4 ms·

> 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 kn

by 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.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        If you say that it happens, you provide proof that it does: that's the way round that proof works. Do not shift the burden of proof. "prove the absence" is a well-known absurdity in general. Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting, and I think wrong, but it also seems that you would rather pick nits about this insane comparison, so no.
        yucky 4y ago
        > Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/ https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.9.1578 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.16... There is actually a metric shit ton of research on infanticide, I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody. I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant. I, and most pro-life people I know support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. Again, also irrelevant. The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not? If you don't, then you are implicitly stating that the child has a right to life, and thus you are in the same (supposed) dilemma posed by this article as pro-life people.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant What our disingenuous friend is ignoring is that if someone wanted to be rid of a fetus, why on earth would they wait 8 long hard months? Why endure late pregnancy for no reason? It would be easier to end it at 5 months, easier still at 3. And easier before then. What exactly do you think of Mr Buttigieg 's comments above? He does mention this. > I support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. And does the law concur? Are you invoking the Shirley exception? https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin > The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not? I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. My ignorant view is not wanted, yours neither and especially not the law's. if you claim "medical necessity as a valid exception" then you actually don't disagree much. As I said above: "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."
    - yucky 4y ago
      > I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. If it's non-medically necessary then what does a doctor have to do with the decision? That's the whole point.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        This whole point doesn't even make sense. If there's no doctor or other qualified medic involved in the process, then by definition it's backstreet, outside of any medical or legal control and the question is moot.

by yucky 4y ago

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.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      If you say that it happens, you provide proof that it does: that's the way round that proof works. Do not shift the burden of proof. "prove the absence" is a well-known absurdity in general. Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting, and I think wrong, but it also seems that you would rather pick nits about this insane comparison, so no.
      - yucky 4y ago
        > Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/ https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.9.1578 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.16... There is actually a metric shit ton of research on infanticide, I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real.
lliamander 4y ago
> Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody. I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant. I, and most pro-life people I know support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. Again, also irrelevant. The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not? If you don't, then you are implicitly stating that the child has a right to life, and thus you are in the same (supposed) dilemma posed by this article as pro-life people.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant What our disingenuous friend is ignoring is that if someone wanted to be rid of a fetus, why on earth would they wait 8 long hard months? Why endure late pregnancy for no reason? It would be easier to end it at 5 months, easier still at 3. And easier before then. What exactly do you think of Mr Buttigieg 's comments above? He does mention this. > I support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. And does the law concur? Are you invoking the Shirley exception? https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin > The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not? I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. My ignorant view is not wanted, yours neither and especially not the law's. if you claim "medical necessity as a valid exception" then you actually don't disagree much. As I said above: "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."
  - yucky 4y ago
    > I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. If it's non-medically necessary then what does a doctor have to do with the decision? That's the whole point.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      This whole point doesn't even make sense. If there's no doctor or other qualified medic involved in the process, then by definition it's backstreet, outside of any medical or legal control and the question is moot.