Is Abortion Murder?

[iceaura]

We do about 1000 abortions a year that are older than 24 weeks (the commonly accepted threshold of viability.)

As noted before, one cannot infer viability from that. Third trimester abortions are not randomly selected pregnancies, and the "commonly accepted threshold" does not apply to them.

Anencephalic babies whose gestation is otherwise threatening the woman's life (pre-eclampsia, diabetes, etc) , for example, are not actually viable even carried to term - they can be kept alive for a while after birth, sometimes, in body, but only by extraordinary and continuing medical and technological support.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

It's legal to get an abortion in the US past the age of viability in several states.

1- in several states does not mean everywhere
2- it is typical for a Dr to refuse as well - unless you can show otherwise
3- there are special circumstances for every situation, just like killing a person: it is illegal to premeditate homicide but defending yourself with lethal force is OK so long as the situation dictates you acted with justification, etc
(See also: iceaura above)

Because it is a potential human being.

this is egocentric in many ways, IMHO

However, one of the good arguments is NOT that "a fetus is no more important than a wart."

true. but throwing out that a cellular construct is more important than anything else because it is "potentially human" is also not a good argument either, as it promotes prejudice as well as other problems, IMHO

i agree that the following argument

It's legal to throw rotting meat out if you find it in your refrigerator, why can't we do the same to your mother?"

is not a good argument, and similar to the "wart" argument... but then again, it doesn't justify the egocentric or "human-centric" argument of potentially human either... especially given the statistical chances of said fetus developing into "the next Einstein" or "another Feynman" etc...

one of the worst problems with this particular issue is the over-emotional responses to the issue. taking a more logical or clinical approach is the only way we can actualy make headway... and though some people will cry about that stating we're being detached or that we lack empathy, it is far better to approach the situation from a scientific standpoint with as little bias as possible than to throw around emotional commentary that is religious based (which is where the egocentric potential human argument stems from, really). IMHO - religion is one of the scourges of our race... not faiths, mind you (the belief without evidence so much) but the codified rules surrounding said faiths which generate the hate, prejudice and destruction and is used to control others... AKA- religion

 

[GeoffP]

If you shoot a woman in the abdomen and kill a 30-week-old fetus, you will NOT be prosecuted for murder anywhere in the USA. You will surely be prosecuted for something, depending on the jurisdiction, but it will not be for murder.

Well, I'm not greatly interested in fetal homicide per se - and Capracus above addresses the surprising list of states that do actually have such laws. My point is rather that the operational and legal borderline between fetus and baby doesn't appear to occur at birth, but rather is projected into late carrying. The existence of such fetal homicide laws is probably more evidence of this general impulse for the protection of the unborn. I mean, we're not really in any doubt about the nature of the legal apparatus around late term pregnancies, are we? This exists. There's a question as to whether it should, and in what form, but the thing itself is there.

Yes, the laws in the USA vary wildly from state to state. In general (but perhaps not universally), a Catholic hospital will give the fetus priority over the life of the mother in the situation described. This is a very good reason to avoid Catholic hospitals if you're not Catholic.

Most Americans (even many American Catholics, who are probably already disobeying church doctrine by using contraception) take the position that if the fetus dies, the parents can have more children later. On the other hand, if the mother dies, not only will the family never have more children, but moreover the widowed father will be under severe stress, responsible for taking care of the baby while somehow continuing to earn enough income to run the household.

Alll... righty. I'm not sure how we got to the economics of single fatherhood from my conclusions about the seemingly less certain deadline on abortion/carrying rights. Since I'm being obliquely invited to comment here, I'll say that the Catholic perspective has little sense, although of course I understand the vainglorious proposition behind it: ironic to logic but not to human nature, it's a proposition that not only Catholicism takes up with, but the actual mothers and fathers in question. That is, those at risk in such questions. ("Doctor, save my baby,"/"She'd want you to save the fetus" etc.) It's a remnant of our emotive chivalric past.

