Do you own your body?

[BrightShinyGirl]

"Hysterical." I haven't said anything that suggests hysteria or bad faith. Nor have I speculated about the motives of women having late abortions. Nor have I denied that there may be reasons why some may want late abortions or that they may be justified. My position is a rather modest one, ranked on the scale of all abortion opinions: there are cases where in a pregnancy 8 1/2 months along I would regard the fetus's interest highly enough that I think abortion would be wrong. I can't give you a complete list of all those cases, or of exactly where I draw the line. But if you think that's an extreme opinion or one deserving outrage, then you are the one with the extreme opinion, not me.

If I'm hysterical, then the majority of this country is hysterical. The majority of laws, even the laws of states that are relatively liberal on the question of abortion, are hysterical. You've essentially defined "hysteria" to be anything you disagree with. I'd say that's a much more "hysterical" attitude than mine, but to each his or her own.

And you still haven't responded to anything I wrote in my first post, nor have your fan bunch. I don't even know why you bother to start a thread like this if you are unwilling to engage with people with whom you disagree. What's the point other than virtue signaling?

I believe that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy right up to the moment of birth. That's not the law now, but it should be.

Simon, what do you think the law should be?

 

[TrailerHitch]

I believe that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy right up to the moment of birth. That's not the law now, but it should be.

Simon, what do you think the law should be?

Why not kill it after birth then? That would be easier wouldn't it? I mean seriously what's the difference?

 

[ll74]

Why not kill it after birth then? That would be easier wouldn't it? I mean seriously what's the difference?

Before birth - fetus is part of a woman's body.
After birth - child is independent and viable.
(Similar questions have been answered as infinitum In this thread, feel free to read further back for more)
Hope this helps

 

[SimonDoom]

I believe that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy right up to the moment of birth. That's not the law now, but it should be.

Simon, what do you think the law should be?

I'm not completely sure.

I do not believe that a woman should have an unlimited right to terminate a pregnancy right up to birth in all cases, because I believe that at some point a fetus is enough like a person that its interest in being alive should be recognized and protected.

There may be cases where I would support a woman's right to a late-term abortion depending on things like the circumstances of the pregnancy (rape or incest), the viability of the fetus (does it have severe birth defects), and, most importantly, the health of the woman. I would put the health of the woman first.

But at 8 months, there's been plenty of time for a woman to find out that she's pregnant and to think through all the ramifications of giving birth. At 8 1/2 months, why not just induce birth and take the baby away? Why kill the baby? It's not as though a late-term abortion is risk free. As a pregnancy draws closer to term, the woman's interest in her liberty and safety grows less compelling and the baby's life interest grows more compelling. I see both as compelling interests, and a balancing act of some kind as necessary. I don't necessarily know where I would draw the line but as a rough rule I would advocate in favor of giving the woman the right to abort up to viability and allow the right to choose after that if certain circumstances exist. That's about as specific as I can be.

As Adrina points out, the number of late-term cases that do NOT involve special circumstances may be a tiny set of cases in proportion to the whole. But that doesn't change the moral calculus at all with respect to a particular case. There doesn't have to be a one-size-fits-all, universal rule. In fact, many states apply different rules in different cases.

 

[RandyRebecca]

I don't know. According to the CDC (I didn't know this but just looked it up) in 2018 about 1% of all abortions were third-trimester abortions. That doesn't surprise me much. I'm not sure how it's relevant to what I wrote, however. My point is simply that the baby's ownership in its body is a factor to be considered and that the nature and magnitude of the interest changes over the course of the pregnancy and the fetus's development.

There aren't that many US states that legally permit a third trimester abortion through personal choice, which are extremely rare in any case. That list is Vermont, New Jersey, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico and Alaska, plus DC. I think the maximum legal limit should be 24 weeks, which is what Roe v Wade guaranteed nationwide. It allowed everyone to stay true to their personal conscience on the matter, i.e. if you want an abortion then have one, and if you morally oppose abortion then don't have one. There should of course be exceptions allowing abortion at any time if the pregnancy isn't viable or if the life of the mother is threatened, which is why nearly all third trimester abortions that do happen actually happen.

As far as your last comment: No, I don't quite agree with that. Because if you believe, as I do, that the fetus has its own important body ownership interest, then THAT interest cannot be left for the woman alone to decide. There's always a balancing act.

The fetus cannot survive outside the womb until at sometime during the third trimester. The anti-choice people are about control of women, not about their morality over the sanctity of life, especially as the anti-choice people suddenly don't care about the baby once he or she has been born and tend to oppose any federal or state funding to bring up children.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Terminating a pregnancy doesn't need to mean killing the fetus, it simply means ending the pregnancy. Pregnancy being the situation where the woman's body is incubating the fetus.

If the fetus can be removed but still survive without the mother, I don't see any rational reason why the fetus needs to be killed. It is no longer using the mother's body to stay alive, therefore the mother's bodily autonomy is no longer a factor.

The technology is quickly getting there too:

https://www.statnews.com/2023/09/19/fda-studies-artificial-womb-technology/

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/09/15/world/science-health/world-first-artificial-womb/

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd be curious to see the data that supports the contention that there are no elective third-term abortions. This thread is 82 pages long, and I just started it today, so I'm not going to wade through 82 pages of thread to find it, if it's even there. I don't claim to have ANY expertise on the relative incidence of different reasons for abortion in the third trimester, but others seem to have information on that, and I wonder what the basis is.

I don't think it's essential to know, because if there are ANY cases of a woman wanting to have an abortion in the eighth month where there is no special threat to her life or the fetus's life and there are no circumstances like rape or incest, then I think the state would be justified in regulating that regardless of the incidence of such cases. But to the extent pro-choice advocates are pushing this argument they should support it with evidence.

 

[SimonDoom]

There aren't that many US states that legally permit a third trimester abortion through personal choice, which are extremely rare in any case. That list is Vermont, New Jersey, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico and Alaska, plus DC. I think the maximum legal limit should be 24 weeks, which is what Roe v Wade guaranteed nationwide. It allowed everyone to stay true to their personal conscience on the matter, i.e. if you want an abortion then have one, and if you morally oppose abortion then don't have one. There should of course be exceptions allowing abortion at any time if the pregnancy isn't viable or if the life of the mother is threatened, which is why nearly all third trimester abortions that do happen actually happen.


The fetus cannot survive outside the womb until at sometime during the third trimester. The anti-choice people are about control of women, not about their morality over the sanctity of life, especially as the anti-choice people suddenly don't care about the baby once he or she has been born and tend to oppose any federal or state funding to bring up children.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, although I think there are some people who for religious reasons genuinely believe the fetus is a life right after conception and should be protected no matter what. I'm not religious and that's not my view, but I'm reluctant to believe that those I disagree with do so for reasons other than what they claim.

 

[adrina]

I'd be curious to see the data that supports the contention that there are no elective third-term abortions. This thread is 82 pages long, and I just started it today, so I'm not going to wade through 82 pages of thread to find it, if it's even there. I don't claim to have ANY expertise on the relative incidence of different reasons for abortion in the third trimester, but others seem to have information on that, and I wonder what the basis is.

I don't think it's essential to know, because if there are ANY cases of a woman wanting to have an abortion in the eighth month where there is no special threat to her life or the fetus's life and there are no circumstances like rape or incest, then I think the state would be justified in regulating that regardless of the incidence of such cases. But to the extent pro-choice advocates are pushing this argument they should support it with evidence.

Yes evidence is important. Please find a case of an elective abortion in the third trimester.

It's mentioned all the time. I have yet to ever hear of one confirmed case in the US of an elective abortion in the 7th, 8th or 9th month of pregnancy. One would think it would be easy enough to find an example...

 

[TrailerHitch]

Before birth - fetus is part of a woman's body.
After birth - child is independent and viable.
(Similar questions have been answered as infinitum In this thread, feel free to read further back for more)
Hope this helps

If it could be viable and alive outside the body then whether you kill it on the day of its birth with an abortion or slit it's throat after it's born is immaterial.

 

[RandyRebecca]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, although I think there are some people who for religious reasons genuinely believe the fetus is a life right after conception and should be protected no matter what.

Right. Now the question is, if that's what they really believe, then why don't they live their lives according to those values, and leave those people who have different views to live their lives according to their values on the matter? That's the thing with the pro-choice position, it allows you to make your personal decision on the matter.

The people who want to wage a culture war over abortion frame it as "pro-abortion or anti-abortion?", when it's actually about whether women get the choice as to whether they have an abortion or not, or whether stopping women having an abortion is forced no matter what their personal beliefs.

The anti-choice people are saying to people who disagree with their views "We don't care if you want an abortion. You are not having one". The pro-choice people do nothing like that.

 

[TastySuckToy]

If it could be viable and alive outside the body then whether you kill it on the day of its birth with an abortion or slit it's throat after it's born is immaterial.

Given the progress of artificial wombs, killing the fetus should soon be a moot point. If the woman doesn't want the baby using her body to incubate, simply move it to an artificial womb. Her pregnancy is terminated and the fetus lives. It's a win win situation.

 

[ll74]

If it could be viable and alive outside the body then whether you kill it on the day of its birth with an abortion or slit it's throat after it's born is immaterial

There is a difference between a fetus and a baby. So there is a difference between an abortion and the murder of a baby. You've put qualifiers on why an abortion may be warranted or wanted by saying that the fetus is viable. You've given no other context so I'm assuming the woman is also immaterial to you.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes evidence is important. Please find a case of an elective abortion in the third trimester.

It's mentioned all the time. I have yet to ever hear of one confirmed case in the US of an elective abortion in the 7th, 8th or 9th month of pregnancy. One would think it would be easy enough to find an example...

Do you have evidence that late-term abortions done for reasons that have nothing to do with the risk to the life of the woman or the fetus do NOT exist? If you don't, then you stand in no better position than I do on this issue. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to me.

But even if they are rare, the rarity doesn't support your position. Suppose late-term abortions done for purely elective reasons are rare. So? That's not a good reason to allow late-term abortions that ARE done for purely elective reasons. A pro-choice person would say: the number of fetuses that face these situations is tiny. The pro-life person would say, with equal validity: the number of women that face these situations and whose rights are at stake is tiny. It cuts both ways and doesn't resolve the issue.

I've done just a tiny bit of research. I don't endorse or vouch for it, but it's something that indicates the "truth" may be less clear than some may think.

There is this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1363/4521013. Foster & Kimport, Who Seeks Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks? It doesn't appear to be a political hack job. There's this sentence on p. 214: "But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

I don't have an opinion on what the truth is because from the little (extremely little) I've seen it seems to be hard to get clear answers and there's a great deal of obvious bias in the commentary, but it would seem to me that the burden of proof lies with the person who asserts that the grounds for post-viability abortions are DIFFERENT from the grounds for pre-viability abortions.

 

[SimonDoom]

There is a difference between a fetus and a baby. So there is a difference between an abortion and the murder of a baby. You've put qualifiers on why an abortion may be warranted or wanted by saying that the fetus is viable. You've given no other context so I'm assuming the woman is also immaterial to you.

Of course there are differences. But there are similarities. You can't focus exclusively on differences and ignore similarities; our legal system doesn't work that way. Men and women are different in some ways, but they are similar in many ways, and the law requires that they be treated alike in many respects.

An 8 month old fetus is much MORE like a baby than a 2 month old fetus. It's a lot like a just-born baby in a lot of ways. Most importantly, if one were to induce birth or perform a C-section, it would very likely survive and be a healthy person. That's a medical fact. It may be immaterial to you, but your opinion is just your opinion. It's not a scientific fact. Saying something doesn't make it so.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I'd be curious to see the data that supports the contention that there are no elective third-term abortions. This thread is 82 pages long, and I just started it today, so I'm not going to wade through 82 pages of thread to find it, if it's even there. I don't claim to have ANY expertise on the relative incidence of different reasons for abortion in the third trimester, but others seem to have information on that, and I wonder what the basis is.

