So is late term abortion. If the fetus is developed enough that it can be given up for adoption, then it is by definition a late term abortion. Those are traumatic.
And if it's not developed enough that it can be given up for adoption, none of the above applies.
That's a problem for the CHILD not the mother. Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better to kill Avery so she wouldn't have to go through painful parts of her life? Personally I'd prefer that Avery make that choice for herself.
Of course it's traumatic. So is abortion, especially late term abortion. (And yes, that is what the post you replied to was talking about.)
Well aren't they banned save for for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health? Yes. So if its say an abortion where the child will be born without a cranium and then left to starve to death or simply die from an infection then yes its traumatic but perhaps not as traumatic. If its an ectopic pregnancy then its more traumatic when both the mother and the fetus die.
You are pretending that the very restricted LTA are not informed largely informed by health issues. Because after all why would any woman who KNOWS she doesn't want to be pregnant allow herself to be pregnant for months at a time before getting an abortion? Why? If a woman has access to an abortion at three months wouldn't she take that opportunity? So why would a woman get so far into the sixth, seventh or eighth month? Why would she wait for a procedure that is life threatening whereas an earlier abortion isn't? Stop pretending as if you don't have enough information to understand the issue. Its a restricted event based on heath issues. Or are you claiming that the mother's health is irrelevant?
As for Avery no I'm not suggesting that but I find it interesting that Avery decided for herself it was better for her to have an abortion instead of opting for adoption considering she herself was adopted. Don't you find that interesting?
We don't know why Avery's birth mother gave her up for adoption. All we know is that having Avery write her out of the blue when she has moved on and has another family wasn't welcome. And Avery's birth mom CHOSE adoption. Can you imagine what it might mean to not want to be pregnant at all? To not want to give birth at all? To be forced to have an unwanted child? Well obviously not because you behave as if pregnancy just an ejaculation or something simple like that. A simple nine month belly pimple waiting to pop itself.
Which post exactly? You need to indicate the post. You still haven't replied to my last post just as Geoff didn't reply to his last post. Avoiding the argument perhaps? I'm consider it you conceding your former argument.
Let me go and find the supreme court ruling on LTA's so you can have a better understanding of how much it is restricted.
'In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. The Court also determined, however, that this right is not absolute and it must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. Therefore, according to Roe, the state’s interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus). States are allowed to, and indeed have, severely restricted access to abortion in the third-trimester, except, as the Supreme Court has ruled, when necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health. In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination. The Supreme Court has held that even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;” “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health; only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes“health” and when a fetus is viable; and states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.'
How would you restrict it further save to not allow women with health issues? Or do you want to force women carrying babies with severe disabilities they cannot possibly survive going to term? Or what exactly? What more can you restrict and most importantly WHY?
Because if you thought there were LTA's happening simply because of money or access then you would be asking for better access and affordable services, not trying to further limit, restrict or ban LTAs.
As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order. In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".
The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow. Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."
Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks). The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests. Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".
Ten states require a second physician to approve. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".
Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive. The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus.