I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not.

Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive?

I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.

I understand your point and it's a valid one, but you're not actually engaging with (part of) parent's argument.

If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?

How does a 39 week old fetus differ from a newborn? I think the point of contention for most people is on why a mother should be able to end the life of one and not the other.

The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?

In the US humans have rights on a sliding scale, a child does not have the same rights as an 18 year old

I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child

The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential

If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles

Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.

At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily autonomy of women, its disingenuous

Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line.

So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?

> Well, where would you draw the line?

See this is the trick, the sleight-of hand - is draws you into accepting a simplistic falsehood: that a specific line has to be, should be or can be drawn.

Medicine is not law, and law is not code. Or at least, when done well they behave differently.

there is no sense in a code `if (fetus_weeks <= 16) return true else return false;` being law and then being medicine. That's 2 category errors right there.

A decision between doctor and patient based on specific circumstances is what's called for.

Pete Buttigieg said it quite well in this case:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...

Draw the line at 41 weeks. I don't care about your nonsense hypothetical. Bring me a real scenario. One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists

Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time

The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always

>Draw the line at 41 weeks.

And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.

And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers

I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government make too much money off it and keep us peasants fighting about pointless shit like abortion while they loot the country

I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement and can't bring up that example that you just know exists. Get off that clown shit and show me a real example

So where is it? These examples of abortions where the mother didn't want it at 39 weeks

Quit lying

>I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement

You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?

Very convenient for you! Just ignore things when you see what you don't like!

Still waiting for that one singular example. Where are your citations for your evidence?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...

Dr Kermit Gosnell performed a number of elective abortions that late in term, and we only know about those because he was dumb enough to get caught killing a few after delivery.

Your example is a literal serial killer? Oh come on. He was inducing birth in order to kill babies outside of the uterus

>owned and operated the Women's Medical Society Clinic, a non-compliant abortion clinic

>Gosnell was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce birth, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of one woman during an abortion procedure, and was convicted of several other medically related crimes.[3][4][5][6][7]

This dude should never have been a doctor in the first place and this is your shining example? Brilliant

>2011, Gosnell, his wife Pearl, and eight employees were charged with a total of 32 felonies and 227 misdemeanors in connection with deaths, illegal medical services, and regulatory violations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

I can't tell if you're a bad faith actor yourself or you just believe the nonsense put forth by the nationalist extremist party

He didn't go to prison for the 39 week abortions, he went to prison for the 41 week abortions, you know - the ones you were in favor of.

You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him.

So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnancy? What is the argument against that? Nobody is arguing against it if they're medically necessary, I'm asking specifically about elective abortions beyond the point of viability. That's it. That's where the breakdown occurs for most people.

>211 counts of violating Pennsylvania's 24-hour informed consent law

Sounds to me like he patients were not aware of what he was doing

And he was doing a hell of a lot more than just abortions

>The DEA, The FBI, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy relating to the practice's illegally prescribing highly-addictive painkillers and sedatives outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.

So again, you pick out one guy who should not have been a physician who did not inform his patient of what he was doing

And this detail is pretty important, these were not abortions but murders after birth

>They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim's being born alive

Pointing this guy out is like pointing out that old veteran who's like 110 years old and smokes and drinks every day and claiming nobody gets cancer from smoking and drinking

You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

>You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

Only the "41 week old abortions" were treated as murder, the 39 week old ones weren't. My question is - what's the difference? In your mind, how do you justify a 39 week old elective abortion?

He induced birth then killed the baby

That's not an abortion

And now you're playing the fools game by engaging with the Gosnell nonsense, giving angry debate about "shocking" things that they have changed the topic too.

Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. You're right, I shouldn't engage that nonsense but I got sucked in. I don't know what we can do about people spreading such FUD

Sadly that account has a track record of repeating their inflammatory talking points. Even after they are debunked, they just move an and try it on someone else again.

It's called Intact Dilation & Extraction, and is absolutely a type of abortion.

And you still haven't answered - what is your logic for not having a problem with a 36, 37, 38 week etc elective abortion? What is the argument for allowing them?

> You're making an argument for infanticide

You're asking trick questions. Proof above; "aha! that's infanticide!!" So clever.

Which is exactly why I responded the way that I did. Dude is spouting nonsense saying examples exist. They are making claims and when I ask for citations they shout about infanticide. It's disingenuous bullshit designed to distract

That's also why the poster didn't respond to the person who commented about Beto. They have no real response, position, or evidence. Their only position is fake outrage at something that doesn't exist in reality