A late term abortion
by igwealth5tm, Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EDT
by igwealth5tm, Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EDT
OH...this is going to go over well.
OR we shall see how now pro choice is so yesterday among democrats.
By a freaking truck, I think.
Speaking for myself, I do not condone a late-term abortion that is not justified by significant health concerns on the part of the mother or the child.
If having the child puts the mother into risk of significant physical or mental harm I can live with it. If, somehow, a case of rape or incest wasn't dealt with prior to the tail end of a pregnancy, I could live with it.
I cannot condone someone simply choosing to abort a pregnancy towards the end simply because they don't want the child. I know that such a thing is essentially illegal or impractical in the United States. As such, my statement is a bit like saying I'm against the forced quartering of US soldiers in the homes of the citizens without their consent.
You can oppose something that doesn't really happen. I do, and have said so here quite recently. However, it is unfortunate that many people allow this facet of the abortion debate define the whole of it.
The extremist on one end or the other of the debate have been given to much leeway in defining the positions. I agree with you 100%, an that is why this diary puzzles me, they are making a good point, but doing it in a combative way. We all know how this ends.
Is that from shifting between dimensions or time zones?
Poorly stated diary, but distilled of its inflammatory (and kinda stupid) rhetoric - the sentiment is exactly what the majority of Americans agree with and the law calls for: Absent reasonable medical justification on a case by case basis, late term abortions are to be avoided when possible.
Seems like I've heard something like that recently -
Give me a minute to get my popcorn so I can sit back and enjoy the show.
All the comments up to now have been apprehensive of a gigantic truck/war/battle that hasn't happened yet.
Than again, I seem to recall picnickers observing one of the battles in the Civil War.
On topic, I think this is one of many areas defined by a black/white split where I think grey is the more accurate color. People who oppose a position because it would yield ground to "the other side" have become so polarized they forget about the original point - having good policy.
I'm sorry, you don't get to say that. Give a kid a life, it costs TWO FUCKING DOLLARS.
Until you've donated, you don't get to tell me what is murder and what isn't.
Personally, if I was told that bearing a child would lead to a 99.99% chance of its death by malnutrition, I'd strangle it myself.
But, hell, I've read the ethics papers on abortion and murder. You probably haven't.
"Personally, if I was told that bearing a child would lead to a 99.99% chance of its death by malnutrition, I'd strangle it myself."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any kids? It would take a remarkable person to do that.
most selfless person.
Pretty self-centered, actually.
Don't think it's remarkable in a particularly good way, but... why do something that is going to end in sure death?
no, don't have kids.
..."mentally distressed" that choose to undergo a third trimester abortion?
Or, is the diarist assuming that all women that elect third trimester abortions are "mentally distressed?" That would appear to be the case. So, correct me if I'm wrong.
Also--from the diarist please--are you drawing a correlation between mental illness and mental distress?
Then, what about women that are able to handle the mental distress that accompanies making a decision about seeking an abortion in the third trimester?
People have been known to take a while to make up their minds about something, especially when it's as life-changing as something such as giving birth. So, what about women that are uncertain about going through with an abortion that can't make up their minds until the third trimester?
What about women that have to take awhile to scrimp and save the funds necessary to obtain an abortion?
Judging from your comments, it would appear that you're saying that all of these instances would classify the women at issue as murderers, right?
Wouldn't it follow that your position would appear to discriminate against certain women that are not as wealthy as others? Thoughts here, please?
What about women that have to take awhile to scrimp and save the funds necessary to obtain an abortion?... Wouldn't it follow that your position would appear to discriminate against certain women that are not as wealthy as others?
My understanding was that the procedure is paid for by the state if you cannot afford it..
I may be incorrect. Please correct me if I am wrong !
For instance, in New Jersey, you may drop off a newborn infant at any firehouse or hospital, no questions asked.
Other states have different types of laws, including subsidized abortions, to deal with this. Again, all depends upon the state, I believe. But, I'm not 100% accurate.
yes--not all states have the same laws re this. NJ does have that drop-off law, but other states will prosecute the woman for it. NC has a poor-woman's abortion fund (started, ironically, by Jesse Helms in an attempt to reduce the poor black population), but not all states have such.
What is the diarist's position on stem cell research? For? Against?
Is the diarist: a Republican? Democrat? Independent? Resident of the U.S.?
If the diarist would share a few other personal positions with us...
1.) for whom did the diarist vote--if anyone--in the 2000 and 2004 national presidential elections?
