3 ms·
The comment you're replying to didn't make a week-based distinction, just that the "personhood" claim of a fetus is irrelevant to whether or not an abortion is
by micromacrofoot 4y ago
The comment you're replying to didn't make a week-based distinction, just that the "personhood" claim of a fetus is irrelevant to whether or not an abortion is legal.
Personally I'd just prefer to base it on fetal viability (which was the standard). That's roughly 25 weeks or so (some variation and debate). If a fetus were to come non-viable after that, or endanger the mother, I think that should be back on the table too.
- iforgotpassword 4y agoFrom that comment: "you should have the legal right to have an abortion (...) at any point during a pregnancy."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- micromacrofoot 4y ago> the legal right to have an abortion (or at least induce labor, if viability is possible) you left out the "at least induce labor if viability is possible," so maybe we're just interpreting the comment differently
- iforgotpassword 4y agoIndeed, the "at least" made me read it like this would be the minimum acceptable compromise, but reading the phrase without the parentheses would be the actual thing they want. But I'm not a native speaker so that might very well be wrong.
- derac 4y agoThe claim is that viability is inconsequential to their argument, meaning a 32 week abortion is morally ok for them. Where did I misspeak?
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI didn't see that claim, the comment says "(or at least induce labor, if viability is possible)" Can chalk it up to a different in interpretations I guess.