Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

You apparently didn't read my first post. I think you may want to do that. My point here in the conversation is that there really is a baby in there. Just as the one that became your daughter. Calling her a fetus all along just makes it easier to have aborted her using that term instead of aborting a 'baby' is all.

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

This what I was talking about, it was from another thread on the topic.

Pro life doesn't always mean having a baby under any and every circumstance, especially in a situation like this.

We lost a child due to trisomy 13, 24 years ago and were devastated. Though the loss was devastating to us, we are glad she didn't have to suffer from the chromosome defect, and in all likelihood, we would have had an abortion if we had a clue about her condition, instead of finding out at the time of labor and delivery.

I'm pro-life and pro-choice. Abortions for the sake of saving a mother's life or saving the child from a life of extreme difficulties is certainly warranted. However, children born with trisomy 21 turn out to be the most 'human' humans on the planet so it's a very tough call making that choice.

What I think most people like me feel on the abortion thing is there are no limits of what is acceptable in why someone would get an abortion.

I mean what if the woman is health and the 'child' is but she's having her 3-4 abortion because she can't seem to not keep getting pregnant? Should a norplant or something be be demanded in cases where it's pretty obious that they are using abortion solely as a birth control method?

Now it's to the point now that a simple whim is enough because "I just decided not to because of a million different reasons". Especially when so many could be avoided by simply using readily available and cheap birth control.

When this first became legal it was because many women were dying from having to seek out illegal abortions from less than competent drs. So yeah in that sense it was a must to make it legal so women could go to a valid dr to perform this proceedure.

When it first came out the 'viable tissue' argument came out and it was deemed that if done within the first trimester that the tissue was not much different than a chicken or frog embryo at that stage and people were 'ok' with that.

Then they kept wanting to choose later and later during the term, past the magic 1st trimester to the point now where they say, as long as no breath is taken 'outside' the mothers womb that thing that has been kicking in the mothers womb to the point you can see it from the outside is no more viable than at a few weeks. This has led to the procedure of turning a full term baby around and pulling it out by the feet and terminating this 'mass' before it can draw that first breath that would deem it 'actually alive', as if it weren't somehow already alive in the womb.

0 Replies