Abortion - your views.

[Bambi]

It's not the same at all, that child can ONLY survive in the mothers womb until it's born, then anyone can keep it alive. It's whether the woman is willing to put her body through a pregnancy she doesn't want just to give the baby up for adoption. I certainly wouldn't be willing to put my body through it

Edit* Nice story, but I won't change my opinion on it, a baby can survive at 19 weeks outside of the womb with the proper medical care, although this is very rare, and for this baby to survive without a severe medical handicap is rarer still. At 24 weeks, a baby can survive with the proper medical care, and I think thats about 7 months, and thats past the cut off for legal abortion, over here at least, so it wouldnt have even been ALLOWED, if that girl was born premature, then she would still have survived

Most women fuind out they are pregnant within like 6 weeks, if that was me Id have an abortion by 8 weeks I guess and so would most women, you really trying to tell me that an 8 week old 'baby' would survive to tell the tale? Most women will have abortions as soon as they can

 

[Shrouded]

It's not the same at all, that child can ONLY survive in the mothers womb until it's born, then anyone can keep it alive.

The newlyborn cannot survive without a suitable environment. In this case, someone taking care of him/her. The child in the womb would still die if you don't take care of it.

It's whether the woman is willing to put her body through a pregnancy she doesn't want just to give the baby up for adoption. I certainly wouldn't be willing to put my body through it.

The unborn child is asking for nine months, will you at least give him/her that much? Is that really too much over someone's life?

Edit:

Nice story, but I won't change my opinion on it

I know you won't, but believe it or not, I used to be in your position. I know exactly what to say when I get into these types of debate. But when I met someone just like that person who wrote that letter.....I really have no idea how to justify my position to her. In the end, my morality won over my objectivity.

you really trying to tell me that an 8 week old 'baby' would survive to tell the tale?

Well aside from the fact that the girl did testify in front of a judiciary committee. And that same girl is now speaking in a parliament house in Australia as seen in this video:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

I'm pretty sure it's possible. She'll be in legal trouble if she's lying.

 

[Bambi]

The unborn child is asking for nine months, will you at least give him/her that much? Is that really too much over someone's life?

It's a hell of a long time for something you don't want, I've HAD a child (beleive it or not, I know how selfish my views are) and I'm NOT willing to put my body through that again

 

[Shrouded]

...and so in your view, 9 months > a person's life. Objectively you're right, morally I disagree.

 

[Mehaha]

You have every right to choose in regards to your own life. What about another individual's life? Life of an unborn child?

Not human yet in my opinion though some may hate me for saying it.

The egg belongs to the mother, the semen belongs to the father. It's a part of you, and you have every right to choose what you want to do with it. But once fertilization starts, the unborn child will have its own genetic code. It becomes an individual. It's a life on it's own.

But yet still not human... It lacks thought and emotion and reasoning. It is in some respect only a quarter human at best if that seeing as how emotion, thought, reasoning make of 75% of what it is to be human.

Who does it belongs to now? Can you truly decide to take life away from someone else?

Yes I can and if it be best for me I will. If it won't be loved it shouldn't be there.

believe that it's not that easy to draw a line on who is human and who is not. By your reasoning, it's ok to kill a baby because it still lacks the basic function we adults have. Is that all it takes to be human? Lacking certain functions? What do you say to the blind? To the crippled? To those who are autistic(complex thoughts and reasoning?)? Is it alright to kill them because they lack certain human function?

Yes the line is rather clear. But stop trying to paint over it.

I said around the time of birth say 7-9 months they are considered human. Why? They have HUMAN functions. Maybe not like an adult but still human. Now for the cases you brought up they have all the ingredients to be human. The DNA and the blind can think and reason thus human. The crippled can think and reason thus human.The Autistic can think and reason [Not as well] thus human.

You ignored most of my post so I answered all of yours. Your point which was made on mine but in a distorted fashion in no longer even valid now.

 

[Shrouded]

Yes the line is rather clear. But stop trying to paint over it.

I said around the time of birth say 7-9 months they are considered human. Why? They have HUMAN functions. Maybe not like an adult but still human. Now for the cases you brought up they have all the ingredients to be human. The DNA and the blind can think and reason thus human. The crippled can think and reason thus human.The Autistic can think and reason [Not as well] thus human.

You ignored most of my post so I answered all of yours. Your point which was made on mine but in a distorted fashion in no longer even valid now.

