Mags, it seems to come down to that you're fine with killing the mother if it means saving the baby. You either want government to make the decision or you feel that you should make it. I believe that in those very rare cases that it's the mother that should be allowed to make that decision. She is free to use science, religious beliefs or family to make but it should be hers to make. You keep saying that there are no medical instances where the mother can't have a c-section and the baby be saved. And I'm telling you my friend that is not true. There are medical reasons that a women can't have a c-section and the pregnancy must be terminated for the health of the woman. It's rare but there are cases.
Isn't the problem in the language of the bill? I can understand somebody having the ability to decide for health reasons if they want to keep themselves or their baby alive, but from i can gather, ANYONE can request a third trimester abortion if this law passes. What am i missing?
Oh so I haven't read the law correctly? Were the survival rates of fetus wrong? Or you just wanting to toss out I'm wrong, because I don't have a medical degree? So basically you are wrong with all your rant about politics because you aren't in congress? LMAO!
Odd that you just used hyperbole on me... Is this something sensitive in your personal life? Fine, I guess I can toss hyperbole back at you... I guess you are fine with mothers killing their child a minute after birth because it will effect their emotional health? See what you just said to me? As for your claim regarding medical cases... I would love to read these cases. I've tried to find them, so I'm not quite sure why you are so confident they exist
I showed you one of MANY examples of how the fetus wouldn't survive the terrible birth defects it acquired. The law shouldn't decide, the woman and her doctor should. Only they know the actual details of the medicine in the case.
And I have showed you that all those "birth defects" you mentioned are detected in the second "trimester". But of course we know you ignore facts when they get in the way of your arguments.
You used hyperbole first, I was only joining the party. "But of course, the argument is that I am not qualified to use "survival rates" as Sly and Denny suggest."
You've shown me that you're not on top of the medicine. And neither of us can fathom all the circumstances that would bring a woman to need a late term abortion. It's none of our business in any case.
This is what you wrote in response of the baby being able to survive at the third "trimester"... This after I made a statement that a baby can survive
This will be a great argument for barfo and jlpk to use on your silly political debates! HAHAHA "Denny, you've shown me that you're not on the top of politics, so all your arguments should be ignored" --- barfo
Right now you have both Sly and myself questioning your medical knowledge. Keep trying and you'll get the rest of the board questioning it.
Right?!?!?! Just like you are questioned daily by barfo, myself, jlpk, marazul, well pretty much everyone in this forum on your political beliefs! What a good argument!!! Hahaha Question: Are you questioning the validity of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability or maybe this? 1. Roe vs. Wade, the most famous abortion case, allowed no "restrictions" on abortion in the first two trimesters. For the third trimester, the states were allowed to make some restrictions -- as long as they allowed abortions for "health" reasons. The companion decision, Doe vs. Bolton, then defined health so broadly that really, anything could suffice: [M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
Actually I find abortion most appalling, disgusting even. But then I did come to realize that it did remove mostly Democrats. This thought came to me about 48 years ago, sitting on a Jury for a woman on trial for preforming abortions. I found the whole thing very disturbing listening to all the witnesses and what for two days. In the jury deliberations I argued to find her not guilty and enough jurors agreed, so she was found not guilty. Disgusting tawdry business that I wish did not exist, but I can't see putting people in jail for this or making women have children they will not properly raise. It was no doubt jury nullification. I suppose I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat but losing a few of those is the upside.
I think it all depends on what crime the fetus has committed, and whether he or she can be rehabilitated to be a safe and productive member of society.
That is not AB 6221 is about. The concerns you speak of were legal befor this legislation. No it can be done for emotional or mental stress reasons.
My opinion: If you get an abortion simply because you don't want the kid, you have serious issues. If you get an abortion because you can't afford the baby, put it up for adoption. If your/your wife's health is in severe danger, or the baby has a surefire chance of dying within the first few months, then, and only then would an abortion possibly be appropriate. I think of myself as somewhat pro-choice, but people who don't think piss me off. Third trimester abortions do not sit right with me unless new evidence suggests that the mother's/baby's life(s) are endangered, but by then, I'd think you'd be able to tell if such issues were present.
I agree. My post was only meant as a sick joke. I do not support 3rd trimester abortions except when the mother's health is in danger. BTW, welcome to the forum.