I can't fathom the practitioner that will suggest abortion up to 40 weeks because they feel the life of the mother is in danger. There is not a true Christian that would applaud this law. How can a state that is so Catholic support this many bozos in office?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
“After-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
(no message)
In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1
Some if not most Dems are reluctant to think abortion is a form of birth control and most that I know aren't as callous to pregnancies as you all post.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot. If you neo-cons and phony Christians would stop lobbying against Birth Control and promote smart and safe sexual activity, the need for abortions would be considerably less - promote Women's organizations who work on family planning, back legislation that allows women's groups to inform and back the rights of women and women's reproductive health.
Your rhetoric is all about you wanting to control women, create eternal hell for them; get involved in their rights - give support instead of being interested in how you feel. You guys are so far up each others assholes to notice, you're not doing any women or their prospective children any good. You actively out of anger take away safeguards for those would be mothers who have no support who now have to face the world and all from your anger. You've put them behind the 8ball so much so that most never recover and you help continue the cycle.
(no message)
is at and why some embrace the Orange freak in the Oval.
I wish this issue would go away...no compromise is possible. Passions way too high on both sides.
(no message)
I would ban them if I could but that’s not workable.
Second and third trimester abortions are infanticide.
If my wife was pregnant at 24 weeks, and the doctor told me she will die if the pregnancy continues, the pregnancy would be terminated.
See how easy this can be.
(no message)
(no message)
The Left loves European laws, but they have opposed implementing limitations on abortion access like most countries in Europe have.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Morally, I am absolutely against it, but society will never be there.
Soo, practically if I can limit to at least when there isn’t a viable infant that could be born alive, I would do it right quick and would abide by the deal. Problem is no one will be practical here.
But those are not the people who could really reach a compromise. When the discussions tend to be dominated by the feminists on one side and the arch pro-lifers on the other, no middle ground is going to emerge. That's why this issue sucks.
And it is a single-voting issue for a lot of people. Some people will never vote for a pro-choice person, and there are lots who would never vote for someone who is pro-life.
shouting at each other.
Right now I’m defending a local city clinic buffer zone ordinance. We had a preliminary injunction hearing where I had to put on testimony from some of the PP clinic workers who I got to know a bit. They know how I feel on the subject, but that I would do my job which I did. I still think they are way wrong on abortion, but they also do some things that really help women. Getting to know them as people, and listening to their fears and experiences makes a difference.
ND1irish is correct below where he says his intention is to insult because he is incapable of changing minds. He is incapable of changing minds primarily because of his approach.
I could dig up the various podcasts if interested but essentially it comes down to this:
1. Listen. Let the person you are talking to talk about their stance and their rationale for their view.
2. Find an opening for empathy. Their view is often based on a dehumanized opponent, it gets difficult to support an absolute position when confronted with an actual living breathing human that has some similarities to ones self. "Was there a time where you felt discriminated against?" or "Can you imagine having to make a choice between your own life or your baby's?"
3. Don't push, don't insult, don't belittle. Let it marinate. A change of heart often isn't instant but happens over time.
Worth noting, the one guy, and I'd have to look up his name, said that this approach worked for Gay Marriage, but not Abortion.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)