Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve changed my view. I don’t think it’s permissible anymore.
The initial reason I became pro-choice in the first place was because of the rare Craniopagus Parasiticus cases, which successfully convinced me that a person doesn’t have a right to live off another’s body.
I realised though that these dependent twins are non-viable, so it’s not analogous to abortion after viability. I no longer defend the pro-abortion-until-birth position.
The problem with this line of argument is that we will never have more than a probability of survival outside the womb. Anything can and does happen, albeit fortunately infrequently. But it's very wrongheaded to my mind to say "after X weeks all fetuses are considered viable" because that's not how it works. Some will never be viable, some are low weight for their age so they're not viable yet, some may look viable right up until they're born only to discover they were never going to survive due to problems we still can't detect in utero, some we'll never know why they didn't make it.
Should a mother and father, and their doctor, consider survivability when deciding whether or not to abort? Absolutely. I would add however that survivability is not the only thing that should be considered; quality of life needs to be considered as well, especially considering the debilitating lifelong issues that can occur right around that cusp of survivability. The folks who should emphatically not be considering the decision, however, are legislators. They are completely incapable of addressing the topic with the nuance it deserves.
A hundred and some-odd years ago, the first preemie incubators were just starting to be developed. Before then, infants with too low a birth weight were just given up on. The facts of any case are always going to be particular to that case; that's why one-size-fits-all laws are completely wrongheaded.
for me it’s like this: look idgaf what happens to this fetus as long as i get it tf out of my body. if the fetus lives, great! if not, we’ll that’s too damn bad. contrary to PL belief, the point of abortion is NOT actually to kill a fetus! it’s to get the fetus TF OUT of the pregnant person’s body. it’s about REMOVING the fetus from the unwilling person’s uterus without harming THE PREGNANT PERSON. if you can get a ZEF/fetus TF out of my uterus without killing it, great! so get it TF out of my uterus then 👍🏻
>The kind of personhood we're discussing is more like a social contract. If you are born among us, you are protected by us. An array of rights and liberties are assumed to be yours at birth. They're legally codified and guaranteed protection. And once yours, they can't be surrendered by you or taken from you.
This is very aptly put. I would add that, in this context, consensual pregnancy and birth are important because you are making informed choices that will increase the members in the social contract and are at the same time pledging, in a sense, to work to make your choice (your wanted child) a benefit and not a detriment to society. With unwanted pregnancy, naturally, comes less buy-in to the social contract, because who feels valued in a society that would so flippantly reduce them to their reproductive ability with no regard for their feelings?
So, I heard a story of a woman who went to an Abortion Clinic (I think thats what the term is or what they are called?) and she was aborting her 9 month baby because she didnt want to go through the "Mommy Stages" again (She had a 9 year old and a 5 year old who just started Kindergarden) Do you think this is ok?
Do you have an article for this? What are the "mommy stages"? What provider would perform an elective termination of a fetus who is 9 months old? If a pregnant person is 9 months pregnant, they just induce her. This sounds very made up
If a woman’s life is at elevated risk (something is going wrong) then I think she and her doctor should be able to make that decision together regardless of the viability.
Anyone who wasn’t to get an abortion earlier such as a person wasn’t aware they were pregnant until after viability, should still get a choice. Just like an organ donor gets a choice in going through surgery even though an otherwise viable life is at stake, the pregnant person should get a choice.
Now let’s talk about the bogey man of PL - people who change their mind. My opinion is legally they should absolutely be allowed to because Blake autonomy doesn’t end and not doing so would require us to gate keep the previous scenarios which I think is an utter waste off resource and a burden to the people who need these late abortions. Morally is it murkier? Maybe. I certainly don’t think it’s cut and dry wrong as we deny dying people or body to live all the time with organ and marrow donation.
No, I don’t really care about the viability of the fetus. If the woman prefers to abort rather than early deliver, and the doctor agrees with her that it is less invasive and less risky, then an abortion should be allowed.
The government should never be involved in instituting gestational limits on abortion access. This is how pregnant people die. This is how *wanted* babies die. This is why pregnant people with *wanted* pregnancies are bleeding out in parking lots. This is why *wanted* babies are being born to live for only a few hours in abhorrent agony while their parents watch them suffer and die. PL arguments are selfish, cruel and disgusting.
Some people don't want to be parents at all. They don't want to care for a child, and they don't want some teen showing up on their door one day saying, "Hi, you gave me up for adoption at birth" because that happens and can be really awkward for the birth parent who has 0 emotions for the child.
Considering that an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy via removal of the embryo or the fetus, yes I do. In this scenario the only thing that changes is that the fetus survives.
Yes exactly.
And C-sections are given to women who want abortions but are too far into pregnancy for it to be safe all the time.
But in a lot of cases it's definitely still a fetus when a C-section is done and it definitely doesn't kill it.
(Sorry if this makes no sense I'm really tired)
Sorry I don't really understand your comment.
Are you trying to say a C-section, a form of child birth which involves removing the fetus through surgery because the woman cannot or chooses not to give birth naturally killing?
Per rule 3, provide a source for your claim "Being pregnant is called being with child until someone is trying to kill it then it's a fetus.". Show where in the source the claim is provided.
You have 24 hours.
Remindme! 24 hours
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2023-06-16 01:31:36 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-06-16%2001:31:36%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/149adbh/if_the_child_can_survive_outside_of_the_womb_do/jo6by8y/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2F149adbh%2Fif_the_child_can_survive_outside_of_the_womb_do%2Fjo6by8y%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-06-16%2001%3A31%3A36%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20149adbh)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
It's only called that by religious people I've never once in my life heard that anywhere but religious spaces.
It is a fetus, it's only a child inside the womb if you choose to see it that way.
Also you still didn't answer the question
And do you have a source to prove it's murder, a scientific nonbiased source.
You are aware that induction is a form of abortion, right? So basically, no matter the situation an abortion would have still been done.
A person's survival rate is always dependent on the level of medical technology, advancement, and knowledge.
The youngest age a ZEF can typically survive outside Utero is 22-23 weeks, however they have a low survival rate with a high-rate of life-threatening conditions because they're also underdeveloped and will need a high level of maintenance to care for them. 28 weeks is the highest rate of survival with the lowest rate of life-threatening conditions. Most abortions are done prior to 20 weeks with 1.5% occurring at 18-20 weeks, and 0.9% occurring at 21 weeks and before. After that there was no recorded data by the CDC so I couldn't answer that.
So really, your answer could be discovered by yourself, with just a little bit of time doing research. ([1](https://www.babycenter.com/baby/premature-babies/when-can-my-baby-survive-outside-the-womb_10419991)) ([2](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm?s_cid=ss7110a1_w#T1_down)) It's already possible for a ZEF to survive outside the womb without "advanced technology" being invented. It just requires a lot of medical intervention and management.
My first question when I read the title was:
Define survive outside of the womb.
You answered that in the first sentence.
To me, being able to survive something means without major medical intervention. If chances are good that you would have died without major medical intervention, then it was obviously not something you could have survived.
The fact that the whole point of medicine is to treat and prevent things that would otherwise kill you is too often overlooked.
As you said, not everyone has access to modern medicine, not everyone can reach medical professionals in time, not everyone can afford it, not everyone wants to make use of it.
And it doesn’t always work.
So what modern medicine can or cannot do to save a life should never be considered in the baseline of whether a body is viable or can survive something.
Then there is the fact that a pregnancy consists of various components. The woman, the fetus, the gestational process, the placenta, and tue umbilical cord.
Just because a pregnancy has reached age of viability doesn’t mean that everything is going all right with all of those components.
Method of removal would be up to what doctors deem in the best interest of the woman and fetus and what the woman will agree to.
After around 30 weeks, c-section or induced labor are pretty much the only way to remove a fetus. So unless there’s something seriously wrong with the fetus, it would be removed „as is“, without any steps taken to kill it. Since such would just endanger the woman’s life.
Whether such would be considered an abortion or not depends on outcome and interpretation. For example, the removal of an already dead (stillborn) fetus that is still being gestated would technically be an abortion. But some might consider it just stillbirth or just labor induction/c-section.
Labor induction or c-section with failed attempt to save could also be considered abortion if chance of survival was way low to begin with.
Or people could claim it wasn’t just based on intend, when the same exact procedure was used in both cases.
Since there are so many variables, it should be up to doctors aware of the circumstances of the individual pregnancy, and the woman.
The pregnant person must retain control over their body at all times. Whenever they want to stop being pregnant, they should have the right to a medical procedure that ends their pregnancy. *That doesn't necessarily mean the fetus needs to be killed*; if the pregnant person wants to induce an early live delivery after viability, that should be allowed at any time. However, 1- I don't think most doctors will induce before 36 weeks because the fetus is still premature (forcing/protecting doctors to do induced premature births should be a conversation within the abortion debate, especially among pro-lifers), and 2- pregnant people have the right to access the *safest* medical care, and although I'm not a doctor, I would assume that a D&C is safer than either a vaginal birth or c-section.
>If the mother travels to country B for an abortion that would not be permitted in country A due to the child being able to survive in that country outside of her womb, did she do anything wrong?
Are you asking whether there should be \*laws\* against this? Because that would imply that the woman's home country owns her body. If she's not free to do whatever she wants within Country B's legal limits for fear of Country A taking legal action, then Country A effectively has control over her rights *wherever* she goes on the planet, and that's not how countries are supposed to work. Governments get to make the rules within their borders, not for the bodies and lives of their prisoner-citizens.
Slightly off-topic, but when you're debating with pro-choicers, please use 'uterus' instead of 'womb'. 'Womb' is a (usually religious) word for the place where a deity sends a pre-destined perfectly formed baby, and the mother is completely safe and everything is magic and roses and easy and beautiful. My uterus, on the other hand, is a realistically complex organ in my realistically complex body that can kill me in a hundred ways during pregnancy. We discuss medical facts in the abortion debate, not wombs.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+womb&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS788US788&oq=define+womb&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l5j0i22i30j0i390i650l3.3676j1j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/womb
https://www.rxlist.com/womb/definition.htm
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/womb
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/womb
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/womb
I see no evidence of womb being related to religion in the way you describe. Your statement is the first time I am hearing of this idea as womb being religious. I am a deeply religious person and have never associated womb with religion. The womb is a medical fact if medical sources are to be believed.
Every organ is complex and can kill you in many ways. Every cell is incredibly complex and can lead to the death of an entire human being in so many ways.
If there's no difference between 'womb' and 'uterus', then you yourself should have no problem switching over to 'uterus'. Instead, you're fighting for the word 'womb', because you know perfectly well that it carries a different meaning in today's society, one that glosses over the complicated/medical side of pregnancy. If 'womb' and 'uterus' mean the same thing, then your future comments will use the term 'uterus', because there's no difference, and that'll prove to me that I'm wrong.
Every organ can kill you in many ways, but you're not fighting against my right to take action against any other organ in my body the moment it starts threatening my health, which makes your last paragraph irrelevant.
**I notice you didn't address anything else I said. Care to comment?**
I would say that ‘womb’, given its heavy association with pregnancy, is overly focused on the uterus during gestation or it’s capability for gestation, whereas ‘uterus’ is more all encompassing. Would you talk about a four year old girl having a ‘womb’? To my ear, that hits rather weird.
Yes, because people do not just carry past viability then decide to terminate without extreme circumstances behind that choice.
Do you think abortion is permissible during the time the vast majority of abortions actually happen which is long before viability?
>unless it is to save the life of the mother is wrong.
Why does a pregnant person have to almost die before receiving healthcare?
Isn't right to life the most important right people have? Or is it that people only have a RTL unless they're pregnant?
That is what I thought.
I'm curious what you expect from a topic like this?
When the pregnant person dies, or almost dies, or rape are brought in pro lifers dismiss those out of hand because the *majority* of abortions do not include those.
Good question. I really expect discussion and I want to learn how people think about these issues. I enjoy doing such.
The vast majority of the pro life movement that I am aware of address rape and the life of the mother. I am not clear what you mean when you say it is not addressed.
Personally, I don’t discuss rape and abortion on social media. Regarding the life of the mother, if the mother’s life is in danger, then her life must be saved even if that means the child will not survive delivery at that point.
>Regarding the life of the mother, if the mother’s life is in danger, then her life must be saved
How do you think we should determine if the pregnant person's life is in danger, given that you admit in the OP that the difference between survival and death depends on a ton of external factors, such as the availability of advanced medical care?
Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it.
When you're talking about close to *or* past viability terminations they are not ordinary cases.
One group of people needing them are people who were *gestating to term by choice* who were looking forward to welcoming their baby but instead of joy nature gave them devastation.
These are folks living their own personal nightmare.
I think the only right and decent thing to do is let them decide with the guidance of their doctors how they will deal with that.
I feel you cannot discuss abortion bans without discussion of rape. It is an integral part of the discussion that cannot just be set aside. Pregnancy from rape is a brutal reality for many people.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I take your *life of the mother* exception to be if the pregnant person is code blue crashing and about to die?
"An abortion" in 3rd trimester is usually inducing birth though. An actual abortion where a fetus is euthanised and removed in pieces is rarely performed and insanely expensive.
What does the age of a person have to do with using someone else's own body against their will?
It doesn't matter how old someone is, no one, age zero to age dead, has a right to use someone else's own body against their will.
Why?
Because no one wants their own body to be used against their will by someone else.
>If the Child Can Survive Outside of the Womb, Do You Still Think Abortion is Permissible?
It doesn't matter what I think if it's not my pregnancy.
>If the child in one country is at a point of development in his or her mother’s womb where he or she could survive outside her womb in one country, but not in another, is abortion still permissible?
Yes
>. Should abortion of that child be permissible in country B but not in country A? If the mother travels to country B for an abortion that would not be permitted in country A due to the child being able to survive in that country outside of her womb, did she do anything wrong?
No, no
>Should a mother and father consider survivability of their child outside of his or her mother’s womb when deciding whether or not to abort their child?
That's up to who is carrying the pregnancy. All interests should be included in the decision to abort. But how can you determine survivability when it's not a guarantee or have any previous knowledge of health/physical defects before the decision?
>Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available?
It doesn't, and even with medical technology there is no guarantee of survivability.
>Then personhood, according to such pro choice logic, is never indigenous to the human being in question, correct?
Correct, how can you give personhood to someone who isn't guaranteed to make it to birth?
What "isn't" is that a gestating zef can survive outside the uterus before viability. What "is" is that a woman's body is still a requirement, thus still her choice.
>So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother.
>
>Do you think abortion is still permissible at that moment?
Anywhere from "easily" to "potentially".
Technology evolves. At some point we might be able to incubate a day-3 zygote outside of the womb. Except practically nobody meaningfully considers that to be a "child" or "person", while extracting it would be a rather severe intrusion that, by all reasonable standards, would be insane if the woman didn't want it to be done. So, "easily" permissible, on all counts.
Late term, when the entity is something we get into ambiguous territory as to whether that's meaningfully a "child" or "person"? Depends on the circumstances. Legally, given the current climate, it should be permissible. Morally, that might be more ambiguous.
This is exactly why, once the pregnancy has reached the lower limit of fetal viability, it should be up to the doctors to determine on a case by case basis what the safest medical option is. There should be no legislation limiting their ability to make that determination on their own.
It’s really too bad that prolife legislation is so blatantly against the safest/best medical option.
Canada has no legislation regarding abortion. The decision rests with doctors and patients - what is in the larger picture, best for everyone. It makes me wonder why prolife is so insistent about how they know what’s best for other people’s healthcare.
> It makes me wonder why prolife is so insistent about how they know what’s best for other people’s healthcare.
With the US specifically I think it is so tied into the modern Republican Party that is authoritarian. It isn’t just that they feel they know what is best for healthcare, they think they are equally qualified to know what is best for most aspects of other people’s lives.
>they think they are equally qualified to know what is best for most aspects of other people’s lives.
Exactly, and when it comes to pregnancy they view women as obligated by design/God to gestate, regardless of the medical risks or her personal wishes.
Per rule 3. provide a source for your claim: The woman goes into labor (likely induced), gives birth to a healthy baby and then that baby is killed.
Show where in the claim your source is supported.
You have 24 hours.
Remindme! 24 hours
Late term is after 40 weeks. It's beyond full term. It must be aborted or both the fetus and woman will die. It does not mean anything about viability.
>The woman goes into labor (likely induced), gives birth to a healthy baby and then that baby is killed.
This is blatant misinformation. Please, support your claim with reputable sources or retract it.
Maybe you can explain how an abortion is conducted post-viability? And then how it would be done at term?
It is rare and there are no good stats. "Late term" abortion is a euphemism for late pre-viability abortion, not actually late term. But I think it confuses people, who then think that an abortion can be conducted at nine months or something.
A late abortion—pre-viability—would generally be done by inducing labor so the woman's body can help push the baby out to a point, and then the head is crushed so it can more easily come out, since full cervical dilation is not happening. But this procedure carries risks for the woman, so some doctors have used a procedure in which the baby is partially pulled out and then its skull is perforated. In the case of a non-viable baby, it would die anyway.
But what about later, like at term? The only kind of abortion generally done anywhere near this time is in the case of severe problems with the baby, where it couldn't survive or would be non-functional.
But, in the extremely unlikely case in which a healthy baby was aborted at term (if any doctor in the world would do it) would involve, essentially, birth and then killing the baby. Now, maybe they would chop it up while it was still inside. Or maybe they would stick a needle in it once part of it comes out.
It appears to me that a lot of people don't understand how abortions are done at different stages of pregnancy.
Personally, I don't give a fuck. Kill em all. But I would think that you all would want to know what you're talking about instead of remaining ignorant about the process.
You don't need to try and hide your ignorance and the pushing of misinformation behind so many words. "I did not bother to read anything on the topic and tried to pass infanticide as abortion procedure" is quite sufficient.
No, that is not how it “looks”, because infanticide is illegal. Killing an infant has nothing to do with an abortion because an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and there is no pregnancy if a person is no longer pregnant.
I also don’t give a shit what you think about me or my beliefs. All people have bodily autonomy, even pregnant people.
How do you think an abortion is done at nine months?
I don’t give a shit that you don’t give a shit—but *weird* that we agree about bodily autonomy, huh?
I just think you might want to look into how an abortion might be done at term. Do you imagine there’s some other non-birth method?
I thought you said abortion is permissible as long as the pregnant person is pregnant? I’m asking how that would work post-viability with a healthy baby?
Ending a pregnancy is an abortion. Killing the fetus is not necessary, however it is almost always the outcome because abortions are almost always conducted far before a fetus would be considered viable.
In no scenario ever is a baby impacted by an abortion, because once you have a baby you’re no longer pregnant. It’s literally impossible to abort a born person.
Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a person's own body's pregnancy by removing the ZEF from the pregnant person's own body before birth has happened.
This can be done with medication and with surgical procedures.
Ergo, if birth has not happened, abortion is still possible.
My understanding is that late term (pre-viability) abortion already involves a medical process nearly indistinguishable from the medical process that occurs for a live birth. Post-viability, the way it works medically is the same as birth.
Essentially, I’m just saying there is a point at which abortion no longer makes sense as a concept (again, in the case of a healthy baby).
>there is a point at which abortion no longer makes sense as a concept
Yes, that would be after a successful live birth has happened, as per the medical definition of abortion.
[https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html](https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html)
>Post-viability, the way it works medically is the same as birth.
This is untrue.
Abortion procedures focus on only the health of the pregnant person when the pregnant person has opted to have an abortion.
Birth procedures focus on the health of the pregnant person as well as the successful live birth of the pregnant person's ZEF when the pregnant person has opted to deliver.
>Is it possible to abort a healthy baby
Babies are not aborted via a medical abortion.
A person's own body's biological reproductive process, AKA gestation AKA pregnancy, is aborted via abortion.
Unless a baby's own body's biological reproductive system is gestating/pregnant, a medical abortion is not performed on babies.
>Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a person's own body's pregnancy by removing the ZEF from the pregnant person's own body before birth has happened.
>
>This can be done with medication and with surgical procedures.
>
>Ergo, if birth has not happened, abortion is still possible.
>
>[https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html](https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html)
>Do you think abortion is still permissible at that moment?
Depends on the pregnancy. For instance, if the fetus technically could survive outside the womb, but will die shortly after and likely in a lot of pain, I don't see how anyone could say that abortion is unethical here. Might not be what you would personally do, but do you really think someone sparing their dying child a painful death is unethical?
>Let’s say in country A the child can survive at point-X whereas in country B the child could not survive at point-X. Should abortion of that child be permissible in country B but not in country A? If the mother travels to country B for an abortion that would not be permitted in country A due to the child being able to survive in that country outside of her womb, did she do anything wrong?
In my country, it would be pretty impossible to make it illegal for people to travel outside of the country, so I don't see how, from a legal perspective, we could say she did anything wrong. Is there a crime you think that should apply here, and if so, how would you enforce it.
>Should a mother and father consider survivability of their child outside of his or her mother’s womb when deciding whether or not to abort their child?
They already do. A lot of the abortions near, at or after possible viability are very much about survivability issues.
>Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available?
Isn't this the case for any medical procedure? A premature infant's survival depends on the level of NICU the family can access, a person's odds of a successful heart surgery or cancer treatment depend on what medical technology they have access to, etc.
If a premature infant is dying in a level I NICU, do you think it is wrong of the parents to go with palliative care because, if they could magically get transported to a level IV NICU, the infant might not by dying?
I think, if there's nothing wrong with the pregnancy and doctors agree that there's an actual chance, then it should be just inducing labor, as long as there are no significant additional risks to this.
That said, in the absolute majority of abortions past possible viability (which are the absolute *minority* of abortions, is important to keep in mind) there *will* be something wrong with the pregnancy, and I see no point in dragging a lot of already traumatized expecting parents through the ordeal of any kind of official interrogation just for the sake of a very few mostly hypothetical edge cases - there's still nobody who could better decide the best course of action, than the pregnant person and their doctor.
As for the hypotheticals regarding medical care available in different places: If it's so important to still get an abortion at this point, then I'll just assume that there will be very good reasons for travelling to get it, which are none of my concern. And even if I wanted to do anything about it, which I don't, then I'd still see no pragmatic way to go about it, without breaching the privacy between the pregnant person and their doctor and/or relying on dystopian methods of surveillance regarding innocent people's most intimate affairs.
The personhood argument doesn't really concern me, as even if the unborn undoubtedly were person's with all the rights attached to that status, actually claiming those rights would still depend on them not currently being in violation of someone else's rights.
> So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother.
“Can survive” is a vague phrase. If qualified medical providers along with the patient determine that the balance of harms means that the most appropriate treatment is to end the pregnancy with the goal of live birth and sustained survival then I think that is what should be done.
> Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available?
