If the mother wants an abortion she should have the right to have one. She may not be able to afford childcare or have the time or love for a child. Also, she may want to have time to decide and become educated on getting an abortion do she may wait m
Abortion must be legal at any trimester if the mother wishes so. She is the one carrying that child and only she has the right to disagree with her choice for moral or health related reasons. Who are we to decide what is right or wrong for the mother? As far as the incomplete child inside her goes, there are thousands of microbes that we kill with every step of our feet, thousands of animals we slaughter to feed our stomachs.
Obviously a fetus has all the signs of life so murdering it is the same as killing it. Therefore logically only once it isnt a fetus anymore and isnt having the signs of life it is ok to abort it, i.E. The 4th trimester. Too bad radical feminists and zero IQ conservitards want to ban 4th trimester abortions. These people give zero consideration to the mother's right to not have children. If we don't allow 4th trimester abortions they will just be done behind the alley of Denny's, sadly the location where the child was created.
Since Spartans utterly rocked, and they regularly practiced fourth trimester abortions, there's something to be said for it. For example; I've got two older brothers who have chosen to become Full-Retards (not born that way, among other things one went neo-Nazi, and the other dresses up as a vampire), abortion even now would ease the burden they place on society.
Dont get me wrong, fourth trimester babies are usually considered to be 'human' at this stage in their development.... But if they are on an airplane and just pissing off everybody else, then that is clear evidence that they are not only not human, but also quite satanic, in which case abortion is morally permissible if not encouraged or mandatory.
Its like any other abortion. It should be legal. Some women might want to be more educated on abortion and have to wait to get one. Conservatives are always whining about the government getting into our personal lives yet they try to get rid of abortion. Abortion is a very personal decision and should be able to be done anytime.
Why? Well here are my reasons for thinking so
First, let me say that showing a baby in a photo above the voting yes button probably affects people pretty heavily in the "no" direction. After all, we are hardwired to want to protect babies and all things we find cute, and it is well known within journalism that a good photo can have immense impact. Showing a real life baby looking right into you makes the persons empathy center firing up. Which you know, is great! We should protect babies! But we need to keep this in mind while going through the arguments.
Also, keep in mind that in this debate piece, i will be assuming that the baby does not suffer at all during the abortion.
And third, i do know that there is a clear distinction between a LIVING BEING and A POTENTIAL LIVING BEING. This is about whether or not aborting a potential living being is moral or not, its about aborting a living being. I do not really seperate those two as heavily as others, though i do think that they are, in a sense, the same. A fourth trimester abortion would merely be doing it much later, though.
Arguments FOR fourth trimester abortion:
- Womens rights. A woman should have the right over her own body, and her own life. Babies are many times wonderful, but they DO cost a lot of money, time, sweat, and stress. A woman may realize that she can't support the child as she wanted to, and since there are a lot of parentless childs that need a family, adding another one may be a bad idea. Therefore, giving her the option for a fourth trimester abortion could unload a big burden of insecurity of whether or not she can support the child. Also, many teens/women may not have the sexual education to realise that they are pregnant in time, and they may be so overwhelmed that they do not know to do, which means that a fourth trimester abortion could really help them.
(i want to clarify that single mothers are amazing, and that it may be a single dad that takes care of the child. The research i have read shows that a single mother is not worse for a child then having 2 parents (especially not when the 2 parents are bad or the relationship sucks)
- The babies life may be miserable. Living a life that that everyone knows is bad isn't very good.
- Something unexpected happens which affects the babies in a cruel way, which may mean that the babys life would be horrible. You can't always know if the baby is perfectly healthy.
Counter arguments to those though: 1, it may be ableism that makes you wanna abort the baby. Disabled people abselutely deserves to live, and i do think disabled people should receive much more support. The murders of disabled people in general disgust me. Therefore, enbling 4 trimester can be risky.
Abortion is NOT about what YOU think is best. Abortion is about MY right, as a woman, to do what I feel is best for my body and my life. Realistically, kids are a drain anyway and since the VAST majority of children will end up doing nothing notable with their 'lives', why should it matter whether I choose to abort during the first trimester or the fortieth? As an avowed feminist, I DEFY anybody who seeks to foist your backwards beliefs upon me. This is the 20th century, people -- get with the times!!!
Stop thinking what you are told to think! Just because the Bible says infanticide is wrong does not make it so! Until the child is 18 it is in its 4th trimester, and the adult has full rights to abort at any time up to and including the fourth trimester!
The people on the no side with their panties in a bunch need a good lay and a some weed to relax. No one in their right mind supports killing a baby when it is born. I only support aborting if their is a risk of trauma to the mother and the baby will die anyway. Relax, none is going to sacrifice newborn babies to an evil demon god. Sigh.
