The ban on partial birth abortions

[JTRipper]

sorry, had to go to work.
As to Euthanasia being a crime, taking ppl off life support is done every day in nearly every state of the union. I guess "neglect" is not considered murder then, just like pitching a baby in a dumpster. Same thing in many ways.
And LOL at Divinci and Einstien. Leo primarily made his living designing military contraptions, and Albert?, uh, "Father of the Atomic Bomb". And why is it so much easier to become evil than good? How much effort does a smile take over say, loping the heads off new borns? Everyone notices when you kill screaming infants, but you do a good deed like donating food and clothing, taking payroll deductions to United way and caring for the elderly, you get ignored. BTW I'm a sucker for Girlscout cookies and Boy Scout raffles.

What you're calling euthenasia isn't euthenasia, nor is it neglect. When Dr. Kevorkian puts an old lady with bone cancer down, that's euthenasia - unlike an aborted child, she elected to go out. I think it shouldn't be illegal, but it is. I don't have access to any comprehensive records, but I think the first case of a 3rd trimester child asking to be killed has yet to be recorded. Another form of euthenasia would be making that choice for her if she isn't able to. Other than the "ending suffering" bit, that's a little closer to abortion, and it's also illegal. Taking someone off life support just isn't analagous. It's by either a) the expressed wish of the person concerned (living will), or b) of the family in cases where there is no chance of recovery for the person concerned. In either case, they're further distinguished by not being a viable person - they can't sustain themselves, or attain any worthwhile quality of life.

If the infants in question had the opportunity to scream, I think the ban might have happened long ago - but maybe not, since they'd be screaming where no one had to listen. Out of sight, out of mind; just keep it legal so I can get my sexx0r on! And if your tax deduction isn't enough and you'd like a medal for United Way donations, start another thread. Read a bit more on both DaVinci and Einstein also, your education on both seems to have been highly selective.

Girl Scout Cookies

Certainly I am evil incarnate and do not deserve a future, I might invent something devistating like anti-gravity. If my mom had had an abortion then I wouldn't be posting here, pretty simple really. The choice wasn't just her's, she is a responsible individual who weighs the facts. If my fetal mass had been a danger to her exsistance then you can bet your sweet ass my embionic fluids would have been one with sewage. Problem here is ppl having abortions because pregnancy and the possibility of a child interfers with their life styles. I already stated my opinion on those miscreants.

No, the problem here is people not making that decision until it isn't just about their lifestyle anymore. The ban also does provide an exception for women whose viable child (not "fetal mass") threatens their life. I disagree with it, but it's there. It also seems apparent that you're willing to make whatever mental contortions are neccessary in order to justify it to every possible extent. Sorry, but when you can remove it from the mother and it can live on it's own, it's past being a "fetal mass". If it isn't, then neither are you. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing what distinguishes you. Have you invented a "cognizant-thought-o-meter" we don't know about?

As too Bush signing legislation. LOL. I'm glad that as head of the Federal Government he is actually taking a stand. But really, unless he gets an ammendment to the Bill of Rights, States can do as they will, at the sacrafice Federal funds (monitary arm twisting tactics). Example: Federal Speed Limit over turned by Wyoming, hence Wyoming does not recieve Federal Interstate funding. SInce there is no "National Health Care", Bush is an idiot looking for public support for what? Maybe the Republican party? Wait, could we be coming up on an election year? Uh yea.

If I understand then, he shouldn't do anything that voters might care about because there's an election on the way. Is it your position then that politicians shouldn't do anything worthwhile during an election cycle? It's entirely possible that it was been timed with the election, but wouldn't that conspiracy theory work better in 6 months? Even then it kind of ignores the fact that he came into office with this on the table. If it had been a reversal of previous positions (i.e., Davis signing on the driver's licenses for illegals), or suddenly new (and happened next spring/summer/fall - voters as a whole have short memories) I could see your point. Fulfilling campaign promises, what a sneaky strategy. But instead your point seems to be "Heaven forbid he should follow through on campaign promises a year before an election". Yes, damn him for not getting congress to bring him a bill to sign last year or the year before, the scheming bastard. IT'S a PLOY!

