Do you favor a 21 year old woman having choice to abort in 5th month of pregnancy?

Question

Her reason is she does not think she can afford to raise the child.


Be sure to give the reasoning for your opinion.....then....Also, assuming you say that she should be banned from aborting, lets move forward 8 years. She has had the child, a little girl, and is still dirt poor, has a very low paying job for minimum wage and has no healthcare.

Do you think that child should have access preventative routine non-emergency health and dental care? Or do you think the amount of care the child gets should be a function of the wealth of her family? So that for example, this poor little girl with the poor mother can get access to health care only in cases of emergency at some county hospital, and only after she is already seriously ill?

by not giving your reasons and also not answering the 2 separate aspects of the question, you are defeating the purpose of the question.

abortion......and then....healthcare......

I notice everyone is avoiding the second part of the question on health care? why??

YOU ARE AGAINST THE ABORTION FOR humanitarian reasons? why are you opposed to humanitarian care of the live child?

This question is designed to reconcile some contradictions that some of you may have in your political thinking. But I see, most choose to avoid it.

CARING ABOUT life is admirable....I just would like to see more of it !!!

I am not arguing in favor of abortion, I am want to see more care about life.

tossing out the term "socialized medicine" seem to be code for I am a hypocrite and say I care about life, but not really...only in some cases.

at last,Bruce gives an opinion that is backed by good logic.

LOL....AMAZING. Still they avoid the second part of the question on healthcare. I think I have made my point. YOur avoidance speaks volumes.

Answer 1

To answer your questions:
1. No, I don't favor the abortion.
Her reason is an excuse, if she cannot afford to have the child, then why she didn't use contraceptives or possible had surgery or even better, be abstinent? She can go to a local health department and get the contraceptives and learning material for treatment of STD. Health departments are having a lot of patients who cannot afford to pay for meds and they can even get you free condoms. Having sex without thinking about the consequences was irresponsible and she could have received a STD or worse AIDS, she can transmit that to other partners just because she wants to have some pleasure in life. And who is going to pay for the treatment of the STD? we, the taxpayers, they go to a health department and they will receive it for free.
2. Yes, the child should have routine medical care and dental care regardless of the economical situation of a family.
The child can have routine medical care and immunizations in a health department, so the excuse of not having healtcare is not valid. If the mother is so poor, there will be social workers who can help her in her financial situation and give her some benefts.
All the questions are answered.

Answer 2

claim that you are either an illegal immigrant or just be a democrat supporting bum and you will live happily ever after ! There are so many programs thanks to democrats so you go ahead and have 10 babies, because my tax dollars will pay for your care and your babies care (and education) for ever !

Now, in my own little world, the 21 year old in question should have thought about pregnancy 5 months ago when she had a choice about it ! Hell no she should kill the baby to save her own ***, she should have the baby and if she can't afford to care for it and doesn't want to embrace the liberal supported lifetime of welfare happiness, then put the child up for adoption. Mom should then pick out her choice method of birth control so this situation doesn't happen again.
The 2nd part of your question about the childs access to healthcare really hammers in the word poor. If you don't want to be poor then go get a job or 2 or 3, however many it takes to make ends meet and become self sufficient, it's really very simple. Yea the kid should have access to routine healthcare, that's what medicaid is for so it's already in place.

Answer 3

While I'm not completely against abortion, I think waiting until the fifth month of the pregnancy is really kind of cutting it close.

While I definitely understand the "I can't afford to pay for the child" argument, there's obviously some kind of cutoff point where this argument would no longer be feasible.

For instance, if a mother killed a child after birth, and then tried to use this argument, she would be considered 1) completely mad and 2) a murderer, pure and simple.

I think what we need to determine is how far into a pregnancy can you go before the above argument would no longer outweigh the life of the fetus. I'm of the personal opinion, if you're going to get an abortion, do it early in the pregnancy. A third trimester abortion disgusts me. An abortion in the fifth month is kind of right on the proverbial line, IMHO.

Addendum: I'm okay with the government providing some economic assistance for the child. In MA, we call it transitional assistance. I think it should live up to that name. It should be primarily to help the mother to help herself. It shouldn't be a long-term crutch, unless it's a situation where the mother is disabled or whatnot.

Answer 4

The older I get, the less I accept this type of reason because I have seen that having a child does not in fact ruin people's lives, as they fear will happen when they are young and pregnant and poor. The joy of raising a child is no less for a family that is poor, although the challenges are different, of course.

If she cannot or does not wish to raise the child, she will likely have more peace in her old age if she adopts the child to a family that can care for her, instead of wondering if she should have aborted her child.

There are programs -- Medicaid, CHIP, local programs -- to assist the poor with healthcare for their children. They are not perfect but they are better than you make it sound.

Answer 5

no, abortion should never be considered as a convenient problem solver, especially at 5 months. the ideal situation would be to put the child up for adoption, but that's not one of your scenarios. I think it would be in every ones best interest to provide preventive health care. prevention is always less expensive than emergency.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. My only exception would be if her life were endangered by the pregnancy OR if she was forced into having intercourse against her will.

Simply killing for convenience is never acceptable even if a layer of skin hides the body of the intended victim.

As for access to health care. Absolutely. Too many Americans look at everything in dollars and cents. They neglect to consider that early investment into every American child prevents ten times the costs down the road. We are currently spending $3 billion a week on Iraq. Yet cry about $2 billion a year that it would cost to take care of every child in this nation. This infers invading countries are more important than American children.

Answer 7

so being poor is a reason to not live? I dont give a damn how poor the child will most likely be. That doesnt give us OR the mother that right to decide for that child that it doesnt deserve a chance at life. Not everyone is like you in thinking that people should prefer death to poverty. If its there it deserves a chance just like you and I got. If you want to abort babies because they'll be born into poverty, then say goodbye to Colin Powell and countless other great people. You need to reanalyze your morals.

Answer 8

It cannot be generalized, since each situation is medically distinct.

Is that specific unborn capable of surviving on its own, or through the use of medical incubator technology....?

If yes, then the woman's only option is to have the unborn removed from her body and placed in the incubator.

If no, then they woman has the option of refusing to continue providing life support and bodily fluids --- even if that means the unborn does not survive.

People always have the right to decide if they want to be involved in a process that physically takes matter from their body -- but that's the only choice they get to make -- whether THEY are involved or not.

If the pro-life movement spent its money on researching medical incubator and gestation technology, instead of trying to change people's minds about the value of free choice -- we could avoid 90%+ of abortions without taking away the right to choose.

Because the right to choose only applies to whether the woman remains involved in the process -- if there is a way for her to stop being involved without killing the unborn, that solves the problem for everyone.

~~~~~~~~
EDIT:

The health care issue and debate is (to me) utterly unrelated an irrelevant to the issue of freedom of choice. For the reasons I stated above -- freedom of choice has nothing to do with the unborn.

But to answer your question, I oppose any mandatory participation in govt-sponsored health care. I would be in favor of any private or govt-funded health system, as long as both the participation and the taxation/contribution were voluntary.

Answer 9

The loving choice for both her and the baby inside her womb would be adoption, not abortion.

Answer 10

abortion is evil. if she aborts the child she will hear its crys for the rest of her life. there is not reason to kill a baby. and yes is is a baby no matter what stage it is at. and if she cant afford it there is always adoption. abortion is murder.