Not to sound crass and heartless, but who pays for that incredibly expensive health care for the remaining 20+ weeks of the normal gestational period that the baby will spend in an incubator then probably months of continued aftercare in the NIICU? And the most likely long-term debilitations the baby/child might have for the rest of his or her life? What if the mother-to-be is 19, unsupported by family or a husband and works at an hourly job that doesn't provide comprehensive health care?

ETA: SEC, I'd love your answer on this, too

Why would the 19 year old mother-to-be wait until 20+ weeks to abort? Either abort before 20 weeks or take it to term.

That's a whole 'nother level to the debate, I am just going off the reasoning you put out there. Regardless of the age or situation of the mother, you're saying that if gestation hits 20 weeks, a mother should be induced and the baby "given the chance to live". And I'm just asking how that will be a guaranteed option for every woman when (a) the immediate costs are astronomical and (b) there will likely be a lot of children with long-term disabilities that will need care and support their entire lives.

I always find this contradiction in the abortion argument. I personally get conflicted on the issue -- anyone who has ever TRIED to conceive and understands how wickedly, crazily complicated it actually is has to come out the other side with a much different view on the process -- but ultimately, cannot imagine forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she is not ready for, mentally, financially, whatever way. But when people argue against abortion and typically morality or religion or whatever come in, there's this expectation that every pregnancy should go to term, but in the next breath, they're arguing against social programs, sex education to prevent pregnancies in the first place, sufficient health care across the board, etc., etc., etc.

So I'm not going to argue "when" abortion is or is not ok, that is just TOO deep and involving a topic that I just can't deal with right now. But I am just curious that when you put out a statement like you did, that across the board, a pregnancy that hits 20 weeks should be delivered rather than aborted (for whatever range of reasons there may be), I am curious as to how you then propose those mothers and children are cared for and their health care paid for. Because until you can answer that, you can't impose it.

Yes, it's idealized. All of those positions rely on personal responsibility, which liberals fight tooth and nail against. Abortion shouldn't be used as a way to avoid responsibility, social programs shouldn't be used as a crutch, etc.

I'm not certain what the answer is. I think the first step is for our society to revolutionize how we think about abortion and irresponsible pregnancy. Unfortunately, I see us moving away from an emphasis on responsibility, and more and more toward a culture of reliance.

I think abortion should be used as birth control. There are too many people being born.

Having children so you can get gov't tax breaks for them is way more irresponsible than getting an abortion. And unless you're willing to adopt the child yourself, I don't see how it's anyone's business besides the mother's.

Most states have already solved that problem for you. I'm talking about a federal law.

There are few states that allow one to abort after a set number of weeks. I'd be willing to consider 24 weeks to be the cut-off (as a number of states do), but I think there should be an option for women who want to abort later in the pregnancy. I still think the child should have an opportunity to live at that point. I'd imagine that there would be fewer children surviving than there are currently in "the system." And, I'm not at all against social programs that are effective.

But this isn't really the legal standard that we use is it?
We don't let mothers of newborns elect to kill them because they decided at that time they didn't want to provide or couldn't provide for them. Why would it make such a big legal difference that her decision to terminate took place two weeks before birth? (Or however many weeks back we need to go for it to really be an issue.)

I agree that it's a really uncomfortable issue and I understand why it's easier to take a let-every-woman-make-the-best-decision-for-herself stand. But it might actually be wrong and be resulting in the murder every year of thousands of beings better regarded as people.

On a different note, I don't think taking the first breath as a legal standard for personhood is one most people are comfortable with. It certainly doesn't seem to be behind the laws that charge people with two counts of murder or manslaughter when they kill a pregnant woman. I think it would also creep the vast majority of people out to terminate pregnancy in the last month but just making sure not to allow the fetus/baby to breath air would make it okay.

I think we should kill the mentally impaired because of over-population. Many of them aren't self-sufficient. I don't see how it would be any of our business.

If I didn't think that there were actually people being killed, I wouldn't be bothered by it at all.

If it's just a little clump of cells or a person seed that can be frozen indefinitely in a lab somewhere or used in research, why would anyone feel like she needed a good reason to get rid of it?

I'm always a little baffled by folks who think the circumstances of conception or the mother's disposition about the kid somehow would change the essential morality of the act one way or the other.

Again, I think your views may clarify a great deal when you've been pregnant or are trying to get pregnant. Like it or not, there is a hypocrisy to it and you do feel different. Ask the any number of women who spent their 20s desperately trying not to get pregnant (and more likely than not had an episode or two of the "oh my god, what if I'm...??" panic attacks or even may have had an abortion) but then spent the better part of the their 30s trying to conceive. Your mindset is different, it is "your baby" in the latter scenario, it's an "oh my god, what will this do to my life/career/family/relationship/financial stability problem" in the first scenario. There, I said it. Bring it.

But for me this suggest that maybe we should approach the issue assuming that all pregnancies are "babies" rather than that the mom's feelings somehow actually changes the reality.

Although it's easier to go with a let each-judge-on-her-own stance, it doesn't actually work that way. Either the fetuses/babies are people who at some point in pregnancy should be invested with legal rights or they aren't. Other circumstances should no more play in than they would if we were talking about newborns or tumors, depending or how you view the products of conception.

For me, the idea thing would be to have a developmental line beyond which the life of the fetus/baby is protected and only when the same standard of self-defense is met as we'd use outside the womb, can the mom terminate the pregnancy past that point. Up until that point, the mother could do whatever she wanted.

because you kill them at the expense of my taxes

i don't think abortion should be state-supported either

Who said I'd do it at your expense? People who take care of them can kill them, so they can move on with their lives.

that's interesting, and it is not for me to judge

they answer only to their own consciences (and probably the police)

Ok, well I can't argue what it suggests to you, because that's your perception and opinion. To your second point, no, they shouldn't be invested with legal rights, I can just see the 1-800-lawyer ads for that now, and your statement about "other circumstances" is only your opinion based on your own experience. And to your last point, isn't that somewhat along the lines of what is in place in most circumstances now?