Not, I’m not buying into any scare tactics, which is why I am asking about it. I am not in favor of abortion, and that won’t change. I do believe there is a place for death with dignity when the alternative is continued extraordinary measures.
Ugh. The day the bill passed in NY, nothing concerning abortion changed in that state. The bill outlined what was already in place and altered the penal code so a regulated medical procedure would no longer be discussed in the same line as homicide. Criteria for abortion did not change. Penalties for intentional or negligent fetal demise did not change.
When it comes to fetal viability, there are certain conditions in which it is easy to decide one way or another. When it comes to more questionable conditions, it is typically handled by hospital ethics boards, attorneys and ultimately the parents.
I personally think that those who oppose abortion do have the moral high ground even though I support a right to choose because of Philosophical Utilitarian reasons… because the issue is complex and black k and white because sadly… there are sometimes where an abortion is the only option for the continues life of the mother and to remove that option outright is horrifying to me.
Where I think that that moral high ground is exploited and used to gin up anger over reason is on issues like these.
If you do believe in death with dignity, then can you see a reason where an abortion is the correct intervention?
I hate to bring up examples from other countries… but the case of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland was the catalyst for making abortion legal in Ireland. She was miscarrying and was denied an abortion… and she died.
So even though I think that the pro lifers a lot of times have the moral high ground… I don’ think that this battle is one that they really should or want to win.
non-viable means the baby is born with a condition that makes living impossible, we are not talking about children with special needs.
No. The only caveat would be when a treatment used to save the mother results in a miscarriage (i.e. natural abortion).
So if a fetus is determined to have 0% chance of survival should the State force the mother to carry to term?
What do the organs sell for these days?
1 Like
That’s the Republican spirit!
You asked me my opinion. I don’t do “What ifs” with abortion. If someone is living, my opinion is that we do not kill him/her. As for me, I would gladly carry that life for as long as that life survived. Life has that much importance to me.
The State, of course, will do whatever brings in the most votes in favor of any of its decisions. Life–not votes–is my criterion.
The Virginia bill makes “health” things like the mom is depressed… It’s very vague.
I kind of think the dems are pushing these gruesome plans just as campaign issues. Just to get abortion into the debate again…
Is it the Democrats who want to “debate” abortion?
It seems to be the other way around, to me. How many liberals here have started threads on abortion in the last few days?
I understand not doing “what-ifs”
But then if the metric is “living” then we have to determine what that means.
What I see is that some are forcing cruelty on strangers that they would not otherwise agree with if the person in question was 90 years old.
it doesn’t.
We also have to decide what is, and what is not, cruelty. Discomfort and inconvenience is not cruelty. It should never be,“If I can only discover the word that will press the right button, I’ll get what is comfortable and convenient to me.” I want to deal with specifics.
Let’s take rape as an example. Some stats show that those who do become pregnant due to rate, the rate for aborting that fetus is fifty percent, which means fifty percent of women choose to give birth and either keep the child or give it up for adoption. Some will insist it is cruel to have a person who was rape endure a pregnancy. At face value that is correct. But what if we give that person other facts and other options? I have met some incredible people who are the product of rape. This is a very difficult, very complex issue–and it shouldn’t be treated as though it is not. The half of society who want to fight for life should be given an ear as well. It is not just an individual problem, but a societal one as well.
1 Like
Well, now we are digressing from the topic at hand and going into other thorny issues around this issue.
My opinion on having a woman carry to term a child from the product of a rape is that it is her choice and hers alone to make.
If one wants to have the information on why she may want to carry to term on hand… that is fine.
That should not be forced on her in my opinion.
Probably none.
The Dems’ rush to push through these abortion bills, and the quotes from some of the sponsors, and the cheers upon passage … all should be embarrassing – even to democrats. I can understand libs on this board wanting this to stay as low-keyed as possible.
…swoooooooooosh…
Sherry
Agreed–something is up. NY just did their bill which allows babies to be killed very late in the term or maybe even afterwards.
On todays show Sean had an elected lady on talking about her house bill #2459–does anyone know where I can read the bill? I assumed it was the House of Representatives but could be wrong.
Her bill would allow killing of the baby even after labor started…
Geeze, how would they find someone who would want to actually perform the work? God, how could they sleep at night?
I would appreciate any information
Thanks
Bob
Once again, I see a minor influx of new posters, and several posts from the older ones, all about the exact same subject.
It’s quite fascinating that there apoears to be a planned coordinated effort to talk about this subject…
