A fully developed born human being has no right to set up residence inside of a woman's body and drain her resources. An unborn human being shouldn't be granted the right to violate and endanger a woman that way either.

It's very simple. Either women have a right to bodily autonomy and the right to refuse the use of their bodies just like men, or they don't. Development stage doesn't matter. A fully sentient man has no right to use my body against my will, not even if I harm him in a way that he would require my blood/tissue to survive. Why should a fetus of any stage of development be granted superior rights over my body and why should my rights be usurped because of my chromosomes?

In short, a woman must have the right to expel an unwanted entity from her body no matter how far long she is, regardless of whether it means the death of said entity or not. The truth of the matter is, however, that sane women don't go through that much in a pregnancy only to decide in the final month that they want to fit into a bikini again. By that time their bodies are already warped and distorted and they're going to have as much trouble fitting into that two-piece as they would have if they had carried to term. If a woman knowingly carries a pregnancy for that long it's intended to be for keeps and any abortion at that point would be due to abnormalities or complications.

It's very insensitive towards women who have had to abort for medical reasons to keep going on with garbage like this, and it's offensive to women in general to assume that any mentally balanced woman would put her body through all that just to abort at a whim.

You clearly didn't actually read a word I said.

"There are safe and non-lethal ways to remove the fetus if she does not want it inside of her uterus anymore".

I am NOT saying "forced gestation". I am saying "non-lethal removal"

Secondly, you clearly didn't read the part where I mentioned "aside from the usual listed exceptions" which if you know anything, includes abortions for medical, mental, fetal deformity, rape, etc etc etc. There are many many exceptions to the rule where the mother's life does come first because it is the host.

However, in most other cases, there is NO excuse for a late-term abortion. I know they are rare. However, I am trying to also explain that viability isn't just a reason for why I find elective late-term abortions wrong. It is also why I feel electve early-term are acceptable.

Even I am getting sick of hearing that a fetus is raping the woman. Whether you like it or not, a pregnancy is how humans reproduce. It's natural. For as long as the fetus is inviable and incapable of being independent, it is without rights. But when it is capable of surviving on its own, it has the RIGHT to do so. It can feel pain, it can think just as well as a newborn. It can feel emotion, fear, etc. It is a baby; it's just inside you. No, it "technically" doesn't have the right to be there.

But how can you rationalize "lethal force" when the "perpetrator" is not killing YOU? Again remember that I'm talking about an elective abortion. If you're 8 months along, what the hell were you doing up till now!? If you want the pregnancy out of
you, fine. I've got no problem with it. But you waited too long. It is now viable. Now, it has some rights too. It may not have the right to use your body against your will, but it DOES have the right to life, as it is now CAPABLE of life.

I'm not discussing or promoting "potential life" here. I'm not discussing fetuses that "could someday" become babies. They ARE babies. They ARE viable. If you have a late-term abortion, you DO kill a baby. Is this sometimes necessary? Yes. But when it's not necessary for it to die, when the abortion is "elective", then you have no right to kill it.

Again, I know that the majority of late-term abortions are not elective and that elective late-term abortions are actually illegal in most places. I'm not talking about the necessary abortions.

This entire argument is geared towards pro-choicers who believe that at NO time should voluntary abortion be illegal for any reason. They believe that you should be able to electively kill a fetus even if it is a day from its due day. Hell, I'd even be willing to bet that they'd say it would be fine to have an abortion if the woman was in LABOR, because "the fetus is still inside of her!!"

Anyway, next time try actually reading what I write.

I never made an argument against safely removing a viable fetus, I said that women do not carry a pregnancy that far if they don't have the intention of having a baby. Therefore any abortions at that point take place because the fetus is doomed or the woman is dying. I doubt that any woman deliberately trying to have a baby would want a healthy fetus killed in the process of removal and there have already been plenty of babies born premature for reasons of preserving the mother's life, so you're barking at shadows.

