someone can define thier moral principles on something as grave as infanticide, upon what the Supreme Court interprets at any one point in time.

There is no excuse for a late term abortion. It brutally kills a living, viable human being who can dream, move, feel, hear, and respond. There are tons of people out there who are waiting on long waiting lists to adopt even children with severe physical or mental problems, (see: http://www.rmfc.org/fs/fs0027.html) and instead they are just being thrown away. Would anyone like to explain to me why you think that is okay? I really don't understand how it could be.

 

[Pah]

It's time for me to "ignore"

 

[hoomer]

:biglaugh: oh boy....floggin a dead horse anyone?

 

[Green Gaia]

Why even ask the question? You've already made up your mind that anyone who disagrees with you is "insane". You don't care what the other side has to say and you certainly don't listen to it or even dare try to understand it. You want to believe only you are right, fine go ahead, but stop trying to "debate" when all you're really doing is preaching.

 

[johnnys4life]

No, I would really like to know how people are justifying this. It makes no sense to me, but since none of you can answer the question, make up whatever excuse you want. You call me obsessed because I'm trying to get information out there that is sadly lacking in a sociey like ours. I am merely pointing out the illogical position you put yourself in by being and supporting the "pro-choice" position.

You criticize me for not basing my argument on fact, but when I come up with one that is based entirely on fact, and even list my sources, you find another reason to criticize me. Another attempt to stifle the pro-life side, because you cannot refute it.

 

[michel]

Every year thousands of viable, late-term unborn infants are killed by abortion. At that point,

having an abortion is more dangerous to the woman than giving birth naturally. It is not an

emergency procedure. In late-term abortion, the cervix is artificially dilated over a period of

DAYS. C-sections are emergency procedures which take only minutes to perform, and leave the child

alive. At the point this is happening, or very shortly (like a week or two) afterwards, the

child can live outside the womb.

Premature infants:
22 weeks: 0–10% survival rate
23 weeks: 10–35% survival rate
24 weeks: 40–70% survival rate
25 weeks: 50–80% survival rate
26 weeks: 80–90% survival rate
27 weeks: greater than 90% survival rate
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00061790.html

And yet abortion is legal in the United States
up until the very end of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever.

At a minimum, more than 165,000 abortions are done each year to unborn babies who are in the second and third trimester. See: http://www.frtl.org/abortion/articles/abortion%20statistics%20paint%20a%20grim.htm Over 10,000 are performed after 22 weeks, and in many of these cases, there is no physical problem with either the mother or baby. See:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm





So for people who support the agencies which perform late-term abortion, (such as Planned Parenthood or Naral) and for those of you who think it ought to remain legal as it is, I ask you,

why?

I would really like to know how someone can define thier moral principles on something as grave as infanticide, upon what the Supreme Court interprets at any one point in time.

There is no excuse for a late term abortion. It brutally kills a living, viable human being who can dream, move, feel, hear, and respond. There are tons of people out there who are waiting on long waiting lists to adopt even children with severe physical or mental problems, (see: http://www.rmfc.org/fs/fs0027.html) and instead they are just being thrown away. Would anyone like to explain to me why you think that is okay? I really don't understand how it could be.

I agree withyou jonnys4life;
We have the same conundrum in the U.K, Quote: [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,'sans serif']In England, Wales and Scotland abortion is legal under 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors agree that it is necessary for one of the following reasons:[/font]

• having the baby would harm the woman's mental or physical health more than having the abortion. This involves the woman explaining how she feels about the pregnancy to a doctor.
• having the baby would harm the mental or physical health of any children she already has.

Whereas we have had cases of premature births which give rise to the following statistics:-

• At 22-23 weeks about 24 per cent of babies survive.
• At 24 weeks, the figure rises to 31 per cent

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Rex]

It's hard to debate something when the very word "baby" can be debated. I think in order to line the debate you need to outline and define what definition of "baby" are you using for the point of the argument.

 

[johnnys4life]

I agree withyou jonnys4life;
We have the same conundrum in the U.K, Quote: [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,'sans serif']In England, Wales and Scotland abortion is legal under 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors agree that it is necessary for one of the following reasons:[/font]

• having the baby would harm the woman's mental or physical health more than having the abortion. This involves the woman explaining how she feels about the pregnancy to a doctor.
• having the baby would harm the mental or physical health of any children she already has.

