[deleted] t1_jaty66d wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:21 AM

Reply to comment by Yolectroda in SC woman charged after allegedly consuming abortion pills to end pregnancy by MajesticOuting

[deleted]

Yolectroda t1_jatzz9c wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:36 AM

> arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

This is not remotely arbitrary. It's based on the point where the fetus is no longer a growth on another person, but is it's own person (see below on this).

As compared to pretty much every time based abortion ban, which are generally based on an actual "arbitrary" point in time, sometimes attempted to be justified by calling it "viability", but that's all over the place biologically speaking, while the laws generally aren't. And sometimes they pass laws that are supposed to be based on a heartbeat, but they're actually time based, and the heartbeat of a fetus is mostly just a pulsing tube for the first few month. Also, since a heartbeat itself has no impact on what makes us a person, it's also entirely arbitrary.

So, if you actually believe that it shouldn't be arbitrary, then feel free to join me.

And yes, the laws that we have in the US recognize that a person isn't a person until they're born. Prior to that, they don't have any of the rights that a person has, because "person" is a legal term, not a biological one. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact. Most states grant some rights to the unborn, but not based on any personhood.

Wojtas_ t1_javmo74 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:32 PM

Viability is a good indicator. While there are obviously outliers, there's a clearly defined moment at around the ~23-24th week of pregnancy where the fetus becomes very likely to survive outside of the womb. After the 25th week, it's almost guaranteed.

Before this moment, it's fully dependent on its mother to survive, and abortion is just that - abortion, and there's nothing wrong with it, the fetus is just a part of the woman's body, over which she should have complete control.

But later, it's killing someone who could have lived. You could end pregnancy and still have a living person, even if they'll need a few more months in an incubator. I find this a lot more controversial, although I'll refrain from making any judgements - every case is different. Nevertheless, there is an objective distinction.

And the law agrees almost all around the western world. Nearly all European countries ban abortion after the 20th week, and just about every US state used to have a limit at 25-30 weeks before the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Yolectroda t1_jawn8b8 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 5:21 PM

Biologically, this is mostly just dogma and legal definitions. Viability varies entirely by the technology available to the caregivers. For example, in low income countries, about half of babies born prior to 32 weeks died. Viability is not a biological fact, but simply shifting human medical capabilities. (Here's more on viability, including the various legal definitions.)

Of course, this brings up a controversial topic. Right now, we have the technology to put a fetus in an artificial womb. Lambs have been grown from 4 weeks in these conditions. The only reason why we haven't seen more experiments on humans is because of ethical issues and laws. This technology effectively puts viability into the first trimester (and eventually, we likely wouldn't even need gestation to start in a person at all).

Treating a fetus as a fully grown human simply because we have medical technology isn't much of an objective distinction, but is a shifting line that moves based on location, financial resources, time, and a ton of luck.

And yes, much of Europe is more backwards than the US is on abortion. It's something we were leading the world on for a long time.

Wojtas_ t1_jaxa0ex wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:56 PM

That is a fair point which I've failed to consider. While I still can't think of a better distinction, this seems like a pointless discussion - abortions performed after the 25th week make up a statistically non-existent portion of all procedures, even in places which allow abortion up to the very end. That suggests they're only made in exceptional circumstances, and banning them would be harmful, supporting the view that all abortion should be legal. However, I do not feel qualified or entitled to making opinions or suggestions on this topic, and I'll gladly leave it to doctors who know what they're talking about, and women who these laws actually concern. Here's hoping they'll be the ones actually leading the discussion, and not religious-lunatic politicians with zero respect for human rights...

Yolectroda t1_jaxfxqr wrote on March 4, 2023 at 8:37 PM

That's actually one of the biggest reasons to oppose restrictions at that point in pregnancy. Women who get abortions that late in a pregnancy almost always have exceptional situations, either medical or personal, and as you said, would be harmful. It's kinda like what the Utah governor said about the trans sports bans, there's so few of them and they're doing their best to work things out, that treating the situation with compassion rather than anger and prohibition makes the most sense (though sadly, they then overrode his veto, passing law that screwed over like 4 children in the state, at that time).