Published: Friday, Aug. 2 2013 12:25 p.m. MDT
The problem with a total out-right no questions asked late term ban is that it
would criminalize a doctor and the woman for both emergency delivery procedures
to save the life of the woman, and Dilation (or dilatation) and curettage
(D&C) procedures for stillborns.These All-or-Nothing
bumper-sticker slogans to energize the radicals needs to account for some common
So much for this being a "war on women" when 50% of the lives saved by
preventing abortion are females. Can't think of a cause that
saves more women's lives than this.
Take a deep breath. As Reid says, this is a fringe issue because it almost never
happens, and when it does it's because of some lethal complication. States
can already ban abortions after the 12th week. Gosnell was convicted of murder
on such grounds, wasn't he? So why do we need more federal legislation?
What happened to the economy? I thought that was the GOP's #1 goal? Out of
ideas so now you have to distract us by bringing up abortion and marriage?
Most late-term abortions involve health of the mother issues or cases where the
fetus can't survive (like if it's developing without a brain).
LDS Lib,No one is suggesting criminalizing what you imply.Care to try again?
@Chris BThere are plenty of people who want to ban all abortions, no
exceptions. Some of them stepped in it when they refused to allow exceptions for
rape (Akin, Mourdock). Paul Ryan said the life of mother exception was "a
loophole wide enough to drive a Mack truck through" which I would think
suggests a desire to add some restrictions in there.
@ Chris B: And 100% of maternal deaths due to pregnancy complications are
women. Lack of abortion can be deadly.
@Chris BActually, I just realized something easier to argue... your own
Catholic church opposes abortion in all instances and making it illegal means
that it would thus become a crime where there would be punishments for the
doctors and women involved. Obviously half of Catholics are pro-choice and
despite the church statements against birth control the vast majority of
Catholics use it... however, you said nobody suggests criminalizing it, so I
don't need a majority; I just need to prove the opinion exists.
kalindra and alt,Please provide a quote from a prominent republican
who doesn't want to allow abortions when the mothers life is in danger.This ought to be good....Good luck!
Anyone who supports abortion over 20 weeks if not younger has to have no
consideration for the baby. Does the baby at this age feel pain, I think so.
Just because a 16 years old is "upset" because she does not want the
baby is no reason for abortion. In the doctor's clinic mentioned the babies
were killed if delivered alive. No grounds for compromise here.
@Chris BSalt Lake City, UTLDS Lib,No one is
suggesting criminalizing what you imply.Care to try again?1:55
p.m. Aug. 2, 2013===========Oh really -- Then why does the GOP official party platform include a proposal of a Fetal
Personhood Amendment?[effectively banning ALL abortions, and most
forms of birth control?]
@Chris B"Please provide a quote from a prominent republican who
doesn't want to allow abortions when the mothers life is in danger."Okay, is second place in the most recent presidential primary prominent
enough?SANTORUM: When I was leading the charge on partial birth
abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just
ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And
Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a
phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.
@ Chris B: How about the case of the woman in Ireland who was not allowed an
abortion and died as a result of pregnancy complications? Or all the times that
happens in South American countries? The Catholic Church bans all abortions in
the hospitals they operate - unless they can find a way to save the mother
without directly "attacking" the fetus.From 7/23, "After
posting a picture of a large pistol on his Facebook page last week, Missouri
state Senate Majority Whip Brian Nieves (R-Washington) engaged in a long
exchange about abortion in the comment section, in which he said abortions to
save the life of the mother are actually just "a matter of convenience."
... Former U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) said last October that there should be
no abortion exception for the "life of the mother" because "with
modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" in which a
woman would actually die. "And as far as health of the mother, same
thing," Walsh continued."
@atl134Partial Birth Abortions are never used nor needed to save the
life of the mother.And why do you leave out the rest of the quote
and its context?Are you hiding something?
I saw a clip where a fellow was carrying a petition to allow post-pregnancy
abortions. He was using the usual arguments (womans health/rights). Some were
I'm bothered by people claim women seek abortions for casual reasons or
because they're simply "upset" and who seem to think women
don't understand that a fetus turns into a person. I know
several woman who have had abortions. Not one woman did so for frivolous
reasons. Each woman understood that the fetus she was carrying had the
potential to become a fully fledged human being. Each of them understood the
moral and personal implications of abortion. In at least two cases, the child
was much wanted but was unlikely to survive and if the child survived would have
experienced a lifetime of suffering. In other cases, they could not provide a
decent life; abortion was the least bad choice.Abortion is a deeply
personal decision, and there are so many variables, that the only reasonable
option is to trust women and their doctors to know what is best. The surest
means for reducing the need for abortion is preventing unplanned pregnancy,
which means guaranteeing access to affordable and reliable birth control and
educating people about its use. And then we must trust people to make their own
They won't do anything with health care so they might as well try some
Re: "I know several woman who have had abortions. Not one woman did so for
frivolous reasons."There are unfrivolous reasons for killing
another human, but they primarily involve killing a human, typically one who has
killed another, whose continued existence is simply too dangerous to others to
permit him to be left alive.Inconvenience, expense, and the judgment
of anyone but a duly authorized and trusted legal agent regarding a
person's possible future quality of life, are NEVER recognized as
sufficient reasons to kill adult humans.No one has ever adequately
explained why we should apply a different analysis to innocent unborn humans.
Particularly those who will shortly be born, and who, if born prematurely, would
likely survive the experience.Abortion always kills an innocent
human. Those innocent humans should have at least the same level of protection
we offer to guilty, dangerous humans that we intend to kill.
Re:procuradorfiscal"Abortion always kills an innocent human. Those
innocent humans should have at least the same level of protection we offer to
guilty, dangerous humans that we intend to kill."What about
exceptions for rape and incest?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments