Quote:
Originally posted by valkyrie
I don't believe that an "unborn child's" "rights" should ever outweigh those of a woman, period.
|
Forgive me if quoting only a small part of what you said seems to misrepresent you. However, you summed up your argument very well with that statement -- and to a point, I agree with you.
This bill was to outlaw a procedure that (thank you sugar&spice) occurs in about 1% of cases. Partial birth abortions become the procedure of choice at about 17 weeks. Medical science now allows us to have babies actually survive after birth from the 21st week on.
As far as what should be legal, and when a person should be considered a person, I've stated before that I believe it should be at the point where the baby would be viable outside the womb. At that point, the life is not so much joined with the mother's. The two can be separated at any point. If a mother wants to deliver the premature baby and then give it up to adoption, an actual delivery is basically the same procedure without the killing part.
I agree that the "Oh shit I'm pregnant" women should have the choice available to them. But with freedom, there should be responsibility. If you want an abortion, get it done. However, I just don't see the justice in destroying a life for the sake of convenience.
Of all the reading I've done on the subject, I couldn't fine even one instance where someone said a partial birth abortion was medically necessary to save a life. If it was, I'd have no problem with it. However, since it's almost the exact same procedure as a delivery, I really don't see how that argument would hold any water at all.