http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-05/zika-virus-sparks-abortion-debate-in-brazil/7142834 We are talking here not just of a slight learning difficulty - these babies are profoundly affected often being deaf and blind as well. They are "irritable" and cry almost incessantly
I would hope there's a big push in Brazil to educate women to the fact that "" when the fetus is anacephalic"" they can get a legal abortion. It's odd that Brazil law makers think fetus due to rape is different than one from consensual sex but it does prove they are only interested in punishing women for having consensual sex.......
And many of the same people operating under "Christian" creed are the ones griping about women "who do not have any rights in "Muslim countries" Unfortunately it seems they are distinguishing between microcephalic and anencephalic. To qualify for an abortion under the law there has to be no b rain development - regardless of the fact many of these microcephalic babies have so little brain development that there is little actual differenc e and no hope of even a remotely "normal" life
So Brazilian women can't get an abortion if their fetus is microcephalic... ....and Anti-Choicers will approve bringing a child into the world to suffer forever just so they can feel good. What ghouls!!
Of course they will because they value the QUANTITY of human lives over the QUALITY of those human lives. For every single microcephalic infant there will be resources needed for specialized medical care and education. Given that so many are handicapped that too will require additional resources. But those exact same people demanding that these sick infants be given the opportunity to suffer will be screeching about the increased taxes necessary to pay for those additional medical, educational and welfare resources. There is no sound argument for bringing a child into this world if you know beforehand that it is destined to suffer.
It is doubtful that the majority of these children will ever reproduce - many will not make it past childhood I note an astounding lack of response from the "Pro-life" crowd
This is a difficult one. Because being infected with Zika could result in severe fetal deformity and retardation, or the baby could turn out perfectly fine. And the woman might not find out she is infected until well into the pregnancy.
How many perfectly normal fetuses will have to be killed? This may sound controversial but I think the argument can be made that they should wait until birth and then determine whether the baby should die. Better one retarded baby than two perfectly normal healthy ones in the womb. This is assuming the abortions are after 12 weeks gestation. If the fetuses are "caught" early enough then I suppose the argument could indeed be made to, as you so succinctly put it, "flush and try again". I'm not sure though...
What's the big deal with the viability point? A fetus at 21 weeks isn't that different from a fetus at 24 weeks; the lungs are just a little bigger enabling the fetus to have a chance of survival apart from the oxygenated blood supply flowing through the umbilical cord.
24 weeks is viability in some states. I would prefer they use EEG standards but viability is pretty close to that any way. 24 weeks should be the standard nationwide
I disagree, electrical activity can be detected much earlier than 24 weeks. Do you have any idea how developed a fetus is at 20 weeks? I have done some research into this and as far as I'm concerned it's basically a baby. Sometimes I wonder if pro-choicers really know what it is they are advocating in favor aborting.
Electrical activity? A brain dead patient has electrical activity. I mean a normal eeg. Week 24 to week 27
Are you saying men are lazy slobs? Did you know even condoms fail? Did you know no one is obligated to use condoms? Did you know all humans make mistakes?
It is these very type of abnormalities that are often late term abortions http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1600651
Even when there is little or no brain? When the genetic faults mean that the baby would have little to no life? 20 week abortions are RARE and usually done for fetal abnormality incompatible with life
Sure, just kill all the people who are "irritable". All those people disabled in car accidents, who get Alzheimer's, who have brain damage from war, just kill them because they are not perfect and are "irritable". Isn't it amazing the depths abortionists will go to spread their murderous dogma?
You are really going to use viability? Weak. If viability is your threshold, how about people who are not viable due to war injury, accident, disease? Are you going to kill them? Stephen Hawking has not been viable for decades, he requires constant care, he cannot feed himself, clothe himself, or go to the bathroom on his own, he is totally unviable. Are you going to abort him? Viability is an exceptionally weak argument, unless you completely devalue all human life.
