darkspork wrote:So you know where I stand, I'm against abortions in general. However, I believe we may have a compromise. Many supporters of abortion promote the idea that "the fetus couldn't live outside the mother." Similarly, pro-life statements arise to the tune of "the baby could live outside the mother at that age." You may see the direction I'm going in here. Instead of the current state of abortions, (tearing the baby limb from limb until all the parts are removed) deliver the baby, then give the kid appropriate medical care. If the kid dies, then the pro-choicists were right.
That's not feasible early on.
Last time I was at Planned Parenthood I read their brochure on abortion. PP offers two abortion procedures in my state. One, RU-486, is just a pill the woman takes. As far as I can tell you just come in, take the pill, go home, and have an extremely heavy period. The other method is the one with the vacuum.
Early on in the term, delivery is impossible.
darkspork wrote:If the kid lives, there are millions of Americans right now that would love to raise that kid.
The supply of available children for adoption already outstrips demand. Instead of delivering more US-born caucasian premature babies, why don't we spend those subsidies on helping people adopt foreign kids who are already born?
darkspork wrote:Pro-choicers: Is there any part of this suggestion that is against your idea of a woman's choice? If you believe abortion is OK only in the first trimester, does this provide a problem?
As above, it's impossible to deliver in the first trimester. RU-486 is the closest we've got in that it induces menstruation and ejection of the embryo.
As for choice: The woman, not you, has the prerogative of choosing what medical procedures she will undergo. She owns her body and she owns the embryo inside it. If she would rather see it destroyed, that too is her right.
Locked to prevent epic necro'ing. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read it. No, really. Go. Now. Read.