EVERYONE knows that a fertilized egg is not a person. And neither is a full term fetus a collection

[TPaine7]

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

of cells.

Or at least I have never met someone who wouldn't act like that was the case in an emergency.

Ask anyone who disagrees with the first proposition this question: "If you were in a life-or-death situation where you could rescue only a single 5 year old child or 1,000 fertilized eggs frozen in a cooler, which would you choose?"

When you get down to it, everyone knows that a fertilized egg is not a human being deserving the full protections of the 14th and 13th Amendments. The idea is preposterous. And it is precisely because they know it is preposterous that extremists want to enforce submission by law. Their own internal conflict is what makes them so adamant.

Next time you meet someone who thinks a fertilized egg is a person, ask them what they would do if push came to shove. Even if they force out the "correct" answer, I bet their body language and facial expressions will give them away.

There is, IMHO, another extreme. A woman who is on her way to the hospital to deliver is not carrying a "collection of cells" until the monent the child is actually born.

Let us say that a mother is on her way to the hospital when she is killed in an accident. Her water has broken and the child was just on the verge of being born.

The emergency medical technicians realize that the deceased is pregnant, that birth was ready to begin, and that the child would be born healthy and without complications.

But instead of performing a C-section, the technicians take the mother to the morgue and the baby dies. It is time for their break.

When asked about their actions, they argue that they only saw one person, a pregnant woman. Yes, they could see the "collection of cells" kicking, but until birth the fetus has no rights and is not a human being.

They admit that had they performed a c-section, the "collection of cells" would have BECOME a human being and that they would have had an obligation to care for that human being, but since they didn't extract the baby, it had no rights.

Who would agree that a few minutes and a few inches determine humanity or lack thereof? And with all due respect to the "breath of life" interpretation of some Bible texts, who would not agree that a crime had been committed—an unjustified homicide—by callously letting a perfectly healthy fetus die minutes from birth?

With all due respect to both extremes, I think the American consensus is correct. We cannot tell exactly when an fetus becomes a human being with all associated rights and privileges. We do know, however, that a fertilized egg with no central nervous system is not a human being and that a fetus is not a collection of cells until the moment she exits her mother's body.

Sensible laws seek to respect these realities, realities that we all understand, if we are honest with ourselves. The extremes, while offering perfect clarity, are so preposterous that they cannot command universal respect.

What do you think, and why?

[limpyhobbler]

1. it's hard to talk about. nt

[TPaine7]

2. True, but it's necessary.

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 06:53 AM - Edit history (1)

The full-term fetus deserves protection, as does the woman with the fertilized egg. And we have to draw a line somewhere that respects what we all know.

The extremes waste a lot of time and emotional energy.

[Luminous Animal]

10. There is no such thing as a full term embryo. There is no such organization that advocates for

aborting a viable full term fetus.

You have invented an extreme that does not exist.

[Iggo]

35. ^^^ This right here.

[TPaine7]

37. Show me the part of the OP that says anything about an organization that advocates for aborting

a viable full term fetus.

I have invented nothing, but you have pulled the issue of organizational advocacy out of thin air and made an issue of it.

To accuse me of inventing something while inventing something yourself is pathetic. It's something I would expect from Karl Rove.

[DirkGently]

57. You posit "another extreme" which does not exist in reality.

Given that no one advocates for aborting full-term fetuses, what is the point, if not to suggest the actual debate is more two-sided than it actually is?

This is how the anti- abortion insanity built momentum in the first place. They pretended there was a big problem with viable, late-term fetuses being aborted left and right. They passed laws on the basis this was happening. That given a "choice," women would end pregnancies at the last second all the time. Then they started chipping away.

And now we somehow have to "debate" whether a rape victim or a child must bear their attacker's spawn. Whether fertilized eggs are not only people, but more important people than the walking incubators some think of as "women."

It's not as morally complicated as is being pretended. We need not be on guard against this "other extreme." We can trust women with their bodies, and doctors with their profession.

[DirkGently]

56. Exactly. The OP constructs a strawman

No one is, or has been, pushing for laws or Constitutional amendments allowing abortion of full term fetuses moments before birth. Only the opposite, insane proposition, that a fertilized egg is a "person," is out there.

False equivalency strikes again.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. I agree

Our society seeks out quick, easy, black and white answers. This is an issue that does not have an easy answer. I think the reason neither side will budge is because both sides are afraid of the other side using it to push for further legislation in the future. Republicans want nothing less than an all out ban on all abortions including in case of the mother's life. They don't just push for a ban on late term abortion and then end there. Right now they push for legislation to ban abortion state by state, and they are waiting for a president that will appoint a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v Wade banning all abortion nationwide.

[juba]

4. But how many women

have late term abortions for reasons other than health risk to the mother or poor prognosis for the fetus?

9/10 abortions are first trimester.

[TPaine7]

5. I have no argument with your points. Remember, I said the American consensus is basically right.

My problem is with the extremists on both sides, not with mothers who have abortions to save their lives or health or for very sick fetuses.

