General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should there be any restrictions at all on abortion? [View all]Silent3
(15,417 posts)I don't think every single possible restriction should be viewed as a slippery slope toward unjustified control over women's bodies. I'd, of course, never accept any restriction at any time that threatened a woman's health.
My view is that, while I certainly don't consider a blob of a few cells to have anywhere near the value of the life of a fully-born human being, I do see sliding scale of value of human life, increasing as birth approaches and self-viability is attained.
While not always true (and thus laws have to be carefully written to deal with extenuating circumstances), by time a woman has reached the third trimester of her pregnancy she's had a lot of time and opportunity to decide whether or not to continue with her pregnancy. If she's gone that far and decided to remain pregnant, I think it's fair to say she's accepted a certain degree of responsibility for, and made a degree of commitment to, the life that has been developing inside her.
At that point, it shouldn't be purely arbitrary to terminate a pregnancy. Now, if your response is "no woman would arbitrarily terminate her pregnancy, so such laws aren't needed!", then you aren't appreciating the need that many people feel (many of them women themselves, not just woman-hating sexist men) to want to codify that protection of late-term pregnancies regardless.