That strikes me as very much of a strawman argument, as late-term abortions are not just incredibly rare (this interview with a woman who had to have an abortion at 32-weeks for medical reasons gives insight into how awful the whole process is — and how expensive it was for something that was absolutely medically necessary in her case [1] as the fetus was incompatible with life and there were medical complications that would make a live birth a potential death sentence for the woman involved), but that there are very few doctors who will even perform them in cases when they are medically necessary. And very few states that even allow that to happen.

But if you’re asking directly if I think someone should be able to prioritize their own life in place of someone else’s, well yes, yes I do.

[1]: https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-... anyone who wants to rail about late-term abortions without knowing the pain and suffering that is involved for the women that have to get them needs to read that interview. All of it. Then read it again. And then think about why the focus of this debate is on the extremely-rare scenarios that are not about people changing their minds and not wanting to bring a child into the world, but are terribly sad medical scenarios.

This already happens when the fetus is unviable or already dead, called a D&C. If a doctor and a patient is legally obstructed from D&C, we will have cases where someone has to birth a dead baby or, if their contractions process isn't working, become septic and die.

He was obviously asking about viable pregnancies.

He’s not though because anyone who follows this knows that late-term abortions are almost entirely situations where the fetus is incompatible with life (an actual medical term), there are ridiculous risks to the mother’s life, or other very sad scenarios. I’ve never even heard of modern cases where perfectly healthy fetuses were aborted at late stages. I’m sure that they have happened, but the rarity of it happening — not just because so few doctors do that work for medically necessary reasons and even fewer would do it for someone who just changed their mind, but because it is a prohibitively expensive procedure ($25,000 or more).

This 2016 interview with a woman who had an abortion at 32 weeks after she found out her fetus would not survive outside the womb and who then had to suffer through 24 hours of labor and have her dead child ripped from her womb (and prior brain surgery meant she couldn’t push), really paints a picture of the terrible reality for anyone forced to be in a position to terminate a pregnancy at such a late stage: https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-...

That's not how late-term abortion actually works. Practically all late-term abortions are wanted children who for one reason or another don't work out. They are cases of extensive tragedy. Banning very late pregnancy termination directly means that doctors will not be allowed to save lives because it will mean ending the pregnancy.

When crafting law it is vitally important to understand how this would realistically affect people.

Who decides if a pregnancy is viable?

If we go back to coat hanger abortions and render fetuses “unviable” that way, is everything peachy keen?

If not, then are miscarriages now occasion for criminal investigations?

Pro-life logic is garbage

>If not, then are miscarriages now occasion for criminal investigations?

In several states, this is now true