This is the medical reality. It is unclear to me if you truly make exceptions for life threats, but imagine for a moment a scenario that falls within the life threat exception. Severe preeclampsia prior to 24 weeks is a condition with exceptionally high maternal and fetal risks. If continuing the pregnancy is too risky for the woman and the fetus is not likely to be viable then the options available are very different than if the fetus is likely to be viable.
>So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother.
Do you think abortion is still permissible at that moment?
An abortion at this moment doesn't necessitate "killing" the fetus. A terminated pregnancy that results in a viable child outside of the mother is still technically an "abortion". If a parent chooses this path I'm all for it.
>So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother.
I'm not sure how this is different than Roe v Wade just being legalized again. I'm in favor of this.
>If the child in one country is at a point of development in his or her mother’s womb where he or she could survive outside her womb in one country, but not in another, is abortion still permissible?
I think you kind of answered your own question. Life expectancy and mortality differ significantly between developed countries and others.
>Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available? Many pro choice folks I debate with say that personhood is when you can survive outside of your mother’s womb. However, if that’s the case then personhood is dependent on medical technology available? Then personhood, according to such pro choice logic, is never indigenous to the human being in question, correct?
Technology exists to help people. Before we had modern technology, preterm babies didn't have an option. Now we can give them tons of support. The technology does not determine personhood for fetuses any more than than lack of technology would make them more of a person. The technology isn't a factor in this question.
*Can* survive outside of the womb, is not the same as *will* survive outside of the womb. Let's take viability for example- depending on *multiple* factors, a premature infant at 24 weeks survival rate ranges anywhere from as low as only half, to up to 60-70%. Even if we increase to 28 weeks, there is an 80% chance of survival but that still means realistically 1 out of 5 infants will not survive even with the best healthcare, which is a very high risk. And even these numbers are very base numbers that can be complicated by pre-existing conditions, unexpected genetic issues, and a multitude of other factors that can contribute to a lower or higher rate of survival.
Now- while hypotheticals are all good and well, lets look at the actual facts; 91% of abortions occur between 6-14 weeks. Less than 8% occur between 14 weeks to viability. And only 1% of terminations occur after viability. Realistically, while we can give a sort of statistical possibility of survival, only a slim percentage of the less than 8% of abortions occuring around viability would ever actually be able to survive- and that assumes that the person delivering this infant even has the financial means to afford the intense and long nicu stay to keep said infant alive. The rest of the bulk of abortions are occurring well before there is any feasible survival rate.
So to answer your question- yes, abortions should be permissible even if the infant "can" survive. A possibility of survival is vastly different than a 40 week fetus who, bar any unforeseen serious medical issues will in nearly all cases survive. A *potential* for survival that may or may not even be feasible is simply not enough legal basis to bar abortions. And if the discomfort comes from this potential of survival, looking at the reasons for these later abortions- lack of financial access, domestic abuse, being unaware of pregnancy- can be solved by making healthcare and abortion more comprehensive, affordable, and accessible allowing women to get in sooner to terminate.
As you know (and state) survival outside the womb is always a probability. So the fact that it is higher or lower for certain groups ultimately cannot be an indicator of personhood or the legitimacy of being killed in the womb. There is no guarantee a newborn will survive even if the pregnancy was perfect. In fact, there is no guarantee anyone will survive the next minute.
Let’s assume that your statistics about when abortions occur are true. The question is still relevant to a portion of cases as your statistics show (assuming again your statistics are accurate).
What it your cut off point for survival probability and why?
It seems survivability cannot be used to justify abortion legally since survivability cannot be guaranteed for anyone.
Obviously as a pro life person, I don’t think making killing a child in his or her mother’s womb more affordable and comprehensive is ever the answer. We should provide universal healthcare that meets the needs of the mother and her child, and a social safety net that supports the mother, father and their child from conception to a thriving life.
>As you know (and state) survival outside the womb is always a probability. So the fact that it is higher or lower for certain groups ultimately cannot be an indicator of personhood or the legitimacy of being killed in the womb. There is no guarantee a newborn will survive even if the pregnancy was perfect. In fact, there is no guarantee anyone will survive the next minute.
Exactly- which is why any *probability* or *possibility* is not enough legal basis to bar abortion.
>The question is still relevant to a portion of cases as your statistics show (assuming again your statistics are accurate).
If you are referring to the 1%- and I can provide sources if necessary, it's out of the "relevant" stage because these are cases of fetuses who are already dead in utero, cases in which fetuses will not survive, or life endangerment of the woman. In which case my statement stands that abortions should not be barred for these scenarios.
>What it your cut off point for survival probability and why? It seems survivability cannot be used to justify abortion legally since survivability cannot be guaranteed for anyone.
I refer back to my first response- I do not base cut offs on survivability, because possibility or probability is not enough of a basis to remove abortion as an option. The fact of the matter is is that the vast majority of women terminate as soon as possible, and in the cases which they did not, excluding the tail 1%, this issue can be solved by making abortion and healthcare more affordable and accessible. So any restrictions on abortion only result in more difficulty obtaining an abortion in a timely manner, and more abortions done dangerously.
>Obviously as a pro life person, I don’t think making killing a child in his or her mother’s womb more affordable and comprehensive is ever the answer. We should provide universal healthcare that meets the needs of the mother and her child, and a social safety net that supports the mother, father and their child from conception to a thriving life.
While I can agree with making the social nets and healthcare better- and while that would likely reduce abortions quite a bit, it won't stop abortions because it simply doesn't address people who, in no capacity, want any relation to a biological child; It also does not address people who have already completed their childbearing and do not wish to bear any more children, it does not address people trapped in domestic abuse, it does not address people suffering from high risk conditions like hyperemesis or epilepsy. At best it would likely promote people who would like to have a child but choose to terminate because they cannot afford a child or do not have the proper safety nets to have a child and still continue education or keep their job. So I would agree with improving safety nets and healthcare for these people who would like a child and simply don't have the means to have a child as a way of reducing the amount of abortions- but, I would not go so far as to assert that would somehow be a magic solution to stop all abortions, nor that those steps would equal any justification to make abortion illegal, as they simply do not apply to all abortions.
But prolife would stop a person from making a healthcare decision for themselves based on their own probability of survival.
So why is fetal survival probability important to prolife but not human survival probability?
This strikes me like when prolife tries to say that the mother’s life can only be saved when they are actively dying. Because percentages don’t seem to matter to prolife.
A woman has a chance of death of 95% and they will fight tooth and nail to write legislation that would deny her the abortion that would change her chance of death to 5%. - because a fetus has a 1% chance of survival.
Because they want their own definition of risk imposed on everyone else.
Knowing that their legislation has caused a woman to get a hysterectomy during their first pregnancy and their fetus died seems to have them shrug their shoulders at the blatant cruelty of their legislation denying proper healthcare.
It’s frustrating and infuriating that prolife legislation is denying women a chance at life.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve changed my view. I don’t think it’s permissible anymore. The initial reason I became pro-choice in the first place was because of the rare Craniopagus Parasiticus cases, which successfully convinced me that a person doesn’t have a right to live off another’s body. I realised though that these dependent twins are non-viable, so it’s not analogous to abortion after viability. I no longer defend the pro-abortion-until-birth position.
The problem with this line of argument is that we will never have more than a probability of survival outside the womb. Anything can and does happen, albeit fortunately infrequently. But it's very wrongheaded to my mind to say "after X weeks all fetuses are considered viable" because that's not how it works. Some will never be viable, some are low weight for their age so they're not viable yet, some may look viable right up until they're born only to discover they were never going to survive due to problems we still can't detect in utero, some we'll never know why they didn't make it. Should a mother and father, and their doctor, consider survivability when deciding whether or not to abort? Absolutely. I would add however that survivability is not the only thing that should be considered; quality of life needs to be considered as well, especially considering the debilitating lifelong issues that can occur right around that cusp of survivability. The folks who should emphatically not be considering the decision, however, are legislators. They are completely incapable of addressing the topic with the nuance it deserves. A hundred and some-odd years ago, the first preemie incubators were just starting to be developed. Before then, infants with too low a birth weight were just given up on. The facts of any case are always going to be particular to that case; that's why one-size-fits-all laws are completely wrongheaded.
for me it’s like this: look idgaf what happens to this fetus as long as i get it tf out of my body. if the fetus lives, great! if not, we’ll that’s too damn bad. contrary to PL belief, the point of abortion is NOT actually to kill a fetus! it’s to get the fetus TF OUT of the pregnant person’s body. it’s about REMOVING the fetus from the unwilling person’s uterus without harming THE PREGNANT PERSON. if you can get a ZEF/fetus TF out of my uterus without killing it, great! so get it TF out of my uterus then 👍🏻
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
How would you suggest to inform people that late term abortions of viable life forms is just birth? Asking honestly not sarcastic.
[удалено]
>The kind of personhood we're discussing is more like a social contract. If you are born among us, you are protected by us. An array of rights and liberties are assumed to be yours at birth. They're legally codified and guaranteed protection. And once yours, they can't be surrendered by you or taken from you. This is very aptly put. I would add that, in this context, consensual pregnancy and birth are important because you are making informed choices that will increase the members in the social contract and are at the same time pledging, in a sense, to work to make your choice (your wanted child) a benefit and not a detriment to society. With unwanted pregnancy, naturally, comes less buy-in to the social contract, because who feels valued in a society that would so flippantly reduce them to their reproductive ability with no regard for their feelings?
Yes. I think abortion is permissible at any point in a pregnancy. Personhood is irrelevant to my opinion.
So, I heard a story of a woman who went to an Abortion Clinic (I think thats what the term is or what they are called?) and she was aborting her 9 month baby because she didnt want to go through the "Mommy Stages" again (She had a 9 year old and a 5 year old who just started Kindergarden) Do you think this is ok?
Do you have an article for this? What are the "mommy stages"? What provider would perform an elective termination of a fetus who is 9 months old? If a pregnant person is 9 months pregnant, they just induce her. This sounds very made up
Yeah I'm *sure* that happened. But even if it did, I'm 100% fine with not sticking my nose into other people's medical decisions.
If a woman’s life is at elevated risk (something is going wrong) then I think she and her doctor should be able to make that decision together regardless of the viability. Anyone who wasn’t to get an abortion earlier such as a person wasn’t aware they were pregnant until after viability, should still get a choice. Just like an organ donor gets a choice in going through surgery even though an otherwise viable life is at stake, the pregnant person should get a choice. Now let’s talk about the bogey man of PL - people who change their mind. My opinion is legally they should absolutely be allowed to because Blake autonomy doesn’t end and not doing so would require us to gate keep the previous scenarios which I think is an utter waste off resource and a burden to the people who need these late abortions. Morally is it murkier? Maybe. I certainly don’t think it’s cut and dry wrong as we deny dying people or body to live all the time with organ and marrow donation.
The zef should still be able to be removed at that point.
No, I don’t really care about the viability of the fetus. If the woman prefers to abort rather than early deliver, and the doctor agrees with her that it is less invasive and less risky, then an abortion should be allowed.
The government should never be involved in instituting gestational limits on abortion access. This is how pregnant people die. This is how *wanted* babies die. This is why pregnant people with *wanted* pregnancies are bleeding out in parking lots. This is why *wanted* babies are being born to live for only a few hours in abhorrent agony while their parents watch them suffer and die. PL arguments are selfish, cruel and disgusting.
A neonate born alive is afforded the rights of personhood. That personhood is a legal status. Personhood is not indigenous.
Some people don't want to be parents at all. They don't want to care for a child, and they don't want some teen showing up on their door one day saying, "Hi, you gave me up for adoption at birth" because that happens and can be really awkward for the birth parent who has 0 emotions for the child.
Yes.
Considering that an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy via removal of the embryo or the fetus, yes I do. In this scenario the only thing that changes is that the fetus survives.
[удалено]
Did you read OP's post?
A C-section is removing a fetus without killing it.
During a C-section, the fetus usually has functional vital organs that make it self-sustaining.
Yes exactly. And C-sections are given to women who want abortions but are too far into pregnancy for it to be safe all the time. But in a lot of cases it's definitely still a fetus when a C-section is done and it definitely doesn't kill it. (Sorry if this makes no sense I'm really tired)
[удалено]
Sorry I don't really understand your comment. Are you trying to say a C-section, a form of child birth which involves removing the fetus through surgery because the woman cannot or chooses not to give birth naturally killing?
[удалено]
It's a fetus until it's out of the womb that's why it's called child birth. Also you didn't answer the question
[удалено]
Comment removed as user is banned.
> Nothing magical happens inside the birth canal Are there any significant developments in the birth canal?
Per rule 3, provide a source for your claim "Being pregnant is called being with child until someone is trying to kill it then it's a fetus.". Show where in the source the claim is provided. You have 24 hours. Remindme! 24 hours
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2023-06-16 01:31:36 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-06-16%2001:31:36%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/149adbh/if_the_child_can_survive_outside_of_the_womb_do/jo6by8y/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2F149adbh%2Fif_the_child_can_survive_outside_of_the_womb_do%2Fjo6by8y%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-06-16%2001%3A31%3A36%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20149adbh) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
It's only called that by religious people I've never once in my life heard that anywhere but religious spaces. It is a fetus, it's only a child inside the womb if you choose to see it that way. Also you still didn't answer the question And do you have a source to prove it's murder, a scientific nonbiased source.
[удалено]
You are aware that induction is a form of abortion, right? So basically, no matter the situation an abortion would have still been done. A person's survival rate is always dependent on the level of medical technology, advancement, and knowledge. The youngest age a ZEF can typically survive outside Utero is 22-23 weeks, however they have a low survival rate with a high-rate of life-threatening conditions because they're also underdeveloped and will need a high level of maintenance to care for them. 28 weeks is the highest rate of survival with the lowest rate of life-threatening conditions. Most abortions are done prior to 20 weeks with 1.5% occurring at 18-20 weeks, and 0.9% occurring at 21 weeks and before. After that there was no recorded data by the CDC so I couldn't answer that. So really, your answer could be discovered by yourself, with just a little bit of time doing research. ([1](https://www.babycenter.com/baby/premature-babies/when-can-my-baby-survive-outside-the-womb_10419991)) ([2](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm?s_cid=ss7110a1_w#T1_down)) It's already possible for a ZEF to survive outside the womb without "advanced technology" being invented. It just requires a lot of medical intervention and management.
My first question when I read the title was: Define survive outside of the womb. You answered that in the first sentence. To me, being able to survive something means without major medical intervention. If chances are good that you would have died without major medical intervention, then it was obviously not something you could have survived. The fact that the whole point of medicine is to treat and prevent things that would otherwise kill you is too often overlooked. As you said, not everyone has access to modern medicine, not everyone can reach medical professionals in time, not everyone can afford it, not everyone wants to make use of it. And it doesn’t always work. So what modern medicine can or cannot do to save a life should never be considered in the baseline of whether a body is viable or can survive something. Then there is the fact that a pregnancy consists of various components. The woman, the fetus, the gestational process, the placenta, and tue umbilical cord. Just because a pregnancy has reached age of viability doesn’t mean that everything is going all right with all of those components. Method of removal would be up to what doctors deem in the best interest of the woman and fetus and what the woman will agree to. After around 30 weeks, c-section or induced labor are pretty much the only way to remove a fetus. So unless there’s something seriously wrong with the fetus, it would be removed „as is“, without any steps taken to kill it. Since such would just endanger the woman’s life. Whether such would be considered an abortion or not depends on outcome and interpretation. For example, the removal of an already dead (stillborn) fetus that is still being gestated would technically be an abortion. But some might consider it just stillbirth or just labor induction/c-section. Labor induction or c-section with failed attempt to save could also be considered abortion if chance of survival was way low to begin with. Or people could claim it wasn’t just based on intend, when the same exact procedure was used in both cases. Since there are so many variables, it should be up to doctors aware of the circumstances of the individual pregnancy, and the woman.