A pregnancy only has three trimesters. In the fourth, the baby is no longer inside of their mother. Those in the left column are openly supporting infanticide.
Only shows that supporters of abortion are brainwashed trained parrots repeating planned parenthood's speech With no thinking on their part. They repeated the exact same old babbling about the woman's body (even when several scientific disciplines already proved the baby is a separate person), the woman's rights of not raising a child she does not want (because adoption is a myth!), and women not having money to raise children (everyone know you need a few billions just to be able to provide basic food for a single child).
It is time we stop sticking to misleading ideas we took from biased sources on the internet and do a little research before we state our opinion.
The fourth trimester is the first three months after a baby is born. So, this is really quite simple. Supporting abortion in the fourth trimester is supporting newborn babies, which is currently punishable by a long time in prison or death. Let's hope society doesn't degenerate to the point where it is legal to kill babies after they are born. Moving, breathing, and living right in front of your eyes...
People don't think before spewing their opinion based on whatever opinion they had yesterday. 4th trimester abortion is drowning the baby, after it's born. The amazing thing is that this is really is how political debates are dealt with in the USA. Say something to cause an emotional reaction, or in a way that morons aren't prone to comprehend. Once the emotions rise, no logical or valid thought can form after that point.
I am hoping that this question was just kind of a joke put on to the website. It is also sad because I think that some people didn't understand that pregnancy is only a trimesters (tri = 3) split into 3 months. The baby is technically viable (alive) at 20 months and before this if there are complications the hospital will not even try to save the baby... Question made me laugh a little at how ridiculous it was.
Basically everybody who said yes said that they support INFANTICIDE. I'm very much hoping every single person who voted yes does not realize that the baby is now a BABY and no longer a fetus. If you support infanticide, I don't have much to say to you. Just put the baby up for adoption. Many people would kill to have that baby.
Trimester means three! A fourth trimester means that the child is already born. You are in favor of murdering a live child! The point is no matter if it is a first trimester or "fourth" trimester, either way you are killing a child. Put aside the abortion debate, the fact is a woman DOES NOT have a right to kill her child that is born alive and breathing!
You are aware that 'fourth trimester' is after the baby is born, right? As in, after the baby is out of the woman's body, and the debate about a woman's freedom of choice and bodily autonomy doesn't apply any more. There's no argument that first trimester abortion should be legal, as at that stage the fetus is human only in basic genetic makeup. It has none of the basic markers of humanity; it isn't conscious, it doesn't have a brain or, therefore, a mind, it (obviously) isn't self aware. Second trimester is more tricky, as by that point the fetus does have a (primitive) brain, and is presumably conscious to some degree. However, higher brain waves, indicative of what we like to call actual consciousness and self-awareness, aren't present until about the 26 week mark. Third trimester... Probably not, by that point. The fetus is undeniably human and somewhat self-aware by that stage, and the mother almost certainly knew about it and had the option for an earlier abortion, and even if she wasn't it's still a very grey area legally, ethically and philosophically.
Fourth trimester; the baby is already born. If the mother doesn't want it, she has the freedom to give it up for adoption. It is undeniably conscious, self-aware, and a 'person' by that point, so choosing to 'abort' it would be infanticide. The only reason second and third trimester abortion are ethically permissible is because the mother's freedom of choice and bodily autonomy outweigh the vague 'right to life' of the (unborn, unconscious, not self-aware) fetus. This simply is not an issue in the 'fourth trimester', so choosing to 'abort' it, rather than raising it, adopting it out, or really any other option, would be ethically wrong.
Personally, I'm barely okay with first trimester abortions, the only exceptions being rape and endangerment of the life of the mother. But when you get to the point that the child is already BORN, there is absolutely no logical, moral, medical, psychological, geological reason not to put the child up for adoption if you don't want to accept your beautiful, promising consequence for going clubbing.
Dead baby jokes aren't funny.
I'm pro choice (at least for the first 24 weeks or so into pregnancy, which is the point that science shows a fetus to feel pain) I also know stuff about word roots. Tri means 3. Thus meaning that a fourth trimester is an incorrect and impossible term. That would no longer be an abortion, and would become infanticide (which some people believe abortion is but I think there is a difference). This would mean it would be okay to kill babies up to 3 months old. (which is way more cruel than removing a non viable fetus from your body before it has developed a whole lot)
Only sad, lonely, angry, feminists would want this. The kind that make the real feminists look bad. What's wrong with you people? Maybe you should have been responsible in the first place and A. Not gotten pregnant, or B. Addressed the issue immediately. Hell, why don't we just go one step further? Birth the child and if you don't like it, meh, get rid of it. I mean, maybe it's super ugly when you first see your baby. Best to terminate it than to make someone else have to pay for your child forever, right? I mean, it's YOUR kid, you should be able to do whatever you want.