You can no longer get an abortion as of week 20

[KimGordon67]

Not yet, but there is this:



As I've said here many times, the Supreme Court in affirming a woman's right to an abortion in Roe, also affirmed the state's legitimate right in protecting the potential right to life of the unborn. People tend to forget or ignore that, if, in fact, they ever knew.

The woman's right is given emphasis the earlier in gestation the abortion is desired. The state's interest predominates in the later stages. The Supreme Court has never definitively drawn that line in the sand.

If abortion opponents have any hope that this bill will draw that line and further survive Supreme Court review, they had best include other reasonable exceptions like the one cited above and already in the bill.

See post #55. In that actual scenario (not some devil's advocate 'logical conclusion' hyperbole that people have made up) there was no significant threat to the mother's life or physical wellbeing. So you're basically saying that everyone in that situation should carry to term because the fetus as a 'right to life' (even if only for a few hours and, in my understanding of the condition, not a particularly pleasant few hours)?

 

[adrina]

See post #55. In that actual scenario (not some devil's advocate 'logical conclusion' hyperbole that people have made up) there was no significant threat to the mother's life or physical wellbeing. So you're basically saying that everyone in that situation should carry to term because the fetus as a 'right to life' (even if only for a few hours and, in my understanding of the condition, not a particularly pleasant few hours)?

That's the stupid nonsensical part of the law. It doesn't even deal with the reason that post 20 week abortions are needed and used. It's a knee jerk reactionary piece of bullshit legislation that isn't even applicable to the reality of the situation and will cause great hardship on those women in this situation.

 

[KimGordon67]

...

[deleted]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

See post #55. In that actual scenario (not some devil's advocate 'logical conclusion' hyperbole that people have made up) there was no significant threat to the mother's life or physical wellbeing. So you're basically saying that everyone in that situation should carry to term because the fetus as a 'right to life' (even if only for a few hours and, in my understanding of the condition, not a particularly pleasant few hours)?

I'd say the scenario you presented in post #55 is exactly the kind of reasonable exception I referred to earlier. And I am sure there are others.

 

[adrina]

I'd say the scenario you presented in post #55 is exactly the kind of reasonable exception I referred to earlier. And I am sure there are others.

some reading material for you

more reading material for you

The majority of the states that have enacted bans on abortions beyond 20 weeks do not address fetal abnormality as an exception.

"Also permitted in case of fetal abnormality; in Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia the law applies to a lethal abnormality."

 

[KimGordon67]

I'd say the scenario you presented in post #55 is exactly the kind of reasonable exception I referred to earlier. And I am sure there are others.

... or you could just not have the law in the first place. The likelihood that women would have 'abortions of convenience' post-20 weeks is pretty slim and, as the article linked in the original OP suggests, in quite extenuating circumstances. By having a long list of exceptions, you're requiring that women prove they fit into one of those categories. That in itself could take time ... increasing the likelihood that the fetus would feel pain, apparently one of the things the legislation is particularly concerned about.

 

[adrina]

... or you could just not have the law in the first place. The likelihood that women would have 'abortions of convenience' post-20 weeks is pretty slim and, as the article linked in the original OP suggests, in quite extenuating circumstances. By having a long list of exceptions, you're requiring that women prove they fit into one of those categories. That in itself could take time ... increasing the likelihood that the fetus would feel pain, apparently one of the things the legislation is particularly concerned about.

Exactly. This legislation is just one more round in the "let's ban all abortions" battle.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not yet, but there is this:



As I've said here many times, the Supreme Court in affirming a woman's right to an abortion in Roe, also affirmed the state's legitimate right in protecting the potential right to life of the unborn. People tend to forget or ignore that, if, in fact, they ever knew.

The woman's right is given emphasis the earlier in gestation the abortion is desired. The state's interest predominates in the later stages. The Supreme Court has never definitively drawn that line in the sand.

If abortion opponents have any hope that this bill will draw that line and further survive Supreme Court review, they had best include other reasonable exceptions like the one cited above and already in the bill.

Actually, in response to your initial point (which is true), the original ruling seemed to be the last trimester, which doesn't start at 20 weeks. (This is based on my reading of the relevant Wiki entry on Roe vs Wade - I'm not familiar with the actual case, as it's not relevant to me.) Subsequent rulings seems to suggest 'at fetal viability', maybe around 23 weeks. Which, again, isn't 20 weeks. Now the law seems to be working on the basis of 'maybe able to feel pain' ...

 

[Hypoxia]

Exactly. This legislation is just one more round in the "let's ban all abortions" battle.

Which is another round of "women are property, women are incubators, women are not really persons" bullshit. Anti-choicers care not what happens to woman or child after birth. Anti-choicers don't seem to be lining up to adopt American infants -- although they'll go for Thai, Russian, Guatemalan, other exotics. Anti-choicers don't seem to push for post-partum healthcare. Anti-choicers seem like toxic hypocrites. Feh.

 

[DMBFFF]

I was just checking some of the past pages of this thread, and indeed adrina made mention of fetal health—likely numerous times.

I'll give it the reading it deserves, but later—possibly even a few weeks.

I'm reasonably sure this thread will still be around.

Again, I'm a newbie here—about a week: still figuring out the apparatus and people.

It's been perhaps 364 days since the last post of this thread and at least 364 since my last (relevant) post.

I haven't forgotten this thread and again will give it and the links a decent reading.



Until then, my most recent thread on the subject:

animal rights and fetal rights
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1487086