Should abortion be extended into the toddler years?

[BoFA]

1. Should abortion of a human child be extended into the toddler years?

2. For a rough argument, how about abortion from conception through age three?

3. Would this be considered too far fetched for pro-choice people?

For reference in further arguments, I consider abortion to be an abortion of human life, not just the technical abortion of the pregnancy.

[KWJams]

That is absurd :( they are tax right offs by then. :rolleyes:

[SantaMonica]

Abortion in the toddler years? Whatever does that mean?

[Mission]

:D LOL :D

And how about middle school age ones, when the hormones just start kicking in? Even a parent has trouble loving them then.....

Then there's 16 yr olds.....extend to 16 too!


:D LOL :D


(could you understand me with my tongue so firmly planted in my cheek?)

[EvilTwinFelicia]

How about-- if you "birthed" it, you can kill it, at any time.

[Quincy Wisdom]

Originally posted by BoFA
1. Should abortion of a human child be extended into the toddler years?

2. For a rough argument, how about abortion from conception through age three?

3. Would this be considered too far fetched for pro-choice people?

For reference in further arguments, I consider abortion to be an abortion of human life, not just the technical abortion of the pregnancy.

My ears just began to bleed, and my eyes just exploded...why not extend it to age 90? Maybe you could get that inheritance form grampy a bit early...fool

[BoFA]

A fool I am not.
But you're entitled to your opinion.

=============================================

Who chooses abortion?

The chances are high that a woman will have more than one unplanned pregnancy in the course of her lifetime. Nearly half of all U.S. women will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

More than six million women in the U.S. become pregnant every year. Half of those pregnancies are unintended. And 1.31 million end in abortion.

The most common reasons a woman chooses abortion are · She is not ready to become a parent. · She cannot afford a baby. · She doesn't want to be a single parent. · She doesn't want anyone to know she has had sex or is pregnant. · She is too young or too immature to have a child. · She has all the children she wants. · Her husband, partner, or parent wants her to have an abortion. · She or the fetus has a health problem. · She was a victim of rape or incest.

When are abortions performed?

Most abortions - nearly 90 percent - are provided in the first trimester - the first three months of pregnancy. Fewer than 11 percent take place in the second trimester. Abortion is very rare and only done for serious health reasons after 24 weeks.
The Earlier, the Better
Try to arrange an abortion as soon as you have made up your mind. Earlier abortions are easier and safer than abortions later in pregnancy. They also cost less.

Source (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/chooseabort2.html#When%20are)

=============================================

(Cheap, convenient, murder of innocent human life.)

Let me restate my position.

Is it too far fetched that pro-choice people would support abortion into the toddler years?
Should a woman have the choice to abort a human life into the toddler years?

[ranger]

Originally posted by BoFA
1. Should abortion of a human child be extended into the toddler years?

2. For a rough argument, how about abortion from conception through age three?

3. Would this be considered too far fetched for pro-choice people?

For reference in further arguments, I consider abortion to be an abortion of human life, not just the technical abortion of the pregnancy.

In my opinion this is one of those "only time will tell" kinda things. In 30 years we have gone from 1st trimester only to today allowing abortion up to the moment of birth because of the "health of the mother."

Look at the bitter fight over "partial birth abortion", only one of many methods of "late term abortion" but folks claiming the outlawing of this one method would stop all late term abortions.

In the next 30 years I am sure the period of legal abortion will be extended in some fashion.

Time will tell!

People that want abortion will continue to have them, people that don't like abortion will continue to not have them and raise their families to not have them. Eventually there will be no one left that wants abortion.

Again this is just my opinion.

[Strel]

Only if you don't like the way the toddler looks at you. Or if they give you any back-talk.

:rolleyes:


This thread reminds me of a pro/anti-abortion rally I went to once at the Florida Capitol. Both sides were separated by a line of cops, and there was a lot of yelling going back and forth.

I couldn't help noticing that most of the Pro-Life people were white males. The Pro-Choice crowd was much more diverse, younger, and better dressed.

But I digress....

The point was that around the outskirts of the Capitol grounds the two groups could mingle freely. There weren't any serious altercations, but I did run across a guy in a bad polyester suit that seemed to be carrying something.

I got closer and saw that he was carrying a small plastic baby doll in his hand, and that the doll was covered in ketchup. I asked him whether it was Heinz or Hunt's. He looked at me bewildered and eventually said Heinz. "Good" I said. I thought you might me a Communist or a Yankee. I left him trying to figure out what I meant, though I'm not sure I knew myself, except that I hate Hunt's ketchup with an irrational passion.

The point is, if you expect to be taken seriously, don't carry around little plastic baby dolls covered in blood, or plant nail bombs to blind nurses at clinics, or make ridiculous posts about slaughtering toddlers. These kinds of things only make you look foolish.

Try providing some logical argument instead, if you have any.

[Diogenes]

A coworker of mine once suggested that parents - with the consent of both parents, and at their own expense - should have an unlimited right to abortion all the way up to age 18. (He had been feuding with his teenage daughter that morning) ... :D

More seriously, it seems to me that the real question is when a potential citizen becomes eligible for the protection of the state. And that is for the legislature, as the elected representatives of the people, to decide - not the courts.

