Question: Do you think some polotical definition for when life sttarts can be reached? What age of fetus develop would be yours? Opinion: Feel overwhelming number of doctors are in no way intersted in terminating ( ) in late stage of development, but life of the 'life' mother should come first, and government regulations in this area complicates some of the hardest problems most will ever see. Hoping states are given this issue to weed out medical people just interested in money to be made after some common defition of when life starts can be reached.Don't know how to list this under survey. Ayone telling how to find that category would be helpful.
2006-09-23 16:03:20 · 14 answers · asked by Mister2-15-2 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Nobody will ever agree on this topic but they need to make some sort of decision on it. Yes, many would be upset one way or the other but we could get over it and move on.
2006-09-23 16:10:02 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, I think we should all consider the life of the baby, or fetus first. And by that, I mean that we should look at the baby's future. We need to a good observation of the parents, the baby's would be envrionment, and other things like that. If you think about it, if someone wants to have an abortion, there probably is a good reason, most likely financial reasons. Now we need to focus on the baby's future, if the baby's parents are really poor, is it really worth it for the baby to survive in a poverty-ish environment? Should we deprive a baby from having a happy childhood just because people don't support abortion? I think we all need to reflect on our past, what, for those who had a happy childhood, was the reasons that led us to have a good childhood? It was most likely, love, caring parents, financial means of survival, and perhaps some spoiling. That is not to say that orphans can't have a good childhood, but most tend to be happier with their biological parents. Also, adding an unwanted baby to the world population is just as bad. We don't need the unwanted population, not only for resources but no one deserves to live and grow up in a sub par environment.
2006-09-24 03:34:22 · answer #2 · answered by bloop87 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can only give you an answer as it relates to my personal opinion.To ME, life begins at conception.I would never consider abortion for MYSELF under any circumstance.I believe it is murder.
However,I am not in the position to make that decision for anyone else.I believe it has to stay legal in the early stages because we all know that women would find a way to get one anyway which could put their life in danger.Abortion in the late stages should never be allowed except in the extreme circumstance of the mother losing her life.If you really understand what the partial birth abortion truly is,that to me is flat out murder.
Just my humble opinion,all I can offer.
2006-09-23 23:51:31 · answer #3 · answered by stellablue1959 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as abortion is a national issue, it will remain unresolved. If abortion were left to the states (as it probably should be under the Constitution), then it's likely that some consensus would develop.
In Europe, anti-abortion laws were overturned by the elected brances, and abortion is a virtual non-issue over there. In America, where the political branches are permitted little say in determining the parameters of permissible abortion, political opponents have and will continue to make abortion a highly salient, highly controversial issue. Thus, my answer to your question is "no," no consensus can be reached.
2006-09-23 23:09:12 · answer #4 · answered by Nate 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good question. If life doesn't start at conception, then when? 2 months? 6 months? As for myself I see a difference between a few cells and a mostly developed fetus. Abortion should happen only in the very few extreme cases of rape, incest and such. It should always be treated as what it is, the taking of a human life. The murder known as "partial birth abortion" should be banned.
2006-09-23 23:16:38 · answer #5 · answered by Michael 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Entertainment tab and then Polls & Surveys
Point of viability is a debate among doctors. I don't have a medical degree so I cannot give an educated guess. My personal feeling is that once that baby can survive outside of the mother's body, no abortion can be given. If the mother's life is in danger, take the baby and let doctors try and save it, don't just abort it.
2006-09-23 23:05:26 · answer #6 · answered by Salem 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Interesting question.
When does an acorn become a oak tree?
If an acorn isn't an oak tree, can you make me an oak tree without one?
In answer to your question, I don't think so.
There is just way too much controversy and deep convictions surrounding this topic to be discussed in a logical, scientific discourse.
This subject creates ten different answers if you ask ten different experts. It is way to complex to leave in the hands of politicians to hammer out a reasonable solution.
2006-09-23 23:18:30 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are "we" debating this? It isn't for us to debate any more. A committee of lifetime appointed lawyers in Washington D.C., aka, the Supreme Dictators of the United States, have already debated this and decided for us. We don't have a vote on this any more. Not unless Roe v. Wade gets overturned.
2006-09-23 23:24:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
life should be considered started when you can detect a heart beat.
Life of the mother should come first, ..I had a STAT c section, it was very scary and my Dr told me that I would have been one of those women that would have died years ago during child birth, and the baby would have too, I am just not capable of doing it on my own.. c section this time too...but it is planned
2006-09-23 23:08:46 · answer #9 · answered by Blondie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should not be left up to government at all, it is a moral issue and the government will never be able to legislate morality.
2006-09-23 23:10:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