No amendment to the Bill of Rights is needed, and states can't do what they like. Powers not provided to the fed are reserved for the states, but Roe vs Wade places abortion in the grasp of federal legislation, regardless of the fact that it isn't constitutionally provided. In fact, as far as I can tell the only thing the constitution has to say remotely regarding the potential lives of the unborn is in the preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While not law, the preamble is regarded as guiding the spirit of the constitution for purposes of interperetation. I think a good case can be made that killing them in their wombs does not secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity. That aside, it should be a state issue, but that ain't the case.

And dOOds, arguing over what the woman feels, wants, needs, whatever. She has a voice and can assimilate her own opinions just as good as any man. On the same note, let us ask the fetus:
"Blob of protien, do you want to live?"
"..."
"Hey you moved, that must mean yes"
"..."

Ok, is this where the problem is? You're not able to distinguish between a blob of protein and a viable child? Maintaining that level of intellectual dishonesty must be a burden. I guess you're a puddle of water, or a chunk of carbon?

Pity, I'm sure you would get a stronger response from the millions of Dogs and Cats that are "put to sleep" (awe, that sounds so nice) each year. Extermination seems to be a logical response to that dilema, and so does sterilization. Hey, didn't some German guy provide free spay and neuter clinics and gas millions of "animals". Funny, when things are taken to extremes, even "partial" practices become ugly and abohorant. However totally disgusting things that are common place get wide acceptance. If abortions were like wiping your ass, noone would demand legislation for butt plugs. Stupid arguement yet demonstrates a point.

And this, folks, is moral relativism at its finest. Germany needs you.

Problem with abortions 3 basic questions need to be answered: How, When and Why. If you ban abortions, the "where" moves out to more hazardous locals. How is the easy one, what ever is safest,and for the insurance companies, the least expensive. When? the moot point I take it. How about "when required or requested". That leaves Why. Why? because it has been granted or needs to be done. Abortion clinics break some of the rules governing the Why. Because the woman wants to becomes the only reason, her reasons. Why men want to influence that decision is acceptable, but controlling that decision, no, not acceptable. There are quandries even on every instance. Is the woman being rational? Is the woman being responsible or just selfish? If strigent screening processes were adopted (heh, adopted) and the mandated sterization for offenders enforced, maybe this wouldn't be such an issue. Oops, I forgot religion... Sh1tcan woman's rights back to the dark ages, and while you're at it science and medicine. Afterall the church is good, whoever heard of religeous groups killing anyone. Well, not fetuses anyways.

Before the fetus becomes a viable person, I don't have a problem with "abortion for any or no reason". I don't care about whether the woman's being rational, or has any justification at all - it's her life, she can do anything or nothing with it, it's not my concern. Once the pregnancy crosses that fuzzy line though, it isn't just about her anymore - it's also about a child who needs to have rights also. That's not sh1tcanning women's rights - that's making them excercise their rights before it infringes on the rights of others, and simply saying otherwise doesn't make it so.

 

[Balton]

let's clarify two things:
Da Vinci!
Einstein!

 

[Twrecks]

DOH!

Another form of euthenasia would be making that choice for her if she isn't able to.
Like an unborn child?

Taking someone off life support just isn't analagous.
The womb is "life support"

they're further distinguished by not being a viable person - they can't sustain themselves, or attain any worthwhile quality of life
Neither can a baby, without help.

you'd like a medal for United Way donations
Thanks, I already did.

Read a bit more on both DaVinci and Einstein also, your education on both seems to have been highly selective
Sorry, didn't have time to post their entire life stories.

Sorry, but when you can remove it from the mother and it can live on it's own, it's past being a "fetal mass".
"Breathe" or "live", there's a difference.

