Some states protect women's rights

So you agree that governments shouldn't try to ban abortion. Good for you.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

A late term abortion is one performed between 21 and 24 weeks. Those are prior to viability. Aproximately 1% of abortions happen between 21 and 24 weeks. 24 weeks is point of viability, but survival rate is only about 50%.
Please provide examples of post 24 week abortions.

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

Late termination of pregnancy,also known as postviability abortion

---

Let’s read a bit more, shall we ?

Gee Faith wouldn't cherry pick in order to make her argument actually seem plausible would she?
Yeah as always.

But what is the difference between allowing a one week old post-fetus to starve and aborting a 39-week gestation pre-child?

It's the difference between forcing a person to undertake a medical procedure for the purpose of keeping Sandy (the adult human who will die if you don't undergo the procedure) and requiring a person to refrain from undertaking a medical procedure that would result in the death of a fetus.

You say the procedure is "the last thing we wanted to do" and that just indicates the difficult ethical problems this entire issue involves.

Prototypical's situation is the ONLY one that presents ANY difficult ethical problems to my mind. If you have a healthy fetus and a healthy mother there is no justification whatever for abortion. If the mother's llfe is threatened abortion may be necessary but that's an extremely rare sitaution. In the case of a sick baby as described by Prototypical I can see the reasonableness of choosing abortion in that case. That just about sums up all the possibilities. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not saying the law should prevent a woman from having an abortion, nor that the law should require someone to donate an organ. Those are both legal questions, not moral questions (and the latter makes one think of those doctors in communist China who can schedule heart transplants weeks in advance...)But is there really no difference between allowing someone to keep a kidney and allowing someone to abort a 39-week gestation fetus?

But here's where the reality meets the philosophical. Women have, from time to time, felt compelled to seek abortions in just those situations in which you see "no justification whatever" for abortion. The results, back in the day when abortion was illegal, were often horrific.Putting aside the question of whether or not you think it is morally right for a woman to have an abortion in such a circumstance, what do you think the law should say about a woman going to a doctor and having the procedure done?

Do you have evidence of a 39 week child be aborted? Doesn't happen. Never happens. That would be a full term baby.

Not a whole lot. Is that a real choice faced by real people?Probably. Then the question is why?Got any specific circumstances that could be examined?

Except for the mother's desires. Her right to control her own personal physical integrity. Her personal liberty.I understand that isn't a concept you seem able to support but to some of us that *is* the defining concept.

We weren't talking about a 39-week abortion. That is at the extreme of the discussion and needs a separate treatment which I'm not wanting to do right now. Just the broader topic of abortion.I have difficulty understanding those who cannot see this as a personal bodily integrity issue.But as for a 39-week abortion, there is a reason Roe-v-Wade says what it says.