Why are third trimester abortions controversial?

[BG-NY]

Serious thread. I never understood this.

If someone believes that the life of a mother should take priority over the potential future life of a fetus, I don’t see why this arbitrary cutoff should make this a harder discussion.

The cycle of development is constant. If you believe in a women’s health and autonomy, then it shouldn’t matter if you’re one week prior to or one week after the six month cutoff.

[Modernity has failed us]

No one except extreme pro life activists and concern trolls ever brings up "late term abortions"--they're rare and, in many cases, medically necessary. Pete Buttigieg of all people actually nailed this argument on Fox News of all places:

[BG-NY]

No one except extreme pro life activists and concern trolls ever brings up "late term abortions"--they're rare and, in many cases, medically necessary. Pete Buttigieg of all people actually nailed this argument on Fox News of all places:

Well my point is that they shouldn’t be rare. Women are conditioned to believe their freedom ends even in the bluest of states when you hit that 6 month mark. That’s obscene.

[emailking]

Maybe the fact that it's a sentient creature, and not a developing clump of cells, has something to do with it.

It's rare because if the woman has carried the baby to the 3rd trimester she probably wants to give birth to it.

[Del Tachi]

For the same reason that pro-choicers make a big deal out of abortions in cases of rape/incest.  You can make your argument go down easier by focusing on edge cases. 

[TheReckoning]

This is a BG-NY threaf

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

No one except extreme pro life activists and concern trolls ever brings up "late term abortions"--they're rare and, in many cases, medically necessary. Pete Buttigieg of all people actually nailed this argument on Fox News of all places:

Well my point is that they shouldn’t be rare. Women are conditioned to believe their freedom ends even in the bluest of states when you hit that 6 month mark. That’s obscene.

Even if the "rights" of the fetus were not a factor, why would a woman who knows she wants an abortion wait around until she's 7-8 months pregnant?

There are circumstances where there might be good reason for this (e.g. detecting birth defects), but these will always be rare.

[RI]

Because by the third trimester, an unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb. This means aborting the child is intentionally killing the child when a less destructive option is on the table to end the pregnancy, i.e. simply delivering the baby.

[Skill and Chance]

IMO, the life/severe health risk to the mother exception arises from the right to self-defense.  It can be legal to kill an adult in self-defense under certain specific circumstances when one is at risk of death or great bodily harm.  Of course, this can apply to an intentional, premeditated attack, but the right to self-defense can also to the same sort of attack by e.g. an insane person who has no idea what they are doing.  A life-threatening pregnancy is analogous to the last scenario.  Because it can be legal to kill an adult in self-defense, the stage of development should be irrelevant. 

[Hermit For Peace]

No one except extreme pro life activists and concern trolls ever brings up "late term abortions"--they're rare and, in many cases, medically necessary. Pete Buttigieg of all people actually nailed this argument on Fox News of all places:

This was great! Much too intelligent for most of us. Certainly too intelligent for those individuals who seek to place a woman's life and worth below the true value that women bring to society.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is a deep seated repulsion at the killing of babies.  In ancient history this could at times be overcome by appeals to the needs of the community. Today it is more often argued for by appeals to needs which are (at least on the face of it) more personal in nature. But many people are hard to convince.

[Skill and Chance]

There is a deep seated repulsion at the killing of babies.  In ancient history this could at times be overcome by appeals to the needs of the community. Today it is more often argued for by appeals to needs which are (at least on the face of it) more personal in nature. But many people are hard to convince.

Sadly, I'm not sure this is correct. 

Even setting aside abortion, anti-infanticide cultures were few and far between over human history. Off the top of my head, places that consistently condemned it for at least ~1000 years: ancient Egyptians, ancient Israel, Christianized Europe from Roman Emperor Valentinian on, and Arabia after the Islamic conquest.  Ancient China outlawed it briefly, but the overall trend was toward it becoming more and more socially acceptable over time there.

Consistent opposition to pre-birth abortion since ancient times is basically just Christians, Muslims, and a few Greco-Roman stoics here and there (they were in a deep minority). 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is a deep seated repulsion at the killing of babies.  In ancient history this could at times be overcome by appeals to the needs of the community. Today it is more often argued for by appeals to needs which are (at least on the face of it) more personal in nature. But many people are hard to convince.

Sadly, I'm not sure this is correct. 

Even setting aside abortion, anti-infanticide cultures were few and far between over human history. Off the top of my head, places that consistently condemned it for at least ~1000 years: ancient Egyptians, ancient Israel, Christianized Europe from Roman Emperor Valentinian on, and Arabia after the Islamic conquest.  Ancient China outlawed it briefly, but the overall trend was toward it becoming more and more socially acceptable over time there.

Consistent opposition to pre-birth abortion since ancient times is basically just Christians, Muslims, and a few Greco-Roman stoics here and there (they were in a deep minority). 

All this is important to keep in mind.  But I believe that if you look at most of these societies where infanticide could be anywhere from tolerated to, in certain cases, obligatory, infants' lives are usually considered valuable and worthy of care and protection. But unlike in societies governed by a Christian or similar attitude, this value is not absolutized by institutions or social convention, and so may at times be set aside due to countervailing circumstances or cultural commitments. Political demands (in the broadest sense: the good of the community, cult, family, etc.) can overcome personal sentiment where that sentiment is not protected by law or religion.  In those contexts where the deaths of infants appear to be treated casually, it is probably in fact marked by severe cognitive dissonance.

