Typically, Western culture recognizes individual rights to do what they want with their own body, such as drinking too much, going hiking when it's too hot, or getting ugly tattoos. These days, even the right to use drugs is returning. So although having an abortion one day before delivery is unwise, I hold that it should absolutely be legal.

It's hilarious to me that the same crowd that fights for gun rights under the banner of "individual liberty" is very quick to invite the government into the womb.

Thank you for this. The right to bear arms crowd always says you cannot ban guns, you can only ban legally owned gun.

Well you cannot ban abortion. You can only ban safe abortions.

This is what they want. They don't want an end to abortions. They want an end to safe abortions. If more women die in labor, they are ok with it.

IDK what you are arguing for or against, but I would like to point out that overturning Roe v Wade invited government into the womb

I think you and the person you're replying to are on the same page. They seem to be arguing that abortion should be legal in all cases due to the individual rights of the pregnant person, regardless of the scenario, because individual rights apply even (perhaps especially) when society as a whole disagrees with an individual's decision.

Lets bring up a hypothetical that has never and would never happen. You could never find a doctor willing to do this unless there was something medically wrong with the baby that likely would endanger the mother.

I do support this kind of abortion because the only situation I could imagine it happening is in a life saving one.

It's not for a life saving treatment, you just don't want to deal with a baby and you know if you wait a day you'll go to jail when you kill it.

And you can perform the abortion yourself. After all, what right does a doctor have over what operations you can do on your own body?

The irony of this ludicrous argument (who would abort a fetus one day before their due date, increasing the risk to their own life? Let alone choose to abort a fetus themselves and risk bleeding out rather than have a doctor do it safely) is that banning abortions increases the odds of this very scenario playing out because of the lack of accessibility to safe abortions.

The scenario you've described is approximately the same as a suicide. Consider that people still do that even though it's illegal. Heinous shit will happen, but if you're genuinely interested in minimizing human death and suffering, safe and legal abortion is a necessary component to that.

Yes, it is a ludicrous scenario, but OP's entire worldview is equally as ludicrous, because it allows for such scenarios("If I refuse to allow it to be used to support another life, that is my choice."). In any case, no special rules or consideration are generally needed for normal scenarios, so you are often looking at less common or ludicrous seeming scenarios when probing the limits of someone's viewpoint.

I'm not positive that allowing no questions asked abortions 1 day before the due date will minimize human death and suffering. Instead, I think it would provide an avenue to take for people who have, basically, cold feet about being a parent.

In fact, I have to wonder if OP thinks they have the right to abandon their already-birthed baby in the wilderness. After all, what right does that individual have to force another person to take care of it? I'm an individual after all. If I refuse to allow my body to be used to support another life, that is my choice.

This is a conflict between bodily autonomy and the right to life. Two rights, both important.

Wheresoever these rights meet, we have, as a society, chosen the right of bodily autonomy. No one may compel you to donate your blood or organs, even if they might die without them. Even if they are your children. Even if you will be dead when they are taken. We have made a strong cultural choice that the body is yielded only with specifically granted consent.

Abortion is a place where these two fundamental rights connect. The mother's right to control herself and the child's to exist. Under our culture's normal choice of bodily autonomy, it is an unfortunate consequence that the child will not live.

It might be entirely reasonable to frame laws encouraging that children deemed viable should rather be birthed so long as there is not risk to the mother. But this is not, of course, what they have done.

Instead we have re-opened a chapter once closed. Of horror stories with women being denied abortive procedures for ectopic pregnancies, or known failed pregnancies, forcing them instead to carry their dead child until it is naturally expelled. Horrors that would be easily taken care of by the woman simply having that natural choice over her own flesh.

Desperate women without resources to flee oppressive laws will resort to the same sorts of dangerous remedies they did in pre-Roe days. These frequently went wrong, and many that spoke in favor of Roe when it was passed cited such stories.

Women will die and families will suffer under the laws that have become active today, and those laws that will be soon certified into action or freshly written to take advantage of Roe's absence. The people insisting on these laws will take no measure of responsibility for the terrors they inflict, insisting instead it is the fault of the victims of these laws. Many seem to take some perverse glee in it.

That one of the justices has insisted in their concurrence that we review and vacate laws enshrining similarly protected rights for millions of Americans, it seems sure the current path will lead only to more misery, bigotry, violence and horror if those pushing this poisonous legislation have their way.

>Do you think you should have the right to have an abortion 1 day before the due date of a baby?

I think it is fair to force a point of no return in a pregnancy after which we prohibit abortion (edit: beyond situations that threaten the mother's life). The most important aspect to me is that the person has the time and freedom to make that decision that is right for them. If we are trying to be scientific about it, viability occurs around 24 weeks so that seems like a reasonable deadline for a decision.

Yes, absolutely

Even if that's the case, do you understand that the vast majority of society would consider such thing absolutely psychopathic?

What I'm trying to get to is that "My body my choice" is a nice thing to chant at a protest, it's also a pretty damn bad argument, I can't believe we are still doing this AFTER covid. I'm 100% for abortion but I find it hard to argue outside a "the fetus is not a sentient being at that point" frame.

> What I'm trying to get to is that "My body my choice" is a nice thing to chant at a protest, it's also a pretty damn bad argument, I can't believe we are still doing this AFTER covid.

It's really not a bad argument if you consider acute vs routine circumstances. Otherwise how could we argue against blackout restrictions[1] in cities now that WWII has happened?

[1] http://pbchistoryonline.org/page/local-response-blackout-res...

Yes, I think people should have that right.

I don't say this lightly, but you're literally advocating for killing babies. Not in the sense that a first or even second trimester abortion is, but to kill a baby literally a day before it would be born, because you have the right to and not to literally save your own life, is just absolutely craven.

It’s not literally that at all. Read about Schelling fences. It’s arbitrary, but it’s not pointless.

You can come up with any justification you want, give it any name you want, but what you advocate for is still, in the end, killing a baby which would do perfectly fine on its own in the outside world.

Which is why I would be charged with murder if I go punch a heavily pregnant woman in the gut and kill her child.

I have yet to see a single baby that “would do perfectly fine on its own in the outside world.” A baby needs years of intense care and love to become a healthy person.