Late Term Abortion

I can understand when a woman might have a late term abortion if the fetus has a defect that will contribute to a life of pure misery for the child or if the woman may die.

I also understand that Later Term Abortion is around 1% of all abortions in the United States.

But what disgusts me is the reasons that woman think it is okay to kill a viable unborn infant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

---

Dude. 2%?

And you abortion advocates find it perfectly acceptable to suck a baby's brains out or chop it up while it is alive in the womb? How can it be that the same people who want to save the frickin whales and help the ignorant and destitute also find it okay to murder viable unborn babies as a matter of convience?!?!? Notice rape isn't a big factor on here either. Horrific.

DA, I'm not sure that anyone on this board is a defender of late-term abortions. In a moral danger zone, late-term abortion is definitely the nuclear meltdown. Fortunately it is relatively rare.

I stand by my prediction that technology will make abortion obsolete long before our society can settle the issue.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

How can it be that the same people who want to save the frickin whales and help the ignorant and destitute also find it okay to murder viable unborn babies as a matter of convience?!?!?

---

Just remember, the double-standards apply equally to abortion opponents, who as often as not are in favor of capitol punishment and torture (or "enhanced interrogation," for the Newspeak fans in the house). Indeed, there was an editorial on NRO recently that talked about how abortion is a special and elevated issue:

The thing about abortion is, it's not just any other issue — as serious as so many others are. Abortion is not open to debate.

While conveniently ignoring the legalization and institutionalization of torture, and equally dangerous moral position. From an authority on the subject:

Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”.

So let's not go pretending that leftist abortion-rights advocates have a monopoly on cognitive dissonance.

Murder.

While I freely admit that I don't want to know any gory details with regards to abortion, and thus can be slammed as a hypocrite or as not fully understanding the issue, I feel like I have to reply at least in part to this.

While these abortions are of 'viable' foetuses, some of the reasons given do, in my opinion, have some rights on their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma, from Wikipedia

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant

---

Amazingly enough this does happen. This happened to someone from my work quite recently. She went to the hospital due what she thought was a stomch complaint, and was told she was in labour! These circumstances where a woman doesn't know she is pregnant, should be as permissable as abortion at earlier stages in gestation.

Quote:

---

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

---

This also is not down to the woman in question. If they have tried to get an abortion, and have been turned away, or haven't been able to get to a clinic or something like that, it is out of their hands. That it is a late term abortion is down to the system. These women shouldn't be ostracised for something that isn't their fault.

While I understand that surveys like this are not perfect, and there is the possibility that some participants were less than forthcoming about some reasons for their desicion. The two major reasons for late-term abortions, should in my view be socially acceptable.

As I've said I know little about the issue, and this is just my opinion.

Quote:

---

I stand by my prediction that technology will make abortion obsolete long before our society can settle the issue.

---

That could be a point of debate, far more than what the thread was aimed at - because, as you state, to my knowledge no one here defends abortion after 24 weeks if there is no risk to the mothers / babies life or rape etc.

However, for me at least, just because a fetus might be saved by modern medical advances before the legal limit in many countries - I think some babies can be saved with good success at 20 weeks when born premature, now - it does not mean that the legal limit for abortion should be lowered.

The argument for abortion is sound no matter when new medical advances can save a fetus. There is a natural change at around 24 weeks so that the fetus can be described as a human and that doesn't change. What happens when we can save fetus after 14 weeks or 7 weeks, what happens when we can clone humans, does that mean no abortion should not be allowed? I think just because unborn babies can be saved before the 24 week line, it doesn't mean that abortion should be tailored to that limit. Women should always have the choice of whether to have an abortion, regardless of technological improvements, so I don't agree that improvements in medicine will mean that the abortion question will become obsolete.

Oh and I think it not only smacks of ignorance but also of complete lack of understanding when men sit around and are amazed or disregarding or abusive towards women who don't know when they are pregnant. When was the last time you were pregnant or any man was, maybe we should sit out on the judgement on that particular part of the equation.

JAG, I'm afraid my cryptic "technology will solve this" statement has left me open to misunderstanding. I do not mean that all fetuses will be made viable. I do not mean that all unwanted babies will be raised by robot nannies and trained to fight as the Emperor's Sardaukar.

