Abortion

Fed Up,

How do you define an independent person? A child outside of the womb, carried to full term? Do you think there should be restrictions on how far along in a woman's pregnancy an abortion should be allowed? 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions - partial birth abortion, dilation and extraction, whatever you want to call it - is a procedure that most Americans...including most of the women I know, strongly oppose. This is a summary of the procedure (from About.com):

Specific steps in the most commonly used partial-birth abortion procedure, Dilation and Extraction, are:

1. A medical professional induces a breech (feet first) delivery with forceps.
2. Legs, arms and torso of the fetus are delivered (i.e. expelled from the mother).
3. The back of the fetus' skull is punctured with a scissors-like instrument.
4. A suction device is inserted into the skull.
5. The device sunctions out the contents of the fetus' skull, causing the skull to collapse.
6. The lifeless fetus is delivered.

I fully agree with the ban on this. The reasons I feel this way should be obvious if you read the above description. Where do you stand?

Fed Up,

How do you define an independent person? A child outside of the womb, carried to full term?

Do you think there should be restrictions on how far along in a woman's pregnancy an abortion should be allowed? 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions - partial birth abortion, dilation and extraction, whatever you want to call it - is a procedure that most Americans...including most of the women I know, strongly oppose.

This is a summary of the procedure (from About.com):

Specific steps in the most commonly used partial-birth abortion procedure, Dilation and Extraction, are:

1. A medical professional induces a breech (feet first) delivery with forceps.
2. Legs, arms and torso of the fetus are delivered (i.e. expelled from the mother).
3. The back of the fetus' skull is punctured with a scissors-like instrument.
4. A suction device is inserted into the skull.
5. The device sunctions out the contents of the fetus' skull, causing the skull to collapse.
6. The lifeless fetus is delivered.

I fully agree with the ban on this. The reasons I feel this way should be obvious if you read the above description. Where do you stand?

There are some previous posts somewhere about how in some states if you injure a pregnant women and the baby dies or you accidently kill a pregnant women you will be charged with a double murder. Our own laws don't agree with each other. Some states ( not in the Bible Belt) say you can have an abortion and others say you can't. Abortion isn't murder if a Dr. does it but it is if a pregnant women is accidently killed by a driver (not a drunk driver, different issue) Confusion all the time, keep em guessing is what our gov. does to us no set line its made up as we go it seems.

You took the words right out of my mouth! I was about to say that it amazes me how a life can "not be a life" if you choose to abort it....but if someone murders the woman, then they are guilty of 2 Murders!
There needs to be a stand on this.
I do not believe in abortion for the record.

Is abortion murder?

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not.

On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.

If anything is of most value i would say it is human life

Fatal, what if that fetus was conceived by radicals who's sole purpose in life is to kill you. Is it OK to kill the would-be parents BEFORE they conceive..? After all, the only thing that rats bare is more rats.

The question you've posed is neither probable or practical, and has no debate value whatsoever, i could easily ask the opposite question "would you save the life of a mother who would concieve someone who will in turn save your life in the future"

questions like this are useless because they will most likely never happen and the chances of you having such knowledge is 1:1000

I guess I was thinking of the terrorists that would strap bombs to their children. It is a stretch to think that they would have children for that purpose but there is no denying it happens. I mean, if children are being recruited as soon as they are able to walk why not extrapolate it to include the purposeful fathering of an in-bread army? C'mon, it's worth at least some small discussion.

What's that have to do with abortion?

The question you've posed is neither probable or practical, and has no debate value whatsoever, i could easily ask the opposite question "would you save the life of a mother who would concieve someone who will in turn save your life in the future"

questions like this are useless because they will most likely never happen and the chances of you having such knowledge is 1:1000

Really, in the Sudan over 200,000 Africian women have been raped by Arabs with the sole intent to inpregnate them with Arab sperm. They killed the male children and forced the male adults to convert to Wahhabi Islam or die. So in fact this is happening, many of these women want to abort the vermins' children. It's ethnic genocide at it's worst, and I'm sure it's not the only place that it's occurring. Socal's post was valid and has merit yet to dismiss it because you lack the knowledge of what's going on around the globe is rather trite.

If you subscribe to the belief that a life is a life no matter what and also believe in inherent equality of all humans, than what is being said here prejudiced against some unborn children because of the sins of the fathers. The fathers are extremist Muslims, so kill the children because they might grow up to be the same? They're 'vermin' simply because of their fathers? The problem is not with the unborn children, it is with the fathers, so why not go the extra mile and deal with them instead of killing innocent children?