Again, to quote my ex-wife, "Contraception, abortion, and the whole range of reproductive questions, are women's issues, and only women should be empowered to discuss and vote on them. I'll give a flying fuck about what men think, the first time one of you assholes gets pregnant."

Beh; other people call them 'human issues'. I don't have any reason to staple myself to either group's opinions on the basis of sheer self-definition. "I'm a woman!" "I'm a human!" Well, I have a brain, so I'm going to ponder things. We can't run around saying "well, you haven't experienced it, or can't, and so you shut your mouth, you great hairy dirty beast". Now, I'm as moved as anyone by that latter part, but it's senseless: I've never experience gun violence, or outrageous poverty, and I've never been black (to my memory, at least) so should I also have no input into issues of the sociopolitical mosaic related to such people? That's silly.

 

[GeoffP]

By the by: the proposition that only those affected by a given issue would be a fascinating area for a formal, drawn-out debate.

But not with me, oh, heavens no. No no.

 

[billvon]

1- in several states does not mean everywhere
2- it is typical for a Dr to refuse as well - unless you can show otherwise
3- there are special circumstances for every situation, just like killing a person: it is illegal to premeditate homicide but defending yourself with lethal force is OK so long as the situation dictates you acted with justification, etc

Agreed to all of the above. Nevertheless, abortions after viability are legal in some states.

Because it is a potential human being.

this is egocentric in many ways, IMHO

It's a simple statement of fact. You may consider it egocentric, of course.

true. but throwing out that a cellular construct is more important than anything else because it is "potentially human" is also not a good argument either . . .

I agree - which is why I did not make that argument.

i agree that the following argument (rotting meat) is not a good argument, and similar to the "wart" argument...

I agree. Such arguments replace reason with emotion.

especially given the statistical chances of said fetus developing into "the next Einstein" or "another Feynman" etc...

Are you saying that if you could know that, it would affect the morality, legality or desirability of abortion?

one of the worst problems with this particular issue is the over-emotional responses to the issue. taking a more logical or clinical approach is the only way we can actualy make headway...

Absolutely. Which is why comparing fetuses to warts or tumors (or comparing someone's mother to a rotting pile of meat) is counterproductive.

 

[GeoffP]

Strangely, there doesn't appear to be much argument in the thread. I don't think anyone is in question as to the morality of using some rough guideline of viability as a delimiter for arbitrary abortive rights; everyone seems to be rejecting the end-term absolutism position, and no one could seriously suggest a forward delimiter of conception, because that would be madness.

So, perhaps we can generate some - civil - argument using a further pass. Does a mother have the right to abort a fetus after or before this fuzzy limit on basis of physical or mental deformity? As a biologist, I suppose I must take the position "Yes", but I recognize that this may be highly immoral. (Before I get pilloried by either side, let me add that, being neither a politician nor even voting these days, my ability to influence the legal status of such a decision rapidly approaches nil.)

So, without anyone flying off the handle, is this correct or incorrect, morally?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

It's a simple statement of fact. You may consider it egocentric, of course.

sorry. perhaps i wasn't clear... it was IMHO.
it seems illogical to attach some superiority to a cellular clump simply because of it's potential humanness... especially when considering certain other issues

i wasn't making a judgement against you (as an individual), just adding that it seemed egocentric as a species. sorry if that was not clear

Such arguments replace reason with emotion

absolutely, which is why these topics are always flooded with irrational responses

the statistical chances of said fetus developing into "the next Einstein" or "another Feynman" etc

Are you saying that if you could know that, it would affect the morality, legality or desirability of abortion?

nope. not at all
i merely brought that up as it is a common argument and irrational / emotional

Absolutely. Which is why comparing fetuses to warts or tumors (or comparing someone's mother to a rotting pile of meat) is counterproductive.

absolutely agree with this

offered IMHO only:
the only problem is, sometimes one person cannot understand the problem of the argument unless you use hyperbole or a polar opposite and attempt to get them to comprehend the absurdity of an issue

one point above, a poster states their reverence of all life, but then refuses to acknowledge that this only applies to human life (maybe a dog or cat too)... so ...??

not all people can accept evidence the same way.
this is very noticeable in religions (especially the overly enthusiastic fanatics or nooB's), conspiracy theorists, trolls and pseudoscience types.