Also, I'm curious as to why there is no consideration of the health risks to the woman. A couple of years ago a British doctor published a study of the correlation between abortions and breast cancer, but I've never seen the results published on this side of the pond. His results indicated that there was a very marginal correlation for abortions of the second pregnancy on, about on the par with the correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer (about 12 in a million). However if the FIRST pregnancy was interrupted, the correlation was more comparable to that of lung cancer for a smoker. Absent any scientific research for the reason, he speculated that it might have something to do with hormone development the first time around. But I think the political agendas of the pro-choice advocates will prevent the funding of any scientific studies that might disturb their idea of personal rights.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Kill 'em now, kill 'em later. I could never understand all the Pro-life people who had no problem with the death penalty.

(like-- Bush!!!!!)

[Paladin]

But Felicia,

Even you can see the difference between punishing a convicted criminal and protecting an innocent baby. Right?

As far as Pro-life people and the death penalty --- so DO favor it, some don't. IE it's a different issue.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Also, I'm curious as to why there is no consideration of the health risks to the woman. A couple of years ago a British doctor published a study of the correlation between abortions and breast cancer, but I've never seen the results published on this side of the pond. His results indicated that there was a very marginal correlation for abortions of the second pregnancy on, about on the par with the correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer (about 12 in a million). However if the FIRST pregnancy was interrupted, the correlation was more comparable to that of lung cancer for a smoker. Absent any scientific research for the reason, he speculated that it might have something to do with hormone development the first time around. But I think the political agendas of the pro-choice advocates will prevent the funding of any scientific studies that might disturb their idea of personal rights.
Abortion is an operation, and like all operations it carries with itself health risks including death. That is no argument whatsoever to prevent abortion if people choose for it as they, not you or the state, are boss over their body. I see no problem funding such studies, it doesn't violate any rights, only if people like you would abuse and twist the outcome to make it an argument for making abortion illegal.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by Paladin
But Felicia,

Even you can see the difference between punishing a convicted criminal and protecting an innocent baby. Right?

As far as Pro-life people and the death penalty --- so DO favor it, some don't. IE it's a different issue.

It's not a different issue. Murder is murder. If you believe in the Ten Commandments-- "Thou shalt not murder," then ALL life is equal in the eyes of God. Evil life, as well as innocent life. You can't sit in judgement of one life, yet strive to protect another one. Life is life.

[BoFA]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
It's not a different issue. Murder is murder. If you believe in the Ten Commandments-- "Thou shalt not murder," then ALL life is equal in the eyes of God. Evil life, as well as innocent life. You can't sit in judgement of one life, yet strive to protect another one. Life is life.
Who says that punishment by death is in the name of God?
Don’t tell me you are going to contradict yourself.
Can I assume you are in complete agreement with separation of church and state?

Abortion of a defenseless innocent human baby = MURDER
Execution of violent (adult) criminal = PUNISHMENT

[Diogenes]

Posted by Simon666
... only if people like you would abuse and twist the outcome to make it an argument for making abortion illegal.
As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether or not abortion should be legal has nothing to do with the health risks to the mother, it has only to do with whether or not her "right" to change her mind is more important than the baby's right to life.

The problem with studying the health risk issues is on the liberal side, because it is liberals who insist on passing laws that regulate our behavior "for our own good" and it is liberals who are on the horns of a dilemma when exercising their individual "rights" conflicts with their concept of enforcing the "general welfare."

[ranger]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
Kill 'em now, kill 'em later. I could never understand all the Pro-life people who had no problem with the death penalty.

(like-- Bush!!!!!)

So you are saying you respect all life so are against the taking of any life from the innocent unborn to the convicted killer, to the 84 year old in a vegitative state?

[Quincy Wisdom]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
Kill 'em now, kill 'em later. I could never understand all the Pro-life people who had no problem with the death penalty.

(like-- Bush!!!!!)

Felicia, these unborn babies haven't even had the chance to live. People on death row are not there because of some kind of lottery; they lived a life, and committed crimes that warrant death. I am actually against the death penalty; I think death is too good for some of those people. But unborn fetuses have not committed any crime. That is the difference.

[ranger]

I dislike abortion because I have never found a scientific definition of when human life begins. With the lack of such science I think we should not allow abortions because all living humans have certain God given rights. Since we cannot scientifically define it we must protect the unborn as we do any human life.

I FEAR abortion as the first step towards government controlled Euthanasia. So many have different definitions of life and different definitions of "quality of life". The excuse I hear most often in favor of abortion is the "quality of life".

Who judges quality of life? Many of the disabled vets I know cannot do lots of the personal things "normal" people can. We are often told how brave we are to live with such degrading circumstances. Gotta tell you folks, they are only degrading in the eyes of people who wish to judge my quality of life.

Is my life of lesser quality because I cannot get myself dressed or go to the bathroom myself. I do not think so! What right does another have to judge my life less than theirs.

In todays world we have all sorts of people who do just that. One that posts here has made the argument that you cannot guarantee the quality of the life of the unborn so abortion is ok. Another considers a brain damaged person "dead as a human"!

Who is next? The guy missing 2 legs and 2 arms? The kid with cancer that has to suffer trying to stay alive? The 700lbs woman with a genetic anomally?

When you think you can kill based on your perceptions of anothers quality of life you scare the hell out of people like me.