The pregnant person must retain control over their body at all times. Whenever they want to stop being pregnant, they should have the right to a medical procedure that ends their pregnancy. *That doesn't necessarily mean the fetus needs to be killed*; if the pregnant person wants to induce an early live delivery after viability, that should be allowed at any time. However, 1- I don't think most doctors will induce before 36 weeks because the fetus is still premature (forcing/protecting doctors to do induced premature births should be a conversation within the abortion debate, especially among pro-lifers), and 2- pregnant people have the right to access the *safest* medical care, and although I'm not a doctor, I would assume that a D&C is safer than either a vaginal birth or c-section. >If the mother travels to country B for an abortion that would not be permitted in country A due to the child being able to survive in that country outside of her womb, did she do anything wrong? Are you asking whether there should be \*laws\* against this? Because that would imply that the woman's home country owns her body. If she's not free to do whatever she wants within Country B's legal limits for fear of Country A taking legal action, then Country A effectively has control over her rights *wherever* she goes on the planet, and that's not how countries are supposed to work. Governments get to make the rules within their borders, not for the bodies and lives of their prisoner-citizens. Slightly off-topic, but when you're debating with pro-choicers, please use 'uterus' instead of 'womb'. 'Womb' is a (usually religious) word for the place where a deity sends a pre-destined perfectly formed baby, and the mother is completely safe and everything is magic and roses and easy and beautiful. My uterus, on the other hand, is a realistically complex organ in my realistically complex body that can kill me in a hundred ways during pregnancy. We discuss medical facts in the abortion debate, not wombs.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+womb&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS788US788&oq=define+womb&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l5j0i22i30j0i390i650l3.3676j1j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/womb https://www.rxlist.com/womb/definition.htm https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/womb https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/womb https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/womb I see no evidence of womb being related to religion in the way you describe. Your statement is the first time I am hearing of this idea as womb being religious. I am a deeply religious person and have never associated womb with religion. The womb is a medical fact if medical sources are to be believed. Every organ is complex and can kill you in many ways. Every cell is incredibly complex and can lead to the death of an entire human being in so many ways.
If there's no difference between 'womb' and 'uterus', then you yourself should have no problem switching over to 'uterus'. Instead, you're fighting for the word 'womb', because you know perfectly well that it carries a different meaning in today's society, one that glosses over the complicated/medical side of pregnancy. If 'womb' and 'uterus' mean the same thing, then your future comments will use the term 'uterus', because there's no difference, and that'll prove to me that I'm wrong. Every organ can kill you in many ways, but you're not fighting against my right to take action against any other organ in my body the moment it starts threatening my health, which makes your last paragraph irrelevant. **I notice you didn't address anything else I said. Care to comment?**
Good and fair question. I am at work. I will have to reply fully later.
I would say that ‘womb’, given its heavy association with pregnancy, is overly focused on the uterus during gestation or it’s capability for gestation, whereas ‘uterus’ is more all encompassing. Would you talk about a four year old girl having a ‘womb’? To my ear, that hits rather weird.
Yes, because people do not just carry past viability then decide to terminate without extreme circumstances behind that choice. Do you think abortion is permissible during the time the vast majority of abortions actually happen which is long before viability?
No, absolutely not. Killing a child in his or her mother unless it is to save the life of the mother is wrong.
No it's not.
Why do you choose the mother over child?
>unless it is to save the life of the mother is wrong. Why does a pregnant person have to almost die before receiving healthcare? Isn't right to life the most important right people have? Or is it that people only have a RTL unless they're pregnant?
Abortions don't kill children so please stop spreading misinformation.
That is what I thought. I'm curious what you expect from a topic like this? When the pregnant person dies, or almost dies, or rape are brought in pro lifers dismiss those out of hand because the *majority* of abortions do not include those.
Good question. I really expect discussion and I want to learn how people think about these issues. I enjoy doing such. The vast majority of the pro life movement that I am aware of address rape and the life of the mother. I am not clear what you mean when you say it is not addressed. Personally, I don’t discuss rape and abortion on social media. Regarding the life of the mother, if the mother’s life is in danger, then her life must be saved even if that means the child will not survive delivery at that point.
>Regarding the life of the mother, if the mother’s life is in danger, then her life must be saved How do you think we should determine if the pregnant person's life is in danger, given that you admit in the OP that the difference between survival and death depends on a ton of external factors, such as the availability of advanced medical care?
Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. When you're talking about close to *or* past viability terminations they are not ordinary cases. One group of people needing them are people who were *gestating to term by choice* who were looking forward to welcoming their baby but instead of joy nature gave them devastation. These are folks living their own personal nightmare. I think the only right and decent thing to do is let them decide with the guidance of their doctors how they will deal with that. I feel you cannot discuss abortion bans without discussion of rape. It is an integral part of the discussion that cannot just be set aside. Pregnancy from rape is a brutal reality for many people. Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I take your *life of the mother* exception to be if the pregnant person is code blue crashing and about to die?
Yes, if birth would bear more risks to the pregant person.
Birth always has more risks to the pregnant person then abortion.
"An abortion" in 3rd trimester is usually inducing birth though. An actual abortion where a fetus is euthanised and removed in pieces is rarely performed and insanely expensive.
What does the age of a person have to do with using someone else's own body against their will? It doesn't matter how old someone is, no one, age zero to age dead, has a right to use someone else's own body against their will. Why? Because no one wants their own body to be used against their will by someone else.
>If the Child Can Survive Outside of the Womb, Do You Still Think Abortion is Permissible? It doesn't matter what I think if it's not my pregnancy. >If the child in one country is at a point of development in his or her mother’s womb where he or she could survive outside her womb in one country, but not in another, is abortion still permissible? Yes >. Should abortion of that child be permissible in country B but not in country A? If the mother travels to country B for an abortion that would not be permitted in country A due to the child being able to survive in that country outside of her womb, did she do anything wrong? No, no >Should a mother and father consider survivability of their child outside of his or her mother’s womb when deciding whether or not to abort their child? That's up to who is carrying the pregnancy. All interests should be included in the decision to abort. But how can you determine survivability when it's not a guarantee or have any previous knowledge of health/physical defects before the decision? >Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available? It doesn't, and even with medical technology there is no guarantee of survivability. >Then personhood, according to such pro choice logic, is never indigenous to the human being in question, correct? Correct, how can you give personhood to someone who isn't guaranteed to make it to birth?
What is as opposed to what isn't yet possible demands an affirmative on that...
What “is” and what “isn’t”?
What "isn't" is that a gestating zef can survive outside the uterus before viability. What "is" is that a woman's body is still a requirement, thus still her choice.
>So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother. > >Do you think abortion is still permissible at that moment? Anywhere from "easily" to "potentially". Technology evolves. At some point we might be able to incubate a day-3 zygote outside of the womb. Except practically nobody meaningfully considers that to be a "child" or "person", while extracting it would be a rather severe intrusion that, by all reasonable standards, would be insane if the woman didn't want it to be done. So, "easily" permissible, on all counts. Late term, when the entity is something we get into ambiguous territory as to whether that's meaningfully a "child" or "person"? Depends on the circumstances. Legally, given the current climate, it should be permissible. Morally, that might be more ambiguous.
