All Comments on 'Late Term Abortion'

I disagree on this one. I feel that since it's really the woman and her body who have to deal with pregnancy and since more often than not the woman bears the responsibility of child-rearing and such (in single-parent situations...and that seems to be the norm these days), it's her decision when she can or cannot end the life of the fetus. Sometimes women try to hang on to that last shred of hope to the last possible second, but the end up having to have a late-term abortion. I don't think the government should further infringe upon personal liberty in this way. I mean, c'mon...Don't you think they control enough? When you let the government get involved in issues of personal freedom and morality, it creates a lot of problems. But that's just my opinion! ^_^

It's an interesting topic you tackled, Dar. I personally think partial birth abortions are wrong and agree that it should be limited. But... I also think when the governement steps in and starts setting arbitrary rules, we're all in danger. Even the definition of late term varies. A fetus is not viable until much much later than the 3 months you state as the beginning point for the "late" term. It's a tough issue, but you obviously spent alot of time on research and on writing this.

of one's opinion on the subject (which is what most folks are voting on), you have crafted a fine essay. Well done.

~ Imp

Emotion must have caused the plethora of puncuation errors that are so uncommon for you. Also, if anyone gets involved in an issue where morals are in question and resorts to quoting Henry Hyde of all people (he of the "youthful indiscretion" alibi for having a mistress while in his 40's) I get wary. I appreciate your courage for taking a stand on such a delicate issue, and I would never claim that there is a definitive answer either way on when a clot becomes a human, but I think you may have drawn the line way too early. I am curious whether you would also opposed to the 'morning after' pill, because by the way this essays reads, I would suspect you would be, though that's just a guess. A worthwhile read nonetheless.

with the main thrust of this essay.

Twelve weeks is far too early, in my opinion, as a cut off date for the procedure.

You also, as far as I could tell, didn't deal with any of the obvious solutions to the problem; education, easier access to the procedure and above all, no more demonization of the women who decide to have an abortion performed.

Perhaps I've become set in my ways as I get older, but you didn't change my stance on this subject.

A very well thought out and informed opinion piece. I agree that the piece was done quite well aside from my own personal opinions to the context.

A baby is a human being when it is born. Anything before that is a fetus. Fetuses are not identified by fingerprinting, foot printing, but babies are. A human being is identified by these "prints". Medical terminology still identifies babies as babies and fetuses as festuses. Sorry about the mix-ups....

As a former fetus I oppose abortion. Except in rare instances - rape, life of mother threatened - there is no good reason for this procedure or any abortion for that matter.

Dar,

It was a well written piece, but there are a few factors you didn't address. First let me address the issue of when life starts. Roman Catholicism believes that life starts at conception, but Judaism believes it begins after the child's birth. We have a conflict of religious beliefs here. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, but if the government chooses something then they have broken the first amendment for at least one group. What if the government chooses no termination past the 24th - 26th week, the time when a pre-mature fetus can be delivered and be supported outside the womb? Again, this violates the first amendment. What if there are problems during the birth and the doctors can only save either the mother or the child? Judaism believes in saving the mother, while Catholicism believes in saving the child. This violates the first amendment again, if government gets involved.

Now let’s look at the unusual cases where rape, underage mothers, and birth defects are involved. Does the government have the right to tell any woman that she must give birth to a child that was a result of rape? This is something forced upon her, and almost certainly she doesn’t want anything to do with the fetus. Why force her to stay pregnant, a constant reminder of the rape, when she would just like to forget the whole thing? What about children having babies? Children as young as the age of 12 are having kids these days. Are they capable of providing for the babies, let alone themselves? No. Parents of underage children are faced with a dilemma; do they allow the pregnancy to continue, and either raise the grandchild themselves or give it up for adoption, or do they get an abortion for their daughter? There was a case in the Midwest where a female prosecutor actually tried to force the pregnancy on a young teenager that had been raped. The parents had to take her to another state to get an abortion. Lastly is what should happen if something happens during the pregnancy to indicate severe physical and/or mental problems? Does the government have the right to force people to stay pregnant against their desires?

I do not think that abortion should be the chosen method of birth control, but I don’t believe it should be limited either. The choice should be the mother’s, with the father having some input (not veto power), or the parent’s if she is underage. Government should stay out of this completely. Abortions will happen regardless of what the government does. The question is will the government allow safe, medically supervised abortions or will they force women to take risky measures that might kill themselves ( i.e. clothes hangers), which happened 30 – 50 years ago. Of course nobody wants any of these situations, but they do occur and we must decide how to deal with them.

An emotional piece of claptrap filled with gross mistakes and outright lies.

Hi, I agree with you 100% but wish to keep emotion out of this as much as possible.

I understand the pro-choice catch phrase "A woman's right to choose" but at the same time, should she have the right to wait until her child is formed, alive, and able to feel pain??? I don't think Roe vs. Wade established that.