Whereas we have had cases of premature births which give rise to the following statistics:-

• At 22-23 weeks about 24 per cent of babies survive.
• At 24 weeks, the figure rises to 31 per cent

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

The laws are definately different in the UK. Here, you don't even need a reason. I am suprised that your infant mortality statistics are so different from ours, though. Did you know that American's infant mortality rate is actually worse than Cuba's?

You know, I just don't buy that about the woman being "emotionally harmed" just by being pregnant. I've been pregnant, and I can't imagine how anyone could be emotionally harmed from that unless they were emotionally unstable to begin with, in which case waiting a few weeks and giving the baby up for adoption is not going to make her any worse. I don't see how having a dead baby could be any better for your emotional health than having a living one. I personally would much rather know that my baby was alive out there somewhere and being taken care of, than to know he or she was dead because of me. It seems to me on some level she would still have to go through the grieving process, or else be in a permanent state of denial.

 

[michel]

QUOTE[You know, I just don't buy that about the woman being "emotionally harmed" just by being pregnant.]

There have been far more spurious reasons given for being 'emotionally harmed'as used in defence in civil and in criminal court cases!
I think mood of the present day thinking is that if there is no legal way to run, then lay down another track.............

 

[Green Gaia]

No, I would really like to know how people are justifying this. It makes no sense to me, but since none of you can answer the question, make up whatever excuse you want. You call me obsessed because I'm trying to get information out there that is sadly lacking in a sociey like ours. I am merely pointing out the illogical position you put yourself in by being and supporting the "pro-choice" position.

You criticize me for not basing my argument on fact, but when I come up with one that is based entirely on fact, and even list my sources, you find another reason to criticize me. Another attempt to stifle the pro-life side, because you cannot refute it.

What are you talking about? I haven't "stifled" a thing. The thread is still here isn't it?

I cannot believe for one second that you really care about anyone else's opinion or beliefs, other than to question their mental capacity when they disagree with you. You say you're trying to get information "out there" well, if you're copying and pasting from several other websites, I would say the info is out and anyone wanting access to it, can find it very easily.

You keep calling the pro-choice side "illogical". Why? Because it's not what you agree with? I don't agree with the Catholics on most things, but I'm not running around calling them "illogical". I think the anti-choice side is unrealistic, yet I don't make a point of saying so in every other post I make on the forum.

As for answering the question, I don't totally disagree with your stance on late-term abortions, however freedom and choice are more important to me than someone's political and religious agenda.

Want to know what I don't understand? People who think they have a right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can and cannot do in their personal lives. I absolutely do not understand that way of thinking.

 

[linwood]

I`m also in agreement with you Johnnys.
(I bet that shocks you)

I cannot deem all abortion unethical considering an abortion within the first 25 weeks doesn`t kill any thing that could support itself anyway.

But if a fetus is far enough along to be viable outside of the womb regardless of what measures would be needed to insure its survival it should be given that chance.

I do believe abortion should be better regulated and documented and their should be some line drawn as to "when" an abortion is allowed.

 

[Green Gaia]

It's hard to debate something when the very word "baby" can be debated. I think in order to line the debate you need to outline and define what definition of "baby" are you using for the point of the argument.

I think that's the essence of the entire debate on abortion, differences in opinion of when a "baby" is a human being and not just a bunch of cells residing in a woman's uterus. I don't think this issue will ever be resolved because we can never know for sure, and it will always be just a matter of opinion from both sides.

 

[w00t]

A viable baby should be delivered normally if there is a need to end a pregnancy before full term. I cannot see the rationale of abortion at a late stage.

 

[Green Gaia]

One can be Pro-Choice and still not think late-term abortions are the best idea.

 

[michel]

Now I realize that some of you are going to think 'hey, Michel's changing camps half way through'; I certainly am not. BUT (Rex says - right he has now refuted the entire sentence before BUT) Last night there was the usual daily programme on television about Auctions; someone had a 'Taxidermitized' (WoW) cat- a stuffed cat in a glass box; this cat however had died at a very young age, and the owner had had it stuffed because although the main body of the kitten was normal, it virtually had two heads.
The Auctionaire said, 'Well this is one that might well attract attention, there are collectors of curios such as this; I reckon it will go up to perhaps $300 (see how thoughtful I am, I even convert the money for you, at today's rate). The item went into the auction, and one telephone bidder paid $2600 (approx) for it.

