Yes. They are completely useless and a waste of time if the scenario presented is impossible. Your emotional hyperbole is annoying and makes you look ignorant. Like I have said REPEATEDLY I just want the same standard other homicide laws use. Imminent threat of serious harm or death to the mother justifies the choice of abortion, NOTHING ELSE. Well since it is a STRAWMAN it is easy to see why. I don't propose that either, nobody does.
No, they are a great tool to test a moral stance/theory. A moral theory that does not satisfactory answer even simple hypothetical (but theoretically possible) moral dilemmas such as the one I presented you is very poor. Imminent threat of seriously damaging the reproductive system of the woman is not enough? If I was going to cut off your balls, would you have a right to kill me in self-defense? If yes, why are you not granting woman the same right? You proposed that in the first post of this thread, and defended it afterwards. Read the thread again: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/224436-what-case.html#post4902656 You proposed that even when the only way to prevent a need for acute hysterectomy is abortion, woman should not be allowed to have one.
Again, not if the scenario used is an unrealistic one. To justify a premeditated killing? Of course not! Besides, that isn't the case in the overwhelming majority of cases of abortion. Using rare almost non existent medical cases to justify abortion for mere convenience is dispicable. The rest of your quote was so juvenile and idiotic I deleted it. What is wrong with that?
The woman is having the abortion to save her bloody life, which is what I've saying for the past three pages!!!
The scenario is physically possible. Thats all that is needed. Irrelevant. If even one woman suffers due to stupid law, it has to be corrected/reverted. Nothing, except for the fact that it by definition bans abortions in case when birth would irreversiby damage the womans health. So your claim that you does not advocate such ban is false. You cant have it both ways.
Uganda Develops Surgery For Saving Babies From Hydrocephalus... Surgery For Saving Babies From 'Water On The Brain' Developed in Uganda December 20, 2017 - It's not everyday that surgeons develop a new brain surgery that could save tens of thousands of babies, even a hundred thousand each year. And it's definitely not everyday that the surgery was developed in Uganda, for babies born in poor countries.
First you have to understand why women have late term terminations The overwhelming reason is that the foetus is deformed usually to the point of being incompatible with life Understand these are usually WANTED pregnancies gone horribly tragically wrong The so called " partial birth" abortion was less traumatic for the woman and less risky
I know of two women who had PBA's. One was already a mother of 2 children and would have died of septicemia without the PBA. In the 2nd instance the fetus was anencephalic and would have died immediately after birth. In both instances the women wanted to have those children and they both subsequently went on to have successful pregnancies. In the first case without the PBA there would have been two small children who would have lost their mother.