Your main post basically consist of this single strict view that something cannot be human simply because they lack the basic function of complex thinking and reasoning. In your last post you stated and I quote:

I believe you are human when you begin to process complex thought.---You

You believe one is human when they begin to process complex thought and yet here you are deciding that an autistic is considered "human" because they too can think, "only not as well." Even deciding that a baby is human because what? They can process "complex" thoughts as well?

Is this just you changing your standards for convenience sake? Because that's not how it works in real life, it's not easy to take a life and make/change excuses just so you can justify your actions. You live up to it, you own up to it.

Now instead of complaining, why don't you tell me the post that I ignored so that I could address it. But like I said, your main simply consist of you having a very strict view of what a human should be.

 

[Mehaha]

No... You are just being a selective reader. Anyone who can read can see my point. Yes an Autistic is capable of complex thought in my opinion [Which includes processing it duh...] and yes a baby is capable of complex thought. That is my opinion but yes they are.

I have met an Autistic and one has even hit me with a brick for joking around. That seems like complex thinking.

A baby though they show no signs it has been proven they are capable of complex thought. In fact I remember tunes which my mother played while I was in the womb [Beethoven's flight of the bumble bee 8 1/2 months] now I haven't remembered it perfectly. And I have had to hear it continually since in the womb but it is still there. But by her accounts I have been humming Beethoven's ode to joy since I was old enough to hum.

 

[Shrouded]

You might wanna provide some source, as far as I know autism is still a mystery to science and does anyone really know what's going on in a newborn's mind?

Back to my point though, you believe one is not human because they lack certain functions? In your case, cognitive thoughts and reasoning?

 

[Mehaha]

Yes... That is my belief. Because a human is more than material. Otherwise I would classify everything that was warm as fire.

 

[Shrouded]

Well ok, in my belief, a fetus is more than just material. Relying on one's belief without making sure it's really true or not is very risky especially when you take a person's life.

Here's my source btw. Sorry it took me awhile:

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1925&posts=1

Human Life Bill HR.227

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood;

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Not sure if it's approve yet though...Here's a better source:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: "Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."​

Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18.​

​

 

[Mehaha]

That is how the law defines human... Not me... At one point slavery was legal...

 

[bitteroldman]

That is how the law defines human... Not me... At one point slavery was legal...

Well, then, let's all set aside our petty laws and such to go by your definitions and standards.
This is not a good way to debate, putting yourself above the whole. I'm not asking you to put aside your individualism or opinions, but you just derailed this thread for two pages by placing your personal standards as a burden on others. You could have easily avoided this by saying, "That's not what I think; I think a human is thus".

At any rate, your way of dehumanizing others who lack specific traits is exactly what enabled slavery in America. Africans weren't considered human because of a specific "defect". Handicapped people lived in wretched conditions for centuries (and still do, in some parts of the world) because they weren't considered human. Genocide, almost as a prerequisite, begins by dehumanizing the victim culture.
In fact, by saying that one becomes "human" via the ability to think and reason, not only do you imply that those who lack these abilities (my handicapped seventeen-year-old nephew, for example, has not proven in a while that he has these abilities beyond what an infant can demonstrate), you also imply that those who excel in these criteria are better, higher, or more human than the average person. Thinking and reasoning are not the high standard of what it is to be a human, and by saying so, you open the doors for someone else to dehumanize you for one of your own failings.

Perhaps you should consider your story of humming Beethoven, because that, to my mind, is an example of complex mental activity, coming from the womb.

Why, with my senility slowly overcoming my poor old bones, someone might come along and call me less than human. Can I crash at yer place?

 

[Bambi]

I'm pretty sure it's possible. She'll be in legal trouble if she's lying.

Youre little story said the mother was over 7 months pregnant, i never denied a child could live at that stage, i was merely saying the majority of women tend to find out around the 6 week mark, there is no WAY on this EARTH a 'baby' would survive outside the womb at that stage of pregnacy

 

[Caedus]

I recant my previous entry. I didn't put enough thought into it.