So, perhaps we can generate some - civil - argument using a further pass. Does a mother have the right to abort a fetus after or before this fuzzy limit on basis of physical or mental deformity?

GeoffP
interesting question: i would have to side with you on this one, but it would depend upon what type of deformity we were talking about too...

is it simply a physical handicap that can be overcome, like deafness, blindness, etc?

i don't agree that taking a life for such disabilities is correct or even moral... the limitations of one person can also become their strengths if they learn how to cope properly (much like myself with dyslexia - now i am a bibliophile and love reading more than just about anything)

however, if said impairment would simply create a horrendous quality of life issue with no possibility of potential, like perhaps some brain damage insuring the fetus would never advance beyond the vegetative state, then i feel abortion would be justified...

that kind of topic might well be heavily influenced by cultural overtones, religion as well as education. a lot of educated people tend to think that a life is only viable if it can actually give to the species in some way (like Hawking), but tend to look down on disabilities in others as sub-human as well, depending on location and culture.

it is an interesting question and one that i would enjoy reading more about from others

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

We can't run around saying "well, you haven't experienced it, or can't, and so you shut your mouth, you great hairy dirty beast". Now, I'm as moved as anyone by that latter part, but it's senseless: I've never experience gun violence, or outrageous poverty, and I've never been black (to my memory, at least) so should I also have no input into issues of the sociopolitical mosaic related to such people? That's silly.

you know... funny you should mention this...

this is actually what a lot of people do in real life

for instance: firefighters
how can one explain what it is like to be thrown down a hallway in a backdraft and survive impossible odds to someone who hasn't been there or lived thorugh something similar?

Cops do this as well... but then, so do, medical professionals ("when was the last time you bled out a pericardial tamponade or re-inflated a collapsed lung in the field" type comments, etc) and you can hear it in every profession, right?

sometimes it is a defensive measure due to some emotional or mental trauma (like PTSD), or it can be their attempt to validate their own experiences
but it tends to crop up more in emotional and traumatic higher stress situations... which abortion can be considered

sorry for the OT derailment, but i found your post interesting and thought provoking...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I've never experience gun violence, or outrageous poverty, and I've never been black (to my memory, at least) so should I also have no input into issues of the sociopolitical mosaic related to such people?

Of course the whole concept of a society implies that "we're all in this together," so certainly everyone is entitled to have their opinion heard on any issue. Nonetheless, it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that the people who will be most strongly affected by a law or custom are the ones whose opinions should carry the most weight. The opinion of the farmer whose entire livelihood derives from his livestock should be held in much higher regard than that of his neighbor, a retired banker with a six-figure annuity who decided that he would love the view from the house next door but can't stand the smell of manure.

a poster states their reverence of all life, but then refuses to acknowledge that this only applies to human life (maybe a dog or cat too)...

There are communities whose members revere the lives of far more species than H. sapiens. The Jains, in particular wear face masks to avoid accidentally killing a flying insect by swallowing it. The Hindus only add cows to the list of species whose lives are sacred, but this nonetheless exactly doubles the number!

A great many Americans (and other Western Europeans) regard dogs and cats with great affection and try very hard to avoid killing them except when they're suffering at the end of their lives. Many of us feel the same way about the cetaceans and would happily drop nuclear weapons on Norway, Iceland and Japan for treating them as livestock. (Somehow we give the Inuit a free pass because they are "aborigines" who still live like their Stone Age ancestors... even though they have no trouble mastering the use of trucks, chain saws and short-wave radios.)