When My parents were in Africa, My mother was a good friend of the only doctor for miles around - a very vocational-minded polish Doctor (I think his name was Padji); and he used to let her go into the hospital to help; she had a strong stomach and could have been a doctor herself had fate not intervened.

There was an unwritten law that certain babies were 'DNR' (I presume you have the Do Not Ressusitate Clause in the US) - it was an unwritten rule, and noone ever had to look for approval or ask. I am talking about 1950's, the limited resources in the Jungle etc..........

 

[johnnys4life]

What are you talking about? I haven't "stifled" a thing. The thread is still here isn't it?

Granted, but it seems you wish it wasn't.

I cannot believe for one second that you really care about anyone else's opinion or beliefs, other than to question their mental capacity when they disagree with you. You say you're trying to get information "out there" well, if you're copying and pasting from several other websites, I would say the info is out and anyone wanting access to it, can find it very easily. [/QUOTE]
Then why get any information out on these forums, since pretty much everything is out there on the internet somewhere already.

You keep calling the pro-choice side "illogical". Why? Because it's not what you agree with? I don't agree with the Catholics on most things, but I'm not running around calling them "illogical". I think the anti-choice side is unrealistic, yet I don't make a point of saying so in every other post I make on the forum.
Because you can't answer a lot of perfectly logical questions. You just keep resorting to saying that it's a woman's choice, which is exactly what pro-abortion groups are saying. It's like pro-choice people are being told exactly what to think, and they just go along with it even when it makes no sense.
As for answering the question, I don't totally disagree with your stance on late-term abortions, however freedom and choice are more important to me than someone's political and religious agenda.
Freedom to do what. Choice to do what? A woman should have a right to choose- ? Finish the sentence. Choose what?

Want to know what I don't understand? People who think they have a right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can and cannot do in their personal lives. I absolutely do not understand that way of thinking. [/QUOTE]
When it comes to killing innocent human beings, someone oughtta have the right to tell people it is NOT okay.

 

[johnnys4life]

I think that's the essence of the entire debate on abortion, differences in opinion of when a "baby" is a human being and not just a bunch of cells residing in a woman's uterus. I don't think this issue will ever be resolved because we can never know for sure, and it will always be just a matter of opinion from both sides.

Then name one thing that a viable unborn baby does not have that a legally protected human being does, besides legal rights.

 

[johnnys4life]

I`m also in agreement with you Johnnys.
(I bet that shocks you)

I cannot deem all abortion unethical considering an abortion within the first 25 weeks doesn`t kill any thing that could support itself anyway.

But if a fetus is far enough along to be viable outside of the womb regardless of what measures would be needed to insure its survival it should be given that chance.

I do believe abortion should be better regulated and documented and their should be some line drawn as to "when" an abortion is allowed.

Well I'm glad we aren't TOTAL opposites. But when you say 25 weeks, well actually that is a bit late. I happen to know that at my own local hospital when I lived in Oregon, they saved one preemie who was only 19 weeks of gestation. They bragged on t.v. how they routinely saved babies as young as 21 weeks. I have no reason to believe a hospital would go on t.v. and lie.

 

[linwood]

But when you say 25 weeks, well actually that is a bit late. I happen to know that at my own local hospital when I lived in Oregon, they saved one preemie who was only 19 weeks of gestation. They bragged on t.v. how they routinely saved babies as young as 21 weeks. I have no reason to believe a hospital would go on t.v. and lie.

If thats the case then the line should be moved to where ever we can be certain a fetus can survive.

I`m not as knowledgable of fetal development as you Johnnys so I ask just for discussions sake.
If we were to institute my idea roughly where could we correctly draw the line I`m speaking of?

I`d like to know because this topic is obviously popular and I don`t want to assert anything incorrectly when it comes up again.

 

[johnnys4life]

It's hard to debate something when the very word "baby" can be debated. I think in order to line the debate you need to outline and define what definition of "baby" are you using for the point of the argument.

How about this:

www.dictionary.com

ba·by ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (b

b

)
n. pl. ba·bies

1. 1. A very young child; an infant.
   2. An unborn child; a fetus.

Or this:
</IMG>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/baby.html

baby

ba·by [ báybee ]

noun (plural ba·bies)1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb