If you're acknowledging that there is a choice, why would there need to be any hard cut-off date? Later term abortions aren't a good thing for anyone involved but that doesn't mean simple bans or limitations are the best way to reduce their occurrence. After all, that is why it has generally been accepted that an complete and unconditional ban on abortion in any circumstance wouldn't be a practical or beneficial. We'd all like there to be less or even no abortions but wishing it can't make it happen. You need to understand what these numbers actually mean. They are referring to an estimated date of conception, which can be based on several different measures and information. When a woman becomes aware she might be and definitely is pregnant is not directly related to the number of weeks she has been pregnant at all. The physical signs can vary and aren't necessarily clear or definitive, and a woman may well not be well informed or aware of them (especially for young women). There could also be differences in access to home testing or medical care, due to financial, social or practical reasons. All of that means it's impossible to say exactly when any hypothetical pregnant woman will be in a position to make an informed decision about abortion. Heck, there have been (admittedly rare) examples of a women going in to labour without even realising they were pregnant. Maybe rather than putting all the effort in to bringing in laws and regulations to limit the scope and ability to make the decision, why not put some of those resources in to practical measures to make the decision quicker and easier, and to reducing the incidence at all. Things like better sex education (for children and adults), better access to healthcare in general and sexual health care specifically, better access and education for all forms of birth control, general public information about the medical facts and realities etc.
So, you apparently do not accept the view, which I've read someone else in your thread, already convey, that women who know they're pregnant, have decided to abort the fetus/embryo, and have the opportunity to do so, make it a priority, and don't let it fall to the bottom of their to do lists, out of mere disregard? I don't have the time to start pulling in links at the moment (I really shouldn't even, now, be taking this time to reply), but I have seen data from the CDC, for example, that says about 93% of American abortions occur at or before the end of the 13th week, that is, in the first trimester. Another 6% occur no later than the 21st week. That leaves just 1% that happen after this (roughly halfway) point, in pregnancy. And it is presented that this 1% is constituted, primarily by those extraordinary circumstances, you earlier mentioned, involving birth defects or a threat to the life/health of the mother. Given that set of facts, your belabored sermonizing over this, seems only so much barking, at a parked car. Granted that, by the same token, those on the Pro-Choice side who-- while claiming that no woman with the means to abort beforehand, waits until after the 21st week-- nevertheless insisting that all women should have that right to do so, if they did so choose, does not help their case, in the eyes of public opinion.
NOPE, the Pro-Choice side does not , and HAS NOT, pushed for elective abortions until birth. They accepted the limit since 1973.... Yes, there may be some who want that but they certainly are not the majority.. And THEY are not as extreme and anti-Woman as the majority of Anti-Choicers who want to ban abortion entirely. And Pro-Choicers do NOT, unlike Anti-Choicers, post thread after thread after thread proposing that.
Agreed and well said for the most part. But, I don't accept your analysis of women who make an abortion decision after 21 weeks. You make it sound like legislatures and state prosecutors can make the medical decisions faced by these women. I'm aware that a good percent of the public thinks that a decision made after 21 weeks is surely a sign of gross ethical misconduct and laziness. But, that's just plain ridiculous. There are numerous health care conditions that a pregnant woman can not have treated without there being damage to the fetus. Plus, various kinds of fetal defects don't show up within the first 21 weeks. Plus, this still runs into the problem of rape and incest. Consider the 10yo and other young women in the news - including those who are victims of rape and incest. How much did that 10yo know about pregnancy? Who gets to decide that the 10yo must by law risk giving birth at that extremely young age - a well know significant health danger? Was that 10yo given a full understanding in health class at school, so the case could be handled before the pregnancy progressed? What happens when an incest victim has to choose what to do, when her parents WILL be notified, with the family trauma that will then ensue - risking the girl's family structure. Will she immediately report? Will the legal proceedings that follow allow her to abort within the allowed time period? Will she even know she's pregnant? Will she find a way to get pregnancy testing? Will the many concerns cause her to hide her condition through the weeks of early pregnancy? The idea that legislatures and prosecutors get to override all others in these decisions is something I find monumentally immoral and totally disgusting.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, the Pro-Choice side does not , and HAS NOT, pushed for elective abortions until birth. Whenever you can't address something it is ALWAYS "a discussion for another thread """
Is it your argument that the only reason women wait until 21 weeks is medical issues? What's the problem with trying to codify this into law in some way? I know there's a huge huge amount of resistance from pro-choicers to do this. Which makes us suspect that the real issue does not have to do with medical issues.
