For those who think abortion is wrong, where do they draw the line?

[Major Nikon]

Human sperm and eggs are in fact living human tissue and have the potential to reproduce a human. Some take the approach that even at this juncture human protoplasm is sacred. While certainly extreme, this seems to at least be the most honest as at least there's no demarcation of when human tissue is suddenly endowed with metaphysical properties.

For all others some arbitrary point must be defined. Science isn't much help here. Those that do try to use science to define that point are inevitably biased by their religion, which is itself a bit odd because religion isn't much help either. Biblical references suggest this point happens at birth.

Some suggest fertilization, which is neither supported by biology or religion, but evidently some are convinced it's at this juncture of reproduction when human tissue is endowed with metaphysical properties.

After about a week after fertilization the blastocyst embeds itself into the uterus and pregnancy has been established. So for some termination of the process is wrong after this point.

Other points identified are when autonomous movement starts, the heart starts beating, brain activity begins, viability of the transition from fetus to infant, or some point of time between fertilization and birth.

For anyone who thinks abortion is wrong, my question is always at what point do you make that determination? Is every sperm sacred or have you decided on some other point in the process? Most I've asked of this seem pretty perplexed by the question. In their mind abortion is wrong, but they haven't given much thought to when it's wrong. All this really does is it allows the extremists to claim an ally.

Any rational justification of the point of right and wrong is extremely problematic because there's just no way around the arbitrary and capricious nature of the decision. So really what you have is emotion and metaphysical beliefs are driving public policy, which is never a good idea.

[wellst0nev0ter]

1. I want to know

if forced-birth activists plan to put women who have had abortions or miscarriages on trial for murder. That's the endgame I'm interested in.

[Major Nikon]

3. The application of any policy which implements "abortion is wrong" has all sorts of problems

This is really the subject deserving of it's own thread, but inevitably most who decide abortion is wrong aren't willing to do so without exceptions. If one believes abortion is murder, how can you rationalize those compromises?

[Runningdawg]

5. OK and OH are trying to do just that....

Normally I would say - it's all BS the SCOUTS will never go for it, but I can't say that any longer.

[MarvinGardens]

32. Most don't

Donald Trump found this out when asked during the campaign. He said of course, if abortion were illegal, women procuring them would face some punishment. But in the Republican anti-choice world, this was a faux pas. He got pushback from his own party, and had to modify his position. They do not want to punish the women who get abortions, because they view them as victims. They want to punish the "abortionist" doctors.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-35912638/donald-trump-on-abortion-from-pro-choice-to-pro-prison

And this exposes the whole "abortion is murder" argument as complete and total bullshit. For if abortion is murder, then a woman seeking an abortion is no different than a woman seeking a hitman to kill her husband. By their proposed policies, clearly they do not view abortion as murder. They view it as a vice, like society at large views heroin use. We do punish heroin users, but we punish the dealers and traffickers much more severely, because we view them as victimizing the users and society at large.

Abortion, to them, is not murder. It's a last resort form of birth control that they do not want to be available, except for the rich who can have it done quietly. Once they prohibit abortion, they will seek to demonize other forms of birth control. Their goal is to prohibit most birth control, as it was in the olden days. That way, sex will more often carry the consequence of unwanted pregnancy carried to term, which is the goal.

[MaryMagdaline]

51. Make no mistake. They do. See Ohio

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. The mother's decision.... period.

[Major Nikon]

4. Certainly the most rational approach, IMO.

[Mariana]

20. There is at least one participant in this group who says he is pro-choice

but who also makes sure to tell everyone that abortion is wrong, and that a woman who has had a abortion has taken a life.

[unblock]

6. Personally, I think a woman has a right to end her pregnancy

No right to end the life of the fetus per se, but if the fetus is not viable outside of the pregnancy, then that's a tragedy for the fetus, but you can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will.

And you can't second guess her reasoning. Even if she entered into the pregnancy voluntarily, she can change her mind for any reason.

