Late term abortion, how can it be moral?

[Lursa]

Those that are in a coma, on certain drugs, etc don't feel pain, do they not have protections against murder?

It comes down to what you value more: A temporary inconvenience for the mother, or the permanent and unnecessary death of a child. Again, all scientific evidence points to life beginning at conception. Feelings don't matter here. The woman had a choice to use a condom or just not have sex and chose to go the pregnancy route.

Even if the condom broke or the woman was raped, it's still a baby. Period.

Not sure if you were referring to my post but I'd be happy to respond to this if you'd answer the questions I asked. To provide more understanding of your position.

How would the govt force women to remain pregnant against their will 'non-aggressively?'

Do you believe the bodily sovereignty of the unborn should take place over the bodily sovereignty of the woman? Since neither can be protected equally, do you believe the unborn's takes place over the woman's If so, why?​

 

[iguanaman]

Those that are in a coma, on certain drugs, etc don't feel pain, do they not have protections against murder?

It comes down to what you value more: A temporary inconvenience for the mother, or the permanent and unnecessary death of a child. Again, all scientific evidence points to life beginning at conception. Feelings don't matter here. The woman had a choice to use a condom or just not have sex and chose to go the pregnancy route.

Even if the condom broke or the woman was raped, it's still a baby. Period.

Actually we terminate brain dead coma patients and it is not illegal to remove life support from them. Babies are not aborted either. Only fetuses are and they are not babies.

 

[Coyuga]

How would the govt force women to remain pregnant against their will 'non-aggressively?'

Do you believe the bodily sovereignty of the unborn should take place over the bodily sovereignty of the woman? Since neither can be protected equally, do you believe the unborn's takes place over the woman's If so, why?

Sometimes you have to limit one person's rights in order to protect another's, or as punishment for violating another's rights. If the woman does nothing to harm/kill the fetus, there's no need for government intervention. A libertarian such as myself understands that in certain circumstances, one person's rights must be violated in order to preserve the rights of another, and a child will always take precedence.

Actually we terminate brain dead coma patients and it is not illegal to remove life support from them. Babies are not aborted either. Only fetuses are and they are not babies.

I understand that, but I was referring to coma patients, not those who are clinically dead. Coma patients have a chance at recovery.

And fetus does mean baby; fetus translates to young one in greek. In other words, baby. You are saying 'A baby is not a baby, therefore we can kill it.'

 

[minnie616]

Sometimes you have to limit one person's rights in order to protect another's, or as punishment for violating another's rights. If the woman does nothing to harm/kill the fetus, there's no need for government intervention. A libertarian such as myself understands that in certain circumstances, one person's rights must be violated in order to preserve the rights of another, and a child will always take precedence.



I understand that, but I was referring to coma patients, not those who are clinically dead. Coma patients have a chance at recovery.

And fetus does mean baby; fetus translates to young one in greek. In other words, baby. You are saying 'A baby is not a baby, therefore we can kill it.'

Under United States Code an unborn is not a person and has no rights.

Also unborns have never been counted in the United States Census.

 

[Coyuga]

Under United States Code an unborn is not a person and has no rights.

Also unborns have never been counted in the United States Census.

It's still a human being, my point still stands, you're grasping at straws.

 

[Lursa]

Sometimes you have to limit one person's rights in order to protect another's, or as punishment for violating another's rights. If the woman does nothing to harm/kill the fetus, there's no need for government intervention. A libertarian such as myself understands that in certain circumstances, one person's rights must be violated in order to preserve the rights of another, and a child will always take precedence.



I understand that, but I was referring to coma patients, not those who are clinically dead. Coma patients have a chance at recovery.

And fetus does mean baby; fetus translates to young one in greek. In other words, baby. You are saying 'A baby is not a baby, therefore we can kill it.'

The stages of human development have names. Those are scientifically determined. If you want to add your emotional labelling, that's fine but in discussion it's only seen as the weakness of manipulation instead of facts.

Everyone knows the unborn inside a woman is human, has human DNA, is Homo sapiens. But who says it is entitled to anything? To what authority are you attributing your opinion?

The law disagrees. It's very clear about 'human beings.'