No amendment to the Bill of Rights is needed
Well you can't change the Constitution.

I think a good case can be made that killing them in their wombs does not secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity
Nor does it abolish them.

I guess you're a puddle of water, or a chunk of carbon?
Actually a hydrocarbon.

Before the fetus becomes a viable person, I don't have a problem with "abortion for any or no reason".
I guess the only difference here is where we would draw that "fuzzy line".

 

[SpiritWalker]

well.. where would you draw that line?

me personally.. I say at the first trimester.. I could live with "halfway through the 2nd.." but in the 3rd.. it should be "only to save the life of the mother/that type of sitution"....

 

[diddlysquat]

This all goes to prove in my mind just how different are the ways men and women read and assimilate things.

Where did I say that All men are thugs and rapists, or that all women are pure sweet and innocent?

And since when is making a general statement the same as making an all inclusive declaration that is etched in stone?

First, PMB, you are right, I am not capable of procreation, but just as any woman who is incapable of bearing children, the instincts and feelings are still there. Am I saying in every case that only a woman has the perspective to judge, not really, but then the discussion at the time I posted veered beyond just a question of partial birth abortion, and into the general issue itself, and, for the most part, I stand by my statement. The emotional torture that many women go through when faced with this is Not something most men can understand completely. This is the point I was trying to make, and obviously failed to do.

The fetus, when developing is a Part of us, it's flesh is our flesh, it's blood and bone and tissue are from us, grown within and dependent upon our lives. Though it is destined, if and when gestation is complete, to be a life unto itself, for those months it is a part of us. For men, it is over once you ejaculate. Men are free to just walk away, or to care for and nuture the woman that they have given this gift to. For the woman, once the process starts, she and the baby are one and the same up to the point it is removed in someway or she gives birth.

Try and grok that guys, then you can jump on my case about saying that abortion is an issue a woman can, in general, fully understand. As with everything, there are exceptions, (welcome grey, nice to meet you), but if I have to spell out those exceptions, then perhaps the reader would be better off going back to their comic books.

And yes Spiritwalker I Am full of self loathing and hatred, along with a healthy dose of shame, guilt, and fear. Working through issues of rape and the stigma of not fitting into the neat little boxes that society likes to put everyone in can do that to a person. Your respect is not required, only my own, which I am slowly once again starting to find. Once I dig myself out of the load of crap I have had to put up with all my life, perhaps I will respect myself to your satisfaction. But if not, oh well, I can only do the best I can.

and chimpboy can just bite my pretty little white a$$.

 

[Balton]

This all goes to prove in my mind just how different are the ways men and women read and assimilate things.

-snip-

and chimpboy can just bite my pretty little white a$$.

diddly, seriously. I think you are putting yourself into a box somehow too. I think you want a bit of a rabble around yourself. I dont know you from real life so I can only assume. Wouldnt it be much easier for you to move to a different city/state where laws are more civilized than the texanian ones(I heard california is pretty easy on most matters). so you will be more accepted, have more back up by the laws and you can start from scratch on. maybe you are too old for such a move by now, maybe you dont have the funds for such an journey or maybe you just want to whine a bit on the boards ( ;p ).
In some way you are unsatisfied with your sorounding, moving away isnt surrende, it's showing the cold side of your should to the supposed ignorants. and for the nc crowd, if you can't tell that most of us are mostly joking then you've nver really been browsing the forums while you are ptretty bored

 

[JTRipper]

It's kind of early in the day to be drunk, so either you're just being a wise ass or this thread just took the 'reality off-ramp'.

Another form of euthenasia would be making that choice for her if she isn't able to.
Like an unborn child?

As the next sentence said, exactly like an unborn child - with the noted exceptions.