So to my mind, abortion might be wrong only when the fetus is viable outside the pregnancy. At that point, the woman wanting to end her pregnancy should try to find a way to do so while preserving the life of the fetus.

That said, even then she can still take into consideration the risks involved, for instance, she can't be forced to have a dangerous delivery if an abortion would be a safer procedure for her.

In short, it's pretty much all the woman's choice.


It annoys me to no end that so many forced-pregnancy advocates will, in other contexts, insist that freedom and liberty are worth killing and dying for, but I guess that doesn't apply to women....

[Major Nikon]

7. So what happens when viability occurs at the sperm and egg juncture?

We are almost there now with in vitro and synthetic wombs.

The capricious nature of viability allows the extremists to constantly push back the legal point of demarcation up to and including a complete ban.

[unblock]

9. I'm fine with that, but it's on the state to pay for it

As noted, if ending the pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive is not safe for the woman, then it's still her choice.

But if medical advances make it so that the fetus can be extracted without endangering the woman, then fine.

At that point, the woman can't have an abortion, but can end her pregnancy at any point at the state's expense. At that point, the premature baby then is a ward of the state and the woman has no responsibility for it if she chooses to go that route.

The state has to pay for it, otherwise we're back to forced pregnancy by virtue of financial constraints.

[MineralMan]

8. The Roman Catholic Church takes it even further.

It prohibits even barrier contraception. The idea is that if you use a condom, you're preventing the conception of a new "child of God." That goes so far beyond any real measure that it's ridiculous.

Since most fertilized ova fail to implant or thrive, spontaneous abortion happens constantly, and is not even noticed in most cases. Defective fetuses often result in a different type of spontaneous abortion.

I believe the RCC's prohibition on all interference with even potential reproduction is tied to the "Be fruitful and multiply" thing. The church considers that to be a command from the deity, and so prohibits all measures that prevent conception, implantation and gestation.

But, then again, the same church tries to sell literal transubstantiation, which makes no logical sense at all.

The bottom line question, however is: Where does a church get any authority over anyone but its members? That's the real flaw in all of this. It lets a minority dictate reproductive behavior to the majority. Nonsensical.

[Major Nikon]

10. Covered in the first paragraph

[MineralMan]

12. Indeed. Adolescent boys are doomed for the destruction

of untold trillions of sacred spermatozoa. Daily confession for them all is mandatory.

[Major Nikon]

13. Understandably so

Each time they are murdering an entire civilization.

[TlalocW]

30. When you think about it

The rhythm method may have contributed to more (natural) abortions than anything else. Having sex too close to when the couple abstains could mean that some "old" sperm could still fertilize a new egg, or having sex too quickly after coming out of the abstaining period could mean new sperm fertilizing an "old" egg that has not been expelled yet. Either way, you're likely to get a fertilized egg (a human life by anti-abortionists) too weak to latch onto the uterus wall.

TlalocW

[RainCaster]

11. The RWNJs are unanimous - we don't give a damn once born

As soon as that precious infant is born, they lose all concern.

Rape is OK
Gun safety is not

Education is not essential
Healthcare is not our responsibility
LGBTQ cannot be protected
Non-whites, non-males have no priority
Voting rights have no import

[StTimofEdenRoc]

14. I vacillate between

The reproductive decisions of a sentient being (not directly involving me) are none of my business.

I vote for people who, make birth control more available, make life easier for those who decide to reproduce. DEMOCRATS

Disappointment that those who chose to participate in recreational sex, did not avail themselves of protection from conception and STDs.

[Major Nikon]

26. About 38% of pregnancies are unplanned

It's probably fair to say many of those are the product of reduced availability for effective birth control and the lack of comprehensive sex education. Still when you factor those things out, I'm pretty sure there would still be a still a shit-ton of them.

I don't see abortion as a disappointment. It still beats the alternative.

[Mariana]

38. "Recreational sex"? Is there another kind?

Please do enlighten us.

