When a woman spreads her legs she signs an unwritten contract...

Yet lifers continue to scream how irresponsible they are for getting pregnant in the first place, for opening their legs and letting men have sex with them. Sooooo irresponsible!

Oh church, will you ever stop misrepresenting the truth just to demonize your opponents? We all know full well that women don't choose late term abortions because they want to, it's because they have to and in those cases the pregnancy was wanted.

I just try to maintain consistency in my beliefs, but I know full well after several months the woman generally becomes attached to and wants to carry her pregnancy to term. That is her choice and I have absolutely no problem with people who want to become mothers.

It is a fact that 88% of abortions happen within the first trimester, within 12 weeks of pregnancy. It is at this time the fetus has no brain waves and can feel absolutely no pain. It is at this time it is best to decide whether or not she wishes to continue her pregnancy or to end it and the vast majority do.

Yet you don't care that the 88% abort in the first 12 weeks do you? You only care about the 1% that have to abort in the third trimester for medical reasons, for some reason or other your focus remains on these abortions and you feel these women must suffer more than they already are. I simply do not understand it.

 

Want to make a bet??

In fact if we a wider societal view of this statement we could say that America, in not allowing free immigration and sharing it's wealth with third world countries is denying a better life for millions of children

 

Because they have to? You mean because of the money? Or is it just too much inconvenience and burden placed on middle class women that will hold them back from their careers? Because I really suspect it's the latter.

More than 86% of abortions are done for the woman's convenience – in other words they didn’t want the child or felt they couldn't afford a baby.
(these statistics actually come from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice organisation; the statistics from pro-life organisations are even less flattering towards these women)

 

Will you please get it straight whether you're talking about late-term abortions or all abortions? Are you sincerely confused or are you attempting to confuse other posters? Only about .8% of all abortions are late-term, and virtually all late-term abortions are medically necessary. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester, most of those are elective.

 

Apparently there are not very many statistics available on why late term abortions are performed, so we cannot really know. Isn't that a little disturbing?

The most detailed information currently available is a very old 1988 Guttmacher survey of abortions taking place after 16 weeks, which listed these reasons for why an abortion was happening late in the gestational cycle:

71% -- Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% -- Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% -- Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% -- Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% -- Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% -- Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% -- Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% -- Woman didn't know timing is important

5% -- Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% -- A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% -- Other

 

Sixteen weeks isn't really "late-term" abortion. Religious Tolerance gives the most common reasons for abortions after the 3rd trimester begins:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

 

Thank you very much for finally clarifying what a late term abortion is and why women have them Grannie, since it seems that some here were very confused about it.

 

It's not exactly an early-term abortion either. At 16 weeks, the fetus is already transforming into a baby (an unborn baby).
http://www.pregnancy-information-guide.com/16-weeks-pregnant.html

Here is the baby/fetus at 16 weeks:


Here is a "fetus" aborted at 19 weeks - only 3 weeks later along its course of development than what we are talking about. Judge for yourself whether it is a baby or not:

 

That's still 1.2 million abortions in the USA.

I think someone is fibbing...
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/10/most-late-term-abortions-are-not-done-for-medical-reasons/

The vast majority of late-term abortions occur not because of any health problems, but because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy.
source: Cassing Hammond, “Recent Advances in Second Trimester Abortion: An Evidenced-based Review” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 200 (April 2009): 347–356.

 

And if your numbers are right, that's less than ten thousand late-term abortions, is it so incredible to believe that ten thousand late-term abortions could be medically necessary each year? That's a tiny number actually.

Remember what I told you about pro-life sites....they have to keep up the scare tactics to keep the money rolling in. You cannot believe them, they're motivated.

Remember what I told you about Fitzgerald....he's an ADMITTED liar.

 

Motivated by what? Their concern for little unborn human lives?

Okay, but my quote,

has nothing to do with Fitzgerald.

 

Their concern for the dollars coming in to keep them employed, their concern for their power over their sheep-like followers.

When discussing late-term abortion, you need to make it clear what you consider a late-term abortion. You have been discussing abortion past 16 weeks as if they were late-term; they're not. Pretty sure I posted this before in reply to you:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

 

Ultimately, no known values exist. Life is no exception. With the knowledge that life has no known value, then life has no value, for value only exists where it is known to exist. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with murder, only a violation of collectively generated subjective views, instinctual, irrational, without meaning.

The only reason 'murder' is recognized as such, and seems wrong, is because it is one of many acts that our human brains find to be socially unacceptable. As many are aware, there are many differences among human brains, even in the humanly characteristic right vs wrong differentiation ability.

In fact, it could even be said that the whole concept governing laws, punishment, and justice, is nothing more than a collective effort, not unlike genocide, where the group forces people to conform to their way of thinking, while enslaving and killing those who don't.

Laws were the tools the Nazis used as well, they simply made the mistake of alienating their views from that of the worldwide collective.

To categorize abortion as murder, one must first place themselves as a member of the collective; the mindless, subjective wolves that they are.

 

Of course they don't, for those who find comfort in the delusion of their absence; but for anyone worthy to be called a human being, they're at least as real as one's own right hand.

fify

 

Being human, while it does give a changing perspective, does not change the parameters for reality. The embrace of one's natural selection-formed subjective tendencies is not a path that can lead one to justifiably measuring which laws and rules could objectively be made. Throughout history, usually there was a majority that was strong enough to make their subjective tendencies seem like the 'right' ones, as history is written by the victorious. On the subject of something like abortion, you get 2 opposing sides of near-equal strength, which shows how out of tune with nature the human mind really is. It's no longer about choosing between right and wrong, it's about forcing the other side to believe that you're right.

In reality, both sides tend to have misconceptions, but in the end, since nothing anyone does actually matters, no law makes any sense whatsoever. The only life worth living is a virtuous one, lived by someone that questions the nature of the world around them, but one cannot expect any given person to live that way, nor can they be coerced. Forcing your will upon others is a primitive waste of time. Better if you simply acknowledge how absent of value your will is, so that you see why coercing or even possessing one at all is such a meaningless way to spend your pathetic time.

 

These pictures represent what the pro-aborts on this site champion. Look at them…..human beings, alive, hearts beating…and they say that it does not make a difference. What kind of person condones this?

 

Hmmmmm - except that the bottom one looks like an Edwards syndrome (trisonomy 18 ) - Tell me if it were the result of a surgical abortion why is the body intact? This baby looks like the result of a natural abortion possibly from intra-uterine death

 

Please, I wasn't born yesterday, and you don't believe a word of this drivel.

 

Motivated by an internal culture where they are self rewarding by telling themselves they are "saving" children. Funny that often the same people care little or nothing for the millions of dying children OUTSIDE America. Children who are not so fortunate as to have been born in an industrialised nation

 

But at 16 weeks that "baby" is NOT viable - even at 19 weeks they are not viable - the skin is not formed fully yet and would tear to touch the lungs are immature and would not support breathing the gut is also immature so you could not feed it.

Although this baby could have been the result of an abortion there is no indication that it was - in fact there are some indications of abnormality

 

Objectivism said,

The reality is…somethings alive or its not. The reality for the abortionist is….did I kill the unborn or not? Was the procedure successful? The reality for that which is living….is death. No one can sit the fence or say that is a gray area. That is fact, the truth…that is what is real.

 

Now take note that having legalized abortion has not created utter chaos.

 

Neither did Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews.

 

At 19 weeks a baby is darn close to sentience. I would hope that women would choose to have an abortion well before this time .. preferably before the first trimester is complete.

 

Giftdone…when does the heart of the child start?

And so I know your position….why should a woman be allowed to abort at all?