4 ms·

> 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 pe

> 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.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Perhaps you're not aware of what a medically necessary abortion is then? It's precipitated when the pregnancy is causing a medical complication that is putting the life of the mother in danger. Just going to see an abortion doctor because you want to abort, does not make it medically necessary.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        I urge you to read your own earlier comment and see if the two make sense to you when taken together.
        yucky 4y ago
        There is a reason you're being vague and not answering directly.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        There's nothing concrete to answer. Stop projecting.
        yucky 4y ago
        It's very concrete. There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it". My statement is simply that there is no reason not to prohibit elective abortions after some point in the pregnancy. Typically this is at viability, which is around 24 weeks. If you claim no woman would ever get an elective abortion at 8 months then I would imagine you also believe no women would ever get an elective abortion after 6 months (ie 24 weeks, the point of viability). Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.

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.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Perhaps you're not aware of what a medically necessary abortion is then? It's precipitated when the pregnancy is causing a medical complication that is putting the life of the mother in danger. Just going to see an abortion doctor because you want to abort, does not make it medically necessary.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      I urge you to read your own earlier comment and see if the two make sense to you when taken together.
      - yucky 4y ago
        There is a reason you're being vague and not answering directly.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        There's nothing concrete to answer. Stop projecting.
        yucky 4y ago
        It's very concrete. There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it". My statement is simply that there is no reason not to prohibit elective abortions after some point in the pregnancy. Typically this is at viability, which is around 24 weeks. If you claim no woman would ever get an elective abortion at 8 months then I would imagine you also believe no women would ever get an elective abortion after 6 months (ie 24 weeks, the point of viability). Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.