Wrong again. Do some research on late term abortions. Those after twenty weeks. You'll be surprised.

(12-13-2014 09:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Wrong again. Do some research on late term abortions. Those after twenty weeks. You'll be surprised.

Right. Partial birth abortions are pleasant for both the baby and mother.

Takes a sick twisted **** to take an oath then violate it daily.

No they are not pleasant. Again, educate yourself. Research partial birth abortions and who gets them. You might be surprised.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

(12-12-2014 10:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Making someone carry a baby to term with something like Edwards syndrome is the definition of cruelty. To do this by the power of govt. to satisfy your own morals. It's a question of ethics. If you want to force your spouse to carry a child that will surely die. Knock yourself out. To force someone else to do that. It's sickening. It's wrong and I'm glad your not on my ideological side.

The incidence of this sort of thing is extremely low. By percentage, FAR more abortions after 16 weeks have to do with the decision of the mother and not some late-discovered malady.

This is the hypocrisy of the argument from your side... I'm sure you see the hypocrisy from the other as do I... which is why although I 'side' with them, I reach a different conclusion... There are ALWAYS exceptions to laws, and there have been exceptions to our abortion laws since RvW. The State having a 'duty to protect' the fetus doesn't mean that the rights of the child are inviolate.

Having said that, there are also just as many diseases not discovered until after birth that require tremendous sacrifice by the mother after birth. Would you suggest that a mother be able to abort that child after birth? Of course you wouldn't. You'd recognize that this is an exception and deal with that case as an individual case, and not by some 'the mother can do whatever she wants' standing law.

As I said, but to clarify... Sex Ed in this country should focus far less on anatomy and biology and instead focus on prevention, safety, consequences and responsibilities.... and out laws should reflect that.

If you know at 4 weeks that you are pregnant, you should ALREADY have a good idea about what you want to do when you're having sex... and if it is to 'not' keep the baby, you should do it in a matter of weeks... not months. If that isn't your decision, then you can still decide to put the child up for adoption... or if there is a change in your health or the baby's health like you describe, you can deal with that as an exception, just as we always have.

Do you have any stats Hambone to back up what you claim? I've actually looked and couldn't find any.

Yes, but why don't you tell me what you take issue with so that we don't get into an argument over interpretations of statistics... Unfortunately, different states use different definitions of 'late term'... Some don't kick in until 24 weeks, and some are as early as 16 weeks.

Here is 'generic' support for my comment from a UC-San Fran study (not exactly a haven for right-wing thought). It doesn't even mention 'health of the child' as one of the reasons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013.../?page=all

Rather than debate statistics and sources, the important thing is that your concern has already been addressed by existing law... and I support keeping that sort of support. "health of the mother' has always included 'mental health'. And the ability to care for a disabled child would/should be part of that.

With all due respect, YOU brought up Edward's Syndrome, and the survival rate of that disease is extraordinarily low. Very few of them reach 20-24 weeks.

My friend had a child with Edwards. He lived a week.

(12-13-2014 11:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My friend had a child with Edwards. He lived a week.

I can't imagine losing a child...

It often seems that the response to suggestions like mine is that 'I know someone for whom that would have been bad'.

Well of course.

There are and will ALWAYS be times when 'the law' doesn't work. I'd point out that because of the incredibly high probability of death of a child with Edwards, 'health of the mother' (which included mental health) would have still been a reasonable option. Any time the death of a child seems a foregone medical conclusion, the mother's mental state considering that would be a valid excuse.

If there is someone on here (i don't read all posts) saying there would never be exceptions, I'd disagree with them... But I also don't want to give an unnecessary and harmful 'choice' to tens of thousands of people because of the few times (like your friend) when it might have been the compassionate thing. Your friend would be the exception, and ALL laws I can think of can and should have exceptions.

You can't murder people, except in those rare occasions when it is the lesser of evils. You can't have a late-term abortion, except in those rare occasions when it is the lesser of evils. THOSE aren't the situations we need to stop. It is the hundreds of women identified in the UCSF study (and those like them) who COULD have and SHOULD have made a decision far earlier... but didn't, simply because they didn't have to.