No one, not even most abortion advocates, like late term abortions. Some of us would be perfectly happy if they never existed at all. But, there is occasionally medical necessity for them. Of course they are also exceptionally rare
Why do you think that is????
This is an issue I tend to stay out of and to me it just doesn't seem to be something where there really is a 'right' answer, merely a 'legal' one. But the cognitive dissonance inherent in whatever position one takes is inherent in this thread.
abortion is not the killing of innocent children. it is a medical procedure where a fetus is removed from the mother's womb.
The rhetoric is good. And it's offset by:
, i am glad that i was not faced with that choice. we were told point blank by the ob/gyn that if we would have been sitting in their office 20 years prior, they would have recommended terminating the pregnancy due to no chance of survival past a couple of horrific and painful days outside of the womb.
But if it's just a tissue removal, this doesn't even matter. People don't act the same way about removal of the appendix, cataracts, or other stuff. Why? Because those 'things' are not even capable of being human lives. And why all the rhetoric about how it should be 'safe, legal, and RARE?' What difference does it make it if's 'rare?'
Of course, the pro-life side has inconsistencies, too, as Trump managed in his own inept way to show when Mathews hounded him. After all, if abortion IS murder then shouldn't the women having them be prosecuted? GHW Bush botched that question in the first debate with Dukakis in 1988, but he got away with it, mostly because despite what you see on TV, abortion is so far down the list on what people vote for in Presidential elections that other than a few loud-mouthed activists on both sides, nobody really cares (in voting terms).
Or what about the Christians who preach incessantly against it.....and then have them? The typical person who has an abortion tends to be a white, middle to upper middle class woman who can afford one. But I do recall an episode of the old "Paul Harvey" show citing a study from 1986 where Catholic women were far more likely to have them than Protestant women. The reason? The Catholic ban on contraception (pardon me for trying to piece together how abortion is any less of a mortal sin that some pills).
Over the years I've reluctantly arrived at the notion (similar to firearms) that people are going to have them anyway and thus it may as well be legal and 'safe.' I DO think they ought to somewhat liberalize adoption laws to offset part of it but whatever.
One final thing: while it sounds REAL good to quote Al Gore's useless rhetoric of "I believe in the right of a woman to choose" (ignoring the fact Gore proposed humanity from conception in the House in 1984), the simple truth is MANY times it isn't the 'woman's choice' but the Daddy of the 14-year old girl.....or the boyfriend.......or the coach who knocked her up.......or the politician/athlete who is married and doesn't want to be on the hook for child support agreeing to pay her X in addition to the abortion.
Note: no offense intended toward 92tide, I just found those as examples of the cognitive dissonance this issue brings out. It is inherent in the issue for virtually everyone, no reflection upon you. If the thread had gone longer before I replied, I'm sure I could have picked more.