Rather, I imagine that 100% safe, 100% effective contraception will become available, maybe within our lifetimes. Imagine being able to "chip" your son or daughter, and prevent them from conceiving until they want the chip turned off. That's the sort of thing that will end the abortion debate, and not because anybody will ever sort out the morality.

I figure our grand-children will view abortion the way we view lobotomies or surgery without anesthesia; a quaint, weird and bloody custom from the old days. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Rather, I imagine that 100% safe, 100% effective contraception will become available, maybe within our lifetimes. Imagine being able to "chip" your son or daughter, and prevent them from conceiving until they want the chip turned off. That's the sort of thing that will end the abortion debate, and not because anybody will ever sort out the morality.

---

And this is exactly what we should be hoping for, or moving towards.

I see, I see. I guess that might happen, but within our lifetime? I am not so sure!

Around 1,370,000 unborn human beings are killed every year in the U.S. More than 13,700 (update: whoops) are killed late in term. For those of you who believe that late term abortions are infanticide, how can we sit around and let this happen without addressing it? Imagine if this happened to week old infants out of parental indifference or callousness toward life. How would the response be different?

So many people do defend late term abortions that it is scary. When the partial birth abortion ban came into effect in the U.S., both Clinton and Obama said that it was a bad decision. What the heck?

Abortion is homicide. Partial birth abortion and late term abortions are just the most obvious manifestation.

TuffStuff, the numbers you just typed say that 10% of all abortions are late-term. I have never heard that number before. As in the OP, the most common estimate is that somewhere around 1%-2% of abortions are late-term. Where are you getting your stats from?

I think its pretty nifty that we unaborted fetuses can post about this topic over and over again... Thanks Mom!!!:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Around 1,370,000 unborn human beings are killed every year in the U.S. Around 137,000 are killed late in term. For those of you who believe that late term abortions are infanticide, how can we sit around and let this happen without addressing it? Imagine if this happened to week old infants out of parental indifference or callousness toward life. How would the response be different?
So many people do defend late term abortions that it is scary. When the partial birth abortion ban came into effect in the U.S., both Clinton and Obama said that it was a bad decision. What the heck?

Abortion is homicide. Partial birth abortion and late term abortions are just the most obvious manifestation.

---

I'd assume that thats a typo? I wouldn't know as I haven't looked into this issue in depth before.

However, with reference to the bolding I have provided. This is exactly why abortion (not so much late-term), should be allowed. If a child is unwanted it follows that it will be uncared for on some level. In the extreme case, this will lead to indifference and callousness, and eventually infanticide via the medium of neglect. Do we want this to happen in our modern and 'civilised' society?

Consider also the position of a family that knows there is a foetal defect, that could drastically effect the health of either the unborn child or mother. Should abortion be disallowed as an option, despite clear risks, or a reduced quality of life? (I'm aware that this is off topic, but feel that it needs to be said).

Should a woman who is still a child herself be denied an abortion even if a baby would ruin her life, and leave her unable to provide a decent life for herself or the baby?

While this is a tender issue I believe the answer to the above is an emphatic no!

Abortion should be allowed, it should be down to the prospective mother to decide what she wants for her life.

I'm all for full abortion rights, but I draw the line at Late term abortions. I think that is what many of the forumites from the left believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Amazingly enough this does happen. This happened to someone from my work quite recently. She went to the hospital due what she thought was a stomch complaint, and was told she was in labour! These circumstances where a woman doesn't know she is pregnant, should be as permissable as abortion at earlier stages in gestation.

---

Mistakes happen. A responsible adult should opt for reliable forms of birth control. If birth control is unacceptable, than abstinence or masectomy is preferable to murder of an innocent life.

Quote:

---

If a child is unwanted it follows that it will be uncared for on some level. In the extreme case, this will lead to indifference and callousness, and eventually infanticide via the medium of neglect. Do we want this to happen in our modern and 'civilised' society?

---

So let's kill our children earler instead of later? There are alternatives to ending a relationship with a child. Murder is not the option of a caring and civilized society.

