Okay, I'm confused.
You wrote: "
I consider disposing of an embryo the equivalent of clipping one's toenails. Not late
term abortions. There's personal injury and then there's personal injury. The
personal injury involved in harming late term fetus is vastly greater than than for an
embryo, in most cases."
You have at other times, as I recall, expressed concern about partial birth abortions, implying, if I read you right, that you would support a ban on them except to save the life of the mother.
Now you seem to be saying there's no legal justification for making abortion illegal in the late stages, but you would consider that some "interested parties" other than the mother could come forward, what, to prevent the abortion?
I'm confused.
A woman is eight months and three weeks pregnant. But then her husband, a professional football player, has a serious injury and is paralized from the waist down. While they have plenty of insurance and retirement benefits, and they have no financial worries, they can afford a full time nurse for him and a full time nanny for the baby if htey want them. But from a personal point of view she doesn't want to have to deal with the stress of taking care of a newly wheelchair bound husband and a new baby at the same time. And she doesn't want to have it and give it up for adoption because she doesn't want to think about somebody else raising their love child. So she wants to do a partial birth abortion on a baby that could perfectly well live outside the womb if delivered right not by C-section.
Should she have the right to decide entirely on her own whether to have the abortion? That seems a pretty simple question. But I'm confused by where you would come down on it. (If you need more specifics of the hypothetical, I'll be glad to make them up, just let me know what you need.) |
