DrEvilmonki
Active member
In this case I would say choose whoever has the most chance of survival. You are talking about a fully developed baby in this case. There is no rational argument to the contrary IMO.
Controversial topic - You have been warned
- Thread starter treide
- Start date
In this case I would say choose whoever has the most chance of survival. You are talking about a fully developed baby in this case. There is no rational argument to the contrary IMO.
freakinacage
Well-known member
wow i wis i saw this thread before..
i would just like to say that, as a health care professional (not a doc), i totally agree with treide (?sp). sometimes difficult choices need to be made and you have to do what\'s statistically best.
i agree that abortion should not be used as a method of birth control but nothing is 100% , one of my friends got pregnant despite being on the pill and another had a child despite having had a hysterectomy. there are enough unwanted kids in the world as it is, why bring another in?
i would just like to say that, as a health care professional (not a doc), i totally agree with treide (?sp). sometimes difficult choices need to be made and you have to do what\'s statistically best.
i agree that abortion should not be used as a method of birth control but nothing is 100% , one of my friends got pregnant despite being on the pill and another had a child despite having had a hysterectomy. there are enough unwanted kids in the world as it is, why bring another in?
johnboyjjb
Active member
Never happen. No healthy (mentally) woman would carry that child for 9 months and dump it at the last minute. Almost every one would say save my child. Second, an abortion at that late a stage would require all of the same things that birth would so there would be no medical advantage.
As far as I was aware, the waiting list for parents to adopt was as long as the list for kids to be adopted in the US.
I\'m not smart enough to have a dig at anyone, let alone you...But I wasn\'t really being tongue in cheek either.
I was illustrating the fact that animals do that sort of thing for survival...not just cuz little Bobby got too \'handsy\' after the Prom, and nobody wants the baby.
My main point being, as much as the arguments can rage, abortion is a cruel hard thing...and our society tries to justify it by all sorts of easy definations.
It boils down to is that it is legal for convenience sake...not survival nor any other \'noble\' cause. Granted, there are situations where the mother\'s life is at risk, but those are few and far between when you look at it as a whole.
freakinacage
Well-known member
christ jim, i wouldn\'t take it personally even if you were!!
as for the unwanted children thing - that was really about early abortions rather than later ones - if you don\'t want a kid and everything else had failed, i can understand an abortion and in this case, they should never be left this late.
Infidel Castro
New member
You\'re bang on there. There\'s nothing noble about aborting. But it is still something a woman has to decide, not moral/religious/political groups. For as long as we became societies there have been people carrying out abortions, I\'m sure of it. Knitting needles, hot baths and gin...it all went on and still would if the whole affair was made illegal. The woman shoulders a huge burden physically and mentally to go through an abortion. They alone can make the choice and should be fully supported. This is, of course, in an ideal scenario where the incident was one that had bonafide factors supporting it, not a couple who keep on having unprotected sex like there\'s no tomorrow - he should be neutered and the lady spayed)
Edit - and don\'t even try and make yourself out to be too dumb to knock people down a peg or two
You do it like the best of them, but always with a hint of decency
freakinacage
Well-known member
agreed
vincegamer
Active member
Yes, under certain circumstances in the state of Oregon.
The point is, the Fed aren\'t interfering.
funnymouth
Active member
we make cruel hard choices all the time, and people (and animals) die for the convenience (or worse) of others regularly. there is no claim of nobility, only of reality.
I don\'t disagree at all...butsome of the more fervant \"pro-choicers\" do make this claim of nobility...or make allusions to it....as if killing an unborn child is their birthright...
I heard a comedian with a very interesting take on Abortion (not too many stand-up acts take on this topic)...anyhow, his point was that the Woman in the Roe v. Wade fought for the right for abortion, but by the time the law was passed, it was too late for her to have one....so she had the kid.
One joke goes....\"That kid will never complain about how slow the legal system is\" lol
Come on, we\'re in a world we\'re people are often little more than number, economic decisions taken by elected official cause the death of thousand worldwide, but a child, a child is special and sacred, from the moment of it\'s conception. We don\'t give a shit about the people in other countries, but we\'re ready to kill for the right of an unborn child.
I like better behing callous than hypocrit.
The mother should feel for her baby, if shes ready to abort one minute before birth, which is not very likely, so be it, better late then never. I don\'t see how possibly anyone could decide for her.
If we use the term abortion, instead of killing, and murder and innocent child the topic would stay in reality. Someone who works in an abortion clinic kills babies all year round your telling me, what an horrible job:no:
I like better behing callous than hypocrit.
The mother should feel for her baby, if shes ready to abort one minute before birth, which is not very likely, so be it, better late then never. I don\'t see how possibly anyone could decide for her.
If we use the term abortion, instead of killing, and murder and innocent child the topic would stay in reality. Someone who works in an abortion clinic kills babies all year round your telling me, what an horrible job:no:
vincegamer
Active member
Yes, someone - the state of Oregon board of medical licensing.
Not the federal government, and not mere popular opinioni.
It\'s the product of a group of medical professionals getting together and deciding what is ethically permissible in their profession.
The issue as presented I think was whether the federal government can prohibit a certain practice deemed appropriate by medical professionals, not whether abortion is right or wrong.
Umm... you\'re a lawyer Vince. If someone disagrees with the state of Oregon and pushes it to the Supreme Court, then the Feds have no choice but interfere.
The Abortion case was pushed to the Supreme Court and they upheld the current law, with the provision that if medical evidence could be shown, they would rethink the matter.
As has been said many times in this thread, I don\'t think anyone feels that abortion for \"convenience\" is appropriate. But as funnymouth succinctly put it, people are faced with the harsh reality of considering pregnancy termination, and they should be able to have all available options open to them in a democratic society.
I\'m not sure what supervike\'s point is about the situations where a mother\'s life is at risk being \"few and far between\". I don\'t think he meant to say that it should be OK to infringe upon the personal freedoms of the few that are affected since they are a minority, but I will let him clarify what he meant.
vincegamer
Active member
Well, not exactly. If it\'s merely a question of state law, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. If it\'s a matter of federal statute or of a fundamental right, then the Supreme Court can decide whether or not a State prohibition is a violation of the US Constitution as applied to the states through the 14th amendment.
In abortion, the issue was state limitation on a woman\'s right to privacy and to receive medical treatment.
Euthanasia would probably fall under the same umbrella of course, but it hasn\'t been tested yet.
So perhaps I misspoke or was too brief.
The SCOTUS upheld a state law that limited abortions - basically said the state has the right to control its medical practitioners in this manner.
Where abortion is concerned, the courts have always stated it is a balance between the woman\'s right to privacy and the state\'s interest in boosting its population.
If the state can force the woman to have a baby, it can then force her to care for it too. Denial of an abortion is not merely forcing one decision, but forcing a lifetime of choices.
Adoption is great, if someone is willing to adopt the child. I remember in training seeing a very sad case of a child born with multiple malformations (spina bifida, hydrocephalus, and cerebral palsy). The mother did not want the baby, and neither did anyone else, as the child basically had to live in the hospital on a ventilator and with a feeding tube, with no hope of \"recovery\". A state appointed advocate made all the medical decisions pertaining to the child\'s care, and the state also paid the health care costs, which were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the several months of the child\'s life.