2.) what is the diarist's position on gay marriage? Civil unions?
Why do you want these?
Do you want to slap a label of the diarist?
Or, is that asking too much.
The nerve of me, huh? Daring to ask for more clarity on the diarist's position?!?!?
Do you put words in others' mouths often? Or, only when you seek to disrupt a diary by calling someone out?
The diarist posted a diary. From what I can see, the diarist is making no attempt to support their post (so far). Is that how you like it?
Most here want to engage...maturely (in many instances)...or they wouldn't be here.
Why are you here?
You didn't ask for more clarity on the diarist's position. You asked for completely unrelated information (to help you slap a label on the diarist).
The diarist may not be supporting their post, but your comment had nothing to do with it either.
I'm here to engage on policies and tactics.
I strongly abhor all abortions. That would normally make me your ideological soulmate on this issue.
It does not!!
Because I am also mindful of the fact that noone is really quite certain as to the point when life begins. And if we are not certain as to when life begins, we cannot define a threshold that would then justify use of the term "murder".
I would urge you to rachet down your rhetoric by a notch or two.
On abortion, we are all right...
And it's a fundamentally better argument in favor of abortion rights, I think. It doesn't really matter whether the fetus is alive or not.
Let's go into a hypothetical situation.
Let's say there's a little girl in the hospital who is dying of leukemia, and needs a bone marrow transplant to save her life. You are the only person who is known to be a compatible donor, and there's no time to run tests on anyone else.
In that situation... Does the state have the interest or the right to force you to submit to a bone marrow transplant against your will? I think that a good number of people would agree that you should give the transplant, that it's selfish, cruel, or outright evil for you to refuse to give it, but that the state can't be in the business of forcing medical procedures on you against your will.
And that is what all abortion bans are, fundamentally. They are the state forcing a medical procedure (giving birth) on an individual, potentially against their will, in favor of the right of a fetus to live.
These laws are in the same mold as "Good Samaritan" laws--which require bystanders to involve themselves to stop a crime in progress, whether they want to or not. Good Samaritan laws have been struck down in almost every place they've been tried, because the government cannot and should not force citizens to be selfless. That decision has to be left to the individual.
It should not matter whether the fetus is "a person" or not. It should not matter whether "mental distress" qualifies as mental illness. It shouldn't matter if there is a "medical exemption" at all. The only thing that really matters is that it's the pregnant woman's body and she has the right to choose what medical procedures she does and does not undergo. I personally think that it would be a horribly selfish, nearly inhuman act to decide to terminate a viable fetus. I myself was born six weeks premature, and adoption is a much better alternative to late-term abortion. But we can't legislate selflessness.
Your friend gave you a terribly flawed analogy. A fetus is not a mole that you get lasered off. You have no level of responsibility to a random person that matches your bone marrow. Being pregnant long enough for it to be considered late term is an entirely different scenario. Viability cannot be left out. No rights are absolute, none of them.
A fetus is not a mole that you get lasered off.
Nor is a little girl dying in the hospital of leukemia.
You have no level of responsibility to a random person that matches your bone marrow. Being pregnant long enough for it to be considered late term is an entirely different scenario.
Why is it any different?
Even assuming that life begins at conception and the fetus is fully a person for the entire length of the pregnancy, it is still a person whose life depends on someone else undergoing a medical procedure they may not consent to.
Why do you have fundamentally more responsibility to a fetus that happens to be growing in your uterus than to a stranger in the hospital?
Responsibility is teh key word. What did a woman do to create the random girls life? Did any direct acts of this woman have anything to do with this girl getting sick? Of course not, yeah it would be the right thing to do, but clearly could not be required.
Outside of rape, she is clearly responsible for the child inside her. Her actions lead directly to this point. I look at it form a viability standpoint, and if you don't have a health issue from the mother, "i just don't want it" will never be a valid excuse.
A mole getting lasered off is not a life, if you see no difference between the two, then you stand with very few. No right is absolute.
The same reason I can be charged with neglecting my own children, but not my neighbor's children.
If the fetus is a living child, then it is in my care and I have some level of responsibility to take care of it.
If the fetus is a living child, then it is in my care and I have some level of responsibility to take care of it.
You're starting with that as an assumption rather than coming to it as a conclusion. But I'll grant it, and go back to my original hypothetical.
What if it's your own daughter in the hospital who needs the bone marrow transplant? She is an innocent person in your care (like you're arguing about the fetus), but should the government have the power to force you to undergo the transplant?
