Pro-Choice people: Are "post partum abortions" ok?

>>What if the baby is the product of rape or incest? What if raising a child would present undue emotional or economic hardship?<<

Good point. After all, a baby doesn't stop being a product of rape of incest by virtue of being born. If this is a good enough reason to kill before, it is a good enough reason to kill after.

The thing is, you usually know *straight away* whether a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (old joke about not discovering it was rape till the cheque bounced notwithstanding) or if raising a child would present some form of hardship.

There are also alternatives to killing a baby post-birth. If it was viable to transplant a foetus, I am sure many women would choose to donate rather than abort; it's not as though there would be any shortage of willing recipients, after all (we can safely assume any pro-lifer who is not a total raging hypocrite would willingly accept a foetal transplant rather than allow it to be aborted).

Going through with an abortion or with a full-term pregnancy involves the mother's body, and is therefore a properly medical decision. As such, it should require informed consent on behalf of the mother, just like any other medical decision.

I fail to see how killing an infant could be seen as a medical decision, as it no longer involves the parent's body.

"You may wish to review partial-birth abortion procedures if you're unclear on this."

There's no such medical procedure. That's a political term, invented for its incendiary value. It more or less means the same thing as the actual medical term, "intact dilation and extraction". But in any case, that 0.17% of abortions is now banned.

"Why should the law protect a mass of flesh that can't survive without help?"

Being incendiary again. Many people in ICUs in hospitals also "can't survive without help". That is not a criteria ever used by anyone pro-choice. That's not what is meant by "viable". A fetus too young to be viable can't survive, even with help. Any amount of help.

"What if the baby is the product of rape or incest? What if raising a child would present undue emotional or economic hardship?"

Once the baby has reached the point of viability, the mother is morally obligated to try to carry it to term, and then consider giving it up for adoption. Even if it is the product of rape or incest.

But not prior to that point. It isn't an independent human prior to that point.

Now if you'd like to make an intelligent point (which you didn't), you might point out that my standard of "viability" is a moving target and gets earlier as medical science improves. I agree. I'd be OK with reviewing the dates associated with legal abortion from time to time. And I'd be OK, if medical science ever made it possible, to consider laws that phased out abortion and replaced it with removal of the fetus and in vitro raising of the fetus to term.

As soon as the egg and sperm come together, life begins. It is a life. It is a small human, it is a human baby. As far as rape and incest.....it is a baby and doesnt deserve to be murdered , even rape victims choose to have their babies. I know I would. When women are informed, many times they will choose to keep their children from being slaughtered. Its their children, their blood, a mother and father is involved, they are real children.

I hope you will see some sonograms and see with medical plastic models, what those babies look like. It will surprise you.

Then you should also think about why people have abortions, their own selfishness, they wanna be able to sample themselves from man to man in a corrupt society that embraces this behavior as good and normal.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it's not. Once the baby is born, it is not dependent on the biological mother. It is dependent on someone, but it doesn't have to be the birth mom....as opposed to pre-birth, where there is only one person who can keep it alive.

And while we're on the subject of partial-birth abortions, you should probably look up how rarely those are actually legal, and the circumstances that are generally necessary to allow one. A woman cannot just go to a local clinic and abort a 39 week fetus because she wants to.

I know many people who should have been aborted before birth or after it, but I digress.

Are these women suffering from mental illness like Andrea Yates? Law decides that.

Pro-choice.

I'm not sure what your question is, but I'm assuming you are pro-life. All you did was prove that it's better to get an abortion because apparently people will still just kill their babies after they are born which I'm sure we can all agree is worse. And your argument isn't really logical because pro-choice people don't support killing babies after they are born. They kill an egg fertilized by a sperm that isn't a person yet. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

This has been tossed around for years, One of the leading 'thinkers' in a college in IL. has the view that you ought to have a 'trial' period of up to 30 days, if it don't work out, kill it. It won't be long.

Have you ever seen video footage of the baby during an abortion? Look it up and tell me that the baby doesn't "feel" it. Tell me that baby isn't screaming in pain and agony.

It makes me sick. And i've seen death in war. I've been to Afghan and Iraq. I've seen more crap than most people know. And still, that is by far the worst thing I have ever seen.