Back to Americans... many of our people, while not specifically complaining about using non-human animals as food, would nonetheless prefer the farming techniques applied to them while alive to be kinder. Pigs kept in cages too small to even turn around? I think what we're talking about here is simply cruelty, rather than putting a turkey on the same moral plane as a human. We'd rather pay more for our food and sleep with a considerably clearer conscience.

And of course it would be disingenuous not to admit that cuteness counts. This explains our attitude toward the Canadians who go around clubbing adorable white baby seals. We're free to torture baby mice in our traps.

And as the wags have been saying lately, you should never kill an animal with a name, like Cecil the lion.

interesting question: i would have to side with you on this one, but it would depend upon what type of deformity we were talking about too... is it simply a physical handicap that can be overcome, like deafness, blindness, etc? I don't agree that taking a life for such disabilities is correct or even moral... the limitations of one person can also become their strengths if they learn how to cope properly (much like myself with dyslexia - now i am a bibliophile and love reading more than just about anything). However, if said impairment would simply create a horrendous quality of life issue with no possibility of potential, like perhaps some brain damage insuring the fetus would never advance beyond the vegetative state, then i feel abortion would be justified.

I'll assume that, as usual, I'm the oldest person here (72). I very clearly remember the incident that brought abortion into America's political universe--in the 1960s, or perhaps even the 1950s.

A lady name Sherry Finkbine (sorry, I don't remember the spelling and, amazingly, she's not in Wikipedia, which is why I can't give you a better timeframe) had been taking a medication which had very recently been discovered to cause birth defects. Rather than roll the dice on this one, she chose an abortion. They were still illegal in the USA. They were actually not very hard to get (we do a wonderful job in the USA of thumbing our noses at our own laws), but she had become so well-known that no hospital would touch her. So she went to Sweden. Turns out that the fetus was, indeed, deformed and if carried to term would probably have been a vegetable, if not stillborn.

This was the case that galvanized the American people into accepting abortion. The laws were overturned or rewritten in a surprisingly short time.

a lot of educated people tend to think that a life is only viable if it can actually give to the species in some way (like Hawking) . . . .

And this is how they have justified their attitudes toward the poor, who (often but not consistently) take more from the economy than they give back. And of course if there's an ethnic group that they simply don't like, then the obvious way to deal with them is to keep them poor so we can point to them and complain that they're "a burden on society."

This surely explains a lot of the anti-Obama fervor. He is a bad role model!

 

[GeoffP]

Well, Fraggle has knowingly struck at my weak spot: farmers. It's uncouth but it happened.

I think one could put up with a little stink, as it endangers no one, so I don't know the parallel is perfect.

 

[Bells]

Strangely, there doesn't appear to be much argument in the thread.

Then you clearly missed the first two thirds of this thread.

Be thankful. Be very thankful. Those of us who were present for that horror will be forever scarred.

Does a mother have the right to abort a fetus after or before this fuzzy limit on basis of physical or mental deformity?

That should be up to the mother and her treating physician. They do have guidelines as to when it is safe and no longer safe to have the procedure. Ergo, it should remain a private matter for the woman first and foremost and the doctor who is to perform the procedure safely.

Arguments that are made as though the woman is in labour and decides to abort or the repulsive turducken proposition that has been posted again and again detract from reality.

As a biologist, I suppose I must take the position "Yes", but I recognize that this may be highly immoral.

It is a very difficult question and one that must be assessed on a case by case basis and the woman and possibly the child's father (if he is on the scene) should weigh all options and determine whether they can cope and weigh this against the child's quality of life if it makes it to term and onwards. Either way, it is something that all pregnant women dread and would not be something that would be decided on a whim or lightly.

There are some women who decide to continue with the pregnancy and some who elect to deliver early so they can hold their babies until it dies in their arms, and there are others who elect to abort as quickly as they can and deal with the horrible aftermath of losing a child. Frankly, I cannot imagine something more agonising.