[MineralMan]

40. I suspect there is another kind.

I'm not familiar with it, but I think not everyone enjoys sex. In fact, I'm sure of that.

[StTimofEdenRoc]

42. as opposed to with the intent of procreation.

[MineralMan]

43. Oddly enough, most sex is not about that, really.

The Catholic Church thinks it is, but that church is run by a bunch of unmarried, abstinent priests. They have no idea, really. And that is a real problem for the Church. It is badly out of touch with the real lives of its members.

While sex is the cause for reproduction, we don't engage in it, mostly, with that in mind. The human sex drive is pleasure-based. Reproduction is actually a side effect of that. We know that sex is how we reproduce, but we have sex even if there is no intention to reproduce. Often, and repeatedly. Sex affects far more than just making new humans. It is a biological drive with consequences that are far more inclusive than just procreation. No amount of religion can change that.

[marylandblue]

60. Along those lines, we are one of the few species that has sex when females aren't fertile

Which suggests that sex for us is in fact about pleasure and pair bonding. Also oddly, the Catholic Church recognizes this, since they allow the rhythm method as a form of birth control, and don't prohibit sex when the couple is infertile. What about all those wasted sperm at the wrong time of the month?

[MineralMan]

61. Yes. Porpoises and Humans.

A few others, too. We often have sex because it's fun to have sex. Reproduction is a side effect. Brilliant of evolution to arrange that!

[StTimofEdenRoc]

102. there is a song about that

[TreasonousBastard]

15. The answer is not when "life begins" because that is a process and depends largely on...

one's definition of "life".

More to the point is when human life begins, and that means ensoulment, which means you accept the idea of a soul. Although there is no scientific, or even much nonscientific, evidence of souls existing, it is a cherished belief going back thousands of years. The soul is what makes us human. It was poked into our bodies by the gods, or God. And no other creatures have one.

So, abortion becomes wrong when the soul enters the body-- killing a body with a soul is an offense to God's plan. Now the question becomes at what point does this soul thing enter the body, making it god-like, sort of.

Ancient Greeks were split on whether it was at conception (although they didn't really know much about how conception works), or at some other time, like birth, or even when movement is first noticed in the womb. Roman Catholics rediscovered these arguments somewhere around 1000AD and ended up picking the conception one, extending it to birth control, although it took them a while to get there. Protestants picked up on that, figuring that Catholics had already done the hard work.

So, while you'll never get a right-to-lifer to admit there is no soul, there is the possibility of convincing them that all those souls floating around the ether looking for a body to inhabit can't find said body until it's born. Maybe even until the umbilical cord is cut. It would, however, take a powerful preacher to overcome what the other powerful preachers implanted into their brains.

If you believe in reincarnation, which doesn't apply much in this country, killing off a soul's host is meaningless, since they will just find another one.

[Major Nikon]

17. Catholics are against birth control

Which is prior to the point of conception.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Yes, I mentioned that, and there was some twisted reasoning to get to that idea...

along with hanging a few Jesuits for suggesting that Pythagoras was wrong.

[AlexSFCA]

59. they are also against IVF

[guillaumeb]

16. It is the woman's decision.

So the line is hers to draw.

[Major Nikon]

18. So you don't think anyone who isn't a woman can have an opinion on the subject?

Otherwise that wasn't the question that was asked.

[guillaumeb]

21. We can all have opinions.

But my opinion is not binding on a woman.

[Major Nikon]

22. Would you tell a relative or acquaintance you think abortion is wrong?

Conversely would you tell a relative or acquaintance you think there's nothing wrong with abortion?

Opinions can still have an effect, even if they aren't binding, and even if you qualify that opinion with the decision is theirs to make.

I'm of the opinion there's nothing wrong with abortion. I see it as a medical decision between a patient and doctor that should be as widely available as any other and no more regulated as any other.

[guillaumeb]

23. I would tell the woman that I support her right to make her own decision.

And the Constitution gives women that right.

[Major Nikon]

24. Fair enough

But that wasn't the question that was asked.

