Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
The AMA has said, if I recall correctly, 24 weeks - that seems like a good standard, and is one that doesn't rely on a concept of "soul" (which is absolutely no reason to make a law).
You really don't see why inducing labor for a fetus and "seeing what happens" (given the massive incidence of birth defects, death, etc.) is distasteful?
|
Oh, I see why it's distasteful. It's more the idea that that people don't see abortion at the same stage the same way. [ETA: Or that they consciously choose to suppress that knowledge in their desire to defer to the mother's rights]
It's weird that the disposition of the mother towards the fetus apparently changes the way people view the act so much. The outcome for the fetus might actually be better with the induce and see what happens method.
It's kind of odd on some level to talk about viability being the standard and yet requiring the fetus to be carried to term because we suspect it's hit a point it could survive outside the uterus. [ETA: by this I don't mean that I don't think the viable don't deserve legal protection from termination; just that it's kind of weird.]
EATA: I'd probably restrict earlier in the pregnancy than viability, but I don't think that protection at conception is workable. Too many other medical procedures that people want to see available involve the creation and destruction of embryos. But I'd restrict pretty absolutely at viability, not just a nebulous injury to the health of the mother but only cases in which the mother's life was actually in immediate danger.
Threaded Mode
