Should women be permitted to have abortions late in their terms, even after a fetus is viable outside the womb?

  • Women bear the burden of the child, so should bear the decision capability themselves.

    Women have the right to the decision for themselves, whether it is early or late in the pregnancy. The matter of everyone else is of no matter to the bearer of the burden, and it is their life, no one else's who should make the decision on the idea.

    Posted by: Bear
  • Women should not be able to kill their unborn child if it could survive with assistance outside the womb.

    There is now proof that roughly 25% of 22 week olds have survived outside the womb. If a child is aborted when it could survive, there is no excuse by saying it's not a person, etc. You are killing that child. You are a murderer. If that is okay with you, do it( no one can oficially stop you) but don't pretend it is something else.

  • Problems with Texas 20 week abortion ban and federal H.R. 179 bill

    The recent abortion ban in my state that prohibits abortions after 20 weeks could force women to carry a fetus with severe birth defects to term. In many cases birth defects can be treated with modern medicine, but in the case where the child would die shortly after birth, be in a vegetative state, or have any other devastating, untreatable condition, mothers may choose a late-term abortion. In fact, most birth defects are not detected until after 20 weeks. The Texas abortion ban provides an exception for "severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life," but leaves to broad interpretation. Many serious birth defects could theoretically be argued to be compatible with life, even if the child would survive for only a short while after birth.

    On the federal level, HR 179 or the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recently passed in the House of Congress that would ban abortions after 20 weeks does NOT protect the right for women to abort fetuses with serious abnormalities. Probably by now the readers that are 100% against abortion have stopped reading this, let me try to explain my position. If a mother discovers her child would only have an incognizant or short, painful life after birth, it is reasonable that she would wish to terminate the pregnancy and spare her unborn child. The H.R. 179 bill would force a woman to give birth to a child only to witness it suffer before dying anyway. It is cruel for a law to prolong a mother's loss and possibly traumatize her further.

  • Yes

    Sometimes there are legitimate health reasons why someone may need to that can only be detected late in the pregnancy. Sometimes situations change making ability to conceive a risk to the mothers life. Sometimes people dont find out they are pregnant until later. There are many reasons why and to assume they are all selfish is naive. You never know unless you are in the situation yourself so unless its your life, leave people to make the difficult decisions in their life to them.

  • There are circumstances where late-term abortions should be permitted.

    Contrary to anti-choice propaganda, most late-term abortions are the result of finding out about serious health problems or birth defects late in the pregnancy. Some problems with the fetus are difficult to diagnose, and are only determined late in the pregnancy. If a parent finds out that their child will have a very short and painful life after it's born, it is reasonable to allow a late term abortion. The way this is done is that the fetus is given an injection to stop its heart so that it feels no pain, then labor is induced and the baby is stillborn.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • Fetuses should not be aborted in late-term pregnancy, because they are self-aware.

    The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect the minority and the weak. Killing fetuses, simply because they aren't wanted, is unwarranted and should be punished by the full extent of the law. If a mother killed her baby outside of the womb, the nation would be shocked. But, if it's still inside her, all of a sudden it's okay. It's not okay to kill a fetus during late-term pregnancy.

    Posted by: TawdryAmado76
  • Third-term abortions are no different than murder, and should not be allowed

    Women should not be allowed to have abortions late in their terms. The fetus, in the last 3 months especially, is a viable human being with feelings. Allowing abortion this late is no different than murder. It is disgusting that any woman would even consider a third-term abortion. In those rare circumstances where a woman was a victim of rape or violence, and an abortion might be acceptable, the woman should undergo the procedure in the first term.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • Women should not be allowed to have late term abortion

    Since the baby would now be able to support its self on its on outside the womb getting a late abortions is now actual murder. This is because the child (once it is born) is now able to do things in life.

  • I disagree that women should be allowed late term abortions since the fetus can now survive on its own.

    Women who have babies in secret and dump them in the trash can be held accountable for murder if that baby dies from exposure. Aborting a late term pregnancy is no different because the fetus could well survive on its own. If the mother doesn't want the baby she could instead have a Caesarean section and put the infant up for adoption. Better yet she can do the humane and honorable thing and carry the fetus to term and give birth. The time to prevent unwanted pregnancy is before it happens--not after!

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • When the fetus is viable outside the womb, the fetus becomes a human being and abortion at that point should be considered murder.

    I support the right to have an abortion, but late-term abortions are not the same as early abortions. When a fetus has developed all the necessary bodily functions to survive outside the womb, I believe it is no longer a fetus, but a developed human being. A baby takes time to develop, and if the woman has not decided to have an abortion by the time the baby has developed, she should have to deliver it and give the baby up for adoption.

    Posted by: EImerBuddie
  • Besides being pure debaughtery, fetuses can survive outside of the womb at the late stages of a pregnancy, therefore it falls under the category of murder.

    There are an increasing number of premature birth babies (i.e. one pound 4 ounces) that are surviving and thriving as adults. If the pregnancy is in the late stages, then other options need to be considered such as adoption.

    Posted by: Ramon Griffith
  • While I am 100% pro-choice, I cannot find a single valid reason for ending the life of a child who can survive out of the womb.

    I consider myself pro-choice, having had 5 abortions myself (all of which took place in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy). The way that I view things, a woman can do with her body whatever she wants. If she doesn't want to carry a child, she has the right to terminate a pregnancy. What I do NOT believe a woman has the right to do, is end the life of a baby which is capable of surviving outside the womb. In my mind, that is murder and it is inexcusably wrong. If the pregnancy is far enough into the second or third trimester that the baby can live once forced labor begins, what reason is there to choose death for it instead of letting it live and be adopted by couples unable to have children. I don't see how this has anything to do with a woman's body at that point. Once a baby is outside of her body, I do not believe she should be able to sentence it to death with no medical reason for doing so. It no longer concerns her and it should not be allowed in the United States of America.

    Posted by: taffydelite
  • No, that would be murder!

    Pro-life and the majority of pro-choice agree on this one. "No", it is not alright to abort in the third trimester - when a child has the ability to live on its own. And, majority agrees because it sounds like what it is - murder. Just like you can't kill your kids, when they live under the same roof as you, you can't kill a baby just because it is occupying your body for a bit. After all, you created him/her. You should have to live with it until it is ready to escape your physical grip. We can't even kill a deadly cancer that is infesting our body and killing us. Why should we have the right to kill an innocent child who is doing nothing but asking to be nurtured by it's mom? Should we show more respect to the cancer? The only way that I would find a third trimester abortion to be even part way justifiable is if the mom's life is in jeopardy.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • I oppose a woman's ability to have an abortion if the fetus would be viable outside the womb because this is essentially murder.

    Allowing women to have abortions when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb is immoral as it is essentially murder. Currently in the US legal system anyone who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with two counts of murder. One count for the mother and one count for the baby. It seems hypocritical to allow a mother to kill her baby free of charge when another cannot. Woman who wish to abort their babies this late term should be required to give birth to the child and place it for adoption. This would allow the child a chance at life and cause no reproductive issues for the mother later in life.

    Posted by: VampireShu
  • A woman should not be allowed to have an abortion late in pregnancy, or if a fetus is viable outside the womb.

    A woman should not be allowed to have an abortion late in pregnancy because it's murder. If a fetus is able to survive on it's own that is actually taking a viable life. It makes no sense why a person would wait several weeks to make such a critical decision like that and it's wrong to let things go that far and then kill a baby.

    Posted by: CestbardeI

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.