The fact of the matter is, there are some things in this world that are what I like to call "dark truths." One of these dark truths are the lack of acceptance in the controversy of abortion. "To abort, or not to abort, that is the question." No, actually. This isn't always the case. Though people catalyze the existence of life, regardless if the method is intentional, desired, or kosher for that matter, we as empathic humans subconsciously strive to first procreate, and to second, survive. Humanity isn't a perfect race, and we are the only race with knowledge of good and evil. Do you see a lion randomly attacking an antelope when it's not hungry or provoked? No, you don't. Getting to my point, this is where we implement the concept of this dark truth: People die, and people kill. We all know it's tragic when either one happens, and the age that it occurs increases the shock and sorrow value. But the dark truth is that people will make decisions that are in their best interest, regardless if it's conscious, or subconscious. If they believe a child in their life will hinder their existence to an unacceptable extent, their will is broken, and rash decisions are made. Some result in adoption, some result in sacrifice. It is up to the mother, in my opinion, 100% to keep the baby, fetus, zygote, whatever it is, or to not keep it, and the methods of ridding herself from it are hers as well. She is the keeper of it from conception, into the trimesters of development. It is her bond to make, take, or break when the time comes to decide. Either she will accept it and take care of it as efficiently as she can, if she has/ can gain the resources to do so, or she will not accept it. Either way, the responsibility of having to make that decision should be horrendous enough to face without the world coming down on her for arbitrating the results of the conception. People can be judgmental over the stupidest thing, but when there's controversy over it, that's the cue to jump on it with all your rantiful savvy and speech skills to validate your opinion and have people join you in your quest for mass agreement and acceptance. This thread has too many arguments to make and too many potential digressions. If everyone doesn't accept this dark truth as the "necessary evil" and I quote from Janus, this circus act will never, ever end. And that is my piece.

 

[CassinoChips]

Ugh. I have avoided this particular debate like the plague, but for some reason I feel the need to throw my two cents in. :masochism:

Until men evolve the capability of carrying feti to term (naturally), I don't think we should have any say in abortion legislation. It has nothing to do with us in any way. We suffer none of the drawbacks, life-altering changes (the 9 months > full life or whatever is horsecrap. full normal life > full significantly altered life), etc. that women do. Thus, we should have no say.

Were it not for the inCREDibly dangerous precedent it would set, I would make the following suggestion: Put abortion laws to a vote, but exclude all non-female voters. If women legalize it (and I have the sneaking suspicion they would), it's legal, end of discussion. If they vote to make it illegal, then we have no more argument. Because, as was stated, there are just too many emotions and beliefs tied into abortion debates, it will never end unless we make a concerted effort to end it. Which won't ever happen.

/rant

 

[bitteroldman]

Youre little story said the mother was over 7 months pregnant, i never denied a child could live at that stage, i was merely saying the majority of women tend to find out around the 6 week mark, there is no WAY on this EARTH a 'baby' would survive outside the womb at that stage of pregnacy

This is a story that addresses your theory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/21/health.lifeandhealth

Against all odds

Amillia Taylor shouldn't be alive. She was born at less than 22 weeks - in the US, where babies aren't considered 'viable' until 23 weeks. But her desperate mother lied to doctors about how far gone she was, and Amillia is now the most premature baby to have ever survived. Aida Edemariam reports on her extraordinary story and asks: should we be saving such tiny babies?

• <LI class="third-party-tool no-comments ">Buzz up!
• Digg it

• Aida Edemariam
• The Guardian, Wednesday 21 February 2007
• Article history

The feet of Amillia Taylor, born in Miami after just 22 weeks in the womb. Photo: Baptist Health South/Getty

