Critically Ill Woman Faces Jail Time If She Aborts

I meant the debate between you and I. That was just a red herring to our debate.

Oh yes, there are. I think you better look it up. (100,000 vs. 1-2 mil waiting to adopt) BTW, I once again have to tell you guys, I'm not Anti-choice, I'm anti-abortion. I'm for school voucher choice (bet you aren't), I'm for making the choice of pulling my money out of SS and putting it where I want (bet you aren't), I'm for the choice of using whatever dang lightbulb I want to, I'm for the choice of drinking whatever size drink I want to and on and on. So stop with the misnomer.

Yes, it is racist to brush a broad stroke and make a general statement like you did. You said "NO, they are NOT adopted unless they're white and perfect" in regards to someone putting a child up for adoption instead of an abortion as if NO white person would EVER adopt another race baby. Racist. Do I really need to bring up pictures of white people adopting other race babies? Really?

That's a whole 'nother issue of why people don't adopt kids in foster care and would rather have a baby. It has nothing to do with abortion and adoption and is a red herring and an appeal to emotion.

 

Lot of pro lifers dancing around the issue.

The article in the OP clearly shows you may be facing if abortion is banned in the US. A situation like this will arise, and there will not be any laws to protect the doctors if they perform the abortion.
That is why having abortion legal is so important.

 

According to wiki, there are six countries in the world where abortion is banned with no exception for the health of the mother. These are Holy See, Malta, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Chile and relevant to this thread, El Salvador.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

 

I will just add something to this comment, if as you say there are more people wanting to adopt than there are children in care, why is there an average of 400,000 children every year who do not get adopted.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport19.pdf

The largest number of children in care who do not get adopted are over 9 years old which does add weight to the conclusion that most people who adopt want babies or young children.

 

Late term abortions are very rare, but sometimes advised by the doctor. Instances would be when the fetus is already dead, when the fetus has anomalies incompatible with life, when a medical condition is threatening the life or health of the woman. Those are valid reasons for a late term abortion. If it is possible to save a healthy fetus, a c-section will be done if the woman's health will tolerate it.

 

A dead fetus is a different matter altogether as is a fetus that can't live. Again, with a healthy fetus there is no reason to have a late term abortion. If a woman's health can tolerate an abortion, then she can tolerate delivery. The difference is in whether she wants it or not.

 

exactly, so by what right do you or any other person have to force a woman to give birth... A life only has as much value as another person puts upon it, you cannot dispute that fact nor the fact that pro-life people want to remove the indelible rights of the individual to satisfy their moralistic code. A code I add that is firmly entrenched in religious dogma.

 

A dead fetus is still an abortion, so it is ONE valid reason for late term abortion that you agree IS valid. Most late term abortions are for unhealthy fetuses, but that does not mean that a case could never happen that a woman would be able to tolerate the abortion, but not delivery. No woman WANTS a late term abortion, women who WANT the abortion, have it earlier when it is cheaper and safer.

 

I don't remember where I got the 100,000 (I googled and didn't save) from. The following link tells more about foster care. There are approximately 400,000 in foster care and not all those are waiting to get adopted. A quarter of them are in relatives homes. 100K who more than likely wouldn't be waiting to be adopted by strangers. Half of them had reunification with their parents as a goal. 200K also not looking for adoption. Only a quarter of them were actually up for adoption. 100K up for adoption (probably where that number came from). I'm not sure where you got 400K from your link. Your link pretty much matches mine.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Never said that wasn't true. But that's an entirely different subject.

 

So where are all those Anti-Choicers who think adoption is the answer?

WHY are there still children with out adoptive parents???

 

You know what, I let you drag me down this red herring. The discussion was about late term abortions in regard to the health of mother, not the fetus. I stand by my point.

 

Pointing out a moral wrong doesn't obligate me to take responsibility for the situation. For example, if you call the police on a child abuser, are you obligated to take that child into your home? By your argument, you are.

 

You are off-base in stating that there is NEVER an instance where a woman would not endanger her own health more by delivery than abortion. Since these cases are so very rare, why are you not willing to leave this in the hands of the woman and her doctor?

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-bans-no-exceptions-endanger-women.pdf

Doctors report that many pregnant women with heart-valve disorders die each year from
blood clots which, absent pregnancy, would not be life threatening.24 A physician who
specializes in maternal cardiac medicine said that there are “extreme pregnancy-associated
risks" for women with these heart conditions. The doctor explained that: “A high risk of
maternal mortality has implications not just for the mother but also for any potential baby
and siblings at home. And even if she survives the pregnancy, the woman may have a
reduced life expectancy or suffer from limited physical capacity.”25 For a woman presenting
late in a pregnancy with a severe heart disorder, a health exception recognizes the totality of
the risks she faces and allows her to make the best decision for her health, her life, and her
family.

 

Child abuse is illegal (and Off Topic) .

But I never ADVOCATED putting up children who have suffered abuse for adoption....as if that solves all the problems...

 

Again, we were speaking of late term abortions in regards to a woman's health. This is just another red-herring.

 

THE TOPIC, THE OP:

Grannie's on topic

 

Another red herring. The comment was in regard as to why there are still children waiting to be adopted and why we didn't adopt them, not in regard to adopting babies not aborted.

And btw, you have no idea what I do or don't do in this regard. Assumptions abound.

It wasn't about the legality or illegality of child abuse, but the morality of it. But of course, you can't argue against the point because you know I'm right.

I'll give you another example and on morality grounds only. Can one oppose infanticide without having to raise the unwanted children to adulthood? (And you know this happens in China and India. Perhaps you would like to raise all those children.)

 

Not the topic that was being discussed between us.

 

My link gave just one example of when a late term abortion might be the best choice for a woman because of her health. I'm sure there are other instances. Late term abortions are already illegal except in rare circumstances.

 

As far as abortion in regards to the woman's health then I personal feel that the decision is best left to those who have the expertise not laymen.
A lot of pro-lifers seem to think that a woman can just waltz into an abortion clinic at 8 months pregnant and say "I'm depressed, I want an abortion" while the facts are not quite so simple as that. I know in the UK that a woman would have to go through several evaluations by psychiatrists before being allowed one, I would assume that a similar procedure is required in the USA (If I am wrong I would like to see the actual procedure required for an abortion on mental grounds)

It is spurious to claim that a late-term abortion on mental grounds are not valid reasons, and I would promote that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a someone to "fake" a mental illness over the period of time required to obtain one.

 

Let me try to make this simple for you.

Abortion- LEGAL.


Child abuse- Illegal.

Infanticide- Illegal.

 

Again, she could deliver the baby.

 

My point was about morality. Period. So you have no answer.

Do you even know what a red herring is? It's a diversionary tactic used, most times when you cannot logically debate the point made.

And your argument makes no sense. Advocating adoption doesn't obligate someone to adopt, anymore than advocating against infanticide in China requires you to adopt those babies (and yes, it's legal there). Logically, it doesn't follow that because there are children waiting to be adopted, that adoption is a bad thing, which seems to be your point.

 

Typical of the hysterical nonsense pro abortion people post here all the time. I have not seen one poster who would agree with this either pro-life or pro abortion.

I and all other pro lifers here have stated repeatedly that they should be allowed in matters like this.

This thread is a lot of hysteria and drama about nothing as it turns out.

 

And she could die. If she chooses to risk her life and doesn't die, she could possibly deliver the baby. But if the possibility of her dying exists, it should be up to the woman with the advice of her doctor to make that decision. Even if the possibility of her suffering life-long disabilities from continuing the pregnancy exists, it should be her decision.