I'd also argue there's no practical difference between refusing the marrow transplant and refusing to give birth (responding to another post down-thread). Whether you're opting not to have a medical procedure at all, or choosing the more preferable of two medical procedures, it's still a question of your right to control over your person and the procedures that are performed on it.
Your actions have brought the child about, your responsibility. Saying "what is if was your child" does not change the fact that the person being asked to give the transplant was not responsible for the random child. Unless of course you believe there is no such thing as personal responsibility for something you cause.
I don't think you understood. I'm saying, what if it's not a random child that you're being asked to save, what if it's your own child?
It's a child who is under your care, who you have responsibility for. You created her and brought her this far in life, you're her legal guardian. If you were to simply stop feeding her and she starved to death, you'd be arrested for aggravated child abuse or murder due to gross negligence.
But refusing to submit to a procedure on your own body, like a bone marrow transplant? I'm not so certain it would be decided the same way.
No, I understand fully. The marrow transplant is an elective procedure. "Giving birth" is not the elective procedure, abortion is. Because even if there is no doctor there, when it is time that baby is coming out, whether you want it to or not. It is less of a "procedure" then it is a completely natural occurrence that will happen with or without medical care.
Birth is most definitely a medical procedure; but all right, if you don't like the term "procedure" then let's go with the term "event."
The mother has the choice between two medical "events": aborting the pregnancy before birth, or carrying the pregnancy to term. There are obviously different circumstances around each and different procedures that may be employed, but it's fundamentally a binary choice. And when one of those choices is banned, the other choice becomes forced.
Again, it comes down to the inviolability of your consensual control over your person, even to save another human being's life.
And I agree up to a point. My point is viability. I believe that abortions, like most rights have their limits. Is saying that a woman can have a abortion for any reason she chooses in the third trimester limiting her rights? Yes, clearly it is. Is that a problem? No, not at all, because the childs rights come into play at some point as well. We agree in principle, just not in how far the right extends.
It seems we disagree in principle, because I'm saying that the right to control over one's body necessarily trumps the right of another to life, when those rights come into conflict. You're saying that the right to life will, in some circumstances, be the more important. I don't agree with that position, but I can certainly respect it (as I respect Sen. Obama's position on the subject even though we disagree).
that's exactly where you two are stuck. For you, the right to control one's body trumps the right to life of the fetus; for him/her, the right to life of the fetus trumps your right to control over your body. that's a nice way you put it.
I understood your original point to be that it is irrelevant whether we consider the fetus to be a person, because even if it is, it would have the same relationship to me as the girl in the hospital with leukemia or the random carjacking victim. My position (see my comment below) is that it does matter whether you consider the fetus to be living because if it is, then you have responsibility to it.
No, my original point is that it's irrelevant whether we consider the fetus to be a person, because we have a right to control over our own bodies that can't be violated even if someone else's life is on the line. It doesn't even matter if it's someone you do have a responsibility to--which is why I altered the hypothetical to say it's your own child in the hospital rather than a stranger.
Abuse, neglect, and gross negligence are measured by whether the caretaker took all reasonable and obligated steps to ensure the safety of the person in their care. Undergoing an unwanted medical procedure is not a reasonable step, it's above and beyond the call of duty.
Sorry, should have read your comment more completely before I responded.
Your leukemia example is intriguing, but I still don't think it is completely analogous. The state can and does force people to take care of their kids on a much more basic level. For example, you can be charged with negligence or child abuse. For that matter, you can also be charged with negligence of an elderly person in your care. I don't know the legal ins and outs of these kinds of cases, but we as a society are quite comfortable holding parents responsible for the well-being of their kids - or removing the kids from their care.
I think we as a society are also comfortable with the statement that if we decide that a fetus is a person, then the woman carrying that fetus has a responsibility to take care of it . But for some reason we are not comfortable telling a person that the must provide bone marrow to their child. Which is one thing that makes your example so intriguing.
Also, in response to your post below. I see restrictions on abortion as a restriction on a particular service. This is fundamentally different than forcing someone through a medical procedure completely against their will. It may be that you end up forcing someone into a medical procedure, but it is still different than, say, forcing a woman to get pregnant and then have the baby. It is a restriction on the service, not specifically on the woman.
It's definitely a hairy ethical and moral quandary...