U.S. Code: § 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Any changes to abortion require legal recourse, so even if you do consider it moral for the govt to force women to remain pregnant against their will, you have to deal with the Constitutional challenges and society before any change can take place.

 

[Lursa]

It's still a human being, my point still stands, you're grasping at straws.

It's human, Homo sapiens. But science applies no value, science is objective.

Laws, rights, value...are often based on facts but also on subjective criteria.

Who says an unborn human entitled to anything? To what authority are you attributing your opinion?

 

[Coyuga]

It's human, Homo sapiens. But science applies no value, science is objective.

Laws, rights, value...are often based on facts but also on subjective criteria.

Who says an unborn human entitled to anything? To what authority are you attributing your opinion?

Using your logic no human has any value and there's logically nothing wrong with me walking up to you and seeing how far I can insert a knife into your eye.

I gave you all the evidence that an unborn child is a human and you've resorted to using outdated legal code. A human being is entitled to certain rights, including the right to exist. Laws are outdated. Don't want a kid? Slip on a condom or you know, don't rut. It's not that hard.

Also didn't Roe in Roe V Wade end up regretting the decision of the court?

 

[Scrabaholic]

It's never moral. 90-95% of third-trimester babies can be safely delivered via C-Section. Abortion, in general, is murder.

Legal abortion is never murder.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Libertarian philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle. All scientific evidence points to humans being alive from conception onwards. Therefore, purposely destroying the zygote/fetus/embryo is an act of aggression against the child, and thus it is murder. Therefore, since it is the government's duty to protect people, abortion can never be allowed except in the most eggregious of medical circumstances, where it is then, arguably, self defense.

Perhaps you could show us where on their website, the LP says that:

https://www.lp.org/

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

 

[calamity]

With the new laws in NY, and legislative attempts in Virginia and Rhode Island what is your view on late term abortion legislation.

It's moral because it is done only in medical emergencies. But, of course, the immoral would rather save a fetus than the mother whose life is in danger.

 

[Lursa]

Using your logic no human has any value and there's logically nothing wrong with me walking up to you and seeing how far I can insert a knife into your eye.

I gave you all the evidence that an unborn child is a human and you've resorted to using outdated legal code. A human being is entitled to certain rights, including the right to exist. Laws are outdated. Don't want a kid? Slip on a condom or you know, don't rut. It's not that hard.

Also didn't Roe in Roe V Wade end up regretting the decision of the court?

That's the opposite of what I wrote. I wrote that law and society apply value...but *I asked you* why the unborn should be entitled to anything? Still didnt get an answer, just obfuscation. So try again? Who says?

Yet you still harp on scientific categorization....are you incapable of understanding the difference between a biological classification like Homo sapiens and the stages of human development being *objective* information and the application of laws and value to any of those stages as being *subjective* and up to society and legal decisions?

Here's another area of either mental limitation for you...or perhaps just laziness: no non-surgical birth control works 100%. You knew this, right? Millions of Americans have sex millions and millions of times/day. Even if most are using birth control...how many statistical failures will there be? Do you need assistance with the math?

And wny does it matter if Roe ended up regretting the decision? Millions of women *and their families* have benefitted from its protection.

The US Code is not outdated, it's current.

 

[Coyuga]

Perhaps you could show us where on their website, the LP says that:

https://www.lp.org/

I am not a member of the libertarian party, I am a registered independent. In fact I rather dislike the Libertarian party.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I am not a member of the libertarian party, I am a registered independent. In fact I rather dislike the Libertarian party.

Yet, you list your lean as "Libertarian - Right" and you said:

Libertarian philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle. All scientific evidence points to humans being alive from conception onwards. Therefore, purposely destroying the zygote/fetus/embryo is an act of aggression against the child, and thus it is murder. Therefore, since it is the government's duty to protect people, abortion can never be allowed except in the most eggregious of medical circumstances, where it is then, arguably, self defense.

 

[Coyuga]

Yet, you list your lean as "Libertarian - Right" and you said:

The fact you guys are conflating the Libertarian Ideology with the Libertarian Party shows you have a very poor understanding of what Libertarianism as an ideology is.