One thing I would have like to have seen are updated references. This essay reads like it was written in late 1999 or early 2000, if I'm not mistaken.

For those who complain, moan, bitch and generally criticize this well-thought-out essay...Let's see you do better. Or are you only skilled in the art of complaining and putting others down for their opinion? Hmmmm...I bet I know the answer.

There's some merit to your argument. However, recent studies have shown that a fetus feels no pain whatsoever.

It's best if abortion wasn't used as a form of birth control, but until it has been disconnected from the mother, it is no different than amputating an arm or a leg. I believe that should portray the seriousness that such a procedure warrents.

I know a labor and delivery nurse that has participated in these. At her hospital they are only performed where

1) life of the mother is endangered

or

2) there is no chance of the delivery of a healthy, live

child.

Do you really want to condemn a woman to carrying a child for 5 months when there is _zero_ chance of that child living--even if it means her own health is endangered? Do some research before you start talking.

Politically, I _would_ allow states to ban or legalize abortion. I find it sad that the federal government got involved in this issue at all

How is it possible that you never once mention that the health of the mother or the fetus might be the reason for making the painful decision to abort later in a pregnancy? You would presume to make the choice for someone by banning this medical procedure? Aren't you sentencing some women to death by taking away that option? Is that not murder? Is that not immoral? What about a woman's right to life? And what if there's no chance of delivering a healthy baby? You would presume to know better than her doctor?

The data is highly selective, and the thesis fails to consider a key point that renders the banning of the procedure as inhumane. Also, your language is inflammatory though I think you're striving for a reasonable tone.

When writing a piece such as this, I believe it's absolutely imperative that there are no technical/grammatical mistakes. You truly don't want anything to detract from your rhetoric.

I believe your thesis was well-stated in the beginning. Although I can appreciate the research that was put into this, some of it is rather dated (1996?). I'd encourage you to find more current resources, like anything within the past five years. Also, I think your attempts to support your thesis were decent, but I was lost in all the facts and figures you were quoting. Interjecting more of your own prose would have been better; use the facts to back up your own opinion/thoughts, not vice versa.

I also think that approaching the subject from the opposing viewpoint might have been helpful; if you are writing a piece trying to convince the public to agree with you, you want to cover all possible opposition, not just forge ahead with a one-sided argument.

These are only suggestions to make your piece stronger, and as I sense you feel strongly about this subject, you might want to consider a few revisions. Well-written prose and a carefully thought out argument have the power to work wonders on an intelligent reader, even if all you accomplish is having them re-examine their own position.

Keep at it Dar, this was an excellent first attempt.

I am the author of this piece. I was encouraged to submit it. I did not write it for Literotica, it was written as an assignment.

The only time I agree that a fetal life should be aborted is when a mother is in danger, or the fetus has NO chance of survival. (eg: Ectopic pregnancy etc ...)

I presented facts in an arrangment designed by a college proffessor. The way it was presented garnered me a very high score, and that is why a friend suggested I submit it to a more candid audience. (you)

In answer to the people who oted my score down based purely on their opinions of the subject, and not the quality of the writing, I am sorry that you could not see your way clear to remove yourself from your views long enough to read this; however, I take pride that it was enough to gain an emotional response from you.

I've never had an abortion, and most likely at my age I never will, however, I believe that the issue should only involve two people, the woman and her doctor. Not the government....I remember back when knitting needles were very popular for young women, and I would hate to see that return for my grand-daughters or their friends.

but not what is actually written.

If life starts at conception, then why are birthdays the day when babies come out of their mother's womb and not the day they are conceived?

Also, not all abortion are late term abortions. The subject can't be generalized.

I believe pregnancy and raising a child are two unrelated experiences. In most peoples lives you are able to choose whether or not to do both. You can opt to raise the child after pregnancy and you can opt to not carry the child at all. In my opinion deciding to end the pregnancy at the very end is a disturbing and unsettling decision. I personally am quite afraid of pregnancy and childbirth, however, I wholly believe once I have carried the child almost to term, the least I could do was deliver and send the child to live a life of his own. I wouldn't say its a stupid choice to have a late term abortion (unless the pregnancy put the mother in certain peril), but it is certainly a head-scratcher in my eyes.

-Pro-Choicer :)

My complaint on comments that say things like, "Lies, lies, and more lies" is that the writer should at least specify what they see as inaccurate. In my experience in reading lots of reviews and comments(on Amazon for example), what "Lies, lies, and more lies" means is that the person didn't agree with your conclusions but is intellectually incapable of making an argument and emotionally incapable of not replying. Often the "lie" is just some disagreement over a fact or a disagreement about a conclusion. By not specifying what specifically is wrong with the author's facts, the writer doesn't expose himself to criticism, and doesn't have to exert himself to form some sort of rigorous, logical thought.

First of all, it isn't a story. The above writing has no characters, plot, sex acts, acts of romance or love, or resolution. How is was published here must have involved threats, lawyers, inflammatory affirmations, and downright chicanery. No stars!