Skip to main content

View Diary: Iowa GOP bill lets women sue doctors over 'abortion regret' (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Birth defects are fine. (0+ / 0-)

    That should be an exception, as I stated (along with maternal health/life). At the same time, I don't think that 20-week abortions should be allowed for any reason. I am pro-choice, but I support reasonable limits on abortion.

    •  You just contradicted yourself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bananapouch1

      If abortion for birth defects are acceptable, then you have to allow for abortion after 20 weeks since that's the earliest you can detect many of them.

      Why not let the doctors and patients be the one to make that decision?

      Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by seventh graders for balance. They found your paper "bogus," describing the lab work as "boring." We will be unable to publish your work at this time.

      by Rrhain on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:13:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I misstated myself. (0+ / 0-)

        I meant to say that abortions after a certain time point should require a concrete reason. My "any reason" comment referred to that.

        •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bananapouch1

          If it is OK to terminate a pregnancy at a certain point because of birth defects, then why not for any other reason?

          Or perhaps the much-maligned "trimester" reasoning of Roe v. Wade actually makes some sense:  There is no defined point between fertilization and birth that can be pinpointed as "the moment" when a fetus can no longer be aborted but rather it is something that gradually comes along.  That as the pregnancy continues, the state slowly gains an interest in protecting the fetus.  That the law needs clear lines and even though we cannot truly draw one, we will make do with "good enough" in order to do our best to balance the rights of the woman with the rights of the developing fetus.

          I agree that there comes a point where a woman should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy for "any reason."  We're just arguing over where to draw that line.

          20 weeks is not the place to draw it.

          Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by seventh graders for balance. They found your paper "bogus," describing the lab work as "boring." We will be unable to publish your work at this time.

          by Rrhain on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:27:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  20 weeks is too early? (0+ / 0-)

            That's close enough to a point where a fetus can survive outside the uterus on its own. A 20-week fetus probably won't survive, but it's only a few weeks before it potentially could. Having an second or even third trimester abortion due to a birth defect is acceptable IMO because the fetus probably would not have a chance of surviving and living a normal life. On the other hand, having an abortion when the fetus wouldn't be far away from the point where it could survive isn't acceptable in my view if there is no compelling reason.

            I agree with the Roe reasoning that you cannot draw a clear line where one day a fetus is a clump of cells, and the other day it's a human being. It could make sense to have time intervals where up to a point abortion is acceptable for any reason, after the point it's fine for birth defects, and later on only for fatal birth defects and threats to the pregnant woman's life/health. Although I think Roe's trimester standard was overruled and replaced by the vague "undue burden" test in 1992, and SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the 20-week bans yet (they've been struck down in some circuits, but not even challenged in others).  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (53)
  • Republicans (35)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Elections (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Media (24)
  • Spam (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • GOP (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Law (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Economy (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site