Well, I guess she could get hit by a bus, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, that's complete an utter bullshit. The women's risk should be real and imminent. Just like any other self defense case.
I beg to differ. And I have the internal and external scars to prove it.
Sex, like other pleasurable activities, carries certain risks.
Yes it does. You could have a stroke or heart attack during sex and die. Or you could be raped and/or find a relative sneaking into your room late at night and then finding yourself pregnant. Now pure pro-life people like Sandy believe that victims who suffer such fates should simply suck it up and have the child. If the girl is 12 or 13, her pelvis not fully capable of bearing a child through late term, she could die or be incapable of ever having children again, along with a plethora of other medical conditions that will affect her for the rest of her natural life. As far as someone like Sandy is concerned, that girl does not get a say in any of that. I doubt she would view her assault as being 'pleasurable'. Personally I don't think a child should be forced to have a child, do you? Even if she consented to sex with little Johnny behind the bleachers and because her education failed her in not teaching her about safe sex or she was made to take the virginity pledge with her family, she thought his pulling out would be ok, only to find herself pregnant.
As Orleander said, this is not about the baby but what you and many others view as the woman who enjoys sex and after all, a 'whore' gets what she deserves, right?
It is inconceivable to me how anyone, let alone a Government, can take a woman's rights away from her own body.
Ok, sure. But once the embryo starts looking like a baby. Once it has all the right body parts in all the right places, and you can even see it on utrasound sucking its thumb, most would call it a baby.
An 18 week old looks like a baby and does suck its thumb. I know both my son's did during the ultrasounds. It still does not mean they were 'classified' as 'people'. The doctors, midwives and other medical staff, never once referred to them as "babies" to me. It was always a 'foetus'. With good reason. Many women do miscarry during the second and third term and until that foetus becomes viable, the medical staff will continue to use the medical terminology when referring to the foetus.
If it were put to a vote, a referendum, I'm sure that abortion at 10 days would pass. But by 6 weeks the fetal brain is functioning with detectable brainwaves.
By 12 weeks, all the organs are functioning. The baby can move it's head, suck its thumb, and make facial expressions.
By 17 weeks the baby is experiencing REM sleep. By 20 it can recognize its mother's voice. If not killed (aborted) a baby has a 60% chance of survival if born at 24 weeks.
Personally, I think 20 weeks should be the cut off date for an abortion, or possibly 18 weeks. The viability at 24 weeks is minimal and depending on where the child is born, it's chances are close to nil. If it is born in the hospital and rushed straight into icu, then it might have a chance. I still remember being 37 weeks pregnant and in hospital due to complications (with my first) and I was in a twin room with a woman who was 26 weeks pregnant and who's amniotic fluid was leaking out. She gave birth to the child in the toilet, thinking the mild stomach cramp she'd suddenly suffered was a sign she needed to go to the bathroom. I can still hear her screams, I can still remember rushing (lumbering) to the bathroom in our room, opening the door to see her covered in blood on the floor and a little foot sticking out of the toilet. I remember screaming my head off and hitting the alarms as the midwives and doctors came rushing into the room, pulled the baby out of the toilet and running to the trauma room, while others helped her to her bed... I remember one kind male midwife taking my sobbing self back to my bed. The child survived 2 days. And she was told afterwards that even if she had given birth to the child in a birthing room, the chances of it surviving were about 20%.
Now surely, at some point in the pregnancy, we should draw a line. At some point, it becomes infanticide. I'd say we should err on the side of life. I'd have no problem with a morning after pill that simply prevents implantation. But would absolutely oppose any abortions beyond 6-8 weeks perhaps even 4-6 weeks). Except in cases where the mother is in actual danger of dying, or severe fetal abnormalities,
As I said above, I personally think 18 weeks should be the maximum cut off. Maybe 20 weeks. In cases where the child has severe abnormalities, that would mean the foetus would not make it to full term alive and would not survive out of the womb either, in such instances, I do not disapprove of late term abortions. The horror of sitting and waiting for an ailing foetus to die so you can give birth to a dead child is something I cannot even begin to imagine and forcing women to go through something like that is cruel and unnecessary. And if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother at any time, then it should be her choice in whether she wants to take the risk with her own life or end the pregnancy.
But arbitrarily refusing women the right to any choice is wrong in my opinion. At 4 weeks, most are not even aware they are pregnant. With my first I found out when I was 7 weeks and thought I had the flu.:bawl: And I was not meant to be able to have children.
While the earlier the better, I think putting a 4 week limit is way too restrictive since most would not recognise or be aware they were pregnant at 4 weeks or even 6 weeks. If the woman had been on the pill, it could be longer than that. A 13 year old girl for example, might not recognise that she is pregnant, especially when one considers that early menstruation in young girls is irregular most of the time.
