To derail only slightly, can we all at least agree that these are the types of conversations that our useless lawmakers should be having?!?!? It should happen in both house and senate hearings, then a damn bill can be proposed by either or both. Then they can debate the hell out of it and put it square in the public eye on the MSM all damn day?!?!
Instead of just REEEEEEEEEE!!!

Pipe dream I know. They have more important stuff to do like rile up their base for violence.

I think I have told this story before. My wife and I went through about 10 years of trying everything possible to have a child. That included Russian adoption. We had our passports and tickets to go to Russia and pick up our child. The Russians decided to shut it down because some morons had decided to kill their Russian adopted child. It was rough.

We decided to do IVF one more time and got pregnant. It came time for the testing. We had both decided to go through with it as we were older. Sitting in the room waiting for the results we both looked at each other and decided we didn't care what the results were. God had blessed us after all those years and we were going to accept his blessing whatever it may be. We didn't get the results of the tests.

We have a great boy now that eats us out of house and home and is going to letter in 3 sports next year.

hoopla said:

---

Third trimester abortions are performed for fetal anomalies. One kind involves the observation or discovery of a genetic disorder that predictably would lead to very serious problems for a young child. This includes things like Trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) and 13 (Patau syndrome), and others that are not so frequent or well known.

The other kind is a developmental anomaly. The genetic inheritance may be perfect, but the fetus has not developed normally. This can include anencephalic (no brain) syndrome or neural tube defects such as spina bifida or hydrocephaly (water on the brain).

In most of these cases the baby may not live long after birth and parents would need to have a resuscitation order ready. In most of these cases the baby has less than a 10% chance to live past the first year. And, more importantly, the quality of life for these children that do live will be very limited or likely merciless due to the severity of their debilitating illness.

---

No.

Boo Weekley said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

hoopla said:

---

In most of these cases the baby has less than a 10% chance to live past the first year. And, more importantly, the quality of life for these children that do live will be very limited or likely merciless due to the severity of their debilitating illness.

---

Why stop at birth? There are several issues many people face that we should kill them off, too.

---

I would argue that, in a way, aborting a 1 week old / 1 month old / 3 yr old / 16 yr old is more humane than aborting a fetus in the 3rd trimester. At least in those cases, you could dope up the baby or child or teenager to knock them out so that they would feel no pain or trauma. A third trimester fetus can feel every bit of that pain as well as fear and panic. I have seen ultrasound footage of a fetus trying to escape the death instruments by kicking and flailing and fleeing to the other side of the uterus and it was so traumatizing that I genuinely thought I was going to faint and was hoping it was somehow fake.

---

I would never ever be able to watch that and not have it haunt me for the rest of my life. You didn't have to watch that to in knownthat abortion is terrible.

No

hoopla said:

---

Third trimester abortions are performed for fetal anomalies. One kind involves the observation or discovery of a genetic disorder that predictably would lead to very serious problems for a young child. This includes things like Trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) and 13 (Patau syndrome), and others that are not so frequent or well known.

The other kind is a developmental anomaly. The genetic inheritance may be perfect, but the fetus has not developed normally. This can include anencephalic (no brain) syndrome or neural tube defects such as spina bifida or hydrocephaly (water on the brain).

In most of these cases the baby may not live long after birth and parents would need to have a resuscitation order ready. In most of these cases the baby has less than a 10% chance to live past the first year. And, more importantly, the quality of life for these children that do live will be very limited or likely merciless due to the severity of their debilitating illness.

---

I think the better question is, why do you have to find outlier cases, the less than 1%, to justify your desire to kill a baby in the womb?

JB!98 said:

---

I think I have told this story before. My wife and I went through about 10 years of trying everything possible to have a child. That included Russian adoption. We had our passports and tickets to go to Russia and pick up our child. The Russians decided to shut it down because some morons had decided to kill their Russian adopted child. It was rough.

We decided to do IVF one more time and got pregnant. It came time for the testing. We had both decided to go through with it as we were older. Sitting in the room waiting for the results we both looked at each other and decided we didn't care what the results were. God had blessed us after all those years and we were going to accept his blessing whatever it may be. We didn't get the results of the tests.

We have a great boy now that eats us out of house and home and is going to letter in 3 sports next year.

---

AWESOME!!

Yes. My wife and I were having to consider that very thing. My son was born with hands and feet deformities. There was a very small chance that a particular gene combo, if present would result in a birth with stiff joints and outstretched limbs. 100% of the time the baby dies soon after birth. The mother has a good chance for severe hemorrhaging and not making it.

It was a long weekend waiting for results. Luckily that gene combo was not present and we had our son.

The thing is that the vast majority of women who have a condition that legitimately puts their life in danger because of a pregnancy would most likely die before reaching the third trimester anyways. Pregnancy puts a lot of stress on the mother from a physiological perspective. If you have little to no reserve for yourself then it will become problematic in the 2nd trimester when your eating/pumping blood/respiring/renal filtering/etc. for two.

A third trimester abortion is a significant stressor in and of itself.

LostTexasBoy said:

---

I don't believe in abortion for any reason or at any point in time during the pregnancy, even in the cases of the miniscule outliers that the defenders of abortion like to use for their argument, ie rape, incest, danger to the mother, etc. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for every life whether they are born or are only in the womb, and no matter how they were conceived, whether through love or through an awful, vile sin. We won't always know or understand that plan, but the plan and purpose is still there none-the-less. All of our days are numbered. We may live to be 100 and be fully healthy and die of old age or die at the age of 5 due to cancer. It is not my place nor anyone else's to pick and choose which lives have value. What or who may have value to me may not have any value to someone else. However, that does not make that person any less valuable as a human. God doesn't make mistakes. So we should stop trying to put God and his plan in a box and dictate the value of the unborn or the impact that they may have in the future.

And as another poster already said, Tim Tebow was supposed to be aborted. Every single doctor told his mother to abort him because of the risk to her own life. Look at the millions of people he has impacted through his life so far and he's only in his mid-thirties.

---

This is the only pro-life rationale I can support. If you are going to take the position that the life begins at conception, there is literally no justification for terminating the life that should be acceptable.

With a few of these conditions it's a 4th trimester abortion is what ends up happening and it's much more cruel than the 3rd trimester abortion for the baby and parents. The baby has limited or no brain activity, if you are lucky they can't survive without a vent and pulling the plug is "easier" if you are unlucky you either keep them on a g tube until they die of an infection or you pull the g tube and they slowly starve to death.

only rare circumstances. but since the question was asked.

1. life of the mother in danger and child cannot be delivered
2. non-viable child.

hoopla said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

hoopla said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The only time it is even a conversation to me is if it is a choice between the Mother and the Child living. I don't think you should force someone to die to give birth if they don't choose to. That's literally about 1 in 100,000 at most, probably less, with modern medicine. I do agree with the axiom that if you are choosing between the mother's life and the child's life you should choose the mother unless the mother wishes to take that risk, mothers can have more children and are more likely to survive as a general rule.

If they baby is going to be born with serious disabilities or problems and they are 3rd Trimester there is no reason not to deliver them and give them a chance at life. If they mother does not want them then allow someone else to do so. Once again this is an extremely rare circumstance as in 1 in 10,000 or so.

The larger issue is these are extreme examples that really aren't the issue and are designed as a distraction. There is no doubt that outside of a very small minority of Pro Life folks that they would choose to allow abortion in extreme circumstances and stop the overwhelming majority of abortions. About 90-95% have nothing to do with health, rape, or incest or a mother with severe mental issues that isn't capable of carrying a baby to term. So once you get rid of the 90-95% for convenience then we can talk about the exceptions but in the meantime the real issue is those abortions.

---

That's about to happen so the time to talk about the exceptions is now.

---

No.

Abortion isn't being outlawed, en masse. One may need to travel, to murder one's child, but it isn't being outlawed. It is merely being made a state's rights issue. As it always should have been. Murder is a state issue, unless it happens on a federal installation.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned

---

How would that stand the VERY SAME legal scrutiny as RvW?

Think before you type.

---

Tell me you didn't read the draft without telling me you didn't read the draft.

---

You may not understand this case or how constitutional law works. Roe v. Wade was an absolute abomination of legal reasoning. Forget the issue it deals with; it's legal garbage of the highest order and makes a mockery of the basic principles of statutory interpretation. That said, a federal law legalizing abortion nationwide as the Democrats have crowed about would be just as unconstitutional as a federal law banning it. The Constitution doesn't speak to it; therefore, the federal government has no authority regarding it one way or the other.

First, there is never a medically NECESSARY reason for a third trimester abortion. In every case where they are performed, it is elective and a c-section is often safer given the techniques required for third trimester abortions.

Second, and this is really where this discussion should always be directed, if we agree to allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother and fetal abnormalities are you ok with banning the other 80+% of abortions?

If the answer is "no", and it always is, then what are we talking about? You aren't actually concerned about the fringe cases, you're attempting to distract from the fact that the vast majority of abortion are for convenience and what amounts to emergent birth control.

We can have a nuanced discussion about the outliers once we can all agree that a civilization that celebrates the violation of our most basic biological purpose will inevitably falter given a little time. Until then, it's a waste of time.

Well stated.

Just have a c-section

That's just it, the discussion is very nuanced. Anyone who says all abortion is ok or all abortion is wrong are the extremists. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.without discussing the nuance it's hard to know where on the spectrum you stand. It is odd that some people celebrate it but that's just where society is right now, you are either left or right which is sad because most of us are in the middle.

The nuances include and my positions

Timing - No holds barred before point of viability, generally 20 weeks. I was previously a heartbeat is life until we had one with a heart beat that spontaneously aborted and caused all kinds of problems
Fetal Condition - Non viable, incompatible with life, high likelihood of life as a vegetable. I'm fine with aborting. Early genetic testing should be used more to give people data and options prior to 20 weeks
Maternal condition - ectopic or molar abort it (those are hell), likely to kill or hurt the mother also fine, mother is mentally unstable and undruggable also fine
Circumstances of pregnancy - rape or incest. You should figure this out before 20 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances

Keeper of The Spirits said:

---

That's just it, the discussion is very nuanced. Anyone who says all abortion is ok or all abortion is wrong are the extremists. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.without discussing the nuance it's hard to know where on the spectrum you stand. It is odd that some people celebrate it but that's just where society is right now, you are either left or right which is sad because most of us are in the middle.

The nuances include and my positions

Timing - No holds barred before point of viability, generally 20 weeks. I was previously a heartbeat is life until we had one with a heart beat that spontaneously aborted and caused all kinds of problems
Fetal Condition - Non viable, incompatible with life, high likelihood of life as a vegetable. I'm fine with aborting. Early genetic testing should be used more to give people data and options prior to 20 weeks
Maternal condition - ectopic or molar abort it (those are hell), likely to kill or hurt the mother also fine, mother is mentally unstable and undruggable also fine
Circumstances of pregnancy - rape or incest. You should figure this out before 20 weeks unless there are extenuating circumstances

---

Please explain this magical demarcation line you and others draw at "viability." If you left the baby - and it's a baby - alone, it would live. It's not her body, it's the baby's. Infants can't live without an adult caring for them. Can we kill them too?

Regardless, Roe is bad law and should be overturned, even if you believe what you believe.

I think we can all agree that with the nuance and incredibly personal decisions to be made, we mustconsider stripping the rights from families and doctors to do what is right. A conservative small government approach is best, which means dictating citizens actions by force of law.

Sea Speed said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

hoopla said:

---

In most of these cases the baby has less than a 10% chance to live past the first year. And, more importantly, the quality of life for these children that do live will be very limited or likely merciless due to the severity of their debilitating illness.

---

Why stop at birth? There are several issues many people face that we should kill them off, too.

---

I would argue that, in a way, aborting a 1 week old / 1 month old / 3 yr old / 16 yr old is more humane than aborting a fetus in the 3rd trimester. At least in those cases, you could dope up the baby or child or teenager to knock them out so that they would feel no pain or trauma. A third trimester fetus can feel every bit of that pain as well as fear and panic. I have seen ultrasound footage of a fetus trying to escape the death instruments by kicking and flailing and fleeing to the other side of the uterus and it was so traumatizing that I genuinely thought I was going to faint and was hoping it was somehow fake.

---

I would never ever be able to watch that and not have it haunt me for the rest of my life. You didn't have to watch that to in knownthat abortion is terrible.

---

No doubt, it came out of nowhere in an anti abortion video. Watched it at a stop light in Houston and almost had a panic attack. Simply telling my wife about it later got her really upset and disturbed. I wish I could unsee it for sure, but at the same time I wish it was required viewing for everyone who votes D.

If both the mom and baby have less than 50% chance of surviving childbirth, but mom is guaranteed to survive if she aborts.

I can understand that. It's one thing to ask another person not to take a life, it's another to ask them to sacrifice their own.

But I never understood why the debate always hinges around late term abortion, rape, incest, life threatening, etc. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done early, out of convenience.