Taking someone off life support just isn't analagous.
The womb is "life support"

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this. Life support keeps someone alive who would otherwise die. A 30th week child can live just fine without the womb as long as you don't puncture, dismember, poison, or asphyxiate them prior to removing them. So no, when we're talking about viable children, the womb is not exactly life support.

they're further distinguished by not being a viable person - they can't sustain themselves, or attain any worthwhile quality of life
Neither can a baby, without help.

So whether it's wrong to kill someone or not is contingent on whether they can feed themselves? Quick, someone warn Christopher Reeve.

Sorry, but when you can remove it from the mother and it can live on it's own, it's past being a "fetal mass".
"Breathe" or "live", there's a difference.

"Live", i.e. not die unless killed, starved, etc. Breathing is certainly one component for mammals.

No amendment to the Bill of Rights is needed
Well you can't change the Constitution.

A bill passed by 2/3 of the house and senate, and ratified by 3/4 of the states is called an a-mend-ment; a change in the Constitution as per Article V. In fact, the 'Bill of Rights' isn't part of the original constitution - it's composed of the first 10 amendments.
However, the Supreme Court gets the idea now and then that we can skip that process if the Court can invent enough things that aren't actually in the text, which is why states can't make laws restricting abortion in the first place.

I think a good case can be made that killing them in their wombs does not secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity
Nor does it abolish them.

Erm, posterity? Killing someone pretty much abolishes everything for them. I don't think it's a stretch to say that includes 'the blessings of liberty', whatever they might be.

Before the fetus becomes a viable person, I don't have a problem with "abortion for any or no reason".
I guess the only difference here is where we would draw that "fuzzy line".

As my earlier post said, I don't know where the line goes - but it's definitely before birth, and possibly before the third trimester. You still haven't said where you think the line should be or why. The impression I get is that it's some time after the fetus gets a job and starts paying taxes (provided that it isn't disabled), but I still haven't been able to wring coherent reasoning for that out of you. How much more prodding is it going to take? I guess anyone can theoretically ignore direct questions forever, but it has to get awkward sooner or later.

 

[SpiritWalker]

"Breathe" or "live", there's a difference.
not really

No amendment to the Bill of Rights is needed

Well you can't change the Constitution.
actually.. to amend is[/i] to change

Another form of euthenasia would be making that choice for her if she isn't able to.

Like an unborn child?

no.. not like an unborn child..an unborn child isn't able to make a choice, and hasn't been given an option. The choice is being made by another person for a person that has no ability to voice an opinion, and given that it's a child.. the child should get the benifit of the doubt.

Taking someone off life support just isn't analagous.

The womb is "life support"

past a certian point.. it's also "home".. unborn childeren can think, feel, sleep, and everything that a person walking around can do.. and should be given all rights provided by the Constitution. A prison is held responsible for the treatment of the prisoner. Why not hold a mother responsible for the walfare of the child, past "X" point?

Damn.. in some states it's actually a felony to intentionally kill a compainion animal!!! meaning a pet.. and as much of an animal lover as I am.. the pets having more rights than the unborn.. is screwed

 

[JTRipper]

This all goes to prove in my mind just how different are the ways men and women read and assimilate things.
[...]
and chimpboy can just bite my pretty little white a$$.

There are only a couple points in that which I disagree on.

1) I don't accept the implicit axiom that men lack the parental emotions and instincts that women do. It may be social or biological that they express differently, but they're there and no less significant.
2) While the male can in theory walk away, most of our society and all of our legal bodies do not call this acceptable.
3) You seem to indicate that a child achieves a state of independance at birth; I don't see anything about passing through a birth canal that transforms it into something independant. Once born, it's still the same kid that it was an hour ago, it's just had a change of address. The mother can believe that she and the child are a Ferrari, but that perspective really doesn't change anything.
4) Regardless how pretty or white your ass might be, my teethmarks are unlikely to grace it.

 

[Balton]

When a guy has to worry about getting an abortion, then maybe he can speak to this issue, otherwise, you can't hope to understand fully what women face concerning this issue, and the consequences of their actions regarding it.

