Depends on the circumstances doesn't it?? For, us our children had great value and choosing to save them was no problem whatever. I wonder, though, just how the 9th child, in a poor, starving family would be greeted?? That 9th, would be much more than a monetary inconvenience wouldn't it?? It could be a death sentence for the whole family!!
Do you know that every year 15 million children world wide die of starvation? Kind of puts the inconvenience of a fetus in perspective doesn't it??
Life begins at conception......the key word here is " begins." There are multiple factors that interrupt the course of those beginnings, many of which are not artificially induced. It is we, collectively, that must decide when that beginning has reached culmination and the individual begins. Certainly until it can exist outside of the womb it cannot be considered other than mere fertilized tissue. Human eggs can be fertilized outside the womb, Does this immediately make them an aware individual?? Hardly think so.
You're crazy. The late term abortions mentioned in this article do NOT fall into your pigeon hole. These abortions were performed across 2 states and using a shady doctor. IF the women's health orlife were in danger they would not have needed to seek out this sicko.
The way you keep sidetracking the issue, moving the goal post...let me ask you....did you ever tell your girls "Eat your vegetables...millions of children are starving in africa, and would like to have what you're leaving on your plate"
Because you are doing the same thing here, posting irrelevant stuff .(Quote)
Your idea of sidetracking or moving the goal post is very peculiar. It seems to me being unable to feed or support a child, where conditions are against a decent life is very relevant to abortion, as are access to birth control, education etc.
Your statement.....Certainly, refering to the OP, as old as 36 weeks, according to you it is more than mere fertilized tissue because it can exist outside the womb..Non?
A search of the clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer containing 35 late-term fetuses, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks, the documents show.
36 weeks it surely would have cried. Mine did at 34 weeks, albeit weak, but then they were both very sick. It is a bit late, but the article doesn't indicate why the woman had to wait so long....... did someone take her to court to try and make her keep the child as the nutball in Quebec tried to do?? Or was the fetus damaged in some way. It is not me that moves the goal posts.
I stick to the subject and you simply do not like it. Using logical progression is not changing the subject, it merely follows it through to a reasonable conclusion.
What definition of life are you using? Sperm meets egg? I'm not convinced that this is a scientific argument.
I've always viewed newborns as being just like me, with the only significant difference being that I have years of experience and the newborn has none. I could never view a newborn as something less than a complete human, yet I get the impression that you view newborn babies as tissue??? Is that correct?
Call me a 'crazy' person if you like.... I'm pro-life... but ironically, late term abortions are some of the few that I would actually support once I got researching and being honest about my desire to see people live.
Crazy right? But, late term abortions are some of the very few that are actually done to save a mother's life. Make late term abortion illegal, and you preserve the right to abort for convenience sake, while removing the right to abort to save a mother's life. What sense does that make?