Abortion laws move forward after late night hearing erupts in outrage

[Karee 4,191]

Until able to survive outside the womb, it is a fetus, not a child... Therefore a matter if health and an extension of a mothers body... Thus, it is a woman's decision how to medically treat her body. Forcing women to bear unwanted children is not a humane decision nor a decision anyone but that woman can make.

They need future inmates for their private prisons. What better way to accomplish that than force people to have unwanted children?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Until able to survive outside the womb, it is a fetus, not a child...

So, there is a point when a child can exist outside the womb.

• James Elgin Gill: The record for the world's most premature baby belongs to James Elgin Gill, a Canadian man born at just 21 weeks 5 days in 1988. James was born so early that he was expected to die at birth or, if he survived, to have multiple and severe handicaps. James beat all of the odds though, and in 2006 was a healthy teenager heading off to college.
• Amilia Taylor: American baby Amilia Taylor was born at 21 weeks 6 days in October of 2006. Because Amilia was conceived by in vitro fertilization, her gestational age can be pinpointed exactly, an imposibility for most infants. Although she needed oxygen at hospital discharge, was anemic, and has mild osteopenia, she is otherwise a normal, healthy little girl.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They need future inmates for their private prisons. What better way to accomplish that than force people to have unwanted children?

I don't want any children. What if a mother or father decides they don't want a child, say in the 40th trimester, is that too late to terminate the fetus?

[christeen 966]

All past the viability point of 20 weeks... I am not against the 20 week mark cutoff UNLESS testing indicates significant health defects in the fetus, then for humane reasons, a woman should have the option to carry to term...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't want any children. What if a mother or father decides they don't want a child, say in the 40th trimester, is that too late to terminate the fetus?

That would be too late. In the 40th trimester, the child would be just over 12 years old.

[Karee 4,191]

That would be too late. In the 40th trimester, the child would be just over 12 years old.

I think you missed his "sarcasm"

[christeen 966]

I think you missed his "sarcasm"

Did not see the "trimester" ... However I have some friends who would like to get rid of their 12 year olds...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think you missed his "sarcasm"

As you did mine.

[Dan and Judy 614]

All past the viability point of 20 weeks... I am not against the 20 week mark cutoff UNLESS testing indicates significant health defects in the fetus, then for humane reasons, a woman should have the option to carry to term...

Kids arent viable until they hit 20 years

[Protocol417 161]

So, you think it is okay to about a child for purely cosmetic reasons.

There are examples where the mother's health is not in danger and it isn't a "cosmetic reason". The doctors have determined that the fetus will not be able to survive outside of the womb due to a severe deformity, etc., but because she isn't in danger the mother would be forced to carry an inviable fetus to term and go through painful childbirth for no reason whatsoever. But either way, yes, I do think a woman should have the ability to make that decision. It's her body and her future.

I really don't get the "mourning for potential life" part of the "pro-life" crowd. Every moment I'm not having sex in a manner that could conceive, I'm preventing potential life.

Also, circumstances do change. People lose jobs, get divorced, develop mental instability or physical disabilities that would leave them incapable of raising a child (even one they wanted), and so forth. Five months seems pretty early to me.

I also don't really get the "pain" line that is being drawn by others. Ideally, yes, the abortion should occur before that point if possible, but if it couldn't for whatever reason, why would you force the woman to go through with all of that against her will just to spare the fetus momentary pain?

[Karee 4,191]

There are examples where the mother's health is not in danger and it isn't a "cosmetic reason". The doctors have determined that the fetus will not be able to survive outside of the womb due to a severe deformity, etc., but because she isn't in danger the mother would be forced to carry an inviable fetus to term and go through painful childbirth for no reason whatsoever. But either way, yes, I do think a woman should have the ability to make that decision. It's her body and her future.

I really don't get the "mourning for potential life" part of the "pro-life" crowd. Every moment I'm not having sex in a manner that could conceive, I'm preventing potential life.

Also, circumstances do change. People lose jobs, get divorced, develop mental instability or physical disabilities that would leave them incapable of raising a child (even one they wanted), and so forth. Five months seems pretty early to me.

I also don't really get the "pain" line that is being drawn by others. Ideally, yes, the abortion should occur before that point if possible, but if it couldn't for whatever reason, why would you force the woman to go through with all of that against her will just to spare the fetus momentary pain?

You're not taking into account the religious crazies. You can't have logical debates with them. Their fairy god father up in the sky told them through their preacher/pastor/imam/rabbi whatever, that abortion is bad. That right there ends all logical conversation on the subject. Sorry. Nice try though.

[Karee 4,191]

Looks like ol Rick is gonna give it another try next week.