Just my 2 and a 1/2 cents worth from being on both sides.

btw.

http://www.malepregnancy.com/

if we are to accept that you are female then you'Ve got to accept that males have the chance of being pregnant and so we are allowed to speak our minds out too... right?

 

[Twrecks]

As my earlier post said, I don't know where the line goes - but it's definitely before birth, and possibly before the third trimester. You still haven't said where you think the line should be or why. The impression I get is that it's some time after the fetus gets a job and starts paying taxes (provided that it isn't disabled), but I still haven't been able to wring coherent reasoning for that out of you. How much more prodding is it going to take? I guess anyone can theoretically ignore direct questions forever, but it has to get awkward sooner or later.

Circumstances determine that line. I think I said something about screening. You are making it a "time" issue. Obviously there are cases where 3rd trimester abortions are neccassary, any law should allow for exceptions. So I have a big grey line over 9 months, I thought that was clear enough in my previous posts. The only thing awkward is that ammendments are an extension to the bill of rights, and that they do not change (rewrite) the constitution, but define the intent where these grey areas seem to appear. The only reasoning I get from you is some "viable" BS. There appears to be only an intangable emotional bond preventing the plug/embilical cord from being pulled in your arguements. If abortion is not required or granted than who forces a woman to go full term? Prevents her from poisoning/harming the baby, intentionally or otherwise. saying "NO" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Damn.. in some states it's actually a felony to intentionally kill a compainion animal!!! meaning a pet.. and as much of an animal lover as I am.. the pets having more rights than the unborn.. is screwed

Not so for unborn animals and those ALIVE in shelters. Animal rights activist can be just as fevert as pro/anti-abortionist.

EDIT:
BTW, both of you proove that euthanasia is the same for adult vegatables as it is for unborn babaies. Just say "isn't" doesn't make it not so. Both don't make the decision, and both do have options, just are not aware of them.
Niether of you could prove the womb is not life support. If left uncared for the baby will die if removed, period. The only difference here is that even after a natural birth human babies require additional life support (food/shelter) while a recovered adult patient may be able to care for themselves.

 

[diddlysquat]

There are only a couple points in that which I disagree on.

1) I don't accept the implicit axiom that men lack the parental emotions and instincts that women do. It may be social or biological that they express differently, but they're there and no less significant.
2) While the male can in theory walk away, most of our society and all of our legal bodies do not call this acceptable.
3) You seem to indicate that a child achieves a state of independance at birth; I don't see anything about passing through a birth canal that transforms it into something independant. Once born, it's still the same kid that it was an hour ago, it's just had a change of address. The mother can believe that she and the child are a Ferrari, but that perspective really doesn't change anything.
4) Regardless how pretty or white your ass might be, my teethmarks are unlikely to grace it.

*Phew* That is a relief, those canines would probably leave a mark!


Again, you try to draw an absolute from a general statement. And as you admit, there Is a difference in the way men and women feel and process parenthood, just as there are inate differences in the way we communicate and think. It seems, to me at least ( and again generally), easier for a male to dissassociate himself from parenting, than it is for a woman.

As far as males 'walking away', well it happens all the time, despite most cultures or societies 'rules' about it. Again, not all the time, but still, more often than a female can, even with abortion available.

As for your other point, until the umbilical is cut, and the baby is breathing on it's on outside the womb, it pretty much still is dependent on the mother. How many times have you heard of both mother and child dying, when the woman dies in an accident or through misadventure, and the baby is not delivered through ceasarian in time to save it? Yes, through medical intervention, an unborn child can survive. I am talking the Natural process here however, and again, a general statement that does not reflect all the myriad possibilites.

And in a metaphysical, totally unreal way, you can still bite me.

 

[JTRipper]

Circumstances determine that line. I think I said something about screening.

