Perhaps you didn't see what post I was replying to, but it would help in order to understand the context. The OP said "there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy" and this is a common misunderstanding about abortion law, particularly in the US. Almost every single person that learns there are a number of states that allow elective (i.e. non-medically necessary) abortion up to the moment of birth, are blown away and don't believe it. But it's true.

Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available. Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people believe that there needs to be a cut off at some point (generally after viability, but this varies) where non-medically necessary abortions should not be legal. If you take a poll of 100 people, how many would support a non-medically necessary abortion at 8 months? Not many. So then the question is, why are there states with zero restrictions that late in term?

As to your claim that "nobody" would abort that late in term unless medically necessary, we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents every single year in the US, so it's inexcusable to give them legal cover to do it prior to birth when the child is viable.

What is the difference between an elective abortion at 8 months and just smothering the baby after its born?

* * *

You're right, they're not the same thing. I would imagine killing an infant yourself after it's born is a lot harder (and actually murder) than having a non-medically necessary later term abortion. And yet hundreds of women do it every year. If you think "literally nobody" has a non-medically necessary late term abortion, then you need to provide some evidence to back up such an absurd statement. It's legal in all those states for a reason.

If you say that it happens, you provide proof that it does: that's the way round that proof works. Do not shift the burden of proof. "prove the absence" is a well-known absurdity in general.

Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting, and I think wrong, but it also seems that you would rather pick nits about this insane comparison, so no.

  > Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.16...

There is actually a metric shit ton of research on infanticide, I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real.

Uninteresting distraction, since as pointed out above, it is unrelated to the topic at hand.

> I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real

Word games. Again: pointless distraction, dishonest, uninteresting.

Burden of proof remains on you.

> Nobody carries a fetus for 8 months and then decides to abort on a whim. Nobody.

I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant. I, and most pro-life people I know support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. Again, also irrelevant.

The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not?

If you don't, then you are implicitly stating that the child has a right to life, and thus you are in the same (supposed) dilemma posed by this article as pro-life people.

> I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant

What our disingenuous friend is ignoring is that if someone wanted to be rid of a fetus, why on earth would they wait 8 long hard months? Why endure late pregnancy for no reason? It would be easier to end it at 5 months, easier still at 3. And easier before then.

What exactly do you think of Mr Buttigieg 's comments above? He does mention this.

> I support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition.

And does the law concur? Are you invoking the Shirley exception? https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin

> The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not?

I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. My ignorant view is not wanted, yours neither and especially not the law's. if you claim "medical necessity as a valid exception" then you actually don't disagree much.

As I said above: "Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. Big government is not helpful in this case."

  > I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. 

If it's non-medically necessary then what does a doctor have to do with the decision? That's the whole point.

This whole point doesn't even make sense. If there's no doctor or other qualified medic involved in the process, then by definition it's backstreet, outside of any medical or legal control and the question is moot.

Perhaps you're not aware of what a medically necessary abortion is then? It's precipitated when the pregnancy is causing a medical complication that is putting the life of the mother in danger. Just going to see an abortion doctor because you want to abort, does not make it medically necessary.

I urge you to read your own earlier comment and see if the two make sense to you when taken together.

There is a reason you're being vague and not answering directly.

There's nothing concrete to answer. Stop projecting.

It's very concrete. There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it".

My statement is simply that there is no reason not to prohibit elective abortions after some point in the pregnancy. Typically this is at viability, which is around 24 weeks. If you claim no woman would ever get an elective abortion at 8 months then I would imagine you also believe no women would ever get an elective abortion after 6 months (ie 24 weeks, the point of viability). Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.

> There is a huge difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary one. You're conflating the two because "a doctor performs it".

And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. This is daft semantic hairsplitting, again. Stupid word games, not a productive debate.

> Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.

Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Which makes the whole statement quite pointless. But we don't bias in favour of excessive pointless laws and government intrusion on private matters, now do we?

You don't get direct answers because your questions do not come across as seeking clarity, just a) "gotchas" and b) going down garden paths.

  > And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. 

Yup, and if a doctor deems than an abortion is not medically necessary, the woman can still have one anyway. Which makes it elective. Elective abortions are the ones we're discussing.

  > Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. 

Why shouldn't we restrict them? If it's late enough in term that the child is viable, and there is no threat to the life of the mother, then why should that type of abortion be legal?

How is an elective abortion at 32 weeks any different from killing an infant?