A survey has found that abortion has passed inflation to become the top issue in the presidential election for women younger than 30. That’s a key finding of a KFF survey of female voters with results released Friday.
A survey has found that abortion has passed inflation to become the top issue in the presidential election for women younger than 30. That’s a key finding of a KFF survey of female voters with results released Friday.
Is there any consensus withing the ‘pro-choice’ people about where the line is drawn? I haven’t followed this debate much, but from my perspective it seems like people are just put into two groups as if the answer is either yes or no, but surely no-one is advocating for abortion rights at 8 months unless the mom’s life is on the line, right?
No one is advocating for abortions at 8 months unless the women’s (or fetus’) life is in some kind of danger.
Why on earth would a woman put up with the absolute hell that is pregnancy for 8 months, and then just wake up one day and decide “Meh, nvm, Im not actually all that into it” completely unprompted?
It makes no sense and it doesn’t happen. At 8 months, numerous appointments have happened, a nursery of some kind has been put together, baby showers have been had, names have been picked out, vices of all kinds have been foregone (not just alcohol/smoking, modern women give up stuff like lunchmeats/fish/coffee) etc.
If a woman is getting an abortion at 8 months, something went very fucking wrong, and it’s a tragedy all around, so we shouldn’t add the stress of navigating legislation on top of all that.
But my question was about wether there was a consensus about where the line is drawn. This doesn’t really answer that.
There isnt a line at this time, nor should there be, for the reasons that Ive stated.
Its absolutely inhumane to expect a woman to navigate an arbitrary line when they have to make one of the worlds most difficult decisions, just because it makes some other people feel better.
Allowing abortion at 8 months for other than medical reasons is just as insane policy as to not allow it at all.
You’re telling on yourself rn. You obviously have zero empathy for couples/women in an intensely tragic situation.
Oh now I’m the enemy for daring to ask a difficult question to which you failed to give coherent answer to?
Life is not binary. This is not a yes or no question.
Bro, you asked a “difficult question”, and I gave an IRL answer.
You said “Is there a line drawn for abortion?”
I said “No, nor should there be, this is why.”
I expounded on why there shouldnt be a line. Im not sure what youre failing to grasp here.
I think the stated position is that it’s tough to legislate a line there because it should be a decision that is made between the woman and her doctor.
It might be possible to have legislation that draws a reasonable line while still largely recognizing a woman’s right to choose… The problem is trust. We’ve seen that conservatives have repeatedly tried to use this line as a way to effectively ban abortions. For example, by setting a ban on abortions after 6 weeks, they effectively ban abortion because a woman might not even know they are pregnant by that time.
It’s the same thing with Voter ID. We’ve seen Republicans attempt to use that as a tool for voter suppression, even claiming in public to their supporters that Voter ID would swing the election to the Republican. Does anyone actually support the right of undocumented immigrants to vote? Of course not. We know it’s a bad faith position because if they really wanted to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting, they could just implement automatic voter registration and send people a free Voter ID. They won’t do that because their goal is voter suppression.
Unfortunately this works the same with gun laws, conservatives are suspicious of any gun regulations, even the sensible ones that have majority support, because they’ve been told that Democrats want to take their guns and every regulation is a step down the slippery slope that ends with the feds going door-to-door to take their guns. So they don’t want any line to be drawn.
Yes: fetal viability, and that’s been the standard for a long, long time
From a legal standpoint I would argue for fetal viability without medical intervention, because with advances in medicine, we might soon be capable of keeping a fetus alive in artificial wombs throughout the development cycle, which could effectively erase our right to an abortion.
I am unsure what the current US laws are regarding this though.