Thankfully, even when third trimester abortions were legal, they were extremely rare, and if they are once again legalized, they will probably still be extremely rare. So it's very close to an academic discussion.
yeah, no wonder it provides endless fodder in political campaigns. i would guess that there is hardly a hair's breadth difference between how we see abortion and we can't agree on a reasonable analogy. and, as you point out, even if we did settle it, it would probably do nothing to encourage or discourage abortions in this country.
on Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous violinist hypothetical. She argues for the pro-choice position even assuming birth starts at conception. You can read it here.
Thanks for the link. Yes, that's a very similar argument. It's interesting, because it wasn't my friend who came up with the analogy I wrote, I did myself after arguing with him for a while. And I've never seen the argument you linked to before. If great minds think alike, maybe I'm a great mind. :P
I am not going to argue with your friend. Like I said before, on abortion, we are all right (I should have added the proviso..provided we have arrived at our beliefs after a reasonable amount of soul searching!!).
I would hope that your friend will likewise not argue with me.
I think the major difference between the examples you cite (Good Samaritan laws and donating bone marrow) and abortion is that in the examples you cite, the state is potentially forcing you to do something instead of doing nothing. In the case of abortion, you are electing to seek out one medical procedure (abortion) in lieu of another medical procedure (birth). The state is essentially telling you that you may not seek out this service. It is more like restricting a person's behavior rather than it is like forcing them to confront an armed thug.
Plus, all of us are comfortable with the idea that you could be held liable if your actions were found to be negligent and resulted in the injury or death of a person in your care. So it does matter whether we consider the fetus to be a living child or not. If it really is a lump of cells, than we do not have the responsibility to see to its well-being. But if it is a living person, then we have a responsibility to make sure it does not come to an unreasonable amount of harm. This, I think, is at the crux of the debate of when life begins.
I guess most people would say sometime after conception and sometime before you start collecting Social Security.
I just wanted to add something to this, though I replied up-thread...
A prohibition on abortion is effectively the same as a requirement to give birth. Giving birth is the only possible consequence of not having an abortion, barring a couple circumstances that are either exceptional or not in the control of either the mother or the state (like committing suicide or having a natural miscarriage).
If there were a multitude of options besides having an abortion or giving birth, and having an abortion were the only one that were restricted, I can see your point. But in this case, because it's effectively a binary choice--abort the fetus, or carry it to term--prohibiting one of those choices is the same as forcing the other.
to realize that people are talking exclusively about late term abortions where mother and child are healthy. Frame it around that, because I think most if not all non trolls here are pro choice, it just seems like we disagree on whether or not there should be limits.
interesting argument (throughout the thread), but one thing--most of the time, "good samaritan" laws are about eliminating liability for a person who gets involved in an attempt to help that turns awry. E.g., suppose I happen across a person who is in cardiac arrest and I perform CPR incorrectly and the person ultimately dies from a punctured lung from broken ribs (due to my effort). A good samaritan law protects me from suit/charges, because I acted in good faith to help another.
Excellent article from Third Way
Third Way Place...
you share the same opinions as the religious right, they just see human life starting earlier than you do. Woman will never share equal access to the American dream while mainly men can make laws that tell her how she must use her own body. There are already too many unwanted children born, each child deserves the chance to be born to someone who wants them and can care for them. But your opinion is your belief, and unlikely to be changed by the plight of real women trying to get by. Most late term abortions are for women who didn't know they were pregnant, or who feared revealing it. or they're for women who learn they have a chance of having a malformed child, and they don't feel capable of providing for a severely handicapped child. The world is dying from over-population, why not think about viable life for all of us, rather than your own personal belief about what's right and what's wrong? If it's okay with justification, then who's to judge the justification?
late term abortion is not murder. The fetus cannot breath or eat on its own yet. Therefore, it is not alive.
So the child is not alive one hour prior to birth?
Not according to Jewish Talmudic scholars. There is no Biblical justification for an anti-abortion stance. However, there are Biblical justifications for abortion.
When did the comment you replied to ask what Jewish Talmudic scholars say? Last I knew, they were not the sole arbiters either of reality or of ethics.
Nor is anyone else. No matter what definition it is or where it comes from, it is a value and cultural judgement. A Jewish scholar is as good as any other person in making the rules, except the woman herself.
The poster asked a question. I replied with the opinion held by some people to that question. People that spend a lot of time thinking about and dealing with moral questions just like that one. You might not like the answer, but that doesn't make their opinion irrelevant.
Religious texts should have no bearing on this issue, unless you want to conflate church and state.
I agree completely. I'm an atheist. However, religion plays a huge role in this debate, whether we like it or not.
