[Drlee]

I think we should remind all of our smug Canadians that the reason a woman can have an abortion in Canada is that a court struck down their anti abortion law. Not because they have any articulated right to one.

[wat0n]

Both is right. An individual doctor is able to refuse to carry out an abortion, but in that case they have to advise the woman where her wishes can be accommodated. They can’t stop her going elsewhere in any way.

So you think they should refer the woman to a doctor who will perform a medically unnecessary abortion to a 32 week old fetus?

You seem to know all about it, so why not tell us?

No, you tell us. Why would you have an abortion instead of inducing labor at the 32nd week if the former is medically unnecessary?

The small limitation to your bodily autonomy (you are not being allowed to choose how to end your pregnancy) seems of little relevance in this case. Early delivery would still satisfy your wish to end your pregnancy.

Even strongly pro-choice posters here considered carrying out a medically unnecessary abortion instead of just delivering the 32-week fetus early to be "psychopathic", and speculated no doctor would comply (I disagree, I wouldn't purport to be able to speak for all doctors).

@Pants-of-dog I am just mentioning a completely possible situation. A woman who doesn't want to be responsible for the fetus may prefer to make sure it gets killed, with full support of the law. You can label her a psychopath if you want but she's not being irrational. Should she have this choice at this point of her pregnancy?

[snapdragon]

So you think they should refer the woman to a doctor who will perform a medically unnecessary abortion to a 32 week old fetus?

Yes.

Something went wrong with the quotes on the rest of my response

But I’ll add, why are you so fixated on extremely late term abortions?

How often do you think abortions are carried out at 32 weeks? I can’t see the point in discussing something so bizarre.

Why don’t you ask someone who has actually carried out an abortion at 32 weeks, or undergone one.

[wat0n]

Yes.

Something went wrong with the quotes on the rest of my response

But I’ll add, why are you so fixated on extremely late term abortions?

How often do you think abortions are carried out at 32 weeks? I can’t see the point in discussing something so bizarre.

Why don’t you ask someone who has actually carried out an abortion at 32 weeks, or undergone one.

@Pants-of-dog see? Here's someone who would abort a 32-week old fetus for no medical reason, instead of just inducing labor.

[Drlee]

snapdragon wrote:
Yes.

Something went wrong with the quotes on the rest of my response

But I’ll add, why are you so fixated on extremely late term abortions?

How often do you think abortions are carried out at 32 weeks? I can’t see the point in discussing something so bizarre.

Why don’t you ask someone who has actually carried out an abortion at 32 weeks, or undergone one.

Very few people are murdered but we still make that a crime.

Sometimes laws are on the books to deter what is otherwise a very rare event. Treason comes to mind.

[snapdragon]

@wat0n Well, I wouldn’t do it personally, because I’m not medically qualified.

I certainly wouldn’t protest against it, because I don’t consider it my business.

Are we to take it you have no problem with terminating a pregnancy at 31+ weeks?

@Drlee

And? What about murder and treason?

Both those crimes seriously harm other people, which is why there are laws against them.

Unfortunately, they’re not that rare, either.

[Politics_Observer]

@snapdragon

So, it sounds like you are OK with pregnancy being terminated at 32+ week fetus even under normal circumstances that are not exigent or special because you know "it's none of your business." If somebody is shot and killed in England is that anybody's business too or should that just remain a personal matter between the shooter and the victim with no police investigation or criminal charges? If people want to shoot each other on the street, you know, we don't need law and order, because you know, it's nobody's business. We should just all mind our own business and let people shoot each other on the streets and do drive-by shootings. It's nobody's business by the logic that you just gave.

I mean I can understand a woman getting an abortion and I am OK with that under most circumstances. Where I draw the line is having an abortion just for only for the sake of getting an abortion where no special, exigent, serious circumstances are involved when the baby is close to being born. Like I said, life is not black and white and there are grey areas in life. There are no simple black and white answers in many aspects of life.

I mean if the woman's life would be endangered by allowing the child to be born or if the child would be born with abnormalities that would not allow the child to live a dignified life or if the woman is a victim of rape or incest, I could understand having an abortion where the child is close to being born. But absent special, exigent, or serious circumstances, I start to draw the line there. She had ample opportunity to terminate the pregnancy beforehand and would have known long before she was pregnant.

I hesitate to be an absolutist on any topic of discussion where it must be only black or white answers and the idea that there are never grey areas to consider. I hesitate, if we applied your logic consistently, that law has no role to play in society whatsoever in regards to protecting life, limb, and property. A baby just about to be born is pretty much alive by that time of development and is just simply waiting to come out.

[wat0n]

@snapdragon more than a hard gestational age cutoff, I think there's no reason to kill a fetus to end a pregnancy if inducing labor would have the same effect without killing it and it's not dangerous for the woman.

I think this is also why you can find quite a few people who take issue at the idea of a late-term abortion. Basically, at this point a fetus is a person for all practical purposes.

Furthermore, abortion would not really be an issue if it was possible to terminate pregnancy this way at any stage. Maybe it will, at some point.

[snapdragon]

@snapdragon

So, it sounds like you are OK with pregnancy being terminated at 32+ week fetus even under normal circumstances that are not exigent or special because you know "it's none of your business." If somebody is shot and killed in England is that anybody's business too or should that just remain a personal matter between the shooter and the victim with no police investigation or criminal charges? If people want to shoot each other on the street, you know, we don't need law and order, because you know, it's nobody's business. We should just all mind our own business and let people shoot each other on the streets and do drive-by shootings. It's nobody's business by the logic that you just gave.

I don’t get the connection. You’ve just described two situations where people are killed. Of course it’s not alright.
Why on Earth would be that alright? If it’s okay to kill them, why not you or your family?

I mean I can understand a woman getting an abortion and I am OK with that under most circumstances. Where I draw the line is having an abortion just for only for the sake of getting an abortion where no special, exigent, serious circumstances are involved when the baby is close to being born. Like I said, life is not black and white and there are grey areas in life. There are no simple black and white answers in many aspects of life.

I don’t see why it’s your business. Or why you feel it’s your business. It’s a private matter.

I mean if the woman's life would be endangered by allowing the child to be born or if the child would be born with abnormalities that would not allow the child to live a dignified life or if the woman is a victim of rape or incest, I could understand having an abortion where the child is close to being born. But absent special, exigent, or serious circumstances, I start to draw the line there. She had ample opportunity to terminate the pregnancy beforehand and would have known long before she was pregnant.

I hesitate to be an absolutist on any topic of discussion where it must be only black or white answers and the idea that there are never grey areas to consider. I hesitate, if we applied your logic consistently, that law has no role to play in society whatsoever in regards to protecting life, limb, and property. A baby just about to be born is pretty much alive by that time of development and is just simply waiting to come out.

You aren’t making a lot of sense. You don’t know why a woman or girl would choose a late term abortion, so you’re making up reasons.

Why do you think it’s your business to know?
Where do you draw the line? Why do want to interfere in what is a private matter between a doctor and patient

[snapdragon]

@snapdragon more than a hard gestational age cutoff, I think there's no reason to kill a fetus to end a pregnancy if inducing labor would have the same effect without killing it and it's not dangerous for the woman.

Whose job is to decide that? Yours? Or the people involved.

I think this is also why you can find quite a few people who take issue at the idea of a late-term abortion. Basically, at this point a fetus is a person for all practical purposes.

No it isn’t. But think about it. Why would a woman choose to terminate a pregnancy at that advanced stage?

Furthermore, abortion would not really be an issue if it was possible to terminate pregnancy this way at any stage. Maybe it will, at some point.

It ought not be an issue at all.

It’s difficult for me to find any statistics for very late term abortions on the USA , but it should be possible for you to find some, even if they’re informal.

I did discover a woman telling of terminating her pregnancy at 29 weeks because the foetus’s brain had stopped developing and it couldn’t possibly survive. I haven’t managed to find anything about a healthy woman terminating a healthy pregnancy at 32 weeks.
To make stipulations is infantilising women. They don’t need anyone to tell them that their late term abortion is a terrible thing. It’s always a tragedy for everyone concerned.
Because foetal testing has advanced so much, very late terminations because of abnormalities are becoming far more rare.

In my Mother’s day, Down’s syndrome wasn’t detected until very late in the pregnancy. These days it’s much earlier.

Nevertheless, sometimes very late abortions are necessary, according to the woman concerned and her doctors.

They’re thankfully very rare, and I say thankfully, because they must be horrendous to go through.

Believe me, if for some reason any of my daughters were to need a late termination, then anyone objecting on their so called moral terms will be told to go and do one.

At any stage, come to think of it.

[Politics_Observer]

@snapdragon

I don’t get the connection. You’ve just described two situations where people are killed. Of course it’s not alright.
Why on Earth would be that alright? If it’s okay to kill them, why not you or your family?

It sounds like you don't understand the philosophy of logic if you fail to see the connection. As @Pants-of-dog stated, at that stage of pregnancy, for all rational and logical purposes, the baby is pretty much a fully developed human baby and simply waiting to come out. The baby is no longer merely developing cells. The state, therefore, has a consistent logical obligation to protect the life of that baby given the only difference between a newly birthed baby and the baby the woman still carries is only the fact that the woman carries what amounts to be a fully developed baby in her body. I can see where @Drlee stated that many doctors would not agree to perform such a late-term abortion procedure. I wouldn't either if I were a qualified doctor as I would have serious moral qualms about doing so. I would feel it would go against my values.

I don’t see why it’s your business. Or why you feel it’s your business. It’s a private matter.

I am assuming you value human life. If you truly do value human life, then you would agree that in regards to late-term abortion, the baby is pretty much a fully functioning human being. Therefore, in regards to protecting life, it becomes everybody's business and the business of the state. Just as when somebody is shot and killed in cold blood, that's a crime and it becomes everybody's business and the business of the state to prosecute. It's logically consistent. However, it doesn't seem you are applying logic fairly and consistently to your own moral standards, assuming, that you do indeed value the lives of other human beings.

You aren’t making a lot of sense. You don’t know why a woman or girl would choose a late term abortion, so you’re making up reasons.

Why do you think it’s your business to know?
Where do you draw the line? Why do want to interfere in what is a private matter between a doctor and patient

Simply because I am a guy doesn't mean I wouldn't know why a woman would choose a late-term abortion. I am quite capable of listening and understanding what I am hearing. Women are human beings like anybody else and they could have justifiable reasons for doing so when examined from the perspective of valuing the lives of fully developed human beings or they can have very selfish and unjustifiable reasons when examined from the value of the lives of fully developed human beings and considering the totality of the circumstances.

Furthermore, you are trying to make everything black and white and that's just not how reality works when examining things from a moral perspective. You do believe in having moral values, correct?

[wat0n]

Whose job is to decide that? Yours? Or the people involved.

I'm pretty sure a doctor can make a good assessment here.

No it isn’t. But think about it. Why would a woman choose to terminate a pregnancy at that advanced stage?

I don't know. People do all sorts of things that can harm third parties for all sorts of reasons, we don't say then we should just let them do as they please.

It ought not be an issue at all.

It’s difficult for me to find any statistics for very late term abortions on the USA , but it should be possible for you to find some, even if they’re informal.

I did discover a woman telling of terminating her pregnancy at 29 weeks because the foetus’s brain had stopped developing and it couldn’t possibly survive. I haven’t managed to find anything about a healthy woman terminating a healthy pregnancy at 32 weeks.
To make stipulations is infantilising women. They don’t need anyone to tell them that their late term abortion is a terrible thing. It’s always a tragedy for everyone concerned.
Because foetal testing has advanced so much, very late terminations because of abnormalities are becoming far more rare.

In my Mother’s day, Down’s syndrome wasn’t detected until very late in the pregnancy. These days it’s much earlier.

Nevertheless, sometimes very late abortions are necessary, according to the woman concerned and her doctors.

They’re thankfully very rare, and I say thankfully, because they must be horrendous to go through.

Believe me, if for some reason any of my daughters were to need a late termination, then anyone objecting on their so called moral terms will be told to go and do one.

At any stage, come to think of it.

For any reason you say? So if they regret having the child at the 32nd week you'd be fine with an abortion?

[snapdragon]

@Politics_Observer

I value the life of people. Pregnant women are people.

I’ve said this so many times.
It is both insulting and offensive to compare the life of a born person to the life of a foetus. That isn’t opinion. That is fact. Tell the parents of any those children shot to death that their child is not worth more than a foetus. Just you try it.

@wat0n

You’re quite right. The woman’s doctor can make an assessment. The woman herself can make an assessment - or someone else on her behalf if she’s unable to make one -but not me or you.
We have no business shoving our oar in what is a deeply personal matter.
——————-————

The problem with a lot of posters here is that they go tearing off down a hole that didn’t exist until they dug it out.

I’m not following any of you down it.!

Find me some real examples of 32 week terminations and the reason they were carried out, then maybe we can get somewhere.

[wat0n]

I would flip your request, @snapdragon

Why wouldn't we ban abortion of non-medical reasons after the 32nd week (or whenever the fetus can be just delivered via induced labor without putting the mother at undue risk) if as you say it's so infrequent? Worst case scenario, it has no practical effect.

[Politics_Observer]

@snapdragon

I can see why a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy in an advanced stage if the brain development was really bad and the child would have no life whatsoever. That would make sense to me. A late-term abortion in that case might very well be quite merciful to what amounts to a fully developed human being that is just waiting to be born but would live life with no dignity and perhaps in serious pain if allowed to be fully birthed from the woman's body.

It's kind of like mercy killings of soldiers on the battlefield where a soldier's fellow comrade kills them because the seriously injured soldier begs them to do so due to the fact he will have no quality of life afterward if he even survives and is in terrible, horrible pain. However, on the other hand, I can't see the reasoning behind terminating an advanced-stage pregnancy in which the fetus is perfectly healthy and normal and the woman knew well in advance beforehand she is pregnant and could have easily decided to abort the fetus before reaching such an advanced stage of pregnancy. It would depend on the reasoning in regards to late-term abortion and the reasoning needs to be good.

That being said, before any sort of advanced stages of pregenancy, if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, I personally think in such specific cases, it's nobody's business.

[wat0n]

@snapdragon

I can see why a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy in an advanced stage if the brain development was really bad and the child would have no life whatsoever. That would make sense to me. A late-term abortion in that case might very well be quite merciful to what amounts to a fully developed human being that is just waiting to be born but would live life with no dignity and perhaps in serious pain if allowed to be fully birthed from the woman's body.

It's kind of like mercy killings of soldiers on the battlefield where a soldier's fellow comrade kills them because the seriously injured soldier begs them to do so due to the fact he will have no quality of life afterward if he even survives and is in terrible, horrible pain. However, on the other hand, I can't see the reasoning behind terminating an advanced-stage pregnancy in which the fetus is perfectly healthy and normal and the woman knew well in advance beforehand she is pregnant and could have easily decided to abort the fetus before reaching such an advanced stage of pregnancy. It would depend on the reasoning in regards to late-term abortion and the reasoning needs to be good.

That being said, before any sort of late-term abortion, if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy long beforehand for any reason whatsoever, I personally think in such specific cases, it's nobody's business.

In that case, of a non-viable fetus, I'd generally allow the late term abortion. It may be safer for the woman to abort in that case, so it's justified on those grounds too.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think we should remind all of our smug Canadians that the reason a woman can have an abortion in Canada is that a court struck down their anti abortion law. Not because they have any articulated right to one.

Exactly.

Pregnant people do not need a specific right to abortion. This is because the courts have decided that all people in Canada have a right to personal integrity or bodily autonomy.

Now, you folks down there do not have this right.

-----------

@wat0n

I am not interested in hypotheticals.

Right now, real people are having their very real rights taken away

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog sure, I also wouldn't wait until some psycho tries to abort a 32 weeks old viable fetus for no medical reason either. Good.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog sure, I also wouldn't wait until some psycho tries to abort a 32 weeks old viable fetus for no medical reason either. Good.

Do you support the current removal of rights because of a hypothetical abortion that has not occurred despite decades of opportunities?

[snapdragon]

It seems pointless to me to start discussing something that’s never happened, too.

Like outlawing the hunting of baby unicorns in case they’re ever found