2007-02-17 17:43:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
it is a personal choice of the person or persons involved. no one else. no government, no church, no person.
2007-02-17 17:50:45 · answer #1 · answered by L1M1J1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am pro-choice for a woman to have an abortion if she chooses. But...I find partial-birth abortions barbaric. If a woman finds that she is pregnant and chooses not to keep the child, she should make the decision within the time frame allowed by law and not wait until she needs to have a partial-birth abortion.
2007-02-17 17:54:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, as long as there's some sort of exigency clause -- I can't imagine why anyone would ever *have* to do a partial-birth abortion to save a mother's life, and a doctor would need all kinds of evidence to okay that, but if it were true, then of course all measures need to be taken. That's the ONLY reason pb abortions should be allowed (which is thus almost never), and I'm staunchly pro-choice.
2007-02-17 17:47:21 · answer #3 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have two answers for ya.
1) The only legal abortion should be done to save the life of the mother.
2) I'm a man so it's none of my damn business what a woman of legal age does with her body.
I'm cheating here but I'd like to know why it is that a woman can be arrested for selling what she has a legal right to give away? Just wondering.
2007-02-17 18:04:07 · answer #4 · answered by Koolaid Kid 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Vote to bypass a bill that prohibits somebody from knowingly appearing the technique wide-unfold as intact dilation and extraction, wherein a fetus is partly further in the previous it relatively is aborted. Clinton No Obama wasn't in congress in 2003, yet his vote might have been a similar. They for abortion dont be fooled it relatively is used whilst the youngster isnt needed. in the bill there have been 2 exceptions. one being the wellness of the mummy. and he or she voted against it. replace: Ashley Clinton voted for partial delivery abortion. Obama did aalso on a similar time as serving in the Illinois State abode. examine it out for your self.
2016-10-02 08:05:41 · answer #5 · answered by scoggin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no difference. It is murder. There is all sort of ways to keep from getting pregnant, like birth control pills and much more , why get pregnant in the first place, if you do not want a baby.
2007-02-17 17:53:58 · answer #6 · answered by m c 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. Every abortion kills an innocent human being, and killing innocent human beings is always wrong. Anyway, first trimester abortions are just as violent as partial-birth abortions:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-3-techniques.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
2007-02-19 08:09:17 · answer #7 · answered by Just the Facts 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure. Adoption should be made more available for people who want to have these partial birth abortions.
2007-02-17 17:52:16 · answer #8 · answered by monica your new bff 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.
I am against abortion in general.
However, I don't think this is an issue for the Federal Government. It's a State's Right issue.
2007-02-17 17:48:26 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Im against abortion in general except for the most extreme cases (rape or health)
too many people use it as birth control not an emergency. its wrong.
2007-02-17 17:53:18 · answer #10 · answered by abbington12 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Partial-birth abortion is just a more horriffic form of killing a human baby.
2007-02-17 17:49:22 · answer #11 · answered by CJohn317 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