I am pro choice also, but I believe that choice could and should be made before there is a question of viability. I have a friend who is an OB/GYN. He said he often sees parents desperately trying to save a baby that others are aborting.

 

If what this guy did is true, totally disgusting.

 

Who decides this? That is the question, and in my opinion the answer isn't any man or woman.

God have all of us free will. I pray that these people will choice life.

I am pro choice also, but I believe that choice could and should be made before there is a question of viability.

 

I often hear viability being used as the line where abortion is justified or not. Has viability been used for a long period of time or is this something recent? How did it come about. I am not sure I understand the reasoning. Being Pro Life I completely understand I am biased but I generally thing I am pretty decent and seeing both sides of an arguement and am pretty fair in debating the sides but I never did get how viability was used as the measure of the acceptability of abortion.

 

When some teenagers were in a wreck a few months ago, one was in a coma for a period of time. During the early stages of the coma, she was on a respirator, fluids and other life preserving methods. One could argue that during that time frame she was not viable because pulling the plug too early would have ended her life. Just because she was not viable I don't think anyone would have said letting her die would be just, ethical or moral since it was understood that her odds of recovering were very good, similar to how it is well known that the fetus will continue developing and eventually reach viability.

 

This question is not pointed at Beechwoodfan, I welcome receiving the rationale from anyone.

 

I have a friend who is an OB/GYN. He said he often sees parents desperately trying to save a baby that others are aborting.

 

That does bring me down. I really don't think there is a such thing as an unwanted baby. There are so many parents who would give anything for the mother to carry the child to term and have that baby but mothers I have talked to said they chose abortion because they did not think they could give up the child which is hard to understand if they are able to abort the child. I serve on the board of a maternity home in Louisville which was founded to provide a safe and supportive atmosphere for a mother of an unplanned pregnancy who lives in an environment where bringing a baby into that environment would be not ideal ie unstable home life, lives with the father who was perfectly fine with laying with the mother but cannot be a man and support her and the child after he gets her pregnant, etc.. Many of the mothers there do choose to give up the child for adoption but this is not their first pregnancy, they aborted their first child. When the subject of why were they able to abort the first child but did not think they could give the child up for adoption. Many state that they felt once the saw the child it would become too real for them that there really was a child inside them but if they never saw the child, that reality would not be there and aborting it would not be as hard. Strange logic but I have heard it more than once. All we (those of us affiliated with this maternity home) can do is continue to work to provide a safe and supportive environment for the mother and child.

^As do folks who blow up abortion clinics reinforce mine.

 

Ain't this a great place? We can disagree 180 degrees on something (or 360 degrees according to a few) and still be friends.:thumb:

 

According to the National Abortion Federation, a pro-abortion group, there have been a total of 8 people killed attacks against abortion providers in the US since the legalization of abortion in 1973, as well as 17 more attempted murders. Almost all instances of bombing and arson at abortion clinics have occurred during off-hours while no one was present at the clinic. Also, only one person has ever been killed in a bombing/arson attack on an abortion clinic, along with one injury in the same attack. All tallied, there have been 41 bombings, 175 instances of arson, and 96 more attempts at bombing or arson.

 

Obviously, I condone none of the above, but how many unborn children do you think Dr. Kermit Gosnell has killed in his illustrious career? Furthermore, how many children do you think he has killed after their live births?

What gets me with people who are pro choice if they had an abortion or not,is they are going to have to answer for their opinion come JUDGEMENT DAY.

Bert;4636595]I often hear viability being used as the line where abortion is justified or not. Has viability been used for a long period of time or is this something recent? How did it come about. I am not sure I understand the reasoning. Being Pro Life I completely understand I am biased but I generally thing I am pretty decent and seeing both sides of an arguement and am pretty fair in debating the sides but I never did get how viability was used as the measure of the acceptability of abortion.[/b]

Viability has been used as an argument for many years. I believe that life begins at conception, so to me that is the point of viability. Much of my belief is influenced by my Catholic faith more so than my scientific knowledge. So I can see how those who are not believers can question when "human Life" begins. In the mid-70's people who are pro-life proposed legislation which basically said that no abortion could be performed once a fetus is a viable human life. To define that they proposed using the earliest a pre-mature baby had been successfully able to survive at least 1 year. At the time it was somewhere around 6 months into the pregnancy. This in affect would have outlawed ALL 3rd tri-mester abortions.

