4 ms·

This not the gotcha you think it is, for two reasons: First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion thi

This not the gotcha you think it is, for two reasons: First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy. Unless you are for abortion right up to the point of birth, you are in the same dilemma as the pro-life people you rail against. Second, for this to be a real legal issue you would need to demonstrate some sort of damages to the child. If the unborn child is safe and receiving adequate care, how are his rights materially affected by his mother being in jail? His amount of liberty is precisely what it was before.

yucky 4y ago
> First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy. You may be surprised to know that there are in fact several US States that allow abortion all the way up to birth with zero restrictions:[1] Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and of course D.C. [1] - https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-polici...
- lliamander 4y ago
  I am well aware, which is why I used the qualifier of "virtually". And yes, technically if you support abortion without restriction that you avoid the dilemma presented in this article, but then you have arguably much bigger ethical dilemmas to work through, which is why support for such policies is outside the norm for those who are pro-choice.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody. They only do it if it is medically necessary. Each late-term abortion is a very hard decision between patient and doctor. And it is rare. Denying necessary medical intervention is cruel and harmful. Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. Big government is not helpful in this case. You know all of this. This is the substance of Mr Buttigieg 's comments in 2019 https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-term-175009989.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...
  - yucky 4y ago
    Perhaps you didn't see what post I was replying to, but it would help in order to understand the context. The OP said "there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy" and this is a common misunderstanding about abortion law, particularly in the US. Almost every single person that learns there are a number of states that allow elective (i.e. non-medically necessary) abortion up to the moment of birth, are blown away and don't believe it. But it's true. Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available. Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people believe that there needs to be a cut off at some point (generally after viability, but this varies) where non-medically necessary abortions should not be legal. If you take a poll of 100 people, how many would support a non-medically necessary abortion at 8 months? Not many. So then the question is, why are there states with zero restrictions that late in term? As to your claim that "nobody" would abort that late in term unless medically necessary, we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents every single year in the US, so it's inexcusable to give them legal cover to do it prior to birth when the child is viable. What is the difference between an elective abortion at 8 months and just smothering the baby after its born?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available This may be true, but "should". the law can and does differ. But agreed, it should be a medical decision only, as to if it's necessary. > we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents That's not the same thing at all, so you haven't given any evidence of falsehood of the statement at hand here, you've just tried to equate something else.
      - yucky 4y ago
        You're right, they're not the same thing. I would imagine killing an infant yourself after it's born is a lot harder (and actually murder) than having a non-medically necessary later term abortion. And yet hundreds of women do it every year. If you think "literally nobody" has a non-medically necessary late term abortion, then you need to provide some evidence to back up such an absurd statement. It's legal in all those states for a reason.

yucky 4y ago

> First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy. You may be surprised to know that there are in fact several US States that allow abortion all the way up to birth with zero restrictions:[1] Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and of course D.C. [1] - https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-polici...

lliamander 4y ago
I am well aware, which is why I used the qualifier of "virtually". And yes, technically if you support abortion without restriction that you avoid the dilemma presented in this article, but then you have arguably much bigger ethical dilemmas to work through, which is why support for such policies is outside the norm for those who are pro-choice.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody. They only do it if it is medically necessary. Each late-term abortion is a very hard decision between patient and doctor. And it is rare. Denying necessary medical intervention is cruel and harmful. Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. Big government is not helpful in this case. You know all of this. This is the substance of Mr Buttigieg 's comments in 2019 https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-term-175009989.html https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...
- yucky 4y ago
  Perhaps you didn't see what post I was replying to, but it would help in order to understand the context. The OP said "there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy" and this is a common misunderstanding about abortion law, particularly in the US. Almost every single person that learns there are a number of states that allow elective (i.e. non-medically necessary) abortion up to the moment of birth, are blown away and don't believe it. But it's true. Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available. Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people believe that there needs to be a cut off at some point (generally after viability, but this varies) where non-medically necessary abortions should not be legal. If you take a poll of 100 people, how many would support a non-medically necessary abortion at 8 months? Not many. So then the question is, why are there states with zero restrictions that late in term? As to your claim that "nobody" would abort that late in term unless medically necessary, we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents every single year in the US, so it's inexcusable to give them legal cover to do it prior to birth when the child is viable. What is the difference between an elective abortion at 8 months and just smothering the baby after its born?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available This may be true, but "should". the law can and does differ. But agreed, it should be a medical decision only, as to if it's necessary. > we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents That's not the same thing at all, so you haven't given any evidence of falsehood of the statement at hand here, you've just tried to equate something else.
    - yucky 4y ago
      You're right, they're not the same thing. I would imagine killing an infant yourself after it's born is a lot harder (and actually murder) than having a non-medically necessary later term abortion. And yet hundreds of women do it every year. If you think "literally nobody" has a non-medically necessary late term abortion, then you need to provide some evidence to back up such an absurd statement. It's legal in all those states for a reason.