4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        Uninteresting distraction, since as pointed out above, it is unrelated to the topic at hand. > I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real Word games. Again: pointless distraction, dishonest, uninteresting. Burden of proof remains on you.

by yucky 4y ago

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.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      Uninteresting distraction, since as pointed out above, it is unrelated to the topic at hand. > I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real Word games. Again: pointless distraction, dishonest, uninteresting. Burden of proof remains on you.