There is one easy way to deal with this. Simply ban abortions above a certain gestational age only for females above a certain age. So this law would not apply to 10 year old girls. But again, we all know that even with that caveat you still would never agree to it.
Who exactly are those "all others" you are referring to? Are we talking about a 10 year old girl making these decisions? Or her and her parents approving it? Or even her parents choosing it, over the girl's objections? Should a doctor get any voice in this? (Assuming the woman isn't free to seek out the most unscrupulous 1 out of 100 doctor she can find) The woman's husband? You say "all others", but I suspect what you actually mean is somewhat less upfront.
So now you seem to be arguing that a woman does need to be able to abort later in the pregnancy to always be able to have her choice.
What??? Where did you get that twaddle from or are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Medical complications can occur at any point and THEN the abortion is performed. Threatened miscarriage- usually occurs early but can happen at any point as can foetal demise
It should be decided on a case by case basis. Look at the case of the eleven year old in Argentina who was denied an abortion and developed life threatening complications
I've no idea how you took that from my post (or the individual sentence you randomly chose to quote for some reason). I tried to explain it as clearly as I could. The simple fact is that we can't say exactly how late in a pregnancy that any hypothetical woman will be in a position to make an informed choice. Any hard limit of estimated weeks since conception you might choose to set, there could always be a woman who isn't in a position to make that informed choice until after your limit. That would likely be a very small number of women, especially if you set the hard limit relatively late, but it will never be zero. Given pretty much any woman is going to want to make a decision as soon as they're able though, I'm not convinced setting any hard limit has significant benefit. It is unlikely to prevent many abortions and could serve to add further complications, fears and legalisation of the medical process, the combination of which could actually make it more difficult for many women to make and act on that informed decision as early as realistically possible. It is often the case that the simple answer isn't the right one.
If that is really true, isn't there some way to pass a law to put up a filter just to make sure that in these later abortions something is actually wrong? I think you will find that most pro-lifers won't be too picky. And we also have to define exactly what "late" means, because it may be a little bit of a different argument depending on how far along in gestation the pregnancy is. Okay, so when would this cut-off be? At what point do women only ever get abortions because the wanted pregnancies went tragically wrong, in your view?
These are often medical emergencies so how do you propose writing a law that will not slow down life saving interventions?
I'm sure there's a way. We just need to use some creative thought. If it is indeed an emergency, then the law will not be able to get too picky. I just want to make sure something is actually wrong.
Has never worked. The maternal mortality rate is already rising in Texas https://communityimpact.com/houston...mortality-rates-on-the-rise-in-harris-county/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Texas https://www.healthline.com/health-n...to-rise-post-roe-the-reasons-may-surprise-you
That's simply due to mass scale immigration. Nothing to do with abortion laws. Texas gets more than other states.
Bowerbird said: ↑ These are often medical emergencies so how do you propose writing a law that will not slow down life saving interventions? OH GEE THAT sure solves the problem !!! NOT! No, most people want to use facts and laws. Uh, so why should YOU pass judgement on every woman in that position? Are you the Royal Doctor of the Land who reviews every woman's case? No OK, go ahead and continue cherry picking other's posts so nothing interferes with, or challenges, your goal
Why? Also, something being "wrong" doesn't automatically mean that thing must (or can) be made illegal.
What you are proposing is to legislate healthcare treatment and then prosecute doctors and women who don't comply with that treatment. I've pointed that out multiple times. I've given examples. But I don't see you addressing that in any of your responses. What's up??
No, the mortality rate is rising. If you want to argue that there is another cause, you need to show how that other cause answers for the increased mortality.
Those who diagnose a healthcare concern and determine a treatment regime are called DOCTORS. Not legislators.
We already have laws concerning fetal viability. After that, you are proposing to get legislators involved in determining health care when we already know that late term abortions are rare and tragic in the eyes of both doctors and pregnant women. Your comment about the anti abortion crowed not being "picky" is just plain ridiculous. We see them going after morning after pills, forcing a 10yo to carry a pregnancy to term, etc. We see Justice Thomas writing in his opinion that the next step includes going after birth control, etc. These people are extremists and they are clearly intent on using the law against the healthcare of pregnant women.