Quote:

---

Should a woman who is still a child herself be denied an abortion even if a baby would ruin her life, and leave her unable to provide a decent life for herself or the baby?

---

As I said, there are alternatives to abortion. The mother's life will not be impacted after delivery. Every Fire Station I know of is a "safe surrender" location where a mother can drop off her newborn with no questions asked.


The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.

We can change the culture by recognizing that feticide is immoral and criminal, tantamount to murder, while also promoting and advocating tax payer and private non-profit alternatives. I would rather be raised in a foster home or in a government orphanage than have my life stolen just as it began. How many wonderful people have been killed before they even had a chance to begin?

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion. And all for convience.

I never gave much attention to this subject, but now that I have looked into it, I am truly saddened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion.

---

Truly DA, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, that has to be the most morally ambivalent statement of the year so far.

:no:

I'd say murder, although I'm sure there are always people willing to defend this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I'd say murder, although I'm sure there are always people willing to defend this.

---

I thought you were a libertarian?

I am sure he would say even libertarians understand the need for laws and intervention in the case of murder.... But we all know it isn't murder anyway (or should know)

And DA - you are right, those few thousand soldiers and few hundred thousand Iraqis are so over hyped in the liberal media. To think, millions died in WW2.

I’ll take the bait…

Yes, late term abortions should only happen if a problem is discovered that will lead to a life-time suffering for the children or a life-threatening situation for the women. In fact I think we already have this established by law here. Too bad the USA hasn’t.
Rape and abuse would be my other reason for terminating a pregnancy, but there is no reason that can’t happen within the first 8 weeks of the pregnancy.
For all other reasons: You do the deed, you should be prepared to take the consequences. Give birth to the child. If you then don’t want it, put it up for adoption.

And finally the petrol on the embers:
It should be the non-believers that should be most upset with life ending before it even began, not the believers. Those that believe in a heaven would recognize that these children would go back to the God that sent them. A life in heaven would be better than any life on earth.

I respect what you are saying, but the topic seems to have shifted to general 'Is Abortion acceptable?'. Oh well then, my views and response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Mistakes happen. A responsible adult should opt for reliable forms of birth control. If birth control is unacceptable, than abstinence or masectomy is preferable to murder of an innocent life.

---

The fact remains that even birth control is not 100% certain. As you say mistakes do happen. However, everyone deserves a second chance. If the woman in question, and lets face it, usually the bloke involved, if he's uncaring, will find a way to skip off, can't handle having a child, whether through, youth (teen pregnancies do happen), or social or mental circumstance, this is the only way of erasing a mistake of this magnitude.

Quote:

---

So let's kill our children earler instead of later? There are alternatives to ending a relationship with a child. Murder is not the option of a caring and civilized society.

---

I'd argue with the use of the term murder, but nothing else here.

Quote:

---

As I said, there are alternatives to abortion. The mother's life will not be impacted after delivery. Every Fire Station I know of is a "safe surrender" location where a mother can drop off her newborn with no questions asked.

---

In a perfect world adoption would be a better option, I agree, the fact remains that people are unwilling to go through nine months of inconveniance to get to that point.

Quote:

---

The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.

---

This is a major issue with modren society.

Quote:

---

We can change the culture by recognizing that feticide is immoral and criminal, tantamount to murder, while also promoting and advocating tax payer and private non-profit alternatives. I would rather be raised in a foster home or in a government orphanage than have my life stolen just as it began. How many wonderful people have been killed before they even had a chance to begin?

---

While it is true that many wonderful people may have had their lives 'stolen', it is equally true that many bad people will have also. It's a question of when life truly begins, and for me, it is at birth.

Bah. An abortion is an abortion IMO. And I'm not against it.

The only reason I can support a time limit on abortion, is because the operation is a lot smaller and easier for the woman the earlier it is.

I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of this discussion. The title of the thread is Late-Term Abortion. I take this to mean abortion after 24 weeks, in which case this is already illegal except when the mother's or baby's life is in danger. As far as I'm aware nobody here is disputing that this should be the case. If late term abortions are taking place on the scale some here suggest, then either they must be for medical reasons or they are already illegal. So could somebody please explain to me why we are still having this discussion?