I don't think that's entirely true. I believe a "full term" baby is one that is 37 weeks old. This means that they most likely can survive outside of the womb without any abnormal interventions. So this means that a baby could be three weeks away from its technical "due date" and be completely viable.
For the sake of full disclosure, most babies can't eat on their own. If you don't, literally, put a food source in its mouth, it will just die.
I've always found the "fetus can't live" argument an odd one, considering how completely helpless babies are.
Technicall speaking, you are wrong. a fetus is viable at 22 weeks...
no--lung development is not complete. They will generally not survive without medical assistance.
Even babies at 32 weeks are not fully developed, and will generally not survive without medical assistance. That does not mean that 32 week old babies are not viable...they are.
Lung development may not be complete at 22 weeks (it is not complete even at 32 weeks), but that does not mean that a 22 week old fetus cannot survice...it CAN. And that was demonstrated by a case recently.
guess it depends on what you mean by "viable" then. To me, a fetus isn't viable if it cannot live outside the womb without medical assistance.
Get out of this website right now!! You are the definition of a Republican. This isnt Instapundit, or Redstate or that Pajama crap. Fucking rightwinger.
So Bob Casey, for example, isn't a Democrat?
If I had lived in PA, during the Senate race, I would have had a very hard time voting for him. Not a big fan of the Casey family, especially when I know he is going to run for governor in 2010.
He's a Democrat, he's just not a progressive.
He is not a progressive because of his stance on abortion ?
Is that a litmus test ??
It's that kind of Faye Wattleton shrillness that helped rejuvenate the right wingers and the Rush Limbaugh types in the early 90s
I believe a woman should have a right to choose to have an abortion in the 1st trimester, but I also believe the state has a compelling interest to regulate them in the 2nd and 3rd. By the late part of the 3rd trimester of a healthy pregancy, there should be no doubt that a baby is living in the mother's womb. To abort with no medical justification should be illegal, i think.
"2nd and 3rd."
So Second is ok with you?
A fetus could be delivered and survive at 4 months?
...to any comments.
Just a hit and run diary, so far, at least. LOL!
The woman they discuss in the link is the newest "pro life" movement heroine. They're applauding her all over the "pro life" / right wing blogosphere for choosing her death over an abortion. Frankly, suicide wouldn't be my choice, and I'd urge a late term abortion to those I love.
Nobody here has argued against late-term abortions to save the life of the mother.
I know almost zero pro-Lifers who oppose it to actually save the life of the mother.
Please don't cherry-pick what opposing arguments you'd like to engage.
Murder is a legal term of art. Not every killing is a murder. There are requirements for intent, for example.
Not everything is a slippery slope, and frankly an unwillingness to substantively discuss the moral questions that come with a hypothetical elective and medically unnecessary late term abortion bespeaks a lack of intellectual rigor.
If you believe in something you should be able and willing to explain your position, answer questions, and defend it.
price of tea in China.
Your link has nothing to do with what we are discussing, at all. So it is a relevant to the discussion as the price of tea in China. The diarist is assuming both are healthy. When the womans health is at risk, clearly the facts on the ground are different. You have no actual answer so you change the question.
What the hell are you even talking ab out? It seems pretty clear he assuming healthy mother and child, and thus there is no legitimate justification for the abortion. I dont even know what you are trying to say.
If both are healthy, then there is no legitimate reason. You tried to set up a strawman but helped me anyway. A woman should not be required to put her life on the line, which is why I said instances involving the well being of the mother are different. This is purely in the case of healthy mother and child and late term abortions. There just is not a sound reason.
I read this when you (or someone else) posted it earlier. My take? I think she knew she was very likely going to die and decided to give the child a chance rather than to extend her own life by a few months. She obviously really really wanted, very badly, to be a mother and I have no problem with that decision. In all honesty, we need to be just as respectful of the wishes of those who do NOT want to have an abortion. The same "it's her body" rules apply.
NOT someone imposing their values / beliefs / morals on anyone else. FREE CHOICE. Remember, it's kinda what progressives believe in in all spheres?
...to "murder," but I do think that there is a much greater and much more compelling moral imperative to discourage, regulate, and perhaps under certain conditions ban abortion once the fetus/baby is capable of surviving outside the womb.
If birth threatens the life or health of the woman, there's no question in my mind that an abortion in that case should be legal; however, if it doesn't - and I know I'm going to catch hell for this - I have absolutely no problem saying that the life of a human that can live outside the womb takes precedence over the preferences of the woman. Induce labor, perform a C-section, whatever; but to take the life of a baby that could survive outside when no life or health risk is involved is, in my opinion, a compelling enough moral problem that the state has a right to involve itself in that decision.
