A friendly question for pro-choice advocates…?

Question

Statistics show that most of you are strongly opposed to ‘late-term’ abortions (stating generally that once a baby has developed to the point where it could survive on its own, the mother shouldn’t have the choice of aborting it). However, I would like to know which, if any, of the following exceptions would justify the legal right to a late-term abortion in your opinion:

1.The baby has a life-threatening disease, or a crippling disease that would likely lead to the child being miserable in life (as well as a great burden)
2.The baby is simply unwanted by the mother, and the world doesn’t need anymore unwanted children
3.The baby was due to rape or incest
4.The baby would be a financial burden that the mother cannot handle
5.It is simply as issue for the woman to decide and not the government.
6.The life of the mother is in jeopardy

For whatever reason, a decision could not make a decision until the late term ...Thanks and I look forward to your responses!

Answer 1

For the record, I am opposed to any abortion after the point of viability, approximately 24 weeks gestation.

1) No.
2.) No.
3.) No.
4.) No.
5.) No - and I can explain why. After the point of viability, there is no doubt as to the life of the fetus. It is no longer merely potential life, but has the capacity to exist outside of the mother. Because of that, it is no longer morally acceptable.
6.) Touchy. I still say no, that the fetus should be delivered and placed on support, as it is past the period of viability. This need be no more invasive than an abortion procedure would be, and is in my opinion more ethical. However, I (and the government, and doctors) am in no position to tell another human being that they must put their life at risk for another person, so as I said: touchy.

Answer 2

It's not really up to me, but if I was the one creating the law....

1. It would depend on the mother if she wanted to have it.
2. The mother should've aborted much earlier. No.
3. Yes, but this would be a rare case. Most rapes, reported or not, are followed by the morning after pill automatically.
4. The mother should've aborted earlier. No.
5. It's for a woman to decide during the window of opportunity. The law doesn't extend for irresponsibility. Late term abortion is illegal except under certain circumstances.
6. Yes, but the mother should decide whether she wants herself or the child to live if she's able to speak for herself.

For my answer on number five, many can argue that getting pregnant is irresponsible so why should abortion be allowed at all? How many women do you know would spend $250 to have an abortion every time she got pregnant as a form of birth control when birth control pills and the morning after pill are much less expensive? Most abortions are due to rape and primary birth control failing. That's not irresponsibility. That's misfortune.

Answer 3

As is true with most everything in life, not everything is as black or white as your question might imply. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I'm pro-choice - I think each woman must make up their own minds what would be best for them. That said, in my mind I think that abortions should not happen if the fetus could actually survive outside the womb - typically babies born a month (or more) early survive with few if any complications. From what I understand (and I am by no means an expert or even well-read on this subject) most doctors won't perform an abortion after the first trimester under ordinary circumstances - there would have to be something seriously wrong (medically) with the baby or the mother for them to perform later abortions. I think this is the way things should be, but I would not want legislation dictating what medical procedures should be done when - that right should be preserved for women and their doctors. Lawmakers are not medical experts, so they shouldn't be making these sorts of decisions.

Answer 4

Reason #3 is a good argument for *early* abortion -- if I had been raped, I would think of it as HIS baby, not mine, and why should a criminal get the opportunity to be a parent?

Reasons 1, 2, 4, and 5 all revolve around matters that must be decided by the woman, at any stage of pregnancy. It's tough and I don't necessarily like the idea, but I wouldn't want my choice taken away from me so I won't take anyone else's choice away, either.

Reason #6 should be a no-brainer -- a life that's already here, a real woman whose loss would break who knows how many hearts, has to count for more than the potential life in her womb. Again, I don't claim that's fair, but if the choice must be made then that's how it must be.

Answer 5

1.Yes. I don't see any of the pro-lifers stepping up to pay the astronomical medical costs for these type of babies and it is crippling to the family physically,mentally and monetarily.
2.Absolutely not. Put it up for adoption.
3.Maybe. If it were a truly brutal rape because it would be devastating for the women to carry it. If you hadn't decided to abort before late term Give it up for adoption if you can't care for it.
4.Absolutely no. Put it up for adoption.
5.It is the woman's decision. If she let it get that far give it up for adoption if you don't want it.
6.Yes. Why kill the mother to save the baby. Either way someone is going to die.

All of the above except for the first one could be taken care of if every women had a supply of the morning after pills. Nobody would ever know that they were pregnant not even themselves. I would rather see them take these pills than watch them walk into the abortion clinics.

All

Answer 6

I propose the following additional reason:
7. There are not enough anti-choice people who are willing to do anything and everything to empty the adoption agencies of all those who need to be adopted -- including problem children, older children, those who have disabilities, etc.

If life is that sacred to anti-choicers then nothing else would compare and this wouldn't be a burden. If a pro-choicer realized that the world wasn't like that, then maybe this would be a reason for late-term abortion.

Answer 7

I would leave it strictly up to the mother to decide, on whatever grounds she pleases, whether to carry a pregnancy to term. It is she, after all, who will have to find the additional 50,000 calories required, and who will be responsible for the care of the infant if it is born. Although it is obvious that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, it is equally obvious that that cannot give it unlimited rights as against those of the mother: compromise is necessary. The compromise laid down in Roe v. Wade was reasonable at the time, and still is.

Answer 8

1. Maybe. Yes.
2. No
3. Should have been done in the beginning. Near the end of the pregnancy NO.
4. NO, put the child up for adoption
5. Only in the beginning of the pregnancy. Not after 12 weeks.
6. Yes.

Answer 9

When I was a nurse we had a young pregnant woman who had developed cancer and her pregnancy was causing it to spread like wildfire through her body. It was decided to 'take' the baby at 6 1/2 months. Everyone, doctors, nurses, the mother, the husband were all sad but we all wanted to save this women.

That is a good reason for late term abortion.

Answer 10

Some of these questions are based, or should be based upon ones personal choice. People faced with situations like these, often have a real dilemma. One should go to God in prayer, seek facts from the Medical team and decide as a family. Things are not always black and white...as you know there is a lot of grey areas in life. God will lead people in difficult places to make choices according to his will.