kemmer

Not to mention that some families will toss a child into the street if they find out the child is gay.

JoyV

Some won't. But unless she is a Muslim, she isn't totally ostracized by society, have no future other than becoming a prostitute or be locked away in a Magdalene or other penitential asylums as once were the usual results. That or run away and make up a deceased husband and hope you are never found out.

There are many things which some families are rigidly against. How many families won't accept a member who is gay? How many won't accept a family member becoming involved with someone of a different faith or race? Life, and families, aren't perfect. In real life, part of becoming an adult is learning to deal with life's tragedies. There is no do-overs or deletes. You make a choice to engage in risky behavior and you must deal with the consequences.

JoyV

So if your parents will not accept your child, your solution is kill the child?????

JoyV

Ah. You specified non viable. So this means you are in favor of banning abortions at 24 weeks or later which is the age most babies can survive outside the womb? But as for partly formed, an unborn baby is fully formed by 16 weeks of age.

At 5 weeks there is a heartbeat.
At 8 weeks the baby reacts to pain. His brain starts functioning.
At 14 weeks the baby starts sucking his thumb. It is nearly fully formed but its eyes are still sealed shut.
At 16 weeks he is fully developed, but his bones are cartilage and he is too small to survive outside the womb without a top tier NCU. He begins responding to his mother's voice.
At 22 weeks he has hair.
At 24 weeks is considered the age of viability.

Here is a 24 month old premature birth.

JoyV

So does that justify killing the child?

grace scott

You do not know how you will react until you are faced with a situation. I prefer to think that I would accept and love the child.

son of witless

A beautiful human being.

JoyV

Already did face such a situation. My body's hormone balance was unpredictable so birth control failed. I had three choices as a WAC. Have an abortion, put the child up for adoption, or be discharged. I chose #3. Now I am a grandmother.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

————————-

“.... top tier NCU.”

Just how many places have those? Here, in Tennessee, we’ve had 30 rural hospitals - hospitals most people use - close in the past few years because our GOPTP-controlled legislature have decided not to expand Medicare to 300,000 Tennesseans because “... it sounds too much like Obamacare.” Never mind these same legislators have state medical insurance for life.

This inequality isn’t just in Tennessee. It’s all over where state legislatures haven’t extended medical coverage to their poor, not insured and under-insured. Try having a difficult pregnancy where good pre- and post-natal isn’t available.

Also, why do so many want to claim they’re fighting for the “innocent unborn” when, in reality, all they’re doing is inserting their own values on people who don’t want to forced to be an incubator? Personally, I’d like to see any healthy baby allowed to be carried to term, then adopted. But, I’m not a woman. And, I don’t have any right to try to force any woman to do what she doesn’t want to do with HER body. How would you like it if you were forced to have sex with someone you didn’t want to, then become pregnant? (That refers to rape and incest.)

Why do so many legislators think that only the woman should be held responsible for an unborn child? Why not include the father of that child in that law? These anti-abortion laws have been totally one-sided in their writing and enforcement. Why is it that many men think they have the right to dictate to women? Why not force father’s to care for the kids they procreate or face castration?

So many of these lawmakers claim to be Christian yet know nothing of God’s command in Numbers 5:11-39 (NIV). Either that or they choose to ignore it because it doesn’t meet with their politics.

John King

Numbers 5:11-31, describes an unusual procedure, known as the jealousy offering, a husband could use to determine if his wife had been unfaithful to him. Essentially, the husband and wife would come to the priest, the priest would then create a concoction of unpleasant ingredients, and then the wife would have to drink the concoction. If the wife was guilty of adultery, she would get sick and her belly would swell. If the wife was innocent, God would protect her from the effects of the concoction. There was nothing magical about the concoction. It was entirely a matter of God using the result to demonstrate whether a woman was innocent or guilty. So, in summary, Numbers 5:11-31 affirms the truth of Numbers 32:23, "Be sure your sin will find you out."

Some propose that Numbers 5:11-31 refers to God causing an abortion. The 2011 edition of the NIV mistakenly states that the drink will cause miscarriage in Numbers 5:21-22, 27. However, this is not what the passage is talking about. Pregnancy is nowhere mentioned, or even hinted at, in the text. The only thing that even sounds like pregnancy is the guilty wife’s stomach becoming bloated, but even in that instance, it has nothing to do with pregnancy. Further, the passage does not say that drinking the concoction would cause an abortion/miscarriage. While drinking a poisonous mixture of ingredients could very well cause a miscarriage, that is not what this text is speaking of.

