What if?

[Uphill Battle]

Use as much bolding as you want - the statistics remain cloudy. They are cloudy from the links you provided, none of which went back to original source material. Original source material would be the AMA articles themselves, or the original newspaper articles quoted. The three links you provided are not from medical sites, but are from political sites.

The question remains: do the 20% of abortions performed for genetic reasons include some of the 33% of abortions that are performed because the fetus is already dead? Or are 33% of abortions done because the fetus is dead, and another 20% done because of genetic reasons, meaning at least 53% of late-term abortions are done because of serious medical complications? Or are are 33% of abortions done becaues the fetus is dead, and then from within the remaining 67%, are 20% of those fetuses aborted because of genetic abnormalities? The statistics quoted in the articles are all cut-and-pasted, removed from original context.

Either way, you have up to 47% of them were for the sake of convienience. That is inordinately high.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

Below you will find the testimony of
BRENDA PRATT SHAFER, R.N., who assisted Dr. Haskell in three pba's.

This is located on the US House Judiciary Committee's Official website (I hope that will satisfy you in terms of credibility).

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm

Performing partial birth abortions on a fetus purely because it has Down's Syndrome? There are many people in this country with Down Syndrome and they are very loving, gentle human beings who have just as much a right to live as you or I. If the mother couldn't raise such a child there are families who will adopt a down syndrome baby.

 

[SallyNow]

If original articles are what you request, I am happy to oblige.

[URL="http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AMAFitzimmons1997.pdf"]http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AMAFitzimmons1997.pdf[/URL]

Thank-you. The statistics and article show a much deeper insight into the issue than that of the previous political articles.

Either way, you have up to 47% of them were for the sake of convienience. That is inordinately high.

Yes, it is. We need to reduce the number of abortions that are being done, but we can only do that by changing society.

Please, please understand: I am not saying that late-term abortions are good, nor that they should be readily available. I am saying that sometimes they are necessary to save the life of the mother, and other times they are needed because the fetus has died, and therefore cannot be totally banned without risking the lives of women.

How many abortions could be prevented by proper birth-control? How many could be prevented by the courts treating sexual offenders in a more serious manner? How many could be prevented by the fathers stepping up to the plate and saying, "yes, I'll support you through the pregnancy, and help in raising the child"? How many abortions could be prevented by communities coming together for women who have had their husbands or boyfriends leaving them? How many abortions could be prevented if there was universal health care... at least for children under 18? Or by making adoption services easier to access and less about money, more about the child?

I somewhat agree with, for instance, Germany's view on abortion: a mother cannot elect to have an abortion after the first trimester, and even for a first-trimester abortion, she must be made aware of adoption and other options available, and of what is involved in an abortion. (of course, when it's a medical emergency, an abortion can be performed later than the first trimester)