How can anyone justify partial birth abortion or late term aborting a baby that would survive outside the womb

Question

they literly drush the baby's skull! Shouldn't that be a murder charge? A C section wouldn't endanger the mother's life and thousands of couples are on waiting lists to adopt babies. It seems to me to be cold hearted, cold blooded and should be criminal. What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

No, to a Liberal that is the woman's "choice" and "right" to crush her child's skull

Also, Barack Obama voted against legislation that would provide emergency care to "failed abortions", or children who are actually born alive. Can you believe that???

Answer 2

At the risk of sounding "non-progressive" or barbaric, I am incredulous that a rational, thinking society would condone killing the unborn at any stage, much less at the third trimester and beyond.

And at the risk of sounding sexist, men have absolutely no control over whether a woman gets pregnant or not, sans a condom or a vasectomy. The rest is on and in her. Her "choice" began when she said "yes". And so did his. After that, it's no longer a choice. Birth control is no substitute for self-control.

Left unmolested, a human blastocyst will grow into a newborn child 99.5% of the time in the United States. So, arguing for the 0.5% of the other cases (which comprise mostly of medical reasons) is simply intellectual dishonesty. The reality is that abortion, on any level is less about medical issues than it is about elective birth control.

I also find it interesting that the "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality grows cold when the "we should abort babies because they MIGHT grow up in poverty" argument pops up. Are we to concur that poverty equals a justification for killing? Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, then we should kill adults and children who fall below the poverty line, and the aged as well. Ludicrious? Yes, that's because it is.

Taking away any touchy feely conservative rhetoric and even the religious element, still leaves abortion as an illogical and barbaric practice.

And yes, when you take a life in a premeditated way, as all abortions are performed, then it is murder. It's even more heinous when it's done when the person is helpless and painfully aware of what's happening to him/her. In fact, a person who kills a pregnant woman nowadays can be charged with the unborn child's death as well. That is a double standard.

Consider this, how would you feel if I could go back in time and convince your mother to abort YOU, gentle reader? Would you try to stop me? Just because the future is unknown does not lead credence to the notion of killing simply because of what COULD happen.

Answer 3

This is such a horrendous issue.

It is a scarring issue. It is wrong to take innocent life. These women/girls, if they have a heart, will carry pain for the rest of their lives.

Why do illogical liberals want people in jail if they haven't cared for their animals properly, but are perfectly content with the killing of a viable human being?

Why picket for the life of a convicted criminal, but see no harm in taking the life of an innocent, viable human being?

I recognize there is a place and time for abortion (as much as it hurts my heart).

I swear people should read Orwell's "1984," the Libs are the "Party," what they ask us to do is "doublethink." Because when you look too closely, what they preach makes no sense.

*******

I must also add that any law that allows a child to have an abortion without parental knowledge is absolutely wrong. If my child of -16 isn't old enough to make the decision to have consensual sex! How can they have the where-with-all, maturity, or brains to decide to kill?!?!

Answer 4

most don't justify or support it. i believe it is more a fear that it may be the first step towards a total ban on abortion. look into the clinton years at a bill about partial birth abortion the republicans sent him that they attached a bill to cut money for the elderly. no win situation. it was used as a political tool by republicans. i think it is time to adress this and other issues in a logical way,not use it to gain votes. both parties are guilty of using things like this for their gain

Answer 5

This is where many liberals would actually agree with you.. I for one don't support late term abortion.. but you can't force a woman to have a C section.. can you imagine the slippery slope of allowing the government to force people to have a medical procedure?

Answer 6

It's easy. If carrying the baby or delivering the baby results in damage to the physical health of the mother, then it's justified. As for C-sections not endangering the health of the mother, what about a mother that already has an underlying medical condition? There are all sort of health problems that can make any surgery more dangerous than it would be for a healthy person.

To completely outlaw a medical procedure is really rash. Ultimately this is a health issue, and we should leave the question of the necessity of the procedure to doctors and not to a bunch of squeamish, dogmatic politicians.

Answer 7

What if the child will suffer a merciless and agonizing death from a genetic disease or birth defect? Think of how miserable a death from Tay-Sachs disease is, and it takes YEARS. Some women may find it a "humane" alternative.
I use that term loosely, I do not claim to know the mindset of a woman who has had to make such a decision. But I hope it offers a shred of justification.

It doesn't help matters that there are few tests that can detect a problem before the 5th month of pregnancy.
If they want to lessen the need for such a procedure, improve the testing methods for genetic diseases and birth defects. Make them sensitive enough to detect it before 12 weeks gestation.

Bottom line, it is a woman's right to control her womb.
Abortion is a informed decision a woman should have the right to make with her health care professional.
My uterus certainly doesn't belong to my boyfriend, and I'll be damned if I will let the Pope or a politician try to take posession of it.

Answer 8

If that procedure would be the only one available to protect the woman's life or health then it needs to be available. Chances are that 99.999999999999% of the time, this procedure WONT be the best way to protect the life or health of the woman and then it shouldn't be permitted. However, the law needs to allow for the slim chance that it might be the best chance for the woman to save her health and it currently doesnt.

And as a side note, the people that write these bans are hypocrites. The South Dakota ban that they passed last year only punished the doctor for 5 years.

Answer 9

Because life begins whenever the Liberals say it begins. Anyone who disagrees with them, you are a sexist. The lives of murdered children are not as important as animal rights, legalizing drugs, allowing anyone who wants to comes here amnesty, protecting criminals that are in this country illegally, then commit violent crimes while they are here, and making sure that God is eliminated from our country.
Besides, it is Bush's fault she got pregnant in the first place!!!

Answer 10

I am liberal. I believe in a woman's right to chose. However, I think you should make your choice in the 1st trimester. I don't believe in partial birth abortion, unless you had an abosutely life or death situation for the mother. Once the child can survice outside the womb, abortion should never be allowed.
However, unless you're a woman I think your choice was made when you decided not to wear a condom, so you don't need to even involve yourself with this question.

Answer 11

I think it is murder. Being a mother and having felt the baby move, I can't imagine how anyone can think that little baby is not an actual living thing. Isn't it interesting that in some states, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the person charged with the murder is also charged with the murder of the unborn child? Seems to me that if it's wrong in a case like that, it should be wrong all across the board.