Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[UGAalum94]

At some point, though, rhetoric about having control of your body falls apart unless you don't believe that at any point in pregnancy the fetus becomes a person. I think people who believe that fetuses shouldn't have any legal protections as people until they are actually born are pretty rare. Are you just controlling your body if you abort a healthy fetus in the 38th week? It seems to me that you wouldn't just be controlling your body; you're terminating the life of another.

I'm also perplexed by why rape or incest (or fetal disability) make a difference in cases carried beyond whatever limits you would otherwise impose. We don't go around killing the products of rape or incest (or the disabled) after they are born, so why would we make exceptions in the cases that for whatever reasons we'd otherwise legal restrict? (I understand why people who want no abortions at all make allowances because it seems too cruel not to, but it makes less sense to permit these exceptions in a system that would allow early abortions for any reasons.)

And for those of us who would restrict abortions after viability, what standard are you using? The lowest age a fetus has survived at? The age at which 50% of more fetuses would likely survive? What do you do as this age is pushed lower because of neo-natal technology? Why does the standard of inducing birth and seeing if the fetus survives seems so barbaric but allowing abortions at the same age doesn't?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And for those of us who would restrict abortions after viability, what standard are you using? The lowest age a fetus has survived at? The age at which 50% of more fetuses would likely survive? What do you do as this age is pushed lower because of neo-natal technology? Why does the standard of inducing birth and seeing if the fetus survives seems so barbaric but allowing abortions at the same age doesn't?

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?

[UGAalum94]

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.