When is abortion acceptable?

[Ebowed]

I've noticed a lot of Democrats oppose abortion in the latter two trimesters, especially the third, so I want to see how wide the divide is here between abortion on demand and limited abortion.  I know many people make exceptions for rape, incest, and/or the mother's health, so if you do make those exceptions, post it here.

Option 5 for me (with no exceptions).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First 2 with no exceptions, 3rd to save the life of the mother.

[TeePee4Prez]

Options 1 and 2.  Exceptions in the 3rd as duly noted above.

[The Duke]

Never, unless the mother's life is jeopardized.

[DanielX]

Never, unless the mother's life is jeopardized.

Agreed.

[opebo]

Third trimester of course.  And if infanticide is unacceptable that means parental power of all types over the child is subject to the interference of the State.

[David S]

Abortion is a tough question for me. On the one hand the mother should have the right to be in control of her own body. On the other hand the fetus should have the right to live.

In my opinion a fertilized egg is not a human being. It does not have arms, legs, ears, eyes, a brain or any of the features that make a human. Abortion is acceptable at that point IMO. But a late term fetus does have all of those features and is a human being. It should be entitled to the same protection of the law that you and I have. The question is where to draw the line. Sorry but I don't have the magic answer. Maybe at the end of the 1st trimester.

I think I would also allow abortion at any time if the mothers life is at risk or if the fetus is determined to be severely abnormal i.e. the elephant man.

[The Duke]

Third trimester of course.  And if infanticide is unacceptable that means parental power of all types over the child is subject to the interference of the State.

You don't see a difference between infanticide and a time out?

[opebo]

Third trimester of course.  And if infanticide is unacceptable that means parental power of all types over the child is subject to the interference of the State.

You don't see a difference between infanticide and a time out?

I do, and so would the State, no doubt.  The point is if the child is a 'citizen' then all the parents' powers over the child are subject to review by the State.

[Keystone Phil]

Rape or if life of the mother at risk.

[Richard]

Never.  Not even for rape (why murder a kid for the sin of the father) or to save the mother's life (why murder a kid to save someone else).  In reality, the chance of the latter being required with modern medicine is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% or less.

[PBrunsel]

Never, abortion is never acceptable.

[Gabu]

First trimester, for reasons which I have already posted numerous times before.

[George W. Bush]

Never, unless the mother's life is jeopardized.

[nclib]

I voted Options 1-3. Ideally, all abortions would happen in the first two trimesters, however.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Whenever the mother wants it. 

[Dave from Michigan]

only if life of mother is at risk

[bullmoose88]

After Birth.

I sometimes wonder with this moral question.

If you had a time machine...and could say travel to Austria circa 1860-1880...and could find hitler's mother...would you encourage her to have an abortion?

Hypothetical of course, but me thinks I would.


I'm marginally prolife...but I'm pro post birth abortion for those emo-goth brats at the mall...kidding...I think.

[Jake]

I wouldn't.  Hitler influenced the world is good ways and bad ways.  Anti-semitism would likely be rampant still in America if not for Hitler.

For the question, never.  Any women who puts herself before her child is disgusting and anyone would rather live than be killed.

[nini2287]

I wouldn't.  Hitler influenced the world is good ways and bad ways.  Anti-semitism would likely be rampant still in America if not for Hitler.

For the question, never.  Any women who puts herself before her child is disgusting and anyone would rather live than be killed.

What if giving birth would likely result in both the mother and child's deaths?

[ian]

Never.

[John Dibble]

Abortion is a tough question for me. On the one hand the mother should have the right to be in control of her own body. On the other hand the fetus should have the right to live.

In my opinion a fertilized egg is not a human being. It does not have arms, legs, ears, eyes, a brain or any of the features that make a human. Abortion is acceptable at that point IMO. But a late term fetus does have all of those features and is a human being. It should be entitled to the same protection of the law that you and I have. The question is where to draw the line. Sorry but I don't have the magic answer. Maybe at the end of the 1st trimester.

I think I would also allow abortion at any time if the mothers life is at risk or if the fetus is determined to be severely abnormal i.e. the elephant man.

I find myself agreeing with you for the most part.

[Jake]

I wouldn't.  Hitler influenced the world is good ways and bad ways.  Anti-semitism would likely be rampant still in America if not for Hitler.

For the question, never.  Any women who puts herself before her child is disgusting and anyone would rather live than be killed.

What if giving birth would likely result in both the mother and child's deaths?

Then that's how it happens

[Cashcow]

I voted Options 1-3. Ideally, all abortions would happen in the first two trimesters, however.

[Hitchabrut]

Never in the circumstances listed.