[guillaumeb]

25. As to the initial question,

if that is what you are referring to, my view is clear. But also clear is my position that it is not my choice to make.

I also feel that the the death penalty is wrong, and war.

[Major Nikon]

28. There's lots of reasons why some think abortion is wrong

Not all of them are religious. Regardless of their reason, I think it's worth asking at what point do they make such a determination? I'm not sure most have really thought that far into it.

[guillaumeb]

33. I understand your points.

And my own view is that some are pro-fetus, and after the birth, their concern disappears.

[trotsky]

44. So you shouldn't even offer your opinion then.

But you have, repeatedly, stated that it's your belief that abortion is murder.

Your opinion is irrelevant to the woman making her decision.

[guillaumeb]

45. If a person asks me my opinion,

as was asked here, I will give it.

[trotsky]

46. It is irrelevant and only serves to demonize abortion and the women who choose to get them.

It has no place in discourse, PARTICULARLY on a liberal message board. You should be ashamed.

[guillaumeb]

47. You already tried that one.

Are you saying that every Democrat who feels that way is not welcome in the Party?

An interesting way to attack those with whom you disagree.

[trotsky]

48. I disagree with your belief that abortion is murder.

Sue me.

[guillaumeb]

49. You ignored my points.

I understand why, but imposing purity tests is a certain way to make the Democratic Party weaker, agreed?

[trotsky]

50. Because your "points" are a trademark attempt at diversion.

Fuck your "purity test" nonsense. This is about your religious belief and how it serves to shame women who choose abortion.

Try to distract and divert, it's not going to work. It's about YOUR disgusting belief and how YOU express it.

[guillaumeb]

65. Purity politics 101

We see it here all the time.

We either have a big tent, or we do not.

And your replies confirm it.

Calling other Democrats disgusting confirms it.

[trotsky]

68. Diversion again. You are so predictable.

I've proposed no purity test. That's your straw man because you can't defend your hateful belief.

I am expressing my disgust at YOUR anti-woman view. I'm talking to YOU.

[guillaumeb]

69. Purity test and diversion.

I understand, and I understand your reason for what you are writing.

[trotsky]

70. And I understand why you're ashamed of your anti-woman belief and would rather attack me.

Thankfully you've been exposed for all to see.

[guillaumeb]

71. We can read your approach to dialogue.

An approach that dates back to at least 2014.

On another topic, interesting that there was only one response to this thread in the Religion Group.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218300552

It is about the Chinese Government oppressing theists.

[MineralMan]

73. Your comment about that other thread is totally irrelevant to

the conversation. Direct diversion and absolute failure. What does that thread have to do with this one? Do tell.

[guillaumeb]

80. Thank you for responding for another.

[MineralMan]

83. I always respond for myself.

This is a freaking PUBLIC forum, and your posts may get replies from anyone. Please do not suggest that you're having a private conversation here. Not a chance.

You write. I reply if I choose.

[trotsky]

75. What does the Chinese govt oppressing certain theists have to do with your anti-woman belief?

Answer: nothing.

Keep humiliating and exposing yourself, g. I'll go at this as long as you are willing to endure the embarrassment.

[MineralMan]

76. I think it's an attempt to construct a new straw man.

As usual, an attempt at diversion from a discussion that is not going well for the poster.

[trotsky]

77. Well I can certainly understand why he'd rather talk about anything else...

instead of confront his woman-shaming belief.

[MineralMan]

79. I suppose so.

On this website, holding a belief that abortion is murder is not something people typically disclose. We are, I suppose, expected to believe that he doesn't share that belief with people who are faced with a decision regarding terminating a pregnancy. I don't believe that, though, for a minute.

I've met people like that before. They are happy to tell a woman that she has a "right" to terminate the pregnancy. That is followed by a lecture about the evil nature of doing so, complete with the word murder. Here's how it often goes:

"Well, you have a legal right to murder your unborn child, of course, if that's your decision. I can't stop you from killing your baby. Have you thought about the concept of taking your baby's life thoroughly. Have you prayed about it? I would be happy to discuss that with you, but if your mind is made up to take that fatal step, I don't suppose my opinion will matter to you. I will pray for your baby's soul."

I have actually heard that argument used. Now, maybe guillaumeb wouldn't say anything like that. I don't really know him.

[guillaumeb]

86. Harmony in the choir.

And given that the meme that the choir is attempting to construct is unsupportable by my actual responses. it is typical.

[guillaumeb]

81. Well, you are consistent.

There is that.

[trotsky]

91. Consistent in trying to hold you to the topic at hand, yep, you got me.

Sorry that I won't let you completely change the subject away from your repulsive anti-woman belief.

[Act_of_Reparation]

78. Let's not talk about your misogyny because China?

Nope. No way, bruh.

We're going to talk about your misogyny instead.

[guillaumeb]

82. And we see harmony in the choir.

And mis-framing.

[MineralMan]

84. What a weak response.

Uff da!

[guillaumeb]

87. No, drawing the obvious conclusion. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. Everyone's criticizing you for the same thing?

I dunno, man. Maybe it's you.

[guillaumeb]

88. So a handful of posters is "everyone"?

Perhaps you should trade in your personal dictionary.

[marylandblue]

90. Perhaps you should learn the colloquial use of "everyone"

[guillaumeb]

93. So one usage is synonymous with 3-5 people?

Perhaps if one said that "everyone in this room is....", I would agree. But there are thousands of DU members.

[MineralMan]

95. That's too small a group to make up a choir, Guy?

Three's just a trio and four a quartet. Even five singers make up a quintet, not a choir. So, which is it? You seem to be having trouble counting heads here.

[guillaumeb]

96. I disagree.

Here is another opinion that differs from your own personal opinion:

https://www.helpingyouharmonise.com/how_many

[MineralMan]

97. Your link does not make the case.

Did you even read it?

[guillaumeb]

99. Funny that you should ask that.

Because it actually does make exactly my case.

[marylandblue]

98. Yes it could be 3-5, and the reference is by context, qualifying clauses not required

If you are unsure of the context, the appropriate response when unsure of context is to ask, not seek a dictionary. Dictionaries can't provide context and only occasionally acknowledge colloquial uses.

[lostnfound]

27. Brain waves

Except they happen way too early

If they didn’t appear until later in pregnancy, it would be easier to find a compromise

Now that I’m older I realize there are many reasons it’s complicated

Governments start wars stupidly and shouldn’t pretend that caring about life is really the issue

Trust women to make the decisions because I sure don’t trust the government

[Snackshack]

29. I have to ask.

What “line” are you talking about.

If one thinks abortion is wrong it seems pretty clear that there is no point where abortion would be ok so there is no line.

[Major Nikon]

31. I can't agree that it's all that clear

For one thing, the word "abortion" means different things to different people. Medically speaking you have sperm and egg, which join to become a zygote which eventually divides and becomes a blastocyst, then embryo, then fetus, then baby following a pregnancy brought to full term. I suspect if you ask most in the medical profession, especially those who specialize in childbirth, abortion is defined as the removal of an implanted embryo or fetus. The embryonic stage doesn't happen until about a month following fertilization. However, definitions vary widely even in the medical community.

If you ask any person on the street, you're going to get a lot of different answers for when a terminated pregnancy becomes an abortion. For some it's before fertilization, for some it's immediately after, for some it's at implantation in the womb. None of these things medically are defined as an abortion for the vast majority of medical definitions. Then you have some who are against birth control, which they see as morally equivalent to an abortion.

[Snackshack]

35. Fair enough.

Given the multiple choice definitions I am going to plant my flag at “fetus” and the termination of a pregnancy to be consider an “abortion” from that point forward. I have no issues with a woman making that decision if that is the course that she freely chooses to take.