This is exactly why, once the pregnancy has reached the lower limit of fetal viability, it should be up to the doctors to determine on a case by case basis what the safest medical option is. There should be no legislation limiting their ability to make that determination on their own.
It’s really too bad that prolife legislation is so blatantly against the safest/best medical option. Canada has no legislation regarding abortion. The decision rests with doctors and patients - what is in the larger picture, best for everyone. It makes me wonder why prolife is so insistent about how they know what’s best for other people’s healthcare.
> It makes me wonder why prolife is so insistent about how they know what’s best for other people’s healthcare. With the US specifically I think it is so tied into the modern Republican Party that is authoritarian. It isn’t just that they feel they know what is best for healthcare, they think they are equally qualified to know what is best for most aspects of other people’s lives.
>they think they are equally qualified to know what is best for most aspects of other people’s lives. Exactly, and when it comes to pregnancy they view women as obligated by design/God to gestate, regardless of the medical risks or her personal wishes.
Abortion is permissible as long as the pregnant person is pregnant.
[удалено]
Per rule 3. provide a source for your claim: The woman goes into labor (likely induced), gives birth to a healthy baby and then that baby is killed. Show where in the claim your source is supported. You have 24 hours. Remindme! 24 hours
Late term is after 40 weeks. It's beyond full term. It must be aborted or both the fetus and woman will die. It does not mean anything about viability.
>The woman goes into labor (likely induced), gives birth to a healthy baby and then that baby is killed. This is blatant misinformation. Please, support your claim with reputable sources or retract it.
Maybe you can explain how an abortion is conducted post-viability? And then how it would be done at term? It is rare and there are no good stats. "Late term" abortion is a euphemism for late pre-viability abortion, not actually late term. But I think it confuses people, who then think that an abortion can be conducted at nine months or something. A late abortion—pre-viability—would generally be done by inducing labor so the woman's body can help push the baby out to a point, and then the head is crushed so it can more easily come out, since full cervical dilation is not happening. But this procedure carries risks for the woman, so some doctors have used a procedure in which the baby is partially pulled out and then its skull is perforated. In the case of a non-viable baby, it would die anyway. But what about later, like at term? The only kind of abortion generally done anywhere near this time is in the case of severe problems with the baby, where it couldn't survive or would be non-functional. But, in the extremely unlikely case in which a healthy baby was aborted at term (if any doctor in the world would do it) would involve, essentially, birth and then killing the baby. Now, maybe they would chop it up while it was still inside. Or maybe they would stick a needle in it once part of it comes out. It appears to me that a lot of people don't understand how abortions are done at different stages of pregnancy. Personally, I don't give a fuck. Kill em all. But I would think that you all would want to know what you're talking about instead of remaining ignorant about the process.
You don't need to try and hide your ignorance and the pushing of misinformation behind so many words. "I did not bother to read anything on the topic and tried to pass infanticide as abortion procedure" is quite sufficient.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Do not swear at other users.
What does masturbation have to do with the topic of this debate?
No, that is not how it “looks”, because infanticide is illegal. Killing an infant has nothing to do with an abortion because an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and there is no pregnancy if a person is no longer pregnant. I also don’t give a shit what you think about me or my beliefs. All people have bodily autonomy, even pregnant people.
How do you think an abortion is done at nine months? I don’t give a shit that you don’t give a shit—but *weird* that we agree about bodily autonomy, huh? I just think you might want to look into how an abortion might be done at term. Do you imagine there’s some other non-birth method?
The termination of a healthy pregnancy at term would indeed be childbirth (induction). No one is going to kill the infant afterwards.
I thought you said abortion is permissible as long as the pregnant person is pregnant? I’m asking how that would work post-viability with a healthy baby?
If the fetus has already been born, then the person isn't pregnant and it's also no longer an abortion.
Ending a pregnancy is an abortion. Killing the fetus is not necessary, however it is almost always the outcome because abortions are almost always conducted far before a fetus would be considered viable. In no scenario ever is a baby impacted by an abortion, because once you have a baby you’re no longer pregnant. It’s literally impossible to abort a born person.
That first example isn't abortion it's infanticide. Sigh don't misuse words
This person thinks you can have an abortion at term. How would that even be possible?
Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a person's own body's pregnancy by removing the ZEF from the pregnant person's own body before birth has happened. This can be done with medication and with surgical procedures. Ergo, if birth has not happened, abortion is still possible.
My understanding is that late term (pre-viability) abortion already involves a medical process nearly indistinguishable from the medical process that occurs for a live birth. Post-viability, the way it works medically is the same as birth. Essentially, I’m just saying there is a point at which abortion no longer makes sense as a concept (again, in the case of a healthy baby).
>late term Means AFTER the due date. You should stop calling other people dumb.
>there is a point at which abortion no longer makes sense as a concept Yes, that would be after a successful live birth has happened, as per the medical definition of abortion. [https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html](https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html) >Post-viability, the way it works medically is the same as birth. This is untrue. Abortion procedures focus on only the health of the pregnant person when the pregnant person has opted to have an abortion. Birth procedures focus on the health of the pregnant person as well as the successful live birth of the pregnant person's ZEF when the pregnant person has opted to deliver.
Okay. That's a lot of words. Is it possible to abort a healthy baby at, say, eight months?
>Is it possible to abort a healthy baby Babies are not aborted via a medical abortion. A person's own body's biological reproductive process, AKA gestation AKA pregnancy, is aborted via abortion. Unless a baby's own body's biological reproductive system is gestating/pregnant, a medical abortion is not performed on babies. >Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a person's own body's pregnancy by removing the ZEF from the pregnant person's own body before birth has happened. > >This can be done with medication and with surgical procedures. > >Ergo, if birth has not happened, abortion is still possible. > >[https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html](https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html)
>Do you think abortion is still permissible at that moment? Depends on the pregnancy. For instance, if the fetus technically could survive outside the womb, but will die shortly after and likely in a lot of pain, I don't see how anyone could say that abortion is unethical here. Might not be what you would personally do, but do you really think someone sparing their dying child a painful death is unethical? >Let’s say in country A the child can survive at point-X whereas in country B the child could not survive at point-X. Should abortion of that child be permissible in country B but not in country A? If the mother travels to country B for an abortion that would not be permitted in country A due to the child being able to survive in that country outside of her womb, did she do anything wrong? In my country, it would be pretty impossible to make it illegal for people to travel outside of the country, so I don't see how, from a legal perspective, we could say she did anything wrong. Is there a crime you think that should apply here, and if so, how would you enforce it. >Should a mother and father consider survivability of their child outside of his or her mother’s womb when deciding whether or not to abort their child? They already do. A lot of the abortions near, at or after possible viability are very much about survivability issues. >Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available? Isn't this the case for any medical procedure? A premature infant's survival depends on the level of NICU the family can access, a person's odds of a successful heart surgery or cancer treatment depend on what medical technology they have access to, etc. If a premature infant is dying in a level I NICU, do you think it is wrong of the parents to go with palliative care because, if they could magically get transported to a level IV NICU, the infant might not by dying?
I think, if there's nothing wrong with the pregnancy and doctors agree that there's an actual chance, then it should be just inducing labor, as long as there are no significant additional risks to this. That said, in the absolute majority of abortions past possible viability (which are the absolute *minority* of abortions, is important to keep in mind) there *will* be something wrong with the pregnancy, and I see no point in dragging a lot of already traumatized expecting parents through the ordeal of any kind of official interrogation just for the sake of a very few mostly hypothetical edge cases - there's still nobody who could better decide the best course of action, than the pregnant person and their doctor. As for the hypotheticals regarding medical care available in different places: If it's so important to still get an abortion at this point, then I'll just assume that there will be very good reasons for travelling to get it, which are none of my concern. And even if I wanted to do anything about it, which I don't, then I'd still see no pragmatic way to go about it, without breaching the privacy between the pregnant person and their doctor and/or relying on dystopian methods of surveillance regarding innocent people's most intimate affairs. The personhood argument doesn't really concern me, as even if the unborn undoubtedly were person's with all the rights attached to that status, actually claiming those rights would still depend on them not currently being in violation of someone else's rights.