I support a woman's right to electively abort at whatever stage because I don't know every woman's circumstances and I don't think I or anyone else has the right to say how bad her health condition has to be or how close to death she has to get before doing it. I don't know about other prochoicers but I don't want prolife revisions to abortion law putting women in their graves. That does not mean that women are going to abort at eight months to fit into a bikini, nor does it mean that aborting a pregnancy has to mean death to the fetus. It just means that women won't have to wait for prolife approval before ending a pregnancy that is harming/killing them. Whether the fetus survives or not is a matter of circumstance.

I'm sure there are some women in some places of the world that aren't able to handle the change to their lives and bodies and panic when the end is near. I'm sure these women would abort because they are terrified and confused, rather than for health reasons. Just as some women carry all the way to term only to give birth in a toilet at a fast food restaurant and throw the newborn in the dumpster. These people are the exception, not the rule, and they act out of psychological/emotional unbalance or total shock. I've never understood how a woman can go for nine months without knowing she was pregnant but it allegedly happens. I can imagine how shocking it would be to go to the bathroom thinking you had a case of explosive diarrhea and end up giving birth instead of going number 2. I would probably be in shock too.

Eiri, I DID ready your argument and to me it might as well have come out of the mouth of an anti-choicer. I'm sure if you had seen a prolifer making the same argument you would have rolled your eyes. You made it sound like there are never reasons for a woman to abort a late term pregnancy. I half expected you to call gestational diabetes an "inconvenience". Your immediate hostile reaction when I explained my position on the matter was uncalled for, as was your definition game of turning "bodily violation" into "rape".

If someone ties me up and drains my blood against my will, they are violating my body. If someone throws me down and forces sexual acts on me, they are raping me. Please understand the difference before you use strawman fallacies to attack people. You complained because you felt I didn't read your post because you didn't like what I had to say, and then you turned around and warped what I and other prochoicers have said concerning the violation of using a woman's body against her will and tried to make it look like we were accusing babies of throwing these women down and having their way with them! Time out, sister!!

I mean really...try to visualize what you're accusing us of. I'd have laughed out loud if it weren't so disturbing.

I agree 10000%. Why abort when you can just give birth? Either way you have to get it out of you but one way there is an unnecessary killing of another.

Well just remember that I am still 100% for early-term abortions. I don't consider the fetus "another" until it is viable.

Darkmoon is also still ignoring the fact that I am discussing women who for whatever reason, who knows? - decide to have a late-term abortion. Several women on this forum will tell you that it doesn't matter how long a woman waits: she still has a right to kill the fetus in the process of removing it because it is raping her, it is attacking her, etc etc etc.

Do I know her circumstance? No. But I do know that the fetus is now viable. Murder isn't "ok" just because I don't happen to know her circumstances. I'm sorry, but what viable excuse can you think of for a woman to abort in the eight or ninth month of pregnancy that is not a medical need? She changed her mind? A little late for that. She couldn't get the money until now? That's an excuse that makes me want to vomit. It's a terrible excuse. Not every reason is a good reason. Everything has a limit.

As I've said before, too much freedom is just as dangerous as too little freedom. Too much freedom is anarchy. There have to be rules and there has to be common sense.

Do you ACTUALLY think it is okay for someone you know to carry eight months and then just decide to abort? What if she's due in a week? Do you actually think it's OK? That it is totally, 100% ethical? Do you really believe that a baby doesn't die? All that baby has to do is be pulled out of her body and it is completely functional. Is it OK to murder it just because it's inside of her? Why? Is it killing her? No, we've already confirmed that this abortion is not for any medical reason.




Sometimes, it's too late to fix something. That sucks, trust me. I have been in several situations that no matter how good my intentions were, it was just too late. 8 months in is too late. Sometimes you DO have to suffer through consequences.

I don't ever say "why abort when you can give birth" because birth is, for many women, an incredibly painful process. That's what a c-section is for.

Is a late-term abortion safer than a c-section? I don't actually know. I'd say the risk is probably slightly higher for the c-section, but again - you do have to pay a price for waiting too long. I don't hear of many women dying from c-sections. A baby dies every time a late-term abortion is done. Not a POTENTIAL baby. No. A REAL, HERE AND NOW baby.

