Hatzisland wrote:The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:No-one supports infanticide (the killing of a
child). Termination -- or abortion, whichever you prefer -- is the medical ending of a pregnancy and removal of a
foetus; typically a very early gestation and insentient foetus (one which feels no pain and has no comprehension of the fact that it even exists).
Where there are late-term abortions, they are not performed lightly, but generally only when medically necessary. To restrict them in any way would be to risk female lives and wellbeing.
And, if Reproductive Freedoms
was unpopular, it would have been overturned long ago.
Many authors have tried. Many authors have failed.
And, looking at the new draft, I do not see that streak changing.
Abortions are not only done in cases where they are medically necessary. There are other abortion resolutions covering that. This plan specifically allows abortion on demand. And we should at least try to take down this monstrosity of a resolution.
"Ahem... I did not say that "abortions are only done when medically necessary", I said "late abortions are generally done when medically necessary" -- omission of those words alters its meaning, rather.
There are many instances where expectant mothers may wish to and choose to abort: rape, incest, financial instability, risk to life, foetal abnormality, relationship instability... I could go on.
Why should an insentient being (a foetus) get more rights than the sentient being (the mother)?
As for your final statement... well, that is your opinion.
Precedent of the voting history on more credible proposals than this -- acknowledging the necessity of abortion, only to jump to trying to strike down the resolution that protects the right to them just doesn't gel -- disagrees that we "should try" to take down #286, somewhat."