A fetus is now considered viable at 10 weeks gestation.
2006-08-29 17:34:43 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Viable means able to survive outside the womb with or without life support. Many adults survive only because they are on some form of life support. Does that mean that they are no longer viable? Are their lives dispensable because they are a burden on their friends/family members? Do you advocate euthenasia as well as abortion?
2006-08-31 01:33:39 · update #1
Abortion should not be legal at any point. By the time most women realize they are pregnant (at 3 weeks after conception), the child's heart is already beating. See:
Photos of Abortions, Including 1st Trimester Abortions:
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
A Four-Minute, Must-See Video on Abortion:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
Information on All Aspects of Abortion:
http://Abort73.com
Photos and Facts About Prenatal Development:
http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2-prenatal.html
http://www.studentsforlife.uct.ac.za/foetal%20dev%20photos.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
http://www.lifeissues.org/ultrasound/11weeks.htm
Pain Perception in the Unborn:
http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/fetalpain.html
2006-08-30 02:27:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
A fetus is not viable at 10 weeks gestation if you mean viable being that it could live outside the womb. I believe in most states it is 12 weeks and others it is 16 weeks. I believe if a person is going to get an abortion, they need to do it sooner than later. For those of us that are pro-choice, we know its a baby, nobody is arguing that point, however, it should be the mother's choice on what to do with her body and that of her fetus. I think its really a sad day when people think its alright for a 12 year old girl to be raped by her father and impregnated to have to go through a pregnancy, labor, and delivery of a child and have that permanent scar the rest of her life. She too is a child that needs protecting. The same argument could be made of a rape victim, and other situations like this. Some of you may say, "its not the baby's fault" and this is true, but at some point in time, we have to look at what is best for the woman or girl that would be carrying this child.
2006-08-30 00:53:12 · answer #2 · answered by frr_ls 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
At whatever the point of medical viability -- meaning that the fetus can survive without any more physical or biological involvement from the mother -- then there are now valid alternatives to abortion.
At the point, where the mother can choose to no longer be physically or biologically involved in the process, her only remaining rights is to have the fetus taken out of her body. If the state mandates that once taken out, the fetus will be allowed to continue develop using medical technology, that is within the state's authority. It just doesn't have authority to require the mother to participate against her will.
That's the essence of the freedom of choice. To control the mother's involvement in the process, not to decide what happens to the fetus after.
2006-08-30 01:14:38 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Maybe we should outlaw all anti-life activities, such as abortion, birth control and abstinence?
The abortion debate will never end.
It is a matter of where we draw the line.
Life does not start at conception. Human sperm and ova are alive before conception, thus they are part of the human life cycle. Sound silly? Yes, it is silly, but quite true.
2006-09-04 09:32:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ah, one of the most controversial topics... My answer is Yes. I believe a child is not conscious nor fully developed at that time. I don't consider a baby "a baby" until it actually takes it's first breath. I think it should definatly be legal but only the choice of the pregnant woman. After all, a normal mother makes the decisions for her child until he/she becomes an adult. Why couldn't she make this decision herself? Should politics really have a say? Seems unconstitutional to me.
2006-08-30 00:53:30 · answer #5 · answered by c_los915 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Big difference between 9 weeks and 6 days and 10 weeks and one day. Those 48 hours make all the difference, eh?
2006-08-30 01:10:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, whether it is 8 weeks, 10 weeks or 14 weeks it is still a human life that is being destroyed.
2006-08-30 00:43:03 · answer #7 · answered by maddmummy 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Sucking a baby out of your body at any age and dumping it into a sink is a morally wrong. In God's eyes, it is murder. You will never forget that you killed this unborn child for your selfish reasons. Give your sweet ungrown baby to a family that will love it and take care of it. You will not be sorry.
2006-08-30 00:44:38 · answer #8 · answered by HowdyTracy 1 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I dont think it should be legal at all, but i guess the closer they get to conception makes me feel some what better. Well not really, they should all be illegal.
2006-08-30 00:41:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I really can't stand academic questions like this. 3.714 million cells? How about 3.715 million? Given that its entirely impossible to poll the depth of one's personhood (particularly during development) with that kind of granularity, I think we're going to have to go with one extreme or the other.
-- You guys mod me down because you are absolutely clueless. Note that i said one extreme or the OTHER. I noticed the pattern here to modding down pro-choice over pro-life answers.. My answer should not be pegged like this. But then again, the average Yahoo!er has an exceedingly low IQ
2006-08-30 00:41:17 · answer #10 · answered by Alex 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