Quote:

---

The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.

---

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with the characterisation of giving birth to a child and then giving it up for adoption as an "inconvenience". The first is extremely painful and potentially dangerous and the second extremely traumatic; even if there is no way the mother can realistically care for the child herself it is absurd to suggest that any mother can simply part with her child without any sense of sorrow or remorse. In fact, if she can do so I might suggest she really isn't fit to be a mother anyway.

Please understand, I am not justifying late term abortion. I simply feel the characterisation of birth and adoption as "inconvenient" is a gross understatement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

then either they must be for medical reasons or they are already illegal. So could somebody please explain to me why we are still having this discussion?

---

Because it the US it is not illegal. Unfortunately there the whole discussion seems to be domintaed by the "all-or-nothing" groups at both end of the spectrum, leaving what seems to be a less vocal majority that could live with a compromise standing at the sidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.

---

That makes modern culture a very loooooooong phenomena. Infanticide is sadly even older than humanity itself. :book:


IMO, the problem in the US when it comes to abortion is that the driving parts are the extremists on both sides who see any comprimise as a loss or something to move further on. And the opponents know this.

For example, what compromise does you in the "abortion is murder"- crowd consider to be acceptable? Compare that stance with the laws in the rest of the world...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I am sure he would say even libertarians understand the need for laws and intervention in the case of murder.... But we all know it isn't murder anyway (or should know)

---

If a fetus can live on its own out of the womb, how is it not murder? :inquisitive:

And how many of those iraqis were killed by.... other iraqis?

a cow is a cow. does it know it will be killed? I'm against late term abortions, but I am pro raising unwanted children into industrial servitude to feed my ever growing desire for electronic gadgets, and economically efficient automobiles. And if the "herd" is well, past its prime dispose of it quickly, and get the newest and youngest batch available asap, I gotta feed my kids somehow.

If that's the case, that the debate is utterly polarized into extremist fanatics on both sides, then it seems to me that the "abortion is murder" crowd are at least as culpable for the fact that late term abortion is still legal as those who defend it. If, rather than labelling their opponents as "baby-murderers" and trying to force an outright ban on all abortion which no one in their right mind could ever agree to, they were more reasonable and actually tried to reach a compromise, they might get somewhere.

I rather suspect that their interest lies more in all the fun of incendiary rhetoric and condemning their enemies than in actually trying to reduce the abortion rate. I am familiar with the type from my old student protesting days: A good deal of "activists" would be there because they enjoyed all the fun and palaver of a protest and the sense of righteousness that comes with having a moral "cause" rather than because they actually cared about the issue.

Edit:
Panzer, my girlfriend used to work on a neonatal intensive care unit, and I'm afraid to say that although yes it is technically possible for a baby born a 20 weeks to survive, most will not and almost all of the rest will be severely brain damaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If a fetus can live on its own out of the womb, how is it not murder? :inquisitive:

And how many of those iraqis were killed by.... other iraqis?

---

Not gonna derail the thread with your second point, we have covered Iraq so much already.

As to your first, it is a cheap point which makes no sense even in your thinking on this subject. So you would quite happily state then that those fetus' which can't survive outside the womb on their own - and we have a funny way of saying 'on their own', they are hooked up and kept alive by a machine, yeah really 'on their own' - are not murdered at all. If you are to bring in, 'it is murder because it can survive at 20 weeks', surely that leaves you open to, 'well at 18 weeks when it can't survive, it isn't'.

To the question: If you've had sex and don't want a baby, do a pregnancy test in 2 weeks. If +ve do something about it All contraception is not 100% safe. Be an adult and accept this, or be celibate or have a hysterectomy.

Although there are cases where children are born at 24 weeks or earlier and make a full recovery and lead a full, active life, they are in the minority. Many die. Most are mild to severely handicapped. Generally a mixture of severe damage to sight, low IQ and damaged lungs. And not to mention the massive drain on resources.

NOTE to the few who are unaware: these babies go to Special Care Baby Units. They have massive medical input with special food regimes, specialised medication, monitored oxygen and light levels. They would survie less than 1 day without this.

~:smoking: