(October 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm)Chas Wrote: And that bears no relation to my argument.

I'm not a part of any argument.

Quote:Thanks for playing.

Life? You too! It's much more fun when we can each express ourselves openly and sincerely

(October 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 7:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Well, I guess I'm okay with putting out limits on late term abortions, but there would have to be a couple conditions met.

First, the woman would have to be compensated for her inconvenience for enduring pregnancy beyond that which she would prefer.

Second, the state must agree to make the child a ward of the state if the woman renounces her bonds to the child.

Third, all medical costs incurred for delivering the child in the manner of the woman's choosing must also be shouldered by the state.


The bottom line is, the woman must not be inconvenienced any more than the child's father by the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. It take two hankies to panky, and if our collective moral sensibility can't abide a woman to choose a late term pregnancy, she damn sure had better be shielded from the consequences of parenthood to exactly the same degree as the father is.

Nonsense. She had 6 or 7 months to decide.

An ordeal and a deadline the child's father did not have to deal with.

(October 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 7:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I used the word "typically" a lot... as it is with many details of being a human, each case is a case. Everything should be decided by the mother on a case-by-case basis, but with some underlying cohesive background. I think viability is a good threshold for most cases, but others can be made acceptable, depending on particular details of the future parents(s).

Fixed it for you

If she's the mother, then she's having the baby, right?

I just think late-term abortions, as performed nowadays, are a cruel way to kill a typically viable fetus and, as such, should, at least, be avoided at all costs.
Sure there are cases where it should be permissible.
But not the majority. What possible reason can there be for a normal woman to take more than 2 months to decide that she doesn't want to have the perfectly normal kid?

(October 4, 2014 at 7:45 pm)Losty Wrote: The biggest reason I dislike a ban on late term abortion is because it endangers the lives of those in need of emergency abortions for medical reasons.

---

(October 4, 2014 at 7:42 pm)Chas Wrote: Then I ask you again, when does one become a person?

Why? What does that have to do with it?

Look, I am not suggesting a total ban on late-term abortions. Never said that, although I can see how you might think I meant that.

If medically indicated, then the decision is ultimately the woman's. And that should be legally protected, and that includes the doctor/patient relationship. It is no one else's business.

For the first 6 or so months, it is no one's business but the woman's.

---

(October 4, 2014 at 7:54 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm)Chas Wrote: Nonsense. She had 6 or 7 months to decide.

An ordeal and a deadline the child's father did not have to deal with.

And how is that germane?

I feel that the state has no choice but to treat people fairly regardless of sex. The choices and consequences of the act which created the unwanted pregnancy must fall on both DNA contributors equally. Because of circumstances of biology the woman is naturally more encumbered by an unwanted pregnancy. If the state wishes to step in and limit her choices in a way it does not (and obviously need not) the male contributor, then she should be entitled to compensation. It is simply fair play.

(October 4, 2014 at 7:59 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 7:52 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Fixed it for you

If she's the mother, then she's having the baby, right?

I just think late-term abortions, as performed nowadays, are a cruel way to kill a typically viable fetus and, as such, should, at least, be avoided at all costs.
Sure there are cases where it should be permissible.
But not the majority. What possible reason can there be for a normal woman to take more than 2 months to decide that she doesn't want to have the perfectly normal kid?

I completely agree

I bolded it mostly not for you necessarily, but for the people who agree with that but also think it should be a part of law.

(October 4, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 7:45 pm)Losty Wrote: The biggest reason I dislike a ban on late term abortion is because it endangers the lives of those in need of emergency abortions for medical reasons.

---

Why? What does that have to do with it?

Look, I am not suggesting a total ban on late-term abortions. Never said that, although I can see how you might think I meant that.

If medically indicated, then the decision is ultimately the woman's. And that should be legally protected, and that includes the doctor/patient relationship. It is no one else's business.

For the first 6 or so months, it is no one's business but the woman's.

But why? How many cases do you know of that involve late-term abortions? How many do you think happen as a result of anything other than something risky to someone's health? I would venture to guess almost none. It's so small a number, that yes, the mother has autonomy over her own body at all times. If we were talking about some plague of late-term abortions, it might be an issue, but until then, What's the point?

I've mentioned this before in a thread a few months back, but I have a few good friends who've had abortions. It changed their lives forever. Anyone who thinks a woman takes or makes such a decision lightly, is naïve. Or ignorant. Or both. Every case is unique. I have a problem with the phrase 'pro life,' because it a) was hijacked by the religious right and b) it seems to imply that atheists don't care about life. Yes, we do. But abortion isn't about a lack of concern over life. There are a variety of reasons it is legal.

Having said that, no one knows (including me) what having to decide on an abortion must be like except the women in question. These discussions can sometimes go off the rails, because all too often, people that are casting judgments are so far and will always be so far removed from a situation like abortion.

But, nothing is done in a vacuum. Individual decisions do have a communal and global impact, even if we think they don't. Given the choice, I'd rather see an increase in people not having to make a decision about abortion, than having to make one. I think that comes in the way of continuing education, and having programs out there to support women who decide to not abort. We fall short of this type of support for women in the US, although things are getting a bit better. Sometimes abortion isn't a choice at all...it's an only option.

(October 4, 2014 at 9:01 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If we were talking about some plague of late-term abortions, it might be an issue, but until then, What's the point?

Seems like the voter fraud issue to me. Very few actual violations/victims with the response being way out of proportion.

Just a small question - If the unborn baby/being/foetus (whatever you wish to call it) is 7/8/9 months old then he/she would be able to survive in an incubator, and it would be remove from the biological mother accordingly - She could even refuse parental rights if she wished to - So why talk about abortion? I'm sorry but I'm a little drunk, I might have some misinterpretation...

As far as I know most pro-choice laws set a limit - Usually between 10/12-18/20 weeks depending on the State - After that period it's illegal to abort UNLESS there is a justification, such as life risk, or a severe deficiency on the foetus, etc.. I'm a little confused so someone please enlighten me I'm trying to find a moderate rational position.

At 8 months old as someone (Chas I think) was saying a baby would go to an incubator, there's no point in aborting, survival is very possible, in fact my GF's sister just had twin a few months ago and they survived both in an incubator at 7 months old.