Well, if abortion is a woman's right to do as they wish, isn't also their right to tell a man to use a condom so they don't get pregnant? The only person getting fucked over with an unwanted child at birth is the father if the woman chooses to have it.

If the man is really opposed to having a baby, than its his responsibility to take precautions.

Here is what men should do. Force women to sign a contract stating the baby must be aborted if a pregnancy occurs. I'm pretty sure that'll hold in court.

20 weeks is a much better limit than the nationwide standard hellost European countries are at 16 weeks.

When 95% of abortions occur due to lack if want we need to find better ways of handling unwanted pregnancies.

it would not hold up in court. there is no way around your responsibilty except trying to run and ditch the authorities.

I consider abortion murder.

I can't believe people don't see it... it puts me in awe that some how... tearing a child into pieces is so different from tearing a child into pieces when the child is the whom.

We live in a monstrous time.

So, I'm glad about this but this isn't enough.

uh  you do realise that aborting late in a pregnancy is pointless because as you call it, that parasite has already leeched what it needs from the mother lol.

Nothing wrong with a time limit. 

Also doesn't mean the baby is doomed, pleanty of people looking to adopt.

FInally BS, the father shoudl have some say in it also. After all it is his sperm. What if he wants an abortion and she doesn't? the result being he has to pay child support for a child he never wanted. But who compensates the father for a child lost?

You're argument is not a "right to life" argument then. It is something else. Furthermore, with the false incarceration % as high as it is, many innocents die from the death penalty as well. 

I've always been iffy on the issue of abortion because this issue requires us to define what is a life that matters to us.

Clearly, human life cannot be enough if abortion is considered correct, since the fetuses are human. But what do the fetuses lack that most other humans have?

I think the difference is in two things: Sentience and nervous system. If a fetus has developed either of these two things, I would consider it morally wrong to abort such a fetus. Here's why:

If a fetus is sentient, then it is aware of what is happening to him and in this respect is as worthy as a small child.

If a fetus has developed a nervous sytem (but perhaps is not sentient), then the fetus feels pain, and even if this pain cannot be interpreted by the fetus, it is still pain that we're causing to a human.

Hence, the time limit matters, and it should be set accordingly to what science can tell us about the development of a nervous system or of sentience.

For example, if either of these things were developed 1 week after pregnancy, then it would be morally wrong to abort after that. If, on the other hand, they were developed on the 30th week of pregnancy, then at that point it would be immoral. Right now I honestly have no idea at what point these things develop, but if they develop at around the 20th week, then I consider that part of the bill to be correct.

If you're opposed to having a baby then have the guy used a condom.

Your solution just encourages irresponsibility on the part of women.

See? It works both ways.

Abortion is always such a touchy topic.

I think those unborn babies deserve a chance at life.