Virginia Bill Would Legalize Abortion Up to Birth

Feb 2011
16,216
5,624
Boise, ID
There is that fake scenario again, the strawman that gets irrational people even more irrational .....nobody has a full-time fetus aborted for no reason
The back and forth that's been going on here hasn't been whether this fake scenario is occurring or not occurring, it's been a philosophical argument about whether the law should say anything about it.

My argument has been that if society doesn't or wouldn't tolerate the unnecessary killing of healthy viable roughly-full-term fetuses (which they apparently don't, given it doesn't really seem permitted and doesn't seem like it actually happens almost ever, and because the physiological consequences to the woman for delivering the full-term fetus alive vs. dead are negligible or non-existent), and if the people accordingly convinced their elected leaders to write laws and regulations prohibiting this practice that they generally and for good reason don't tolerate, then I say that's fine, because a majority of people seem to think that's plenty reasonable.

The pushback I seem to be getting has appears to suggest that no law should be written that prohibits the killing of a fetus, because killing a fetus (regardless of gestational age, health, etc.) is apparently regarded by some people as a procedure a woman elects to have done to "her body," and therefore any prohibition on her electing to have a fetus killed inside her body (regardless of circumstances) constitutes state control over her body.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2007
32,134
6,585
Do you know one person who had a healthy viable nine month fetus where there were no health issues on either part?of course not..it doesn’t happen.
It’s so interesting that people who support guns that kill born people get all hysterical over a straw man that doesn’t happen
It doesn't happen so states pass laws to make sure it can happen.
 
Mar 2012
51,839
34,262
New Hampshire
The back and forth that's been going on here hasn't been whether this fake scenario is occurring or not occurring, it's been a philosophical argument about whether the law should say anything about it.

My argument has been that if society doesn't or wouldn't tolerate the unnecessary killing of healthy viable roughly-full-term fetuses (which they apparently don't, given it doesn't really seem permitted and doesn't seem like it actually happens almost ever), and if the people accordingly convinced their elected leaders to write laws and regulations prohibiting this practice that they generally don't tolerate, then I say that's fine, because a majority of people seem to think that's plenty reasonable.

The pushback I seem to be getting has appears to suggest that no law should be written that prohibits the killing of a fetus, because killing a fetus (regardless of gestational age, health, etc.) is apparently regarded by some people as a procedure a woman elects to have done to "her body," and therefore any prohibition on her electing to have a fetus killed inside her body (regardless of circumstances) constitutes state control over her body.
There are some states though where if a pregnant female is murdered after the second trimester, it is a double homicide. So there is some laws that do take viability into consideration.
 
Feb 2011
16,216
5,624
Boise, ID
There are some states though where if a pregnant female is murdered after the second trimester, it is a double homicide. So there is some laws that do take viability into consideration.
But of those states with fetal homicide statutes, do any permit purely elective third trimester abortions?

If so, then the situation is created whereby fetal personhood depends on the mother's desire for the fetus to live or die. And the presumption is she wants it to live unless she expresses otherwise. Which is legally and philosophically pretty awkward.
 
Mar 2012
51,839
34,262
New Hampshire
But of those states with fetal homicide statutes, do any permit purely elective third trimester abortions?

If so, then the situation is created whereby fetal personhood depends on the mother's desire for the fetus to live or die. And the presumption is she wants it to live unless she expresses otherwise. Which is legally and philosophically pretty awkward.
I dont think so. They determine viablilty at the beginning of the third trimester so the laws reflect that. Thats why if a pregnant woman is murdered in the first two trimesters it isnt a double homicide. But after the beginning of the third it is due to viability.
 
Feb 2011
16,216
5,624
Boise, ID
I dont think so. They determine viablilty at the beginning of the third trimester so the laws reflect that. Thats why if a pregnant woman is murdered in the first two trimesters it isnt a double homicide. But after the beginning of the third it is due to viability.
"Thirty-eight (38) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development. These laws do not apply to legally induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion." - Wikipedia/NCSL
 
Feb 2011
16,216
5,624
Boise, ID
The desire of some people to know that late-term abortions of healthy fetuses by healthy mothers is not legal does not in any way imply anyone thinks that women in general have no moral sense, nor does it have anything to do with how common or rare they are.

Do you think the abortion of healthy late-term fetuses by healthy mothers should be perfectly legal?
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
72,376
61,419
So. Md.
The desire of some people to know that late-term abortions of healthy fetuses by healthy mothers is not legal does not in any way imply anyone thinks that women in general have no moral sense, nor does it have anything to do with how common or rare they are.

Do you think the abortion of healthy late-term fetuses by healthy mothers should be perfectly legal?
No. And no doctor would perform one.