No that makes no sense at all. If 99% of the people do want abortion and the government still insists on making it legal then those 99% are living under a tyranny not a democracy.
So you are saying that if 99% of the people in the US want it legal for the government to just come in on a moment's notice and take blood or a spare organ on a moment's notice, then such should be legal? Or if 99% of the people want the US to be under Catholic based law, that it should be?
And if you have bothered to read any of my posts through many abortion threads you will find I am not among those who hold contradictory views in such a manner.
I can't recall if you personally made the argument, but if one makes the argument that a woman can abort because the ZEF is not among the "born" and thus has no rights, then you can't turn around and claim she can't abort later in the pregnancy. That would be a contradictory view. What would be the basis for restricting that abortion?
Women do not get late term abortions on a whim, there is no evidence of that.
Never claimed otherwise. Is there a certain significant number of people who have to engage in something for the right to engage in that to exist? If gun ownership drops below a certain amount, say .01%, does the right to bear arms suddenly no longer become a right?
Doctors are bound by their own ethics and must try and save the life of a preemie if possible.
Never claimed otherwise here either. Ultimately a woman's right is to have the pregnancy terminated, not terminate her genetic offspring. That is why she can not abort an offspring of hers if it is in a surrogate's womb. Furthermore, ethics would be something above and beyond the law. There is no law that mandates that a woman wanting an abortion forces a doctor to provide one, nor what they do afterwards. That is also beyond the scope of the question. I had the phrase "if you can find a doctor willing" in option 3 for a reason.
The argument of viability is nothing more than another foolish attempt by anti abortionists to demonise women.
Then there should be no problem with a woman having the right to abort the fetus right through month 9.
Abortion is a private medical issue not a legal one.
Then so is conversion therapy.
And please do not bother to point out you are not an anti abortionist when you are catering to their propaganda of demonising women.
So, I am the one who is advocating that women should be allowed to choose to do with their bodies, right through month 9, what they want to do, because it is their bodies, and yet somehow I am demonizing women? How do you figure that? What argument for saying that they should be allowed to abort earlier in the pregnancy's, suddenly go away? Does the fetus suddenly get rights or personhood? Does her right of bodily autonomy suddenly go away? Is it suddenly no longer a decision between her and her doctor?
If you want a personal choice then make it on a subject that does not try and demonise women by pretending that they will get abortions for no good reason in late term and the rest of society (meaning men) should decide for women what they can or cannot do.
Define a good reason for an abortion. Is not wanting to no longer be pregnant a good reason? What makes it a good reason at 20 weeks but not at 30 weeks? Keep in mind, the number of women who would get one has nothing to do with whether it's a good reason or not. I'll go back to my earlier premise; if 99% of women don't want to get abortions for any reason, is it suddenly no longer a right to get an abortion. If only one woman a year wants to get an abortion, does not that right to do so still exist, or does it go away because practically no one gets one? And for that matter, looking at early term abortions, does a woman even need a good reason to get an abortion? Isn't it her right to get one, regardless of whether the reason is good or bad?