There is something otherworldly about the picture that appeared around the world yesterday: two tiny brown-pink feet, almost translucent, poking through an adult's fingers. You had to look twice to be sure that they were indeed feet.
They belong to Amillia Taylor, who was born in Miami last October, 21 weeks and six days after conception. She weighed less than 10oz at birth - not even as much as two ordinary bars of soap - and she was just 9½ inches long. Amillia, who is expected to be discharged from hospital in the next couple of days, is officially the most premature baby ever to have survived.
Amillia's parents, understandably, are immensely pleased, not least because "She's like a real baby now," as her mother, 37-year-old teacher Sonja Taylor, told the Miami Herald. "Now I can feel her when I hold her." The doctors involved, having initially been prepared to break the news of the baby's death to parents who had already been through a gruelling IVF programme and scare after scare during pregnancy, are expressing informed incredulity. "This is not the norm," says neonatologist Dr William Smalling. "Really, greatly, most of these babies don't survive ... This is a miracle." Even more surprisingly, apart from some expected respiratory issues, Amillia appears to be doing well: the prognosis is excellent.
To put Amillia's achievement into perspective: babies who go to full term are born at 37 to 40 weeks. According to the American Association of Pediatrics, babies born at less than 23 weeks are not considered "viable". According to a landmark report published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics late last year, which provides guidelines that all British neonatologists and paediatricians are asked to consider, babies born before 22 weeks and six days gestation should not generally be resuscitated. Below 22 weeks, no baby should be resuscitated. "For this age group, we consider current attempts to resuscitate a baby to be experimental," the report said. Even between 23 weeks and 23 weeks and six days, there is no legal obligation on doctors to try to save a baby if they judge it to be against the child's best interests.
Meanwhile, although it doesn't often happen, the Abortion Act allows terminations to be carried out until 24 weeks in Britain; any time after that there must be incontrovertible medical evidence that it would be dangerous to continue. The law in the US is predictably fraught and unclear, and in any case varies from state to state. Roe v Wade bans it after the foetus is viable, which, as Amillia has shown, is something of a contestable point.
In fact Amillia would not have lived at all if her mother, in desperation, had not deceived doctors about how far along she was. Sonja, who had had to deal with cervical abnormalities and infections during pregnancy, showed signs of labour at 19 weeks; nine days later doctors realised that they could delay a vaginal birth no longer and performed a caesarean. Incredibly, Amillia was breathing without assistance and even made several attempts to cry when she emerged; doctors assumed she might be 23 weeks old and Sonja did not disabuse them. It was only later that it emerged how early Amillia had really been. At a press conference later, one of the doctors said that Sonja had been in such distress for so long that the hormones she was producing actually helped Amillia to survive. Now she has done so, it is time to consider her future.
Fifty years ago, of course, she would not have survived (she would probably not have been conceived, either, but that is another issue), and no one would have expected her to; in many countries in the world babies like her still don't. She is, of course, oblivious to her record-breaking status, or the ethical dilemmas that she represents. How and why we prolong life and what that life will finally be like are some of the most sensitive issues of our age. Survival is not everything: at what point should medical heroics cede to considerations of the best interests both of the baby and of her family? Is it even possible to make those calculations?
"There are grave doubts about it and there have to be," says Hilary Rose, professor of the sociology of science at City University. "I think medicine tends to regard life itself as the great achievement, and of course any parent out of their mind with anguish is also going to feel that. But when we are calmer we want the child to have a good chance of life, to enjoy life. Somehow one has to provide a caring environment so that parents, who are the ones who are going to have to care for these children, can make a calm decision. The pressures on them, particularly if conception has been difficult, are enormous. I do think that society has to think about these things much more deeply and carefully."
Babies born prematurely face a daunting array of problems, both immediately and in the long term. At less than 23 weeks, foetuses have very little in the way of lungs, or brains. In fact, says John Wyatt, a professor of neonatal paediatrics at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who also has a longstanding interest in medical ethics, "All the organs are extremely immature. The critical issue is the lungs. Even with machines, it's impossible to get oxygen in because the lungs are almost solid. Trying to keep the baby alive may involve inflicting a very high degree of irretrievable damage. The skin is often very thin, and the kidneys underdeveloped. The brain is extremely immature, and very prone to injury, especially bleeding. Furthermore, follow-up studies suggest that babies who survive below 23 weeks have a very high chance of developmental or neurological problems."
A 1995 study quoted in the Nuffield report records that of 138 babies who showed signs of life after being born at less than 22 weeks, only two survived to be discharged, and a follow-up at six years of age found that one of those two had severe disabilities, classed as "likely to make a child highly dependent on care-givers, and involving one or more of the following symptoms: cerebral palsy that prevented the child from walking, an IQ score considerably lower than average, profound sensorineural hearing loss, or blindness." (The other child was classed as mildly disabled.) Quite apart from the state of the child, such levels of disability cause great stress to the parents and to their relationship.
"Should one really be trying at all to keep that baby alive?" asks Professor Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics. "Chances are it will require an enormous amount to be spent on it for the rest of its life. We have much less experience of death, so we have become much less willing to accept it. In countries where infant mortality is higher it would be seen as absurd. We live in a society where we have become addicted to physical existence. It's totally unsustainable. Our attempts at the moment to keep every human physically alive as long as possible will make it less likely that the human race will survive climate change."
Wyatt urges caution, however. According to the premature baby charity Bliss, around 80,000 babies are born prematurely in this country, of whom approximately 17,000 require incubator care. Around 5,000 are born before 31 weeks; fewer than 300 are born between 22 and 23 weeks. "If you take the case of all very premature babies," says Wyatt, "the majority do well and go to normal schools, and do the normal things. However, the studies confirm that there is a high incidence of educational and behavioural problems. Of babies less than 28 weeks that figure is about 50% - but that doesn't mean to say it would be better not to have given them a chance."
At the same time, he, along with many others, is uncomfortable about "this idea of a record-breaking Olympics, which is not in the best interests of patients and children. I think this is clearly an extremely unusual case, and entirely outside our experience. Most parents, when given the facts, would accept that the best thing for a baby born below 23 weeks is to allow nature to take its course, and most neonatalogists would agree that they shouldn't be resuscitated. And yet ... we need to decide what is best for each individual baby. A premature baby is as much a member of the human community as anybody else, and deserves the best care that's available. By and large this care has been extremely successful. There are thousands going into adulthood who previously wouldn't have done so. There are some children at the extremes, for whom intensive care can't provide hope, and who will not survive. In those circumstances it's best not to start."
At the Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, where Amillia was born, doctors found that even caring for such a baby, once she was seen to be viable, was like charting new territory. "We didn't even know what normal blood pressure is for a baby this small," says Smalling. But Amillia, against all the odds, now weighs just over four pounds. She can bottlefeed. Once home she will be dependent on asthma medication, and will need Vitamin E for her skin. For a while yet, every move she makes will have to be monitored; every time her skin might be damaged - such as at bath time - special precautions will have to be followed. She may require some supplemental oxygen. But in many respects she is beginning to resemble a normal baby.
"We are delighted to hear that Amillia is doing well and is able to return home with her parents," says Professor Margaret Brazier, who chaired the Nuffield committee. "In our report we suggest that attempts to resuscitate babies born at or before 21 weeks six days should normally only take place within a clinical research study. These are not intended to be hard and fast rules, and each case will always need to be considered individually. We also recommended that any guidelines should be reviewed regularly and revised to reflect any changes in outcomes for extremely premature babies. Cases like Amillia's would need to be taken into consideration".
'You think - will my child be normal? But ultimately, you don't care'
The mother of a premature baby writes
On my desk is a photograph of my eldest daughter at two days old. This treasured picture shows an emaciated form lying prone in an incubator. Her skin is grey and thin; her face is hollow and fragile; there are tubes taped to her cheeks and protruding from her nose and mouth. Her eyes are closed: you can tell that she's conserving every bit of her energy just to stay alive.
Rosie, my daughter, was - like Amillia Taylor - born long before she was ready to leave the womb; long before she was ready to look cute; long before she was ready to breathe and eat and stay warm on her own.
I am in that picture on my desk, too. I am gazing at my daughter: and the strange thing is that, although you would find it hard to identify the grey shrimp in the box with what we generally think of as an appealing newborn, you would recognise the look on my face straight away. I am a proud, adoring new mother. I am utterly and entirely caught up in my child's existence.
I was just 28 weeks pregnant - 12 whole weeks away from when I thought I would be giving birth - when Rosie was born, delivered by caesarean after I developed pre-eclampsia over the space of a weekend.
It was the most extraordinary transformation of my life: in the morning I was a journalist at my desk; by the afternoon I was at my doctor's surgery; by nightfall I was in a hospital ward; and by dawn the following morning I was in a high-dependency unit with my 2lb 10oz daughter in the special care unit on the floor below. For the next two months, my entire world revolved around a tiny baby in an incubator; first, whether she'd survive, and then how quickly it would be before she was well enough to come home.
Of course, Rosie wasn't as early as Amillia, who arrived just short of 22 weeks' gestation, and Rosie was born two pounds heavier, but I understand why Sonja Taylor, Amillia's mother, lied to hospital staff about her baby's gestation, and why she did everything humanly possible to keep her child alive. I think stories like this show that there shouldn't be an artificial cut-off point with premature babies - a rule which says that before a certain date, we won't save your baby, end of discussion. Every case should be considered on its own merits, because while it's all very well chewing over the ethics of keeping very premature babies alive - talking about death, talking about horrific outcomes - the bottom line is that there are an awful lot of individual, complicated and emotional - not to mention financial and practical - issues at stake.
Not to mention a baby who, however small and premature, has a personality all of his or her own; not to mention doctors whose views may be conflicting; not to mention a nursing team who may also have different viewpoints. The whole thing's very messy. And in the midst of it all there's the powerful, emotional force of a parent's love.
Right from the start, Amillia's mother knew her baby was unique, irreplaceable, perfect. Know this, and you might begin to understand why parents of premature babies will plead, pray, beg and even cheat and lie about their baby's gestational age, if it's going to make a difference as to whether they get the treatment to keep their baby alive, to make their baby better, to take their baby home.
You worry about their future, of course, and Amillia's mother will be worrying right now. You scan the pictures in the special-care baby unit of children whose lives started here, and you find yourself thinking: are they normal? Will my child be normal? But even though some of the children in the pictures don't look "normal" - they're too thin, they've got a squint, they're in a wheelchair - you don't ultimately care whether that is what is going to happen to your baby. You hope everything will turn out fine, of course you do: but you already know you love this baby anyway, and you know that nothing is going to change that. Not a doctor's grim predictions today; not a teacher's pessimistic evaluation tomorrow; not the fact that your friends' babies can do more, and earlier. You have that one, precious person - I have my Rosie, Sonja Taylor has her Amillia - and the world will be brighter and better because of it.
Joanna Moorhead