 

[GeoffP]

That should be up to the mother and her treating physician. They do have guidelines as to when it is safe and no longer safe to have the procedure. Ergo, it should remain a private matter for the woman first and foremost and the doctor who is to perform the procedure safely.

Arguments that are made as though the woman is in labour and decides to abort or the repulsive turducken proposition that has been posted again and again detract from reality.

Possibly. But any kind of murder is similarly incomprehensible to many of us. If, indeed, such a condition never arrives, then appropriate legislation can have do no harm. No one is refuting the role of medical mitigation, of course.

 

[Secular Sanity]

A lady name Sherry Finkbine (sorry, I don't remember the spelling and, amazingly, she's not in Wikipedia, which is why I can't give you a better timeframe) had been taking a medication which had very recently been discovered to cause birth defects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherri_Finkbine

 

[Bells]

Possibly. But any kind of murder is similarly incomprehensible to many of us. If, indeed, such a condition never arrives, then appropriate legislation can have do no harm. No one is refuting the role of medical mitigation, of course.

The issue with legislating it is that women who miscarry can and do end up in prison for killing their foetus. And this is currently happening now, with some women being charged for delaying to have a c-section, as one prime and horrific example. And then of course comes the horror stories of hospitals and doctors using whatever foetal rights legislations and forcing women into surgery without their consent, and even arresting them and dragging them into operating theater's for c-sections they do not need or want and without their consent. Not only that, if a woman falls ill and requires medical care during that period in her pregnancy, she can end up being denied that care if it could endanger the foetus. The problem with legislation is that it denies women any rights over her own body. Which is not the right way to go about it. At some point, people have to understand that her life is paramount and any legislation can and will bypass her entirely and she will be treated like she is just a vessel with no rights at all, even no rights to medical care if she should require it. There is a raft of problems with legislating a woman's pregnancy at any stage of her pregnancy.

Most people would consider it a waste of tax payer money putting in legislation that would only cover a fantasy anyway. It would be akin to putting in a legislation for the general public stating 'thou shall not fly to Mars in a home made rocket', costing thousands of dollars in tax payer money to enact it, when it is not even remotely possible to do to begin with.

 

[Secular Sanity]

Does a mother have the right to abort a fetus after or before this fuzzy limit on basis of physical or mental deformity?

I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

It’s simply a value judgement, right? The parents may want a child but not a disabled one. They're forced to weigh the value (quality) of life against nonexistence. We make life or death choices based on our personal preferences, don't we? I wouldn’t want to live with or without what? It becomes a quality of life choice, not only for the child, but for the parents, as well. Should we treat disabled people as being less than human? Should they be subjected to euthanasia, forced sterilization, infanticide, or pre-natal termination? Do we as a society influence the parent’s decision with our measurements of quality?

Fraggle will be happy to know that Gov. Jerry Brown signed California’s assisted suicide bill. A choice he made based on his personal preference. He said that in the end he was left to reflect on what he would want in the face of his own death. "I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others."

I’m all for this bill, but I must say that Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Defense Fund said something that bothered me. She said that for every individual with a happy family who’s not at risk for abuse, there are many other individuals who may be subtly steered toward assisted suicide by their insurance company or pressured by their family.

Palliative care specialist, Dr. B.J. Miller asked if there will still be a place for “people who are sick and beyond their utilitarian function” in this new world of choice? I loved listening to him, and yes, he’s disabled. He said as long as we have our senses, even just one, we have at least the possibility of accessing what makes us feel human, connected.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Fraggle will be happy to know that Gov. Jerry Brown signed California’s assisted suicide bill.

Unfortunately I moved from California to Maryland 13 years ago, so the CA laws don't apply to me any more. Nonetheless, Maryland is about as liberal as CA, so we'll probably get the same law before long.

