Why are third trimester abortions controversial?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.