This is what I still haven't gotten you to say - what circumstances? First you say it's cognizent thought - I test the assertion, you don't answer. We run around a bunch of things that aren't really related, then you seem to suggest that whether it can live without help is the deciding factor. I test it, again no answer. Now I think you're saying that it has something to do with 9 months, but I'm still not really sure. Are you saying "Abortion any time before delivery, period"?

You are making it a "time" issue. Obviously there are cases where 3rd trimester abortions are neccassary, any law should allow for exceptions. So I have a big grey line over 9 months, I thought that was clear enough in my previous posts. The only thing awkward is that ammendments are an extension to the bill of rights, and that they do not change (rewrite) the constitution, but define the intent where these grey areas seem to appear. The only reasoning I get from you is some "viable" BS.

I think I've been pretty consistant on what my standard is since I laid it out in my third (first serious) post, achieving viability (which you can call BS, but it's really pretty clearly defined). I've also said that it isn't simply time, that it varies, but happens before birth; probably, but not neccessarily always, in the third trimester. If there were a given day or hour this happened at, there wouldn't be a problem. If there were some kind of meat thermometer we could stick in a mom that would pop out when the kid is viable, there wouldn't be a fuzzy line. The fact remains that although it can't yet be measured, it's well enough defined.

There appears to be only an intangable emotional bond preventing the plug/embilical cord from being pulled in your arguements.

Er, no. I've said that I don't think euthenasia should be illegal if the person has asked for it, and I haven't expressed an opinion in the case that they haven't consented (I'm against that). I haven't expressed any opinion at all on pulling the plug. To get it on the record - I'm for it if it's a living will, undecided on (but lean in favor of) family decisions for those with no hope of recovery, and against familiy decisions when hope of recovery exists.

If abortion is not required or granted than who forces a woman to go full term? Prevents her from poisoning/harming the baby, intentionally or otherwise. saying "NO" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Who forces her to not make that decision before the 7th month? Who prevented Susan Smith from drowning her kids? She may or may not have made any choices about getting pregnant, but in most cases no one forced that. She has 6 months then to decide whether she wants to go forward with it; I think that's more than enough, exceptions aside. Saying "no" makes plenty of sense when you're talking about killing a human being for no particular reason better than "someone doesn't feel like aving them alive". As I also have said - since we can't tell when that "fetal mass" becomes a "viable child", we should be obliged to err on the side of caution.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

The fetus, when developing is a Part of us, it's flesh is our flesh, it's blood and bone and tissue are from us, grown within and dependent upon our lives.

Which is put there by the fusion of DNA from a man. It is our flesh too, the woman is just the one who gets to incubate and grow it.

Though it is destined, if and when gestation is complete, to be a life unto itself, for those months it is a part of us. For men, it is over once you ejaculate.

The fact that the woman carries the embryo does not negate the fact that the child also belongs to the man, just because a woman gets to carry the fetus does not grant her full ownership and decision making. That is like me lending you my toaster, you take it into your home and do repairs on it, put some pokemon stickers on it, use it morning after morning and one day 9 months later you want to throw it out…that does not mean I don’t have a say in the matter, it is still my toaster!

Your view point is very feministic, and as such, I am reminded of this bearded lady in one of my current issues classes in college who, with her shaved head gleaming at me, told me I was swine because I have a penis. As such, your view strikes me as very one sided. It takes two baby, plain and simple…I’m not gonna sit here and say that a woman does not have a special kind of closeness with the baby that a man will never truly know…but that is irrelevant to the case of abortion. This isn’t a secret charm between mother and baby, this is a man and woman’s equal say on the matter of the child THEY created to be terminated.

Men are free to just walk away, or to care for and nurture the woman that they have given this gift to.

Just cus a lot of men actually “walk away” doesn’t mean the right to decide on whether this gift should be destroyed or not is somehow only reserved to a woman. Women bail out too you know.


For the woman, once the process starts, she and the baby are one and the same up to the point it is removed in someway or she gives birth.

That has nothing to do with a woman having the full say in whether or not the kid is aborted…if both parents are around then the decision has to mutual.