Not to mention, I've read up on the helium balloon method. It's a lot less unpleasant than other ways, a large percentage of older people are strong enough to perform it without help, you can change your mind right up to the last moment of consciousness, and if a nosy neighbor discovers the materials in a basement closet, they won't raise any suspicion.

I’m all for this bill, but I must say that Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Defense Fund said something that bothered me. She said that for every individual with a happy family who’s not at risk for abuse, there are many other individuals who may be subtly steered toward assisted suicide by their insurance company or pressured by their family.

Yeah, life is a crapshoot. Surely we all know that.

He said as long as we have our senses, even just one, we have at least the possibility of accessing what makes us feel human, connected.

If I can still enjoy music, please keep me plugged in.

 

[Capracus]

That should be up to the mother and her treating physician. They do have guidelines as to when it is safe and no longer safe to have the procedure. Ergo, it should remain a private matter for the woman first and foremost and the doctor who is to perform the procedure safely.

Arguments that are made as though the woman is in labour and decides to abort or the repulsive turducken proposition that has been posted again and again detract from reality.

Yes, a woman and her physician should have the right to terminate a fetus at any point of gestation, including during labor. There are women willing to terminate at any stage of pregnancy, and doctors ethically suited to accommodate them. As for the safety of aborting at full term, a hysterotomy carries no more risk than a cesarean section. If invasive surgery is an acceptable risk for birth, then why not termination as well?

 

[Bells]

Yes, a woman and her physician should have the right to terminate a fetus at any point of gestation, including during labor.

You don't deal with reality much, do you?

Where, exactly, did I or anyone else aside from you, say that a woman and her physician should have the right to terminate at any point including during labour? Where, exactly? Do you realise you are the only person making this argument based on some sick and twisted fantasy in your head?

Between your saying you would urge your daughter to abort, to your saying you tell the women in your life who to vote for and countless of other comments you have been making on this site lately, it seems clear you have a severe problem. Please seek help sooner rather than later.

There are women willing to terminate at any stage of pregnancy, and doctors ethically suited to accommodate them.

Show me one study detailing the percentage of women who have tried to obtain an abortion while she is in labour. Because apparently this happens in the world according to Capracus and your repeated argument about it indicates that this is happening where you are, so it should be very easily supported by you with some research papaers on the issue of women demanding abortions while in labour... I expect links from a reputable site.

As for the safety of aborting at full term, a hysterotomy carries no more risk than a cesarean section. If invasive surgery is an acceptable risk for birth, then why not termination as well?

Are you now recommending that women have unnecessary and invasive surgeries?

Having had both a hysterectomy and a cesarean, I can assure you, I'd take the cesearean any day of the week. Secondly, are you suggesting that women have abortions via c-sections now? What other twisted little fantasy are you about to display? Have you finished defending paedophiles and paedophilia in the other thread and now you are bored or something and just decided to come back and troll this thread? Have more twisted little fantasies to share?

 

[Tiassa]

​

Are you now recommending that women have unnecessary and invasive surgeries?

I'm just curious how many doctors are actually willing to perform extraneous hysterectomies.

Other than that, just put this one on the list as another of our neighbor's sadistic tendencies toward surgery.

But I would make some sort of point here, as well, about our neighbor's sadism. Do you recall an old friend of ours whose view of women was such that it was his sperm, therefore hers was his body as well? And he wanted men to be able to either force women to abort or be excused from child support if she didn't.

What if we were to offer that old proposition a trade: Okay, but it'll cost you your nutsack.

Here's a phrase for you: Recreational hysterectomy.

How many doctors would?

So now scratch recreational, and replace it with mandatory.

And, hey, remember our big misunderstanding about the Turducken? He didn't want to just stuff the baby back up the way it came out; no, that would be brutal and savage, so we should cut her open to stuff the li'l beggar back in.

