I haven't had any research about this but i think there's nothing wrong with abortion. In my opion, if the mother doesn't want to have the child, she has reasons to do so. Maybe she cannot afford to raise the child, or she has a phobia of going into labour.
Whatever reason, the child will be the one who suffer after birth. If the mother doesn't want the child, there are high possibilies that the infant be abandoned, treated badly, abused, or it has to suffer violence ... In developing and under-developed countries, not many people have the means to adopt children, there aren't many orphanages either, and among those orphanages only a few are well-equipped. Usually the orphans have to live in very poor conditions, without clean water, no education, no medicines, not enough food... I heard my sister, who is a sociologist, said that when she visited a countryside in Vietnam (i forgot the name of the city), she saw kids rummaging the trash bag near a low-class restaurant to find some spare food, and they said they were abandoned.
When growing up, if not educated properly, these abandoned children or have to struggle to survive at a really young age. When they are in critical need of money, they are willing to do anything, from selling there body, delivering drugs for some bad guys, to robbing other people's properties, or even killing them then stripping off their belongings if they don't comply or show signs of running away to report. On top of that, they are at high risk of becoming a drug addict and catch some incurable diseases (HIV, sexual diseases). These children then is at might grow to hate the society, hence try to take revenge on other innocent people by making them suffer the same. So overall, they probably don't want the life their mothers gave them. Additionally, they can become burdens to the society.
So what is the use of going through painful labour giving birth to them to make them suffer all of the above? If you don't think you are capable of give the infant a proper life, or there isn't anyone who is willing to adopt the child, don't give it hell by giving birth to it. Maybe a 40-week old child has cognitive ability, but it isn't fully grown, so maybe there isn't much pain. Rather than suffering the afterwards.
(Please put up with my grammatical errors. I'm Vietnamese, and feel free to correct them)
Think about this: if a 14-year-old girl is the victim of a D.F.S.A(Drug facilitated sexual assault) or any other form of sexual assault, do you want that poor 14-year-old to have to deal with a child that they probably do not want, or in almost ALL cases do not have the responsibility to to take care of? It is HER body and therefore HER choice to abort her child. Also, consider this: The majority of the people that want abortions to be illegal believe in a book that ENCOURAGES sexual assault, multiple wives at the same time, and other atrocities. We need to put an end to this ideology that it's never the choice of the parent,
It's infanticide. While I am in favor of a woman's right to control of her body, that is only if it doesn't do harm to another. When it's a mass of cells, without organs and nervous system, that's one thing. When it forms those and starts showing a life of it's own, that's something else. I can't understand why any woman would even consider an abortion at such a stage. If they wanted an abortion, why didn't they get it at one month or two months? Or better yet, the morning after pill? Once the baby is that old, why not give it up for adoption? No one is forcing them to keep it.
I believe that in all stages of life, including conception, we have rights. I wouldn't have wanted my mother to abort me, as I would no longer be living right now. Also, there have been several abortion survivors, who, after they were born, somehow were cute babies who had rights.
No way in Hell. Aborting a 40 week fetus is never justified. He is a fully formed child with rights. It makes me sick that I used to be that proabortion, but science kicked my azz. All of this talk about the choice of the mother, but what about that of the baby?
Unless there is an extreme risk of maternal or fetal death I would say no. The most common reason for terminating a pregnancy is because the woman does not want to be pregnant, and considering that the vast majority know they are pregnant early on, if that is the real reason they'd have gotten it earlier (and as for financial concerns, there are funds for women seeking abortions)
After 4 months of being pregnant, the fetus really develops and the soul is infused in it. It is also very dangerous for the women who is pregnant to take this action which can lead the great bodily harm or a slow, painful death. Religions say no and logic says no.
Fetus so disgusting and ugly. Why does it have this nasty ass tail on its belly button?! Its just a baby so it doesnt matter. Wait a fetus isnt even a baby! Who cares am i right? Hmmm hmmmmm hmmhmh mhmhm oh yeah dunkin donuts wakeup rap mmmm mm m
40 weeks is a month after the baby should be born. The baby is fully develop at this point and could survive without the mother so the choice of abortion is clearly thrown out the window. In fact I believe that abortions should not even be an option after the first trimester. The legal time is 24 weeks so clearly this is a troll question with the intent of trying to make it seem like abortion is bad overall.
There are so many people who cannot have children it is disgusting that someone would make the selfish decision to tear apart and throw a baby in the garbage. What the HELL is wrong with a woman who could do this? It is just horrible, selfish, disgusting and inexcusable! BLAH
By 36-37 weeks should be born so killing a 40-week baby would be infanticide. If it's somehow remains in the womb it should still be illegal as should any abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy> i think the first 3 months is sufficient to plan an abortion, anything further should be disallowed.