 

They sponsors and backers were villified from both sides of the debate. As a result in never gained serious traction.

 

In the late 80's early 90's it returned this time with advanced invitro studies proposed the viability be measured by when advanced brain activity is measured in the baby in the womb. This would have outlawed all abortions beyond the 3 1/2 to 4 months. Again the backers were attacked from both sides of the argument, no traction for the bill.

 

Over the past 20 years it has been brought up again and again each time using the most current science available to measure "viable human life". Each time it has been shot down by folks on both sides of the argument. Using the latest technology this would outlaw all abortions beyond 10 weeks in the pregnancy.

 

The "viability" argument has been used to appeal to those who want to base decision on accepted science vs faith. Unfortunately many on the faith side belief this to be an unacceptable compromise and have done as much to kill the efforts as those on the Pro-abortion side. Instead today we still have partial birth abortions and seem no closer to moving toward the desired goal of no abortions.

What gets me with people who are pro choice if they had an abortion or not,is they are going to have to answer for their opinion come JUDGEMENT DAY.

 

That is pure opinion. You have no way of knowing at all what anyone will have to answer to on Judgement Day. You only know what you believe.

^ And there you have it.

Im PRO LET the dad have a say in the abortion!!!!!!! Its HIS KID TOO!!!

How anyone could say that abortion is ok when it is a matter of "convenience," I'll never understand. Why not kill the infirmed and 90% of those in nursing homes or too handicapped to take care of themselves? How about those that let themselves go pyscially and crush our medical centers. Why not pick off the impoverished mothers going in for the abortion? It is all in the same vein, get rid of things that put a glitch in our lives or our pocket books. Why not? Because there is a value to a human life, no matter what WE think. Yet, here we are allowing for the death of those too young to make their own decisions. Just b/c a fetus is not "viable" does not mean that a woman has the right to end the child's ability to develop. The woman had the right to not had sex, at the end of that act, any reprecussions ended in her right to do what she pleases w/ her body.

 

Rape...that's one that I still don't know b/c I will never experience that, and I have never known anyone who has. I won't pass judgement there.

Health of the mother, completely different and I feel for anyone who has to make that choice. There is not a right one or a wrong one, just an awful dilemma.

Also, the great hypocrisy of America continues. Not to compare the two, only to show how hypocritical this country has always been.

For the first 87 years, this country founded on "Freedom, LIBERTY, and the pursuit," allowed land owners (predominantely white males) to own other human beings and force them into a life of labor.

This country, so progressive in its democracy, took another 60 years to allow females the right to vote.

Here we are now in 2013, and we have laws in place that say that it is homicide or murder to kill a child whether through assault, drunken driving accident...whatever. You go to jail. Now, if a mother does the same thing??? Nuthin' It's actually legal. It can't be both.

Yeah, how can a drunk driver be charged with murder of an unborn child and a woman not be charged with murder for having an abortion of an unborn child.

Same outcome. Baby is killed.

 

Would the drunk driver be charged with murder if he hit a woman(lived) and killed the baby while she was walking into an abortion clinic to have an abortion? Same outcome.

I'm pro choice but if abortion was ruled illegal I wouldn't care. I just feel that as long as it is legal then people have the right to do as they wish with their bodies. Whatever happens on Judgment Day is between them and their God.

I'm pro choice but if abortion was ruled illegal I wouldn't care. I just feel that as long as it is legal then people have the right to do as they wish with their bodies. Whatever happens on Judgment Day is between them and their God.

 

Hypothetical:

 

Conjoined twin brothers, sharing much or their circulatory system. Separation is possible, but would require very complicated and risky surgery. One gets sick of having the other connected to him at all times and kills him. Murder or not?

Hypothetical:

 

Conjoined twin brothers, sharing much or their circulatory system. Separation is possible, but would require very complicated and risky surgery. One gets sick of having the other connected to him at all times and kills him. Murder or not?

 

I don't know. I'm guessing it would be up to a judge and jury. Sounds like murder to me.