I don't think it's essential to know, because if there are ANY cases of a woman wanting to have an abortion in the eighth month where there is no special threat to her life or the fetus's life and there are no circumstances like rape or incest, then I think the state would be justified in regulating that regardless of the incidence of such cases. But to the extent pro-choice advocates are pushing this argument they should support it with evidence.

There are three main categories for abortions after the 24th week.

They rank as the most common, being a medical problem, either with the fetus, or the mother.

Second and becoming more common, is a woman seeking an abortion late. In other words they didn't decide immediately if they were to carry to term or abort. For example,if they found out at 6 weeks they are pregnant, decide at 12 weeks to seek an abortion, and are "timed out" by the process of getting an abortion, by being delayed from receiving the procedure until they have hit the 24 week cut off. ( now much sooner in many states). This is a problem in certain states, care to guess why?

There may be cases where I would support a woman's right to a late-term abortion depending on things like the circumstances of the pregnancy (rape or incest), the viability of the fetus (does it have severe birth defects), and, most importantly, the health of the woman. I would put the health of the woman first.

But at 8 months, there's been plenty of time for a woman to find out that she's pregnant and to think through all the ramifications of giving birth.

The last reason, may not seem believable, at least you seem in doubt by your comment above, but there are many women who don't realise they are pregnant, and in several cases, already over 24 weeks upon learning the news they are pregnant.

Here is a link to one of the multiple studies or medical sites which offer the information.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/

I have stated many times on this thread, and this site, that I am not in favour of abortion as a means of birth control, but I am also not in favour of a Government being in control of the biological functions of our bodies. Reproduction is a biological function period end of story. The end result is pretty spectacular, but still it is just the functions of cells aligning and growing into a human fetus.

To me forced pregnancy is a slippery slope. How would you feel if your (insert which ever near and dear person's name) was seriously injured in an accident, in a coma, and the government laws allowed for organ harvest if that person does not regain consciousness in a set time period. ( yah a shitty hypothetical but....)

After all, that is what the debate is over, the rule of law. Why should peoples opinions or beliefs shape laws that trump a person's control over their own bodies biological functions?

 

[ll74]

Of course there are differences. But there are similarities. You can't focus exclusively on differences and ignore similarities; our legal system doesn't work that way. Men and women are different in some ways, but they are similar in many ways, and the law requires that they be treated alike in many respects.

Do you recognize the biggest difference? That a fetus relies on the woman and that impacts the woman.

An 8 month old fetus is much MORE like a baby than a 2 month old fetus. It's a lot like a just-born baby in a lot of ways. Most importantly, if one were to induce birth or perform a C-section, it would very likely survive and be a healthy person. That's a medical fact. It may be immaterial to you, but your opinion is just your opinion. It's not a scientific fact. Saying something doesn't make it so.

Of course it is, but it's still a fetus and therefore still not a baby.

And going through a c section or labor is again, the woman, not the fetus, making that choice....because the woman is the primary factor.

Ignoring that means you are giving priority to the fetus...so you've already taken the choice away because the woman is immaterial to you.

 

[SimonDoom]

The anti-choice people are saying to people who disagree with their views "We don't care if you want an abortion. You are not having one". The pro-choice people do nothing like that.

As a matter of moral principle, I think they are. They are saying to the baby: We don't care if you want to be born. We're going to take that right from you. It's not exactly the same, granted, but it's not completely different.

Regarding whether people "walk the walk," I don't care. Hypocrisy, IMO, is a minor sin in political matters. All political parties and politicians are hypocritical.

 

[adrina]

Do you have evidence that late-term abortions done for reasons that have nothing to do with the risk to the life of the woman or the fetus do NOT exist? If you don't, then you stand in no better position than I do on this issue. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to me.

But even if they are rare, the rarity doesn't support your position. Suppose late-term abortions done for purely elective reasons are rare. So? That's not a good reason to allow late-term abortions that ARE done for purely elective reasons. A pro-choice person would say: the number of fetuses that face these situations is tiny. The pro-life person would say, with equal validity: the number of women that face these situations and whose rights are at stake is tiny. It cuts both ways and doesn't resolve the issue.

