How would the gay community feel about this statement? Are they entitled to have children even though they cannot biologically conceive with their partner/spouse? Are people entitled to have children or have abortions for whatever reason(s)? I don't have an opinion either way, I'm just throwing this out there as food for thought
And Carhart was one of only a scant handful operating in the USA. How many of his abortions were for foetal abnormality incompatible with life? And once again we are back to late term abortions and in fact from what I have read many of the "twin reductions" are first term abortions and it appears are not even abortions as such. What happens is one twin is injected and dies and is resorbed. To understand how this can happen you have to understand that there are a lot more twins conceived than born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin
How is that ridiculous? A busy abortion practice typically sees 3 or 4 patients a day. Kermit Gosnell reportedly did up to 15 abortions in one day in his clinic. By his own account, Timothy Liveright, another abortion doctor, has performed about 50,000 abortions over three decades. He is alleged to have done as many as 30 abortions a day. Obviously these doctors have many people to assist them and try to minimize the amount of time they are with each patient. Many women who have had abortion report that they are first prepped by the nurses, then the doctor enters the rooms, does the procedure, and leaves as swiftly as he entered. With some of these clinics, it's like a conveyor belt. Even if 20,000 is an exaggeration, a single abortion doctor can still do a very large number of abortions. The ones that do abortions after 21 weeks tend to specialize in that, and women from other cities are referred to them.
It's an interesting question, though in my opinion I don't think there should be any restriction on adoption based on sexuality, surely it is far more important that there are people willing to give a stable, loving home to an otherwise forgotten child. It is sad to see that many people campaign against homosexuals on so many levels based on religion thus leaving children without the chance of a loving family. The question on entitlement is really two fold, an individual is entitled to do as they wish with their own body (remembering that the fetus is not classified as a "person" until birth), but once born the baby is an individual in its own right and as such no one is entitled to have it .. being that a child prior to 18 is deemed not able to make informed decisions either the parents or state must make those decisions for them and to be honest I personally couldn't careless if it was a one eyed, one legged lesbian dwarf couple who wanted to adopt so long as they can give the child a good, loving home.
I have no problem with a woman aborting a twin. Why would having two fetuses be any different than having one? I wish more people took control of their lives like the fictional woman in your scenario. Here we go again, getting hung up on reasons that you're literally inventing as you type. You don't know these women, so you assign them the positions that you "think" women have. Obviously you know nothing Jon Snow.
This is a bit off-topic, but here is something else on the topic of twins: Kansas Attorney General and District Attorney of Johnson County, Phill Kline, described how the infamous late-term abortion doctor George Tiller would contort the meanings of legal restrictions on late-term abortions beyond recognition. We had at one point an exception that allowed late-term abortions on viable children if there was a severe fetal anomaly. Dr. Tiller found a severe fetal anomaly in instances involving cleft palate, Down Syndrome, and healthy twins. The logic of it is clear: twins are an anomaly, are they not?
If a woman puts in the effort to take care of her body, there's no reason why a pregnancy has to mess things up. Rubbing on a little cocoa butter every day will prevent stretch marks. Plenty of women have had pregnancies, and their bodies are no worse because of it.
That cocoa butter thing is a myth. No woman has ever had a 9 month pregnancy that didn't damage her body in some way.
How many women who have gotten abortions were not damaged in some way? It's not the type of thing most women can just forget you know.
Do you think you could actually stomach being pregnant? Just asking.....I mean its horrendous, it changes your body, your physical and emotional state forever...it is terribly dangerous and it takes all your time...and energy..and the child is just a leech on you. It really about ruins your life...so says many pro-aborts on this forum. You want to do that? LOL
You speak from no experience at all. Your guessing..and that does not cut it...not at all. It can destroy your life...it changes you forever as it is one decision you never can take back. Knowing you killed a living human being...is not easy to live with. It would be for you...as your position does not value the life in the womb...so I would expect a rabid pro-abort would not shed one tear. But I believe you do not represent the majority. Either way..your guessing and come to this with no experience whatsoever. Unless you have had an abortion, have you?
I think it's only natural she would want to protect other young women from making the terrible mistake she did. As soon as a woman has gotten an abortion, the first thing she feels is relief. But then the other feelings start setting in...
It had nothing to do with not being able to afford a baby, or studying, or a career, that is for sure. And just because she has had an abortion, does not give her, or anyone else, the right to decide that abortion is wrong for everyone.
Looks like those "twin reduction" abortions are not always a "choice" for the woman: http://www.babble.com/mom/unnatural-selection-the-selective-reduction-of-twins-after-ivf/ One more reason these should be illegal. It's funny how pro-choicers keep talking about "choice", when so often the availability of abortion just ends up taking away women's choice.
But for her, abortion is morally wrong. If somebody feels that something which they have done in the past is very immoral, then it's just a basic part of human nature to tell other people not to make the same mistakes. Which is why some drunk drivers are now making speeches about the dangers of alcohol, which is basically just to warn others not to make the same mistakes that they have also made. - - - Updated - - - So what?
