Honestly I would be fine with that but in the rare cases of rape where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the mother's life is in jeopardy or there are genetic risks that would affect quality of life abortion should be on the table. Provided it's funded by the people seeking one
There is already acknowledged medical difference between a life-threatening pregnancy situation and a viable one. It would be insanely simple to write in an exception for molar and ectopic pregnancies into any abortion law.
It’s also very rare for a pregnancy to become life-threatening, beyond situations like that, without medical intervention being possible for the mother. Things like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia are diagnosable and very treatable.
Rape is awful, but it’s not the child’s fault. Nor are genetic abnormalities. If you have a baby with a fatal trisomy or other situation where they can’t live outside the womb, that is a tragedy. But it’s also worth noting that shit like, say, a brain cyst, that shows up on a twenty week ultrasound might not be there by week thirty. And early genetic testing is insanely inaccurate. I think the risks of aborting actually healthy babies in those situations are far too great to allow.
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
You think I believe a rapist shouldn't be put to death if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730
1 in every 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy so not statistically significant but still a reasonable consideration, but are you really going to advocate for the life of a baby but not a mother who does not have a viable pregnancy (there is no fetus or life in this type of pregnancy) and may potentially die as a result?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
The freedom to make that decision should be left between the doctor and the mother/father of the child not the State. As such those decisions should come with the best evidence to deduce that if at all possible. Also you are highlighting a slippery slope. Wouldn't put it past the democrats to use skin color or sex but at the same time (for the time being) the argument is arbitrary because those are protected classes. It's not the same as someone who will basically be on the Country's dole for a genetic defect.
Honestly I would be fine with that but in the rare cases of rape where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the mother's life is in jeopardy or there are genetic risks that would affect quality of life abortion should be on the table. Provided it's funded by the people seeking one
There is already acknowledged medical difference between a life-threatening pregnancy situation and a viable one. It would be insanely simple to write in an exception for molar and ectopic pregnancies into any abortion law.
It’s also very rare for a pregnancy to become life-threatening, beyond situations like that, without medical intervention being possible for the mother. Things like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia are diagnosable and very treatable.
Rape is awful, but it’s not the child’s fault. Nor are genetic abnormalities. If you have a baby with a fatal trisomy or other situation where they can’t live outside the womb, that is a tragedy. But it’s also worth noting that shit like, say, a brain cyst, that shows up on a twenty week ultrasound might not be there by week thirty. And early genetic testing is insanely inaccurate. I think the risks of aborting actually healthy babies in those situations are far too great to allow.
Doctors can deliver the child early and give him/her a chance in the NICU.
Ding, ding! Winner.
I don't disagree at all. I dislike abortion, but it has a real medical basis for existing. But using it as birth control is repugnant.
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist? You think I believe a rapist shouldn't be put to death if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point? https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730 1 in every 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy so not statistically significant but still a reasonable consideration, but are you really going to advocate for the life of a baby but not a mother who does not have a viable pregnancy (there is no fetus or life in this type of pregnancy) and may potentially die as a result? Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex? The freedom to make that decision should be left between the doctor and the mother/father of the child not the State. As such those decisions should come with the best evidence to deduce that if at all possible. Also you are highlighting a slippery slope. Wouldn't put it past the democrats to use skin color or sex but at the same time (for the time being) the argument is arbitrary because those are protected classes. It's not the same as someone who will basically be on the Country's dole for a genetic defect.