I've done just a tiny bit of research. I don't endorse or vouch for it, but it's something that indicates the "truth" may be less clear than some may think.

There is this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1363/4521013. Foster & Kimport, Who Seeks Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks? It doesn't appear to be a political hack job. There's this sentence on p. 214: "But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

I don't have an opinion on what the truth is because from the little (extremely little) I've seen it seems to be hard to get clear answers and there's a great deal of obvious bias in the commentary, but it would seem to me that the burden of proof lies with the person who asserts that the grounds for post-viability abortions are DIFFERENT from the grounds for pre-viability abortions.

Yes that is at the five month mark. Some abortions are pushed into the 5th month because of roadblocks to access by way of laws put in place to actively restrict abortion without bother or concern for proscribed medical practice.

You've put in the supposition that 8th month abortions are elective. Surely you have heard of at least one to make such a claim?

I have never heard of any abortion taking place in the 7th, 8th and 9th months of pregnancy except for medical emergencies and lack of fetal viability.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

Here's an article talking about after 21 weeks. Same thing with medical emergencies and fetal viability.

Again, you put forth the supposition - actually, more accurately, the assumption - that women have elective abortions in the 8th month. Can you find a verified instance of that happening or not?

 

[RandyRebecca]

Do you have evidence that late-term abortions done for reasons that have nothing to do with the risk to the life of the woman or the fetus do NOT exist? If you don't, then you stand in no better position than I do on this issue. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to me.

The thing is, Roe v Wade dealt with all this. It was a 24 weeks maximum limit nationwide. Now we have Republicans and Democrats playing culture wars. Republican influence has seen states where abortion has been banned altogether (currently at 14 states) or a maximum limit of 6 weeks (Georgia, South Carolina), which is before a lot of women even know that they are pregnant. There are other states that have a maximum limit of 12, 15, 18 weeks, a limit which are all before viability, even 22 weeks. And on the Democratic side, as I mentioned in a previous post, there are some states plus DC that allow legal abortion all the way through to just before childbirth. It's all intended to create greater conflict and argument, when under Roe v Wade there was a national 24 week maximum limit and people being able to act according to their conscience on the matter.

So basically, if you (and others who make similar arguments) oppose the abortion law currently in force in Vermont, New Jersey, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska and DC, then why oppose Roe v Wade, which had a national 24 week maximum limit?

 

[ll74]

As a matter of moral principle, I think they are. They are saying to the baby: We don't care if you want to be born. We're going to take that right from you. It's not exactly the same, granted, but it's not completely different.

It's a fetus, not a baby.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Given the progress of artificial wombs, killing the fetus should soon be a moot point. If the woman doesn't want the baby using her body to incubate, simply move it to an artificial womb. Her pregnancy is terminated and the fetus lives. It's a win win situation.

Would work for me, but I can see a whole lot of people who would refuse to "contribute" their tax dollars to support the fetus,and of course after birth when the fetus becomes a legal person.

 

[RandyRebecca]

As a matter of moral principle, I think they are.

But that's their personal morals. They should never get to enforce those morals on people who don't share them or agree with them. Pro-choice people are not forcing views on anti-abortion people.

They are saying to the baby: We don't care if you want to be born. We're going to take that right from you. It's not exactly the same, granted, but it's not completely different.

The fetus is not viable outside the womb until at some point during the third trimester. Legally, the fetus is a part of the woman's body, not a life in itself.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

They are saying to the baby:

You claim to be asking questions, and don't hold a steadfast view.

Yet you have denied the legal definition of a baby, and now seem to be inferring a fetus is a baby. Those are words straight out of the anti-choice side of the debate.

Makes me wonder about your reason for posting....

 

[ll74]

You claim to be asking questions, and don't hold a steadfast view.

Yet you have denied the legal definition of a baby, and now seem to be inferring a fetus is a baby. Those are words straight out of the anti-choice side of the debate.

Makes me wonder about your reason for posting....

Why don't you ask the fetus first before you have an abortion? ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