Abortion Law

Post Reply New Topic

It does when that "place of residence" is a person's flesh.

You can't just handwave that element away, even if it makes your hypothetical ideal unworkable.

In the US, abortion laws are done on a state-by-state basis.

Some states allow abortion through birth, while others have a near-total ban.

Anti-abortion groups say they're trying to "protect the unborn", though it's really about shaming people for their supposed "promiscuity". But most people who get abortions are not promiscuous, and many pregnancies that warrant abortions are a result of rape or incest, or could result in severe health complications or death if allowed to be carried to term.

Between 1973 and 2022, Roe v. Wade set the standard at "fetal viability", which is generally 22-24 weeks, but no specific threshhold was listed in the case. This created a loophole that many right-wingers exploited, and allowed them to define viability as they saw fit. Some states enacted "fetal heartbeat" laws, which set the threshhold at roughly 6 weeks, which is when cardiac activity begins, but before most people know they're pregnant.

I think a lot of people would change their minds on how acceptable it is to effectively murder an unborn foetus if they were able to monitor such a foetus medically in real time or if they realized how close to being an actual baby a foetus at the 24 week of growth mark has gotten to.

The sanctity of life, in particular human life seems to be disregarded here in favour of bodily autonomy which apparently trumps everything.

There seems to be an increasing, casual disregard for human life that is being advocated by certain groups under the veneer of women's rights.

The previous standard of 'limited circumstances' for abortions beyond the 24 week period were that such abortions could only be performed if a woman's life was in danger or that the child wouldn't be able to survive outside of the pregnant woman's body, or that the child might have a severe disability?

The 'severe disability' criteria seems problematic and horribly discriminatory at the very least, but those limited circumstances seemed otherwise reasonable.

Now things seem to have gotten worse for near-to-baby status foetuses, which no-one seems to care about.

Is it unreasonable to expect people's rights to take precedent over those of non-people?

A fetus is not and never has been considered a legal person.

It should not matter. To a lot of people, it apparently *does* matter where a person is located, but it shouldn't.



I acknowledge that other people believe it acceptable to kill someone else, based on where that someone else is located. I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of that position.



Children conceived from rape or incestuous relationships are not lesser human beings. They did nothing wrong to deserve a death sentence. They should be protected and given a chance at life.

I hear folks cite a mother's risk of "severe health complications" and "death," as acceptable reasons to kill a baby. I'm guessing that these folks believe it ethical to kill an innocent person to spare the life of another innocent person? If that's the case, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

Both patients -- the mother and the child -- should be carefully treated, in the very rare event that a pregnancy becomes dangerous. If a mother's life is at risk, an emergency c-section can be performed in efforts to save both.



For me, a human is a human at conception. I understand a lot of folks would rather draw the line at a heartbeat. My friend who had her baby at 23.5 weeks, she was all set to abort her son, until a coworker shared her regret at her own abortion, and educated my friend on when the baby's heart starts beating.



A baby is a person. A human being. 100% human DNA. This is basic biology.

No one is saying that they are. Women who choose to have children that were conceived through rape most often love them very much. However, it doesn’t mean that following through with such a pregnancy is right for everyone.

A victim of rape or incest should have the right to decide what she does with her body as should all people. Removing that choice - removing consent yet again - can feel like a second rape. I’ve heard victims describe it that way. I, myself, found the overturning of Roe v Wade very triggering for that reason even though abortion is legal in my state up until 24 weeks.

Children aren’t aborted. Embryos and fetuses are. I do understand those who want to make the case for limiting abortion to before viability although it is problematic in certain ways. It still exerts control over women’s bodies, mostly in an abstract/theoretical sense, and limits a woman’s options, especially if there are some sort of extenuating or dire circumstances. Still, I think late abortions would be extremely rare. I suspect there’d typically be something out-of-the-ordinary going on for someone to go that route.

Personhood is a legal concept, not a scientific one. A fetus is not a person.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why a fetus (non-person) is entitled to more rights over the mother's flesh than the owner of the flesh (the mother) and I anticipate this discussion will end without any change in that regard.

That is exactly what is being said. If someone says that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape or incest, they are saying that a mother has the right to end her child's life for those exact reasons.

Pregnancies naturally end with birth. Adoption is an option for those moms who do not want the child. A dead child is not right for anyone.



The child is 100% his or her own person (legally recognized or not), and therefore, no one has the right to take that body away from him or her.



Embryo. Fetus. Infant. Toddler. Teenager. Adult. Senior.

These are terms used to describe humans in various stages of development. An embryo is 100% human, 100% genetically distinct from his or her parents and siblings, and everyone else on the planet. Women who are pregnant are carrying children. Not puppies. Not giraffes. Children.



The logic of this argument plainly states that a human being is only a person when legally recognized as such. History holds several harsh lessons for us, regarding the denial of groups of human beings as "legal persons."

The whole thing just makes me feel a bit disturbed to be honest

I'm glad I've never been in a situation where I've had to make such a choice

It is definitely the poo end of the stick

Please can we close the thread now
Thank you all for your participation

Technically yes, but no woman who goes that far in pregnancy is going to just elect to abort the almost born baby. Thats just for if there is a worst case senerio with like emergency complications during the birth where it's a save the mother over the baby sort of situation.

What they call elective abortions, usually happen very early unless something got in the way of an individual getting it sooner. Such as they have to travel out of state due to bans in their state.

Ok and what about the woman said 'child' but more likely embryo is inside of, does she just become a non person? child or not we don't force people to donate their kidneys so why should we force people to donate their uterus? Like if you get in a horrible accident and need a blood transfusion or something, no one can be forced to do that for you. Even if you will die without it. LIkely you'd get a donor, but you couldn't just decide to attach yourself to someone and take their blood without their consent.

I know it's not the fetuses fault, but they still don't have a right to someone else's body if that person doesn't want to be pregnant or is having complications that makes the pregnancy dangerous for them.

It's telling how the antichoice argument essentially boils down to emotional manipulation intended to make you forget about the person and why they need to terminate the pregnancy.

All that matters is that people do have a choice

I think I'm satisfied with that conclusion for now

!	Cornflake wrote:
	babybird wrote: Please can we close the thread now Thank you all for your participation Thread locked on bb's request.