[qazplm135]

55. that's not true and current law and polling reflects that's not true

a majority of Americans are ok with abortion if it's rape, incest or life of the mother.

a smaller majority/plurality are ok with the current law that restricts it to the first two trimesters (or roughly the point of reasonable viability outside of the womb)

a minority are ok with what are termed "late term abortions" or "post-viability abortions" which in the US are generally only legal when the women's life is at risk and even then only in some states.

A vast majority would be against aborting a fetus at say 8 months for any reason other than life of the mother.

IOW, it's a continuum, not a black and white thing.

[enid602]

34. abortion

Abortion is only allowed for the daughters of the 1%, and for tRump’s girlfriends.

[Iggo]

36. For these people? Right between having a pregnant daughter and not having a pregnant daughter.

Ba-dump, psh!

[CrispyQ]

37. Forced Labor, Revisited: The 13th Amendment and Abortion

Forced Labor, Revisited: The 13th Amendment and Abortion

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers

2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University School of Law,
[e-mail]

I. The basic argument
The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude."6

Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves.

I don't know why the pro-choice movement doesn't use this argument.

Another thing, if the state can keep a woman from having an abortion, at what point do they determine that they can force some women to have abortions? People say that won't happen, but we never thought Donald Trump would be president, either. Anything can happen. It has never been about the sanctity of life, but about controlling the woman.

[Mariana]

39. There's another similar argument that makes sense to me.

Parents can't be compelled to donate their organs to their child, even to save the child's life. Why does a fetus have more claim on a woman's organs than her child who has been born?

[MineralMan]

41. Good point.

However, I've always believed that nobody has the right to inquire about the state of anyone's reproductive system. It's none of anyone's business but the individual, along with anyone a woman chooses for advice on the matter. Generally, women know they might be pregnant long before anyone else does.

It is the right of a person to reveal only what they wish to reveal about themselves that is at the heart of all this, I think. Making such decisions is only for the individual, not for others. That's the line I draw, and the only line I draw. Let people decide for themselves in such matters.

[exboyfil]

58. A Rental instead of permanent occupancy and squatter's rights?

A child has a claim on 18 years of support.

[Mariana]

66. Your analogy is flawed.

Pregnancy and childbirth may cause death or disability to the woman. It's usually impossible to know, early on, which pregnancies will be dangerous or deadly. The complication rate is pretty damn high. About one third of deliveries are by Caesarian section, so any pregnant woman is facing a high risk of requiring a major surgery, which has its own risk of complications.

My own pet complication was gestational diabetes. The rate of gestational diabetes ranges between about 2% and 10% of pregnancies per year in the United States. Fortunately I was able to control it enough that little permanent damage was done, and the diabetes went away soon after the birth. Many women are not so lucky. About 50% of women with gestational diabetes go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

You can read more about pregnancy complications here, if you're interested:
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html

[exboyfil]

56. But we compel parents who have children

to pay child support. Parents who neglect their children can be charged with a crime.

We charge anyone who kills a child once they are born.

The utilitarian solution is to allow unfettered access to abortion. I guess some argument could be made that if societal resources are expended getting the child to 8 months 30 days, then going the extra day makes the most sense.

Does an eight month old fetus who I think everyone would agree is sentient have any sort of rights? How different is the expectation that a pregnant woman serve as an incubator for another month a more severe assault on the 13th amendment than expecting a parent to be obligated to 18 years of support after the birth?

As a side note. The death of a fetus caused by a third party's aggression was considered a property crime in the Bible. Also the Bible clearly advocates the forced abortion of a fetus conceived by adultery - viewing the conception of such a child as a crime against the husband. God's hands are far from clean in this debate.

I personally would keep the state out of this debate. It serves my interests that unwanted children are not brought into the world. Still I feel an uneasy guilt about allowing sentient human beings to be killed.

[CrispyQ]

92. Your comment about women terminating a pregnancy at 8 months & 30 days

leads me to believe that you incorrectly assume that women casually & cavalierly have abortions with little or no regard for the life they are carrying.