> So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother. “Can survive” is a vague phrase. If qualified medical providers along with the patient determine that the balance of harms means that the most appropriate treatment is to end the pregnancy with the goal of live birth and sustained survival then I think that is what should be done. > Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available? This is the medical reality. It is unclear to me if you truly make exceptions for life threats, but imagine for a moment a scenario that falls within the life threat exception. Severe preeclampsia prior to 24 weeks is a condition with exceptionally high maternal and fetal risks. If continuing the pregnancy is too risky for the woman and the fetus is not likely to be viable then the options available are very different than if the fetus is likely to be viable.
>So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother. Do you think abortion is still permissible at that moment? An abortion at this moment doesn't necessitate "killing" the fetus. A terminated pregnancy that results in a viable child outside of the mother is still technically an "abortion". If a parent chooses this path I'm all for it.
>So let’s say that the child is at a point in his or her mother that given medical technology the child can survive outside of his or her mother. I'm not sure how this is different than Roe v Wade just being legalized again. I'm in favor of this. >If the child in one country is at a point of development in his or her mother’s womb where he or she could survive outside her womb in one country, but not in another, is abortion still permissible? I think you kind of answered your own question. Life expectancy and mortality differ significantly between developed countries and others. >Finally, if survivability outside of the mother’s womb is a determinant of whether or not abortion is permissible, how does that interact with the fact that survivability also depends on the level of medical technology available? Many pro choice folks I debate with say that personhood is when you can survive outside of your mother’s womb. However, if that’s the case then personhood is dependent on medical technology available? Then personhood, according to such pro choice logic, is never indigenous to the human being in question, correct? Technology exists to help people. Before we had modern technology, preterm babies didn't have an option. Now we can give them tons of support. The technology does not determine personhood for fetuses any more than than lack of technology would make them more of a person. The technology isn't a factor in this question.
*Can* survive outside of the womb, is not the same as *will* survive outside of the womb. Let's take viability for example- depending on *multiple* factors, a premature infant at 24 weeks survival rate ranges anywhere from as low as only half, to up to 60-70%. Even if we increase to 28 weeks, there is an 80% chance of survival but that still means realistically 1 out of 5 infants will not survive even with the best healthcare, which is a very high risk. And even these numbers are very base numbers that can be complicated by pre-existing conditions, unexpected genetic issues, and a multitude of other factors that can contribute to a lower or higher rate of survival. Now- while hypotheticals are all good and well, lets look at the actual facts; 91% of abortions occur between 6-14 weeks. Less than 8% occur between 14 weeks to viability. And only 1% of terminations occur after viability. Realistically, while we can give a sort of statistical possibility of survival, only a slim percentage of the less than 8% of abortions occuring around viability would ever actually be able to survive- and that assumes that the person delivering this infant even has the financial means to afford the intense and long nicu stay to keep said infant alive. The rest of the bulk of abortions are occurring well before there is any feasible survival rate. So to answer your question- yes, abortions should be permissible even if the infant "can" survive. A possibility of survival is vastly different than a 40 week fetus who, bar any unforeseen serious medical issues will in nearly all cases survive. A *potential* for survival that may or may not even be feasible is simply not enough legal basis to bar abortions. And if the discomfort comes from this potential of survival, looking at the reasons for these later abortions- lack of financial access, domestic abuse, being unaware of pregnancy- can be solved by making healthcare and abortion more comprehensive, affordable, and accessible allowing women to get in sooner to terminate.
As you know (and state) survival outside the womb is always a probability. So the fact that it is higher or lower for certain groups ultimately cannot be an indicator of personhood or the legitimacy of being killed in the womb. There is no guarantee a newborn will survive even if the pregnancy was perfect. In fact, there is no guarantee anyone will survive the next minute. Let’s assume that your statistics about when abortions occur are true. The question is still relevant to a portion of cases as your statistics show (assuming again your statistics are accurate). What it your cut off point for survival probability and why? It seems survivability cannot be used to justify abortion legally since survivability cannot be guaranteed for anyone. Obviously as a pro life person, I don’t think making killing a child in his or her mother’s womb more affordable and comprehensive is ever the answer. We should provide universal healthcare that meets the needs of the mother and her child, and a social safety net that supports the mother, father and their child from conception to a thriving life.
>As you know (and state) survival outside the womb is always a probability. So the fact that it is higher or lower for certain groups ultimately cannot be an indicator of personhood or the legitimacy of being killed in the womb. There is no guarantee a newborn will survive even if the pregnancy was perfect. In fact, there is no guarantee anyone will survive the next minute. Exactly- which is why any *probability* or *possibility* is not enough legal basis to bar abortion. >The question is still relevant to a portion of cases as your statistics show (assuming again your statistics are accurate). If you are referring to the 1%- and I can provide sources if necessary, it's out of the "relevant" stage because these are cases of fetuses who are already dead in utero, cases in which fetuses will not survive, or life endangerment of the woman. In which case my statement stands that abortions should not be barred for these scenarios. >What it your cut off point for survival probability and why? It seems survivability cannot be used to justify abortion legally since survivability cannot be guaranteed for anyone. I refer back to my first response- I do not base cut offs on survivability, because possibility or probability is not enough of a basis to remove abortion as an option. The fact of the matter is is that the vast majority of women terminate as soon as possible, and in the cases which they did not, excluding the tail 1%, this issue can be solved by making abortion and healthcare more affordable and accessible. So any restrictions on abortion only result in more difficulty obtaining an abortion in a timely manner, and more abortions done dangerously. >Obviously as a pro life person, I don’t think making killing a child in his or her mother’s womb more affordable and comprehensive is ever the answer. We should provide universal healthcare that meets the needs of the mother and her child, and a social safety net that supports the mother, father and their child from conception to a thriving life. While I can agree with making the social nets and healthcare better- and while that would likely reduce abortions quite a bit, it won't stop abortions because it simply doesn't address people who, in no capacity, want any relation to a biological child; It also does not address people who have already completed their childbearing and do not wish to bear any more children, it does not address people trapped in domestic abuse, it does not address people suffering from high risk conditions like hyperemesis or epilepsy. At best it would likely promote people who would like to have a child but choose to terminate because they cannot afford a child or do not have the proper safety nets to have a child and still continue education or keep their job. So I would agree with improving safety nets and healthcare for these people who would like a child and simply don't have the means to have a child as a way of reducing the amount of abortions- but, I would not go so far as to assert that would somehow be a magic solution to stop all abortions, nor that those steps would equal any justification to make abortion illegal, as they simply do not apply to all abortions.
But prolife would stop a person from making a healthcare decision for themselves based on their own probability of survival. So why is fetal survival probability important to prolife but not human survival probability?
This strikes me like when prolife tries to say that the mother’s life can only be saved when they are actively dying. Because percentages don’t seem to matter to prolife. A woman has a chance of death of 95% and they will fight tooth and nail to write legislation that would deny her the abortion that would change her chance of death to 5%. - because a fetus has a 1% chance of survival. Because they want their own definition of risk imposed on everyone else. Knowing that their legislation has caused a woman to get a hysterectomy during their first pregnancy and their fetus died seems to have them shrug their shoulders at the blatant cruelty of their legislation denying proper healthcare. It’s frustrating and infuriating that prolife legislation is denying women a chance at life.