Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
It's not inconsistent. For the state to limit access to a medical procedure and take it out of the hands of the doctor and the patient, then there is the burden to show that there's some sort of harm taking place. Absent that, it's purely a medical decision, which is what Altaguy is saying. Sure, if doctors were aborting infants during labor, or people were regularly getting 35+ week abortions for non-medical reasons, then maybe it would warrant government intervention. But we can only deal with the reality that exists, and that's one where late term abortions for non-medical reasons are basically non-existent.
|
A better analogy would be that we would only need legislation around euthanasia if a bunch of people were abusing it to secure inheritances, and not before. But we impose all sorts of laws and regulations intended to prevent even rare abuses.
The fact is that AltaGuy’s opinion - that gestation term should have no bearing on the state’s handling of abortion - is far outside the mainstream even of pro-choice supporters. As Corsi says, it’s the kind of moral grandstanding you see on social media but which ignores the complexity of the issue.