If a wife was found guilty, the punishment was death (Leviticus 20:10). If the wife was found innocent, she would be “cleared of guilt” and “able to have children” (Numbers 11:28). So, again, Numbers 5:11-31 does not refer to abortion in any sense. Rather, it is describing a method that God allowed to be used to determine if a wife had committed adultery against her husband.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

This is not an extensive research at all . . . but a cursory one!

JoyV

No one should be forced to have a baby. Do you know anyone who has been so forced? Every woman, unless they were raped, has the choice on whether or not to allow themselves to become pregnant. Once they have made that choice, and another life is in the balance; I believe they should not be allowed to end that life because they changed their mind. You cannot legally end the life after birth because you changed you mind about being a parent. Why should you be allowed to end a life you chose to make because you changed your mind.

I AM a woman. And I am not a Christian. So what the Christian god commands is immaterial to me. My stance on abortion has nothing to do with religious beliefs but with the Constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Life-Liberty-and Property are the first inalienable rights guaranteed by our constitution.

Do I impose our constitution on others? No. Our constitution applies to all American whether they desire it or not. What other countries do or do not is out of my hands as an American. I can like, dislike, or abhor the laws and practices of other countries. But I do not have the right to demand they change.

There ARE laws which mandate fathers meet the responsibility of caring for their children either by raising them or paying child support. If it is determined that you are the biological father of the child, the child’s mother can ask the Office of the Attorney General to issue a child support review order. You will be automatically involved and will be ordered to pay guideline child support and provide health insurance for the child. An order to pay child support is enforceable by contempt and failure to pay can mean jail time, suspension of your license, interest of the arrearage and attorney fees. https://mensrights.com/what-are-an-unwed-fathers-legal-responsibilities/

How are abortion laws one sided against women and not men. If an abortion were illegal, neither a man nor a woman would be allowed to have one. Any one sidedness can be laid on nature or a god if you are religious. Although my cousin, who was born with both male and female genitalia, and was designated a male on the birth certificate; gave birth to three babies. Officially my cousin was a man who gave birth.

And yes. I am very much in favor of harsh penalties for rape. As for incest, if the woman or girl is forced to have sex with a close relative; that is still rape. So I see no need to include the term in any exceptions for abortion, but won't quibble about it.

As for the need for a qualified NCU, that is the norm for any preemie. I was under 4 pounds when I was born. This was before there were NCUs. The doctors didn't think I would live. But I was too stubborn to die. If a baby is premature, and does not live; unless the baby is neglected or killed there is no crime. It is sad but it is nature. But to prevent the baby from living is another story!

And by the way, medicare would have no effect on delivery of babies unless you know of a 65+ year old having a baby. Medicare is for those who are 65 or older. Maybe you meant Medicaid?

son of witless

John King

"...An order to pay child support is enforceable by contempt and failure to pay can mean jail time, suspension of your license, interest of the arrearage and attorney fees..." https://mensrights.com/what-are-an-unwed-fathers-legal-responsibilities/

As a man, I have a major issue with current abortion laws! One is a selfish concept: women deserve to have a say over their own body, but abortion is more about another body . . . abortion should not be about the body of the mother but the body of the unborn baby!!! If the attention were placed properly on the baby, then the rights of the father become as important as the mothers. The decision to abort the unborn child should be not just the mothers decision, but both person who conceived the child!!!

...just my opinion!!!

JoyV

But I don't think it should be about the babies body in priority over the mothers body. She had a choice. She made her choice by allowing herself to get pregnant. That was her choice. Once pregnant it is not only morally wrong but totally illogical that her changing her mind on her own previous choice should take precedence over the life of an innocent given zero choice at all. And who will she blame if after she changes her mind once and has an abortion, she changes her mind again and wants to undo the abortion. Some choices cannot or should not be undone.

John King

If the choice was made to have sex on her part, it was not her choice alone. Both parties were having consensual sex and both parties will live with the consequence of that act . . . especially if she goes through with the birth. Are not even unwed men held accountable of the results of their action? If men are legally held accountable for the child born, then they should have a say in the abortion of the child!

...just my opinion!