Honestly, I’d rather see very late term abortions using *any* procedure banned as an elective procdure than to see one procedure banned without respect to medical need.

“Abortion on demand” is a phrase that can mean different things to different people.

I mean it as “a woman opting to have an abortion at any time with no questions asked”, per the wording. Meaning “no restrictions on abortion, period”.

Also: why would a woman diagnosed with mental illness be given the benefit of the doubt were she to decide to have a late term abortion?

—–

BTW, I was going into this discussion ASSuming that the baby/fetus was 100% healthy. Any changes to the scenario (brain dead baby) of course would change things, but I’m going at this under the guise that the baby/fetus is fine. IOW, I’m arguing from the “no partial birth abortions, period, unless it is the only option” point of view, since that’s the one I have. I’m not a catholic who thinks that any abortion is a sin or a crime, but I most certainly think that aborting a healthy fetus in the last weeks of pregnancy on an elective basis is as close to infanticide as one can get (per Moynihan’s poignant description) and thus I cannot assume that there should be NO sanctions against this practice.

“Abortion on demand” is a phrase that can mean different things to different people. As are some of the rhethorical flourishes that feminists characterize those who want to restrict abortion. Whether you can apply the label to you own satisfaction or not, it isn’t the label that matters. It’s the people who matter, and how they are affected by the final policy.

I don’t think she should be “forced” (notice the scare quotes) to opt for a somewhat risky medical procedure.

Which is abortion on demand, at any point….no questions asked, is it not?

First, I can’t speak for the “pro-choice” community as far as admitting the reciprocal view that some cases can be solved without abortion, and with reduced risk to the woman’s health, but I will speak for myself in saying that yes - I agree.

Personally, while I can state (risk-free, of course) that if it were me, I would choose the reduced risk scenario of a C-section over the abortion of a late-term fetus, I still think that when that decision has to be made it should be the woman’s right to make it for herself. I don’t think she should be “forced” (notice the scare quotes) to opt for a somewhat risky medical procedure. While the standard “health” provision is amenable to my view, and perhaps not to yours (assuming you believe she should only have the avenue of C-section open to her), I think you are telling me that you agree that at least a minimal provision for the critical health needs of the woman is necessary. If so, I appreciate that, and I respectfully disagree that the protection of the fetus outweighs the right of the woman to decide for herself on whether to go under the surgeon’s knife.

My reasoning for that is complex, and probably best dealt with at another time.

In the early stages the woman’s rights outweigh the fetus but in the last few weeks of a pregnancy, an abortion shouldn’t be a ‘choice’, but rather the only solution. Now, what’s so wrong with that last sentence?

Consider this: The classic case where the law we are discussing would be applied… The fetus is brain-dead from hydroencephaly. The option are D&E or C-Section. Both result in the fetus dead, having felt no pain. One involves the woman having unwanted (and unneeded) surgery. The other does not. The abortion was not the only solution in this circumstance. But, it was the better one, and the one more respectful of the woman’s rights. It is not an option for that woman any longer because of this law. That’s what is wrong with insisting that abortion in the last few weeks be the “only” option available. That’s one reason why there remains disagreement between the two sides on that point.

Otherwise, yeah, I’m with you. But, there are darn few reasons why a perfectly healthy fetus in the 8th month couldn’t be taken (it’s viable) & put in an incubator in order to save the woman’s health. I didn’t say “no” I said few. I have a young cousin who was taken late in the 7th month and while there were some iffy moments for a few weeks, she’s fine. Their scenario fits the “mother’s health” to a tee. Actually, were she to have gone even a few more days, they both would’ve died. So, they took the baby & everyone is healthy & happy. I realize that, as noted earlier, not every case is akin to that, of course. But, then again, I’m willing to admit that not every case could end in that scenario. Will the pro-choice side admit the reciprocal?

Why just state “health” and assume that thus we need to have the status-quo where there are no safeguards for the burgeoning baby? It’s the last trimester, so the health of the fetus matters, too. This isn’t someone who is 2 weeks pregnant, after all. I’m no zealot on the matter, but let’s not treat this as if it’s the morning after conception, either.

In the early stages the woman’s rights outweigh the fetus but in the last few weeks of a pregnancy, an abortion shouldn’t be a ‘choice’, but rather the only solution. Now, what’s so wrong with that last sentence? Why couldn’t the two sides agree on that?

Of course he has a conscience. We all do. We all do things that violate our conscience, too. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes just because we don’t stop to pay attention to it long enough to hear what it says. In both cases, it is normally a result of having some other interest (in this case political power) that we are too focused on.

It is this for which I criticize the demagogues, the politicans, the preachers, and the boondogglers. And, yes, Harry Reid falls into that group in this instance.

Constitutional Amendment? Maybe I’m overreacting. I also don’t like trivial amendments to the Constitution. But when the Supreme Court rules that my wife, sister, daughter, mother can be prevented by state or federal law from getting critical treatment that she needs to avoid (for instance) permanent disability, even when it’s only if her case doesn’t fall in the “large enough fraction” of cases - then I say that the “big intrusive government” has absolutely gone too far, and needs to be reigned in by the Constitution. When my head is a little cooler, I may take a less paranoid view of the government, and decide that it’s ok for them to have that power.

BTW, I’m not sure that the life of the woman isn’t included, so all this is probably moot.

You’re right - there is an exception for the life only of the woman. I don’t think I was clear on that when I posted. That helps. However, I don’t think the state has a right to decide that my female relatives should have to spend the rest of their life disabled for their political agenda, either.

I think the ever-present “health” question is missing, since a woman could say “my boyfriend left me, this will cause me mental anguish” and VOILA she qualifies.

Ok… I understand that concern. Although, let’s face it - if it is an issue like that, chances are the woman will have aborted in the first trimester, and nothing that is covered under this particular law would have applied anyway.

Frankly, the comparative risk between letting a woman “get by with something” the way you suggest and letting her be physically harmed balances toward protecting her from physical harm to my eye. I think the standard “health of the woman” should apply. I even think that should include mental health, because there is such a thing as illness that is mental in nature, and there is no reason we should be prejudiced against that sort. I do understand that such illnesses are more difficult to diagnose accurately and to predict, so I recognize the concern that this standard may be difficult for someone to wish to protect when it means someone may get away with something…

But, even if you would rather let a woman be subjected to some non-permanent physical harm than give one a chance at “getting away with something”, you can still provide a minimal exception for her health that covers long-term disability.

Whether you do it through legislation or constitutional amendment, and whether you do it liberally or conservatively, it seems like it is our obligation to provide some protection for people who stand to be harmed - medically, and possibly severely - by our state and/or federal laws.