First I want to say I think an abortion ban at 16 weeks (with plenty of exceptions) is very reasonable, even for those who are concerned about the rights of the woman's body or support abortion in general. A ban at 15 weeks is not that unreasonable. That's still plenty of time for the woman to make up her mind. (In most cases, although there are some rare cases of women not realizing they're pregnant until very late into the pregnancy) But, a federal judge has blocked the enforcement of a 15-week abortion ban. This happened in Mississippi. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/health/mississippi-abortion-ban-15-weeks-ruling/index.html You'll notice that this law in Mississippi still allowed plenty of exceptions in the case of fetal abnormality or life of the mother. This federal judge so cavalierly dismissed the law, claiming it was obviously inconsistent with the Roe vs. Wade ruling. Well, is that really so? The prevailing opinion in Roe vs. Wade said the woman should have the right to abort up to 3 months in pregnancy (that's about 12 weeks). So how is a ban at 15 weeks inconsistent with that ruling? Once the fetus enters the 18th or 19th week of gestation, it's really entering "baby territory". Looks a lot like a normal baby at 16 weeks, with a lot of functionality. Does the judge know anything about fetal development? No, probably not, nor does he care. He just wanted to support abortion rights. The less he knows, the better. Just set it to 24 weeks and assume that's when the fetus is a person.
i would support a ban past 16 weeks, IF it provides for exceptions for rape, incest, and protect the life and physical health of the mother.
It could be "more of a baby". I think a fetus at, say 18 weeks, is a baby. But that doesn't mean a fetus at 23 weeks isn't a little bit more of a baby, if that makes sense.
I think the majority can agree it's a baby after 24 weeks, or let's say 30 weeks. But most pro-choicers still support termination after that time if the child is discovered to have Downs Syndrome. So are pro-lifers really the hypocrites here?
What a fetus "seems" like is irrelevant...it is NOT a baby until BIRTH. There isn't "baby territory" until BIRTH. Is the use of the words "baby territory" supposed to show how much YOU know about gestation? Is that some "scientific" term you invented ? You :"""Does the judge know anything about fetal development? No, probably not, nor does he care. He just wanted to support abortion rights. The less he knows, the better. Just set it to 24 weeks and assume that's when the fetus is a person."" What a bunch of total BS! How TF would YOU know what a judge knows about gestation especially when it's obvious he knows more than you and knows more about law than you. Judges do NOT ASSume when the fetus is a person, it is KNOWN that it isn't a person until BIRTH. Judges are supposed to uphold RIGHTS, every PERSON'S rights, even women's... Where does ""Roe vs. Wade said the woman should have the right to abort up to 3 months in pregnancy"" ??? You didn't read what you posted: ""US District Judge Carlton Reeves of Mississippi's Southern District, who was appointed by President Obama, wrote that the law "unequivocally" infringes upon a woman's 14th Amendment due process rights and defies Supreme Court precedents. Citing evidence that viability begins at between 23 and 24 weeks, Reeves wrote that "there is no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions." "The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decadeslong campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade," Reeves wrote. "This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature."""""
You do NOT speak for the majority...it is not a "baby" until birth. NO, most Pro-Choicers do NOT support termination after that time if the FETUS has Down's, THEY SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE WOMAN IT'S IN TO CHOOSE. YES, "Pro-lifers" are the hypocrites IF they make an exception for rape.
If a woman has unprotected sex and misses her period she has ample time to determine if she is pregnant and can have an abortion immediately if she doesnt want the baby. If fact she can take the morning after pill or get and injection from a physician immediately after having unprotected sex. Better yet she could have been smart and had protected sex or been on the pill. And, an abortion should not be legal after 8 weeks/missing two periods unless the woman is at risk due to existing illness/disease or was taking medication or using illegal drugs that could cause problems and deformities for the fetus. IMO once the fetus has a heart beat it is a living organism. There is no reason a woman cannot make the decision to have an abortion immediately after missing two periods. Why would she wait? It is irresponsible to have unprotected sex to begin with and then even more so to wait until the fetus has a heart beat and can be seen on ultrasound. Democrats even voted against a woman having a ultrasound prior to making her decision. FYI, no surgeon will perform an abortion without first performing an ultrasound because they need to verify the pregnancy and determine the location of the embryo. That is a fact. You say it is not a baby till born. But guess what, it is a living organism. An organism that becomes a fetus with a heart beat and a brain and a nervous system.
. No doubt this will come as a shock to you but all women are not the same...some do not know they're pregnant on YOUR schedule. She could if SHE decides to but she is under NO obligation to do so. It was a living organism at it's conception. Having a fetal heartbeat does NOT make one a legal person with rights. Why? First , no woman has to explain to YOU or anyone else why she waited. She may have waited while she made the decision. She may have had to wait to find access to abortion. She may have waited until she could pay for it. She may not have known she was pregnant. But it's NOT a crime . Would YOU want to be punished for every irresponsible thing you've done? Ya, Democrats believe in rights for EVERYONE and the Constitution....forcing women to see an ultra sound violates their rights.....and DUH, there is no need since women know what "pregnant" means. But if one likes to FORCE women to do things then they probably would approve of such a stupid unnecessary thing.. "Fact" or not no woman should be forced to view it. Is there other surgery where the patient is FORCED to view the ultra sound or anything else? NO. That is true. Before birth it's a fetus and is no more a "baby" than it is a teenager....stages of human life have terms. So?
We know this Countries morals are on the decline. And your comments provide further proof of this. Pro-choicers cry baby about insurance paying for contraceptives, then choose not to use them; using abortion as a contraceptive instead. A woman has a right only until the fetus is a certain age. Would you allow abortions up to the time the woman goes into labor? Can't wait to here your answer.
Uh, duh, what does that have to do with abortion?. Abortion been around for thousands of years....so you contend that 's the reason morals are declining NOW? As if everyone had good morals until 1974...HILARIOUS!!! Not surprised that you want to "here" my answer...LOL! Hey, show me the stats of how many women are "enjoying"" 9 months of pregnancy just for the "fun " of having an abortion.... Doesn't happen. Canada has no abortion laws and it doesn't happen there... You: ""Pro-choicers cry baby about insurance paying for contraceptives"" ! What! That would be the ANTI-Choicers!!! THEY hate the idea that insurance covers birth control, see "Hobby Lobby"...well known for not having insurance for their employees that covers birth control.. BTW , NO ONE is obligated to use birth control.... And, gee, you sure couldn't address much of that post of mine you quoted