Women who have an unwanted pregnancy will terminate it as early as possible, if the means are available. Late term abortions generally indicate a serious health issue with the mother or the fetus, not some party girl who decided in the last month of her pregnancy that she couldn't be bothered. That's how your framing makes it sound.

Also, if women have access to affordable birth control, we will chose that over the risk of pregnancy. Note to men: You, too, can come prepared with condoms of your own!

[Mariana]

94. That lie has been spread very well by the RWNJ's.

The lie is that women are having abortions in their ninth month because they feel like it. For one thing, in most states, third trimester abortions are illegal unless there's a serious medical problem. Even where there isn't a law specifically prohibiting it, I don't think there's a single doctor in the United States who would perform a third trimester abortion on a healthy women with a healthy fetus.

The late Dr. Tiller, before he was murdered, got dragged into court over and over again on charges of performing illegal late-term abortions. Each time it was found that every single one was done for valid medical reasons.

[marylandblue]

63. Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes this argument

If this does come to the SCOTUS it will be interesting to see what she says.

[zipplewrath]

52. There's no consistent "line"

Even worse, as the RWNJ's have become aware of these fundamental questions, they have tended towards "downward" definition of these things. So you have people who object to methods which prevent implantation. You have people who object to the freezing of fertilized eggs. You have people that object to condoms. You have objections to oral sex. It is all predicated to avoid having to actually discuss when a person actually begins.

[exboyfil]

57. And they carry around a book where

forced abortion is mandated by God in certain cases, and the death of a fetus through assault is treated as a property crime.

[MaryMagdaline]

53. I sometimes think I'm the only one who believes in

Roe v Wade. Viability of the fetus is where the line is drawn, and after that, risk to mother’s life. Mother’s life is primary. In Europe, which many RWers think of as godless and hedonistic, late term abortions are difficult to obtain. Because abortion coverage is often free, weeks and months don’t go by while the woman is looking for money to pay for an abortion. Seems more humane all the way around.

[Major Nikon]

64. The viability standard is both arbitrary and capricious

That's why Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always had a problem with it. Every time a fetus is live birthed at a previous point in gestation, wingnut states move to restrict abortions past that point.

[MaryMagdaline]

74. good points

"Viability" does not mean the same as it did in 1973.

[Mariana]

67. Late term abortions are difficult to obtain here, too.

The RWNJ fantasy of women wandering into clinics in their third trimester and having abortions because they feel like it is just that, a fantasy. In reality, a third trimester induced abortion takes place because the fetus is dead and has to be removed, is nonviable or has a serious deformity, or the woman's life is in immediate danger. I can't say it has never happened that a healthy woman has had a healthy fetus aborted in the third trimester in the US, but you'd be hard pressed to find one who has done so.

[MaryMagdaline]

72. True.

[Freethinker65]

54. Their own unwed teenage daughter pregnant with a "lesser" (in their opinion) male's potential child

Then they often will make an exception.

[janterry]

62. It goes both ways

I support abortion, but I read an article on Slate a few years ago (when it was still a great online mag .

And the author talked about viability outside the womb. As technology and medicine advances, someday viability will be many weeks sooner.

Anyway, I don't say this to debate DU style. I have no debate. I support abortion. But I am mindful that if a fetus were viable at, say 3 months (which someday will happen) - it will impact, perhaps not my political ideas,
but certainly my personal relationship to the question. Would *I* think it moral (for me)? I don't know.

Anyway, please don't take this as a debate - I just am interested in questions

[guillaumeb]

89. A very valid observation.

Women must ultimately decide, and be free to decide.

My view.

[MrScorpio]

100. George Carlin said it best...

[Major Nikon]

101. They don't give a fuck about the fetus either

In some areas of the US, infant mortality rivals some 3rd world countries. Do we see the so-called "pro-life" people advocating for better health care for the mothers in those areas? That's when you realize they aren't "pro-life" at all, they are forced-birthers.