How late do women "need" abortions? Now, before we start off, I want to make clear I am not talking about those rarer situations where the fetus has some severe abnormality or the woman has extreme health issues. I am talking about ordinary elective abortions, healthy woman, normal healthy fetus. And I am not asking about how late you think she should be allowed to abort. That is a different question from how late you think she needs to abort. The question is, how late in her pregnancy do you think a woman needs to be able to legally abort?
The kid tends to be pretty doggone reliant on mommy up to around 12 or 13 so I figure it's only fair that if her "ZEF" is in the 36th or 39th (we can round to 40th) trimester she should have a right to abort.
The way you've set up the question makes it self-contradictory. "Elective" procedures are, by definition, not medically necessary. So your effectively asking "When do women need abortions they don't need?" It doesn't make any sense.
Other people have no right to decide what someone else 'needs'. While I support the ability to choose, personally, 22 weeks is the point of viability outside the womb.
You are talking about ‘ordinary elective abortions, healthy woman, normal healthy fetus’. Any woman who has already made the decision to have an abortion is going to get it done as soon as possible. This is part of the elective abortion process — do it as soon as possible. What’s with the word ‘need’. The question really makes no sense and really it just looks like yet another attempt to start a contentious argument.
I don't think you can put a hard number of that and I'm not sure it is strictly necessary to do so. There are all sorts of factors that might impact how and when any given woman will be able to make an informed decision and more again that might impact how and when she'd be actually able to (legally) seek one. Other related laws could even impact that, directly or indirectly. Exactly how the rules covering "extreme health issues" work could leave women with health issues which don't quite meet the requirements, fall foul of legal technicalities or face practical difficulties clarifying how their specific condition applies. Also, general restrictions and rules imposed on abortion providers could reduce the availability of care (intentionally or not). Ultimately, I think this is entirely the wrong approach to take to this question. First you need to work out exactly what outcomes you're seeking to achieve and then come up with a holistic set of laws, rules and regulations to bring about those outcomes, plus account for potential consequences or complications.
Right. Because no woman ever got pregnant because she was pretty sure her baby daddy would stick around that way but then, after he runs off, decides that maybe an abortion is a better idea because she didn’t really want the baby anyway, just the relationship she thought the baby would create or preserve.
Women need abortions when they need them. That need needs to be determined by the woman and her physician. No one else.
Right. I mean, "It's getting really big and I don't want stretch marks" is a perfectly reasonable need. What would that poor woman's mental state be if she was subjected to the horror of stretch marks and then having to feel the poor little ZEF that caused them? She'd hate that clump of cells forever.
Because I figure that advocating for the continuance of the human race and the social norms that best facilitate that goal is a fairly important part of life.
If that's why she wants an abortion...she doesn't have to prove to you or anyone else if her reason is valid.. Your complete lack of knowledge of what pregnancy does to a woman's body, lack of any knowledge of biology,....is very evident..
LOLOLOL....abortion has been around for thousands of years...and the world is still POPULATED!!!!!!!!!!! And, it is NOT women's responsibility to populate the earth...they don't owe you or the world a damn thing!!!
So you find the idea of some women choosing to get an abortion to be more detrimental to the continuation of humanity than climate change? Just out of curiosity.
You're proposing that there is some bright line concerning abnormal fetuses or health care issues. I don't see evidence that it works that way. Who decides if a fetus is "abnormal"? Who decides whether the woman is facing a health care issue? The idea of leaving these decisions to legislators and prosecutors is just plain NOT acceptable. We know that there are almost no late term abortions and that viability standards are being upheld. So, this new idea that we need to get legislatures and prosecutors further involved is not supportable.
The circumstances surrounding the reason to abort are important and need to be considered. There are responsibilities we ALL accept with regard to our decisions and pregnancy, the creation of life, should also have responsibilities tied to the decisions surrounding it. We have spent the past several decades operating on the social concept of "no fault" decision making. You get in a bad marriage? Divorce provides a no fault solution. You want to have unprotected sex with anyone of your choosing? Contraception provides a no fault solution. You choose to do drugs? No fault associated with any of that. Join a gang? No fault there. Make shitty financial decisions and end up broke? Not your fault. Nobody has responsibility for anything they do any more but if you're a corporation or a police department or a Trump...then EVERYTHING is your fault. That doesn't create a healthy, thriving society. It creates a society where failings are accommodated and perhaps even encouraged. It removes any incentive to do better, overcome bad circumstances and thrive through personal growth.
Sounds to me that you don’t like the idea of women escaping their “punishment” for having unprotected sex.
It isn't "punishment". It's the entirely foreseeable result of that decision. Interestingly enough, your reply is an excellent example of the mind set I was discussing. You consider pregnancy to be "punishment" to a woman who chooses to have unprotected sex. That isn't a lot different than viewing crashing a car into a tree to be "punishment" for drunk driving. In neither case is the result brought on by a third party so in neither case is it "punishment". In both cases the result is difficult but it was caused by the same person that created the situation that prompted it. Coping with the results of one's decisions is NECESSARY for society to thrive but, as you have shown us with your reply, you consider the need to deal with those consequences to be "punishment". That is the essence of what a "no fault" society creates.
Are you an abortion supporter? Are you conceding that women do not need elective abortions? I think many other Pro-Choice abortion supporters would disagree with you.
In other words, you claim that it doesn't matter whether women really need them or not. You're not even going to use that for an argument in your position. Yet, we know other pro-choicers will.
But if she doesn't need it, the argument for abortion becomes a little bit weaker, doesn't it? I mean, aren't there a lot of pro-choicers out there who say "Women need abortions!" ? I've noticed that not one pro-choicer here so far has attempted to take on the argument directly and answer the question.
