If a guy breaks into my house, and threatens to cram a watermelon-sized mass through one of my nether orifices, I can shoot him, right? That would count as an “apprehension or likelihood of serious harm?”
I don’t think those reports are published, so I don’t know if we’d know either way. But this was a thought experiment. It’s for self reflection to consider why your feelings differ about abortions at 8 months versus 1 month. For the purposes of this thread to help understand why someone would want to abolish abortion. Your uncomfortableness around 8 month abortions may be similar to why some other people are uncomfortable with abortions at any time. It’s easy to want those things not to happen because they are difficult to think about. But they can be considered just for the thought experiment.
I can find examples of newborns dumped in the trash. I would guess that someone who puts a newborn in the trash might do an abortion at 8 months. As to why they might do an abortion at 8 months, a possibility is that they come from a strict religious family and have been hiding their pregnancy. It has taken them 8 months to save up enough money to pay for travel/abortion. Their pregnancy is becoming too hard to hide. An abortion would be cheaper and have fewer questions than giving birth. If they give birth, they may be worried that their family will find out about it or that the child will contact them later. Since infanticide is still something that happens, it seems like late-term abortions would also happen regardless of whether we hear about them or they make the news.
So you can imagine this happening, so it must be real?
I can’t even…
Someone remind me?
Which ideology/party is it again that when one finds themselves experiencing a change to employment, housing, or financial situations say ‘Fuck you, you lazy welfare mooch’?
And which ideology/party is accused of being the ideology/party of lazy welfare mooches when they propose programs so pregnant folks that find themselves experiencing a change to employment, housing, or financial situations have alternatives to abortion that are not, simply put, become brood mares for the folks that want cute, preferably White, babies?
To clear up any possible confusion, I’m not arguing against abortion. I feel it’s the person’s body to do with. That includes having an abortion at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. If it’s at 8.5 months, then that’s up to them. Emotionally I feel like it’s ending the life of a baby, but that’s a decision left to the person carrying the fetus. I don’t feel that any reason or justification is ever necessary for an abortion.
My point with bringing up late-term abortions is so that pro-choice supporters face the uncomfortableness of the decision and really think about how they feel about it. Saying it would never happen is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the heavy emotions. Pro-choice supporters should face the issue directly and be able have a strong position on it. Saying “it never would happen”, is just wishful thinking. I could say the same thing about infanticide, but it’s just a matter of time before another news story comes out about a newborn found in the trash. Pro-choice supporters should take the time to consider how they would feel if there were no restrictions on abortion, and, from time to time, someone would have a no-questions-asked abortion at 8 months simply because they didn’t want to be pregnant anymore.
Furthermore, if you think it would never happen, then that leads to restrictions on late-term abortions for only medically necessary reasons. If no one is ever going to get a discretionary abortion in the 3rd trimester, then there’s no problem making those illegal. Limit the 3rd trimester abortions to just medically qualified and necessary abortions and no one should object.
You mean, go back to the rules that were set out in Roe…
Deal.
Okay, except most pro-choice supporters don’t support having no limits on abortion, and think things not allowing them after the third trimester is fine (health of the mother excepted, of course). So I’m not really getting the point of your “uncomfortable hypothetical.” Most pro-choice folks (including me) would point to your scenario as a good reason to ensure safe and cheap abortion is legal for the first two trimesters.
Then don’t present it as something that actually happens.
Not at 8 months, it wouldn’t.
Why on earth do you think that removing an 8 month fetus from a woman is the same sort of procedure as removing an unimplanted blastocyst, a two month embryo, or a 3 or 4 month fetus?
It would have to be self inflicted, as the chances of finding a doctor to do it are miniscule. And, under Roe v Wade, with no medical reason it wouldn’t have been legal.
And often won’t take them if they’re born with noticeable problems. (Which is more likely when the woman couldn’t get proper prenatal care and nutrition.)
Saying it has to be legal is an attempt to avoid having women die of having to continue to carry dead or dying babies who can’t survive, at the risk of their lives and their chances to ever have another child.
Saying that that would never happen is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the realities of the matter.
Oh you sweet summer child.
They’re objecting all over the place.
and if there was a way to magically visit the doctor and have the fetus removed and transported to some incubation cubicle without killing it, then abortion laws would not prohibit that because again, their goal is to prevent the killing of fetus, so the analogy to real property rights that we have been discussing breaks down here. It’s not that protections for real property are stronger, it’s the binary nature of the pregnancy/abortion scenario that makes other options inapplicable.
Women are real, and their bodies are their property.
I have to admit one thing about some of these analogies, though: it makes it easy to find the men that don’t know jack shit about the hazards and reality of pregnancy. That one about the visitor on a desert island for a month?
That was a fucking hoot!
I was just trying to make the trespasser analogy work. I don’t think using trespassing as an analogy for abortion is really applicable. But since that was the discussion point at the moment, I was trying to come up with a way to have trespassing and abortion more aligned. If you read my other posts (#284), I said that I support abortion at any time with no reason or justification necessary.
The trespasser on the ship analogy shows that you either didn’t read it, or you didn’t understand it.
The trespasser on the ship was the only one who did something wrong, and had to die to make things right.
Wanting something is much different than demanding it.
On what basis are you making this statement?
When you throw that homeless guy out of your house, you have no obligation to find him alternative shelter or food. If he dies two days later of exposure, tough shit. Not your problem. You are simply wrong here.
And while he’s in your house, he’s not actively damaging your body. A fetus is rough on the woman. I personally know three women who would have died of pregnancy without access to an ICU. (All of them were excited and happy about having a baby. One had an emergency c-section and it ended up basically okay. One had an emergency abortion and was told to try to never get pregnancy again. The third had complications at delivery, and the surgeons were able to save her but not the baby.) I know dozens of women who developed diabetes from being pregnant. Almost no one makes it through pregnancy without at least some hemorrhoids, varicose veins, weight gain, and lost bone density. Having an unwanted stranger in your house and eating your food for 9 months is SO much less of an imposition than an unwanted pregnancy.
look, I know you are a nice person and your compassion for others is obvious. I think we are just talking past each other at this point so I will bow out of this conversation. I very much respect your opinions on this matter and I appreciate the insight you have provided.
The Catholic Church has been very open about objecting to any sex that isn’t between a married woman and her husband. One of the doctors central to developing the modern birth control pill, John Rock, was a devout Catholic who hoped it would be accepted by the Catholic Church as an extension of the rhythm method they had recently okayed. There is no scientific reason it shouldn’t have been. But the bishops understood that without the risk of pregnancy, women would feel free to have sex without first marrying. And they reacted strongly against it.
To be fair to the Catholic Church, they have a long history of objecting to abortion, although they have waffled on when they think the fetus is ensouled. (Killing the fetus before that is a grave sin, but not murder, apparently.) But the other conservative American churches don’t. They jumped on the anti-abortion bandwagon when the availability of birth control led to “sexual licentiousness”. And there is nothing consistent about the positions of most of them, except when you look at it through the lens of restricting female sexuality.
Okay. Thanks.
Oh I’m sure they wish that homosexuality could be re-stigmatized too.
Or more likely the anti-abortion laws would be changed to prohibit that, or make it as humiliating or dangerous as possible because the goal is to hurt the woman. The fetus is just a convenient weapon to beat her with.