Why are third trimester abortions controversial?

[emailking]

I don't think a fetus should be aborted simply because it has Down syndrome. But there can be fetal abnormalities that are not survivable outside of the womb and leave the fetus in a lot of pain, and I think that's a very different circumstance. A person with Down syndrome can be perfectly happy and enjoy life.

[Ferguson97]

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.

Do you honestly believe that women who get abortions in the 3rd trimester are doing so electively?

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Do you honestly believe that women who get abortions in the 3rd trimester are doing so electively?

Not officially, but I think there's a lot of "we'll do whatever you want and make the paperwork say what it needs to say" if you dig under the hood. 

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

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.

Well, they apparently aren't valuable enough to deserve good schools, housing, or education.

[Hermit For Peace]

They should only be controversial in the sense that the larger the fetus gets, the more complicated the surgery. That is, if they do do surgery at that late date. I don't know if they use the medication abortion pills or surgery or what. But the bigger the operation the more risk there is of something going wrong.

[RINO Tom]

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.

You literally answered your own question ... people only usually find the third trimester controversial when the life of the mother is NOT at any risk.  I know abortion tends to make people crazy, but the vast majority of logical people see a difference between getting an abortion in the first trimester and getting one a week before your due date, provided there is no medical rationale (like zero doctors will do this for this exact reason...?).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

People are weak-minded and easily offended. I love late-term abortions and I won't apologize for it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

One thing I always like to point out when it comes to third trimester abortions is that they fall under the "three exceptions" rule that "moderate" Republicans like to espouse. Abortions in the third trimester are almost always conducted due to the life of the mother being in jeopardy. So whether they know it or not, some Republicans actually support them.

[Pres Mike]

Because its a human being?

[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.

Do you honestly believe that women who get abortions in the 3rd trimester are doing so electively?

I would hope not.  Regardless, anything post viability should only be allowed in very limited circumstances.  It should not be a choice when a living being is involved.  

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

Do you honestly believe that women who get abortions in the 3rd trimester are doing so electively?

I would hope not.  Regardless, anything post viability should only be allowed in very limited circumstances.  It should not be a choice when a living being is involved.  

The woman who is carrying the fetus is also a living being. Why should her rights be subjugated to that of something yet unborn, that has only potential at that point?

Which has more value to society, the fully grown woman who holds a job and pays taxes and who perhaps studies courses at college to become a vet, supports her church...or the potential life she is carrying?

And crying "you're killing babies" and "God this and God that..." doesn't cut it with me. Women in society are far more productive and needed than the fetus they are carrying and they should be treated as such.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

Do you honestly believe that women who get abortions in the 3rd trimester are doing so electively?

I would hope not.  Regardless, anything post viability should only be allowed in very limited circumstances.  It should not be a choice when a living being is involved. 

The woman who is carrying the fetus is also a living being. Why should her rights be subjugated to that of something yet unborn, that has only potential at that point?

Which has more value to society, the fully grown woman who holds a job and pays taxes and who perhaps studies courses at college to become a vet, supports her church...or the potential life she is carrying?

And crying "you're killing babies" and "God this and God that..." doesn't cut it with me. Women in society are far more productive and needed than the fetus they are carrying and they should be treated as such.

The baby has more productive potential due to having more potential years of life ahead.

(Making life and death decisions on this basis is generally not such a great idea.)

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

Do you honestly believe that women who get abortions in the 3rd trimester are doing so electively?

I would hope not.  Regardless, anything post viability should only be allowed in very limited circumstances.  It should not be a choice when a living being is involved. 

The woman who is carrying the fetus is also a living being. Why should her rights be subjugated to that of something yet unborn, that has only potential at that point?

Which has more value to society, the fully grown woman who holds a job and pays taxes and who perhaps studies courses at college to become a vet, supports her church...or the potential life she is carrying?

And crying "you're killing babies" and "God this and God that..." doesn't cut it with me. Women in society are far more productive and needed than the fetus they are carrying and they should be treated as such.

The baby has more productive potential due to having more potential years of life ahead.

(Making life and death decisions on this basis is generally not such a great idea.)

I won't buy your argument. "Potential" is undeveloped talent and productivity. The woman carrying the fetus is already a productive member of society. Nobody knows how the fetus is going to turn out, if it's even going to survive childbirth.

Why do people try to treat women as lower class citizens? As though women don't count for anything. But a fetus....people want to give it the world and declare it already a baby and give it rights that only already born people have.

Women already have enough problems with struggling to give birth from being impregnated by men. And women are already struggling for better pay and more equitable treatment in society. They don't need ignorant people to put more on their plate to deal with.