Whereas the Libertarian Party was formed in 1971, the principles of Libertarianism as an ideology has existed arguably since the enlightenment. Many of my positions conflict with those of the Libertarian Party, such as their stance on Abortion, 100% Laizze Faire Economics, Immigration, and the Death Penalty.

 

[nota bene]

It's moral because it is done only in medical emergencies. But, of course, the immoral would rather save a fetus than the mother whose life is in danger.

Most late-term abortions are elective.

"Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?" by Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport

Under "Results":

Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.

Under "Conclusion" [Bolding mine]:

The body of research on women who have dealt with fetal anomalies or life endangerment during pregnancy describes their stories as narratives of pregnancy wantedness and tragic circumstances. We do not know how accurately these narratives characterize the circumstances of women who seek later abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly or life endangerment. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/turnaway-study-perspectives

 

[minnie616]

Most late-term abortions are elective.

"Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?" by Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport

Under "Results":

Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.

Under "Conclusion" [Bolding mine]:

The body of research on women who have dealt with fetal anomalies or life endangerment during pregnancy describes their stories as narratives of pregnancy wantedness and tragic circumstances. We do not know how accurately these narratives characterize the circumstances of women who seek later abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly or life endangerment. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/turnaway-study-perspectives

I could not find the conclusion paragraph in the link following the paragraph.

Is the conclusion your own or did I miss it in the link?

As far as the Turnaway study goes...

The Turnaway study did not include any women who sought an abortion because of fetal heath reasons or materal health reasons.

Many of the abortions past 20 weeks take place in hospitals .

From the following:

Hospitals are more likely than other types of facilities to offer abortions at 20 weeks' gestation and beyond. Among facilities that perform abortions, two-thirds of hospitals (among those that perform abortions) did so at 20 weeks, compared with 36% of abortion clinics.8

Women sometimes choose to terminate a pregnancy because of fetal medical conditions or because pregnancy poses a threat to their health.

More from the following link:

Certain groups of women are more likely than others to obtain abortions at 13 weeks or later.
According to analysis of a national sample of young women obtaining abortions in 2008, women with lower educational levels, black women and women who had experienced multiple disruptive life events in the last year—such as unemployment or separation from a partner—were more likely than others to have had an abortion at or beyond 13 weeks.10
Exposure to disruptive events was associated with increased likelihood of obtaining a second-trimester abortion.

https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/later-abortion

 

[minnie616]

Most late-term abortions are elective.

....

I would agree most second trimestmester abortions 13 weeks to 21 weeks are elective but I disagree that late term abortions past 21 weeks are elective.

From the following:

In cases where a pregnancy is affected by a genetic or structural fetal abnormality, more than 80% of women choose to terminate the pregnancy.17
....
the 2017 study found that women seeking abortion for fetal structural abnormalities did not experience a change in timing: the median gestational age was greater than or equal to 20 weeks for each year during the study interval, likely because “no first- trimester screening test exists for most of the nonaneuploid fetal structural abnormalities” and therefore “diagnosis of structural abnormalities has relied on second-trimester ultrasound.”19

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45161.pdf

 

[nota bene]

I could not find the conclusion paragraph in the link following the paragraph.

Is the conclusion your own or did I miss it in the link?

You missed it. I quoted the last sentence of the fourth paragraph under "Conclusion."

 

[nota bene]

I would agree most second trimestmester abortions 13 weeks to 21 weeks are elective but I disagree that late term abortions past 21 weeks are elective.

From the following:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45161.pdf

From The Crimson:

In truth, purely elective late-term abortions are common, while fetal anomalies are tragic outliers. A 2013 study published by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute found that fetal anomaly was not one of the primary drivers of late-term abortion. Rather, late-term abortions are usually of entirely healthy pregnancies where the woman was either unable to receive an earlier abortion (often due to a failure to recognize the pregnancy or a logistical delay) or changed her mind about keeping the child (often after a falling out with a spouse or partner). While that particular study did not give exact percentages for each motivation, a 1988 study from the same institute revealed that fetal anomaly played a role in only two percent of late-term abortions. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/3/acton-late-term-abortions/

From The Hill:

There are at least 15,000 children killed in the later stages of pregnancy each year and according to the abortionists themselves, the majority are for elective reasons, not due to fetal abnormality. Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of the “partial-birth abortion” procedure brought this issue to the attention of the nation, when he said that 80 percent of the abortions he performed this way were purely elective. Only 20 percent involved fetal defects.