[Joe Republic]

It's odd to show up in a thread planning to make a great point, and discover that Pete Buttigieg already made it three years ago.  Ah well.

Women don't make it all the way to their third trimester and then suddenly decide one day, "Nah, I've changed my mind; off to the clinic I go!"  And I have to wonder how many pro-lifers think they do?

[John Dule]

Because by the third trimester, an unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb. This means aborting the child is intentionally killing the child when a less destructive option is on the table to end the pregnancy, i.e. simply delivering the baby.

Most of these fetuses have birth defects. Do you think we should "simply deliver" babies with deformities or down syndrome?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's odd to show up in a thread planning to make a great point, and discover that Pete Buttigieg already made it three years ago.  Ah well.

Women don't make it all the way to their third trimester and then suddenly decide one day, "Nah, I've changed my mind; off to the clinic I go!"  And I have to wonder how many pro-lifers think they do?

Most women do not make such a decision, which is why the number of 3rd trimester abortions is much smaller than earlier on in the pregnancy.   But is it hard to imagine that some delay making a decision or continue to be conflicted about it?  Women also experience changes in circumstance, like the end or beginning of a relationship, that change what decision seems right or possible.  There are also a small number of women who do not realize they are pregnant until they are far along.   These are some of the reasons women have abortion late in pregnancy, along with fetal diagnoses of disabilities or fatal conditions, or threats to the mother's health. None of these should be assumed to be a flippant choice on the part of the women, but at the same time we should consider the child's life to be intrinsically worthy of protection when weighing what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Because by the third trimester, an unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb. This means aborting the child is intentionally killing the child when a less destructive option is on the table to end the pregnancy, i.e. simply delivering the baby.

Most of these fetuses have birth defects. Do you think we should "simply deliver" babies with deformities or down syndrome?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Most of these fetuses have birth defects. Do you think we should "simply deliver" babies with deformities or down syndrome?

I don't agree with you, but it is to your credit that you do at least have a logically consistent opinion and you are willing to stand up for it even when it might be easier not to, which is more than many people can say.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Because by the third trimester, an unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb. This means aborting the child is intentionally killing the child when a less destructive option is on the table to end the pregnancy, i.e. simply delivering the baby.

Most of these fetuses have birth defects. Do you think we should "simply deliver" babies with deformities or down syndrome?

Yes, doing otherwise would say that people with Down Syndrome aren't valuable and shouldn't be allowed to live.  Practicing eugenics on people with disabilities through abortion is despicable- even beyond the abortion issue itself.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

https://youtu.be/wKOoWYfIzIw[/youtube]

This was great! Much too intelligent for most of us. Certainly too intelligent for those individuals who seek to place a woman's life and worth below the true value that women bring to society.

Yeah, I am not a particular Buttigieg fan (at least relative to many other Ds), and I don't entirely agree with his position, but he does an excellent job making his point here, and it is a very good point which everyone should take seriously - in the overwhelming majority of cases it is certainly not as though women get to the 3rd trimester and suddenly decide to get an abortion for no good reason. If they didn't want to have a child, for the most part things would not have gotten that far along in the first place.

That said, where Buttigieg goes wrong in my view is that he jumps from that fact to the point where he simply outright dismisses the possibility that in any cases at all that might not be true, and as a result doesn't offer any sort of answer for any such cases. In other words, he doesn't really take the question fully seriously. That doesn't make for a philosophically sound argument, though he does a good job of making it sound persuasive on a more immediate political level of course.

[BlueSwan]

No one except extreme pro life activists and concern trolls ever brings up "late term abortions"--they're rare and, in many cases, medically necessary. Pete Buttigieg of all people actually nailed this argument on Fox News of all places:

Pete is a natural at this. I can't count the times that he's been on FOXNEWS and completely owned the interviewer.

[Mercenary]

Not sure what the "just a clump of cells" people think. If you have already dehumanized another human then does it matter what you do to said "less than human"?

If its bad in the third trimester, its bad from day one. Either the child is human or not. Either its conception or first breath.

[John Dule]

Because by the third trimester, an unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb. This means aborting the child is intentionally killing the child when a less destructive option is on the table to end the pregnancy, i.e. simply delivering the baby.

Most of these fetuses have birth defects. Do you think we should "simply deliver" babies with deformities or down syndrome?

Yes, doing otherwise would say that people with Down Syndrome aren't valuable and shouldn't be allowed to live.  Practicing eugenics on people with disabilities through abortion is despicable- even beyond the abortion issue itself.

Eugenics is the practice of "planned breeding," meaning that it is carried out by the government. Individual mothers choosing to abort their deformed fetuses is not eugenics.

[RFK 2024]

Because this is a baby, not a clump of cells.



You had more than enough time to abort.  Should be limited to the first trimester.

[emailking]

Not sure what the "just a clump of cells" people think.

I believe that is quoting me but to clarify I am not making the claim that that is what an embryo is.