Late Term Abortion

[Divinus Arma]

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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-

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

Murder.

[JAG]

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.

[JAG]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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.

[JAG]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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.

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.

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

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.

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Ice]

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

[CountArach]

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

I thought you were a libertarian?

[Sigurd]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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

I would expect a bit of understanding towards my statement, given my background. No one can make a reasonable argument that I discount the sacrifice of my country's greatest citizens.


I will admit to a poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.

Comparing the tragedy of troop deaths in Iraq against the number of late term abortions provides a picture of just how severe the abortion problem is. 3,000 lives have been lost in this war and a near number of viable human lives are murdered annually via late term abortion. These numbers are lost on an apathetic population who is almost entirely fed the information they rely upon for political perspective.


I believe that better articulates my intent.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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 would expect a bit of understanding towards my statement, given my background. No one can make a reasonable argument that I discount the sacrifice of my country's greatest citizens.


I will admit to a poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.

Comparing the tragedy of troop deaths in Iraq against the number of late term abortions provides a picture of just how severe the abortion problem is. 3,000 lives have been lost in this war and a near number of viable human lives are murdered annually via late term abortion. These numbers are lost on an apathetic population who is almost entirely fed the information they rely upon for political perspective.


I believe that better articulates my intent.

Thank you for the clarification, DA, and allow me to apologise for my unwarranted condemnation.

I read your original statement as if you were considering the many thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq as somehow less important than the aborted foetuses.

It was a crass misunderstanding on my part, more telling of my own prejudices. I should have considered the quality of the man posting, and I apologise again.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[PBI]

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?

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

While I agree with you that birth is no minor 'inconvenience,' and that giving a child up for adoption can be extremely traumatic, from what I understand, abortion is usually extremely traumatic as well. A mother simply parts with her child by giving it to another or simply parts with her fetus/child by ending its life. It's not an easy choice either way.

Generally I support a woman's freedom (with input from husband/boyfriend if he sticks around) to make such choices about her family and body over the government making such decisions for her, though I'm not a fan of abortion and would prefer women to choose against it, and though I'd definitely prefer she deal with the issue early in the pregnancy except in cases of late-term discovery of impending birth defects or danger to the mother's health.

Ajax

[Ironside]

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.


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...

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[PBI]

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.

[Goofball]

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.

While a female having a mastectomy I guess could be considered a form of birth control, I believe the more common (and far less invasive) method of birth control is for the male to undergo a vasectomy.