James McMahon, another late-term abortionist, told researchers that, while slightly more than half of the late abortions he performed were for fetal health reasons, that term included easily correctable conditions such as cleft lip. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/328629-most-late-term-abortions-are-elective

 

[minnie616]

Most late-term abortions are elective.

....

https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/turnaway-study-perspectives

More from the Turnaway study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151926/

[Page3]
Individual abortion providers can set their limits at lower gestational ages, and do so based on the availability of trained physicians, clinician and staff comfort, and facility regulations.

According to a national survey of abortion providers, 23% offer abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation, and 11% do so at 24 weeks.
5 Because fewer providers offer abortion care after the first trimester, women must travel longer distances to obtain later abortions. Because later abortions are more complex procedures, often occurring over 2 or more days, they are also more costly;

[Page4]

We sought to describe the characteristics associated with being turned away because of provider gestational age limit, and the efforts such women make to obtain a desired abortion. Additionally, we explored the factors associated with obtaining a desired abortion elsewhere. Finally, we estimated the incidence of women being denied an abortion in the United States because of provider gestational limits.

METHODS

...

From 2008 to 2010, the Turnaway Study recruited women from 30 abortion providers across the United States. Only “last stop” providers were selected, defined as being more than 150 miles from a facility with a later gestational limit. They were located in 21 states distributed relatively evenly across the country. Women were recruited on a 1:2:1 ratio: women
[page5]
who presented up to 3 weeks over the provider’s gestational limit and were turned away (“turnaways”), women who presented up to 2 weeks under the limit and received abortions (“near-limit abortion patients”), and women who presented in the first trimester and received abortions (“first trimester patients”).
...
[page10]
Results:
…
A total of 956 women completed the baseline interview: 273 in the first trimester group, 452 in the near-limit abortion group, and 231 in the turnaway
[page11]
at the latest gestational age for that state, but went to at least 13 weeks’ gestation, and were more than 150 miles from a facility in a bordering state that had a later gestational limit group.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151926/

 

[minnie616]

You missed it. I quoted the last sentence of the fourth paragraph under "Conclusion."

I still could not find the following sentence in the link provided.

But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

]

 

[JeffreyB]

I still could not find the following sentence in the link provided.

While all 3 stories are sad and tragic, ending the life of someone to prevent them from possibly suffering, is playing into the hands of god plus there are plenty of instances where doctors end up being wrong and individuals with those disorders live completely/semi normal lives. I personally don't believe the proper response to tragedy is another tragedy.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Forcing a family to give birth to a severely deformed child who will have zero quality of life, how is that moral? Forcing a woman to complete here pregnancy when it will likely kill her, how is that moral? Forcing a terminally ill patient to die a slow, painful death, withering away to nothing to ultimately be killed by a overdose of pain medications anyway, how is that moral?

Sorry, sick ****s don't get to determine what is or is not "morals"

 

[minnie616]

I edited your quote for length

From The Crimson:

...

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/3/acton-late-term-abortions/

From The Hill:

...

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/328629-most-late-term-abortions-are-elective

When I talk about late term abortions, I’m talking about abortions past 22 weeks.

The Kansas abortion stats in 2008 I have posted are abortions taking place 22 weeks or later.

Some of pro-life sites and articles call any abortion at 16 weeks as late term. Others call an abortion at 18 weeks weeks as late term and still others call abortions at 20 weeks as late term.

From Wiki

A late termination of pregnancy often refers to an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week of gestation. The exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term, however, is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".

From the Crimson site:

“Late-term” usually refers to an abortion 20 weeks or later into a pregnancy;

The Hill article was a 2003 artical about partial birth abortions which are now banned. Those abortions took place after 16 weeks gestation and were very rare.

From Wiki :

In 2000, although only 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States were performed using this procedure,[3] it developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. It was outlawed in most cases by the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which was upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.[1][4]

From the Hill link:

Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of the “partial-birth abortion” procedure brought this issue to the attention of the nation, when he said that 80 percent of the abortions he performed this way were purely elective. Only 20 percent involved fetal defects.