4 ms·

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

by 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
        > There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it". And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. This is daft semantic hairsplitting, again. Stupid word games, not a productive debate. > Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point. Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Which makes the whole statement quite pointless. But we don't bias in favour of excessive pointless laws and government intrusion on private matters, now do we? You don't get direct answers because your questions do not come across as seeking clarity, just a) "gotchas" and b) going down garden paths.
        yucky 4y ago
        > And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. Yup, and if a doctor deems than an abortion is not medically necessary, the woman can still have one anyway. Which makes it elective. Elective abortions are the ones we're discussing. > Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Why shouldn't we restrict them? If it's late enough in term that the child is viable, and there is no threat to the life of the mother, then why should that type of abortion be legal? How is an elective abortion at 32 weeks any different from killing an infant?

by yucky 4y ago

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
      > There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it". And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. This is daft semantic hairsplitting, again. Stupid word games, not a productive debate. > Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point. Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Which makes the whole statement quite pointless. But we don't bias in favour of excessive pointless laws and government intrusion on private matters, now do we? You don't get direct answers because your questions do not come across as seeking clarity, just a) "gotchas" and b) going down garden paths.
      - yucky 4y ago
        > And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. Yup, and if a doctor deems than an abortion is not medically necessary, the woman can still have one anyway. Which makes it elective. Elective abortions are the ones we're discussing. > Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Why shouldn't we restrict them? If it's late enough in term that the child is viable, and there is no threat to the life of the mother, then why should that type of abortion be legal? How is an elective abortion at 32 weeks any different from killing an infant?