 

[Caedus]

Posting would be so much easier if the admins and moderators held as much value to insignificant posts like the one you're reading now as they do in articles pasted as posts. The act of taking the time to find something like this and not posting anything about your opinions on the matter... makes me at the fact that you even took the effort to do so. Does this reflect anything you agree or disagree with? What are your thoughts on it? Damn whippersnapper.

 

[Bambi]

Ive SEEN the article tyvm Biteroldman, thanks, Ive seen it REPEATEDLY now. She survived, Im aware of this, she was over 7. months. gone. Babies can survive at that age, Ive never once denied that OR agreed with people having an abortion at such a late stage, I think it should be lowered. I might as well just copy paste what I said the last TWO times, Im sick of repeating myself now

I do not deny a baby would survive at that stage, but most women find out around the 6 week mark, and generally make the decision to terminate around that time. That 'child' will not survive outside the womb at 6 weeks. I would not allow someone to make me feel like Im some kind of animal by aborting at that EARLY stage

The cut off point for abortions should be lowered, but not made illegal.

PRO-CHOICE

 

[Ashe B'nargin]

Don't know kind of mixed on everything, guess it depends on the Mother..If she is the type to well- sleep around and get abortions quite often. Then feel like angry about what kind of choice the Mother is making. But if the Mother was attacked, or raped by another man. Then guess will feel okay about her getting a abortion. They say that babies faces look like their Fathers, imagine the pain that you have to go through each day. To child and try and love a child that looks like the person who has abused you..

If the Mother just didn't want a child because she was too lazy and couldn't raise a child because she couldn't be effed to raise another child. Then guess will feel pissed off about too. But if the Mother had money problems, couldn't afford to raise a child and is almost in the stage of struggling to pay for bills and debts. Then would understand if she had the choice of heading into a Abortion Clinic.

As a young Christian really believe that Abortion kills. But in life there is some cases where a Mother can't really raise a baby. Reasons why said before would get pissed off if a Mother casually removed a baby just for the sake of it. Because feel like the Mother is taking God's children and creation for granted...

Reckon that Abortion Clinic should only be open to the truly needy, and Mother's who are in total strife and in no shape to raise a baby. Maybe even to open to young Teenagers too who are too scared to raise a baby and ended up pregent by incident..

 

[Mehaha]

To be honest abortion will always be around even if made illegal. But it will be more dangerous to the mothers life that is all. Doctors do things off the books all the time. My mother had a problem in which the baby needed to be adjusted. The doctors assessed the risk and said it was too high. Something came to which it actually became illegal to do so and yet a doctor did it though it was illegal. Now for abortion I know it is to remove life but my point remains.

If you remove the safe doctor alternative the what will be left? The hangar method, bicycle spoke method maybe even the stair case and for anyone who has access to a computer many more. To be honest abortions are rather easy and can be performed at home in under 10 minutes by someone with no medical experience... Period.

Old Man I will get to that post but I am tired but yeah.