And I'm not asking the woman to take the baby, goodness no. Off to adoption with it. Is this ideal? No. The baby should have been aborted months ago, before it WAS a baby.

Is ANY of this ideal? No. But guess what? Sometimes, you DO have to pay the price, you do have to suffer, and you do have to get the short end of the stick. Maybe next time you'll abort sooner.

Common exceptions: teens, incest victims, rape victims, fetuses with defects, women who are suffering severe mental or physical problems and/or are going to die, and any other woman who is determined to be unable to continue the pregnancy due to risk factors.

Then again, if the baby is wanted, in most of the above cases of maternal danger (and occasionally fetal danger not caused by defects) everything is done too save the fetus. So how can you justify killing a baby that can be saved? It makes no sense to me.

I'm with moonie 100% on this. I'm sorry, Eiri, but although you have provided some nice arguments regarding the (im)morality of late-term non-therapeutic abortions, you fail to persuade me why it should be illegalised.

Th argument "I don't know every woman's situation but I do know that the foetus is viable" is no different to the quintessential pro-life "I don't know every woman's situation but I do know that the five-week old embryo is contains human DNA and will grow into a born baby". All state hypothetical, possible events, not actual, 'right-now-this-moment' statuses, which fundamentally renders the argument moot.

As my original quote shows, regardless of the development of the foetus, the actual fact it exists parasitically insde and from the bodily resources of an individual, discreet human being right up until birth means it shouldn't get the rights of an individual, discreet human being. As simple as that. Choosing the point of viability - which is merely a natural part of a developing pregnancy that states a hypothesis that x could survive if y were to happen - as the cut-off time for elective abortions is as arbitrary as choosing the point the foetus gets eyelids. The key is to avoid hypocrisy and sentimental feelings and stick on the topic of bare common sense.

You say there have to be rules - yes, I agree, the rule that the Government should have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere with the bodily autonomy of every person. That wonderful libertarian notion: "You have the right to do whatever you like with your own body and property as long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's right to do the same thing". We have material property (homes, clothing) and natural property (body), the latter of which is a pillar to our independence, existence, and self-determination as individuals. The foetus, however, is not an individual, and therefore cannot be granted this 'right'. I'll highlight this concisely with two incriminating facts: a) the foetus is physically attached to the body of an aforesaid discreet individual. It also requires sustainance from its mother's respiratory and circulatory system in order to exist, regardless of gestational age and development (even viable foetuses would not survive if their mother ceased the foetus's access to her body). All foetuses, thus, are not discreet individuals, and it is based on this concept that human rights are granted; bi) the foetus's presence in the body of the female nullifies her bodily autonomy and vice-versa supposing the woman would want to regain this autonomy by removing the foetus; bii) the right to control one's own body does not include the right to exist is another's; in fact, this is contradictory to that very idea. Abortion could be justified as the regaining of the female's bodily autonomy and giving the foetus a 'fair crack' at surviving by itself, although because it cannot, death is a natural and unavoidable consequence. This is called the principle of double effect.

Actually, I didn't really need to even mention bi) and bii), which would only be necessary assuming that the foetus is an individual (and it isn't, just in case you didn't get that by now!); the first argument suffices. Notice I refer to foetuses generally. This is intended as biologically there is no difference between these philosophies being applied to embryoes, foetuses, or late-terms. So, eight months in being "too late" is groundless tripe. And the late-termer does not have the right not to be murdered, as you erroneously spout with no evidence, yet again.

Secondly, we are met with a barrier I would've predicted you would've passed by now. "Late-term abortions are wrong, BUT if you were raped, well...". It's a pathetic argument. Perhaps the weakest I've ever seen from a pro-choicer. So, if late-term foetuses are the same as neonates, neonates resulting from rape can be killed? No, I didn't think so. Why? Because foetuses are unborn, which means they are not independent, which means they are rightless, which means their hostess has the right to choose whether to abort however it got there. I am still quite dumbfounded as to why you assume the origin of the foetus's existence changes whether or not it is the same as a neonate and should or should not (based on BIOLOGY, according to you believe it or not) be protected from being killed. Enlighten me.

I also disapprove of your use of mur[i]der[/i] here - a foetus cannot be murdered. Killed - yes; murdered - no. I object this linguistic, biased twist. If you "find late-term abortions for 'change of heart' reasons nauseating", don't have a late-term abortion for 'change of heart' reasons.

Yet again, a heinous attempt at justifying slavery. Sorry, Eiri.

Leaving aside the fact that it is almost entirely academic, i.e. even if it were legal, the number of women who would opt to abort for non-medical reasons after 24 weeks (if they had had adequate opportunity to have an abortion earlier) is so tiny as to be almost imaginary, I would tend to think that after this stage it would be reasonable to remove the fetus from the womb alive, and have it made a ward of the state, at no cost or responsibility to the woman. That is, aborting the pregnancy but allowing a viable fetus to be artificially kept alive in an incubator. Given that it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds for an early premie, not to mention treatment for whatever physical and developmental problems arise due to premature delivery, it would be up to "society" to decide how much it was willing to pay to keep unwanted late-term fetuses alive.

Again, I know the number is small. This discussion isn't really about the actual cases, it is more about the mental and ethical discussion. It's about really exploring what you consider right and wrong, and less about whether or not the situation actually comes up. It's a thought exercise, and it comes up every now and again when a (semi)extreme pro-choicer states that they approve of 7-9 month voluntary abortions, stating flimsy arguments such as "well if a mentally handicapped person attacked you, you'd have the right to lethal force". A fetus isn't attacking anyone.

At these stages, and incubator really isn't usually necessary because the fetus is just so developed that it's fine on its own. That's why I can't understand anyone who thinks that a voluntary late-term abortion is OK.

By the way Kypros, I am not even going to read your post. I already PMed you previously. You know my stance in regards to your behavior towards me.

Eiri, I know your stand on aborion and I know what you are trying to say about late term abortion..

I wonder when morals ever kick in? I know there are not many late tem abortions but in my opinion any women that aborts at 6-7-8-or more months “just because” is being selfish and in my eyes it is ~homicide~

Well at 6 months the fetus isn't viable yet so I haven't got a problem with it. But past that, it's a different ballpark.

How much does an abortion cost? Around $500 yes? It does not take 6 months to acquire $500. And if you're so poor you *can't*, then there's aid available.

In general, babies born after 24 to 25 weeks of gestation are mature enough to survive, although they will need a prolonged period of intensive care.


http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/newborn/pre mature_babies.html

Some do survive at 6 months . It's a tough one but they do. From what I have read it depends of the weight of the premature child too.

In the interest of pointing out inaccuracies that only lead towards further stereotypes of women, how many women list "just because" as a reason they obtain a late(r) term abortion?



Could you describe this aid available please?

I disagree totally.

Developmental stage means everything, with regard to gestation. It means that the embryo/fetus is where nature put it, just as nature has done for millions of years. It means that the embryo/fetus is totally helpless and incapable of self-defense.

Since "rights" are not an inherent physical quality, it is safe to assume that they are dependent upon the generosity of the human(s) in control of the situation. Therefore, it is our shortcoming that unborn, non-viable human beings do not have "rights", not theirs.

"Another" what?

Then you probably wouldn't be persuaded if someone argued that the killing of newborns should be illegal. Morally, there's no difference.


Only in a world where "instant gratification" is more important than human life.


ANY "cut-off time for elective abortions" will ALWAYS be arbitrary, and immoral.


"Individual" simply means one of a kind, it does not mean "born", nor "independent". That is a shabby attempt at semantic dishonesty. Nor is there any tradition which links "individuality" to "rights".


Actually, any fetus that is aborted illegally is "murdered", by definition.

No, it is your shortcoming that women have no rights to make their own decisions regarding their personal medical care. You wish to have "control of the situation" and would strip aside "generosity" in a millisecond for your own selfish means.

I do not know if abortion has personally affected your life in a serious way but your photograping of women entering a clinic to have surgery is not a healthy way to address it. You have no idea why those women are there-and you prefer to trounce all over them because you have labeled them all as some such in your mind without actually finding out the facts.