You know, a lot of times the standard fit-all punch line is that Freud would be laughing. I'm not certain it would be laughter, but he would be staring agog, absolutely fascinated. Cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut cut stuff. Cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut cut stuff.

In itself, that really is fascinating, but beneath the spectacular veneer of sublimated misogynistic cutting, there is also the notion of exchange and permission, of obedience. That is, sure, women can have their right, but they owe us something in return, because we are in charge, or something approximately like that. Consider the upcoming House subcommittee investigation of Planned Parenthood↱; some women, like Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC02), just aren't obedient enough―"To now reward her with a seat on the special panel," explained Douglas Johnson, federal affairs director for National Right to Life Committee, "would be inappropriate, to put it mildly".

Who is obedient enough to serve on the subcommittee? Well, the Distinguished Lady from Tennessee Four, who goes on television to explain that equality under law would be an insult to women; or the Distinguished Lady from North Carolina Five, who goes out to stand in front of a wall of anti-abortion men in order to tell the women to take special time to thank the men for caring so much about them. Practically, these questions arise because House leadership is under pressure to open the subcommittee pool. As it is, the panel would pull from Energy and Commerce, its parent committee, but conservatives are skipping any pretense of a legitimate investigation in order to demand more movement stalwarts be assigned.

The turducken sadism is apparent enough, but just beneath that scrubbed, gleaming façade is the same old, wretched, timeworn male supremacism.

A question I've been wondering about: Are conservatives capable of acknowledging the humanity and human rights of women, full stop?

We have reason to suspect otherwise.

Women are human and have human rights. Full stop. I wonder how many of our anti-abortion neighbors can say that. I mean, you know, say it honestly. We know they're capable of parroting just about anything.

 

[Capracus]

You don't deal with reality much, do you?

Where, exactly, did I or anyone else aside from you, say that a woman and her physician should have the right to terminate at any point including during labour? Where, exactly? Do you realise you are the only person making this argument based on some sick and twisted fantasy in your head?

Having been convinced by the persuasiveness of your arguments, I too am a Dry Foot convert, with leanings towards infanticide.

Show me one study detailing the percentage of women who have tried to obtain an abortion while she is in labour. Because apparently this happens in the world according to Capracus and your repeated argument about it indicates that this is happening where you are, so it should be very easily supported by you with some research papaers on the issue of women demanding abortions while in labour... I expect links from a reputable site.

We know of women who have sought legal late third trimester abortions and been denied, and we don’t know how many such abortions happen illegally. We also know of women who were willing to illegally self abort at late stages of pregnancy. Nearly a third of all deliveries done in the US are by cesarean section, with this in mind, I thought that we should attempt to meet the needs of this desperate, neglected class of women by giving them a safer legal alternative.

Are you now recommending that women have unnecessary and invasive surgeries?

Having had both a hysterectomy and a cesarean, I can assure you, I'd take the cesearean any day of the week. Secondly, are you suggesting that women have abortions via c-sections now? What other twisted little fantasy are you about to display? Have you finished defending paedophiles and paedophilia in the other thread and now you are bored or something and just decided to come back and troll this thread? Have more twisted little fantasies to share?

HysterOtomy, not hysterECtomy.

Hysterotomy abortion is a form of abortion in which the uterus is opened through an abdominal incision and the fetus is removed, similar to a caesarean section, but requiring a smaller incision.[1] As major abdominal surgery, hysterotomy is performed under general anaesthesia, and is only used in rare situations where less invasive procedures have failed or are medically inadvisable (such as in the case of placenta accreta). It is used between the 12th and 24th week of pregnancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion

Basically a hysterotomy is an abortion via C-section. While it may carry greater risk than abortion procedures preformed earlier in pregnancy, it is no more dangerous than a C-section, at least to the mother. As I mentioned above, women and their physicians commonly accept the use of C-section for delivery of a live fetus, it’s only fair to extend this choice to those who desire to deliver a dead one.