ALL childbirth is life threatening to a certain degree. Just as all operations are life threatening to a certain degree. Ok now?
In France abortion was legalized in 1975 (loi Simone Weil). It was authorized until the end of the 10th week. In 2001, the time limit was moved to the 12th week. After that abortion is illegal.
As far as I know this is pretty universally accepted in France. I think feminists are happy with this law. There's a consensus that after this delay, abortion means killing a baby.
Now of course this is all cultural. In ancient greece you could expose a newborn baby if you wanted to get rid of it. However, my point of view is that while no law can be satisfactory in this matter, the French law pretty well reflects what the French people find acceptable and I'd rather not see it changed, one way or another. In fact I'd be shocked should the time limit be extended substancially.
Just my two eurocents...
Some liberals will be surprised by how many democrats actually share the sentiment of the diary writer.
OK, here is the murky area. I still believe in the women's right to choice. So my opinion on this issue changes all the time. The only thing set in stone for me is
I am certainly not in the Faye Wattleton club on this issue.
The closer a child is to being a full born baby , the tougher it is for me to stand up for a women's right to do whatever she feels like unless her health is in jeopardy or there was some really serious mental trauma such as rape that paralyzed her decision making process for so long.
I will probably be never against any kind of abortion. But I will certainly not waste my energy defending late term abortions. It is such a low priority topic for me.
When you put it that way......
you sound like an asshole.
I'll bet you think it's OK to drop bombs on babies and call it, "collateral damage."
1st trimester at will
2nd trimester incest or non life threatenting health issues
3rd trimester life threatening physical illness
I think that sums up most American's views on Abortion
allowed for significant restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions (modified in subsequent rulings to mean after viability outside the mother's womb). The SCOTUS decision did not decide the "mental health" issue only that the specific procedure of Intact Dialation and Extraction is now banned and alternative procedures can be used for late term abortions.
The reality is that there are some reasonable restrictions on late term abortions but at the end of the day, our country has placed that decision with the mother in consultation with her doctor (and religous council if needed). Then based on that if you believe it is murder (and you are correct) then the mother will get her just punishment in the end.
There are ligitimate reasons for late term abortions other than health, fetus genetic issues (major)...some cannot be tested until close to the 20th week.
We have depressed mothers drowning their children in bathtubs and flushing them down toilets...if they are going to do that due to their mental state, I think that is enough of a reason to permit an abortion.
At work. AT WORK? What a ridiculous statement. There is no comparison, I am sure between you going to work and having work problems, and the mental distress experienced by some women in their 3rd trimester. And who will be the judge of what mental distress is or what is a legitimate reason for having mental distress. I certainly wouldn't want you to be the judge if you are relating it to some stress you have experienced at work.
The number of women who have late term abortions is a percentage of a percent, and a low per cent of that percent, at that. This is an issue that republicans loooove to use to accuse murder when there is no murder that happens and no one does it without justification, and some people on the left too.
You're making a value judgment yourself. You are perfectly free to express it, and I'm happy to engage you on this issue.
The diarist was crass and offensive. Yesterday I wrote a diary on this topic that was neither crass nor intentionally offensive. Not everyone cottoned to having a respectful debate on this issue.
You don't own this issue to the point that we cannot discuss it fairly. The diarist here did not do a good job and deserves knocks for that. However, I think the comments in my own diary demonstrate a willingness by too many to treat this issue like its something we cannot even discuss.
I condemn that. Opinions are fine. If you don't like them, might I suggest trying to inform them?
Thanks for the tutorial but this is all I care to say, right now.
claim to be an expert in this issue. But if a doctor decides that the woman is suffering from mental illness and it can cause her severe problems down the road, I don't know why the Govt. or you or me or the diarist should be in the business of deciding whether the woman can abort the baby or not? I say let the woman and her doctor decide what best for her and her child in case she chooses to bear it...you, me, Govt and Mr/Ms Diarist, stay the hell out of the way.
Thank you all for making out time from your precious and busy schedule to chip in a comment or two in defense of the defenseless late-term.
Keep the good work and your reward will be great. One of those children might end up becoming the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gate utilizing IQ to create millions of jobs for our children and grand-children; and maybe fund your social security if you live long enough.
Your last statement is as true as this one: One of those children might end up becoming Charles Manson or some other serial killer...
There are always flip side of the story...don't forget...