 

[JTRipper]

EDIT:
BTW, both of you proove that euthanasia is the same for adult vegatables as it is for unborn babaies. Just say "isn't" doesn't make it not so. Both don't make the decision, and both do have options, just are not aware of them.
Niether of you could prove the womb is not life support. If left uncared for the baby will die if removed, period. The only difference here is that even after a natural birth human babies require additional life support (food/shelter) while a recovered adult patient may be able to care for themselves.

Actually, I think I've pointed out the distinctions - not only does the child not choose death, but can and will attain meaningful life unless prevented. An adult may not, and I've made distinctions on those lines as well.

While the womb does keep the child alive as long as they're in there, I don't need to prove that they don't need it - a long history of premature birth does that for me. They do often go on to live better lives if they can continue to develop longer before birth, but they're viable.

 

[JTRipper]

Again, you try to draw an absolute from a general statement. And as you admit, there Is a difference in the way men and women feel and process parenthood, just as there are inate differences in the way we communicate and think. It seems, to me at least ( and again generally), easier for a male to dissassociate himself from parenting, than it is for a woman.

As far as males 'walking away', well it happens all the time, despite most cultures or societies 'rules' about it. Again, not all the time, but still, more often than a female can, even with abortion available.

I can agree that it's easier and more common for the man, but they don't hold a monopoly on that behaviour. I was raised by my dad because my mom ditched me (and him) before I was two (and no, no court made her pay child support).

As for your other point, until the umbilical is cut, and the baby is breathing on it's on outside the womb, it pretty much still is dependent on the mother. How many times have you heard of both mother and child dying, when the woman dies in an accident or through misadventure, and the baby is not delivered through ceasarian in time to save it? Yes, through medical intervention, an unborn child can survive. I am talking the Natural process here however, and again, a general statement that does not reflect all the myriad possibilites.

And in a metaphysical, totally unreal way, you can still bite me.

It's dependant on someone; ideally the mother (let's not recap benefits of breast milk), but not necessarily. Injuring a pregnant woman causing death of the child is also prosecutable as murder or manslaughter in many states. Scott Peterson could face the death penalty under the "double homicide" provision if he's charged with the baby's murder. As for "the natural process" - I hate to break it to you, but I think that forceps, scalpels, and suction aren't very natural.

Edit: Consider yourself bitten. Pretend it hurt in a good way.

 

[Twrecks]

Actually, I think I've pointed out the distinctions - not only does the child not choose death, but can and will attain meaningful life unless prevented. An adult may not, and I've made distinctions on those lines as well.

While the womb does keep the child alive as long as they're in there, I don't need to prove that they don't need it - a long history of premature birth does that for me. They do often go on to live better lives if they can continue to develop longer before birth, but they're viable.

Okay, your case is where the person to die made that decision before they nolonger were able. My case is were that individual did not have the oppurtunity, ie: unborn child.

Well I'm glad you agree the womb is life support, while the kid is inside <-- nach.

As to circumstances, they can be too varied and numerous for this forum to hold, and I'm not the lawyers that need to pen this. My experiance and knowledge is far too limited. I'm merely stating my opinion. Obviously the woman should be encouraged to go full term if all is good, all I'm saying is that the method be made less available for it to be a casual affair. Irresponsible ppl should not be allowed children, unplanned pregnancies should be terminated early. I will agree to limit (not ban) volunatary abortions into the 3rd trimester. Involuntary to include such things as injury or other serious health reasons. Even then with the mother's consent. However, to ban late pregnancies is not going to stop them from occuring. Donating still borns to science and taking elective sterilization can be an alternavive to a bottle of gin and a coat hanger. Driving abortion underground is not the answer. "Viable" is gaslighting ppl with moral garbage. I was being sacastic with the cognizent thought deal, no more could you determine when a child recieved their soul. In the end it is the care takers that need to decide the future of those they serve.