MURDER as far as I'm concerned:

In the August 23, 2010 issue of “Pediatrics,” Dr. Barbara J. Stoll and colleagues present recent data on morbidity and mortality rates according to gestational age. Their analysis of data collected for more than 9,000 infants of extremely low birth weight and extremely low gestational age between 2003 and 2007 indicated that survival to discharge increased as gestational age increased, from 6 percent at 22 weeks to 92 percent at 28 weeks. The majority of infants of 24 weeks or greater survive, but high rates of morbidity are observed.


Source: https://healthfully.com/222162-how-soon-can-a-baby-survive-outside-the-womb.html

Hi Finster. Let's break that down:
1 - I'm happy to hear you now know all you need to about me
2 - A re-read of my response would show you that I in fact did not agree with some of the things in the proposal. Had you asked specifics, I'd tell you late-terms are up there in the gray area for me in which healthy arguments are made by both sides.
3 - You've chosen a shock & awe video about a specific point in some abortions. It's good that people know what happen for those. What you're failing to account for is the why behind that particular woman's decision and the crux of the entire topic where we differ - it's her call. I'm not saying at which point its ok vs not ok, I'm attempting to convey a viewpoint different from your own that someones circumstances might be more complicated than a blanket - it's murder.
4 - The study you chose to drill down into is an interesting one. I have read it in its entirety. You can find that here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2982806/ Some things I suggest for consideration after review include the morbidity outcomes, at what point the study ceased tracking the infant in the timeline, the amount of resources required to keep it viable and finally which data was left out of the results. Once you've read those and become informed on this one of many studies - I believe it would be acceptable to quote it but not in the context you've used. Arguments can be made against its quotation fairly easily but I don't want to segway too much from this healthy conversation.

Your thinking that it is morally sound to kill a 6 month old baby in the womb says all I need to know about you.

"Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”)."


Scalia had a legal theory that the legislative process was "due process of law". Seriously, what are taxes, but taking your property by legislative law?

Yes and no if you wait I think you should be expected to born the child ,The morning after pill or what ever could be an option

That is correct.Us upstate folks get screwed cause the "city" runs the state.

Abortion is an act of selfishness. Period. For those who have been involved in such an act of selfishness it can/should be forgiven.
For those who defend such an act, my hope is you receive your just reward.

It's barbaric and until it directly affects your family and life all you are doing is releasing hot air...

Disagreeing about propaganda which was produced as talking points in the 1970's to promote a billion dollar aborticide industry is not going to solve this. (Abortion is a natural action of nature. Deer absorb fawns due to lack of feed and all species self abort children which are genetically not viable in some, but not all cases.)
What those of us who are pro life should be engaged in, is demanding our stated pro life President, the religious groups, conservatives, to push funding in research to produce artificial wombs to grow these 'aborted" children in. That solves the criminal rape and incest argument, and it definitely solves the conflict of women having these procedures as an incubator womb would mother these children.
Ronald Reagan dreamed of Star Wars and produced it in part. Should not America in technology produce an environment in which babies could be grown when harvested out of wombs. No one could challenge that as no "rights" are imposed on. The child could then be adopted and life is preserved.
None of this is that futuristic.

Artificial Womb


The aborticide industry is too great a money maker. The only way to kill that industry is to create an industry which would create greater revenues. Baby growing would. I am not going to breach the science of shortcuts which could be utilized until a mechanical womb would be perfected, (Splicing human DNA into porcine structures to incubate the children in that environment.) But if America dropped the money it did into HIV research, an artificial womb would be perfected in less than five years.This would legally end aborticide and the debate as women who did not want children in their wombs, would have them removed as they desired, but instead of exterminated, the child would be placed in an artificial womb to full term.