I was thinking of very late-term abortions lately, and it seems to me that if instead of killing the foetus, you just took it out, you would still satisfy most of the arguments for abortion (not being forced to carry inside, bodily integrity etc).
It seems to me that pro-life groups who oppose late-term abortions should not only seek to ban them, but where they cannot obtain a ban, try and legislate that where the foetus is viable, seek that the baby must be given the chance at life by being removed whole and with no attempts to end its life (no scalpel in the next or having its skull punctured).
Probably most would die, but some might live and have a chance to survive and live as long as they are able to.
Thoughts?
I think you can all guess that this is inspired by Grosnell and Co. and this thread should probably be viewed at least partially through that lens.
I’ll also say that I made the mistake of looking at the Grand Jury report, and seeing the photo of the little baby feet in jars, so I’m a little worked up on this topic for the moment.
Do you know for a fact that this is not the case already? It seems to me that people somehow think that doctors are just jonesing to kill little babies where IME it’s totally the opposite - they want to save the babies and the moms. And late term abortions are, I believe, very very rare anyway - less than 1 % of all abortions. And yet they get so much attention.
Maybe you could hit up Dad for child support!!
And no, I don’t find it acceptable in any case.
The reason there is (or at the least an attempt) to define a clear line where the fetus is considered a living breathing thing in abortion debates if for some of the reasons you stated.
Once in this world (as lawmakers consider ‘living, breathing’ ) you have responsibilities to the child.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying, Kearsen.
But if “removal/delivery” as proposed by the OP, is just another way of saying, force the woman to have the baby and pay for all the bills, then no, it’s actually not any sort of alternative to late-term abortion, is it?
(And yes, Anaamika’s correct in saying that late term abortion is incredibly rare.)
It’s not a justification for abortion. It’s a problem with your counter-proposal. The number of abortions performed after viability is small. Even assuming that number increases as technology moves the viability date earlier, yes, you’d have to deal with a class of people with severe, permanent disabilities. I’ve said this before, but I don’t think these proposals would resolve with any major issue related to abortion because they don’t explain why society has such a compelling interest in a fetus that outweighs the interest of the mother or the parents.
As far as I’m concerned, a woman doesn’t need an any justification beyond, “I don’t want to do this.”
But my real point, is that if you’re the one who’s so concerned then you can do the work and pay the bills (that’s 18 years worth of bills, or more, from each disabled babies “removed/delivered” as per your suggestion.) And if you’re not going to do that then you can put a fucking sock in it.
You do realize, right, that what was going on in the Grosnell case is not a typical abortion facility?
All I was saying is the reason for the delineation of the legal and illegal time-line for abortions is to avoid this kind of debate. Once a child is born (or taken I suppose) outside of the woman (if it has viability), the child has the exact same rights as the mother.
If it were 1%, that would be ~10,000. That’s a lot. But I think you’re wrong, at least in terms of what the OP is talking about. Seems to me he is talking about aborting viable fetuses. I’m not aware that that is ever done, legally.
Pointless. Late term abortions occur for two reasons; the alternative is a serious risk of the mother being permanently injured or killed; or the fetus is nonviable/horribly defective. “Removing” a viable fetus without killing it is already what they do, if they can and if there’s a point to it.
The former implies that you are killing the fetus. Which they only do late term if for some reason it would be highly dangerous or fatal for the mother to give birth even by caesaerian section, or if the fetus is hopelessly defective. Both for legal reasons and because a woman who lets pregnancy go that far generally wants the baby in question.
I believe by law hospitals can not deny care based on the ability to pay, so the medical bills to a abandoned newborn are not collectible. This would knock out the who will pay argument.
I should clarify. I don’t mean pay as in “pay for the hospital visit”. I mean that if doctors elect to remove a viable fetus against the wishes of the mother who wants to abort, the mother should be able to renounce all parental rights to the baby and treat it as if it was aborted. She would not be the mother, could not be held liable for anything this child requires, and the kid goes immediately into government care
No, parents of any baby born will incur the medical expenses, and if they are able to pay, then they’re on the hook for those costs. If they can’t pay, then they’ll still go into debt for the costs.
And hospitals can’t deny emergency care. They can and do deny care for conditions that are not emergencies. Example: I have diabetes. If my blood sugar is so high or low that it’s an emergency situation, I’ll get treated for that situation. I will NOT receive insulin and long term treatment, and I won’t receive information on how to manage my disease, other than what’s applicable for today’s crisis. So your claim that the argument is knocked out is false, because your understanding is false.
So you are saying that there are no “elective” late term abortions?
I think we’ve had this discussion before and there is evidence that there are in fact “elective” late term abortions. IOW, abortions where there is nothing wrong with the baby and where the mother’s health and life are not at risk.
States can already make these illegal under Roe v Wade so if you have a problem with late term abortions its your state and not your country that permits it. But we shouldn’t pretend that they don’t happen.