My point is that the extremes should be taken on and vanquished. The folks who who believe—or pretend to believe—that a fertilized egg is a full fledged human being have too much power, and the folks who believe that life starts at birth, though much less powerful, figure largely in the demonology of the powerful extremist, who feed off their extremism.

[Luminous Animal]

8. Can you please point out these people that believe life starts at birth and would have no problem

with aborting a viable fetus in the 9th month of gestation.

You are making them up.

[TPaine7]

11. ...

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/post/2012/10/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021679299

[juba]

15. this isn't really

advocating late term abortion. Its stating that evidence in the bible regarding abortion as a sin is minimal.

[TPaine7]

20. If this is true...

If this is true...

According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being.   One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath.   This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either.   Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it;   the rest are aborted. .

God has decreed, for one reason or another, that at least one-third of all pregnancies shall be terminated by a spontaneous abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and that a number will be terminated after the first trimester.   It would appear that God does not have any more regard for the loss of a fetus than he does for the loss of a placenta or a foreskin despite the fact that these were living tissue as the result of conception.

...then aboting any fetus at any stage is no more a sin than getting a circumcision or having a mole removed.

Life, according to this belief, begins at the first breath.

[juba]

23. one could take it as such

but i am still looking for the specific late-term abortion angle in that particular piece?

[TPaine7]

25. If they say that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a foreskin until birth and first breath

that's enough of a statement on late term abortions for me. YMMV.

[DevonRex]

62. You have SERIOUSLY misunderstood the purpose

of that post, both on the blog and on DU.

They are intended to point out Bible-thumper hypocrisy. On the one hand they say he Bible is the infallible Word of God and that science evil.

But in this case they IGNORE the supposed infallible Word of God and use science instead.

So, they lack consistency in their own beliefs. How convenient.

You seem to forget that WE are the ones who don't go for religious justifications for social policy. You are confused.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Where oh where do they these outliers on the internet advocate aborting a 9 month old fetus?

And if they did, other than their blog, what organization do they direct? You can find all sorts of woo on the internet (including people who think a fetus is an embryo) but espousing woo a movement does not make.

Banning all abortions - huge movement and not fringe.

Believing life begins at breath - 2 guys on the internet who said nothing about late term abortions.

[TPaine7]

24. If you think it through, the logic of both cited sources says a lot about late term abortions.

(But you're trying to prove that I made stuff up, and that would be inconvenient.)

And where in the OP do I say anything about an organization that anyone directs?

You are very hostile and condescending, but besides your fetus vs embryo point, you don't have much of substance to say.

Yes, I mixed up my terms, but I haven't made up an imaginary position for you and then criticized you for it.

Yes there are people out there who believe late term abortions are ok. If you read post 5, you'll see that I realize that they are a tiny force compared to the folks who want to ban all abortions. They are certainly more than "two guys on the internet, but I never said that they directed an organization.

If you didn't make up arguments for me and if you got off your fetus vs embryo high horse—or made the point and moved on—we might have had a decent conversation.

[TPaine7]

13. ...

A fetus is not a human being. It does not have a human life. It does not have human rights. It does not have interests.

A fetus is a fetus. It isn't a human being, it isn't a body part, it isn't a parasite, it isn't an acorn, it isn't a sperm or an ovum.

A fetus shares some characteristics with all those things, just as I share some characteristics with them. But just as I am not a parasite, even though both I and a parasite have unique DNA, a fetus is not a human being, even though it has a beating heart ... just like a parasite has.

I am a human being, a fetus is a fetus, and a big toe is a big toe.

A fetus isn't "life" because it isn't life, and to assert that it is, is to speak utter nonsense.

And the fact that a fetus is composed of living cells, living human cells, is no more conclusive of the question of what a fetus is than the fact that my big toe is composed of living human cells.

If you cut off my big toe, it "dies". That doesn't make it a human being. In that way, it is like a fetus. In other ways, it is unlike a fetus.

Once again, some things are just obvious. Even to those who pretend really hard not to notice, or to look like they don't notice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1664471&mesg_id=1690046

[Luminous Animal]

17. Again. No evidence that Iverglas supported aborting a viable fetus.

And again, even if she did, you are labeling an entire anti-abortion movement that has millions of adherents as "fringe" and pitting them against an imaginary movement.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. the op probably didn't mean it to sound this way

but it sounds a bit like the voter fraud problem. Making it out to be a problem when it is such a tiny fragment of the population.

[TPaine7]

26. The tiny extreme is a foil in the arguments of the huge extreme. But I know they are relatively tiny

as I said in post 5.

[Luminous Animal]

18. There are no extremists on the pro-choice side to take on. They exist as much as those who believe

that there is a monster under the bed.

By the way, not all women who have abortions are "mothers" and their are many other reasons for women to have an abortion other than their health, their life and the health of the fetus.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. that's a good point juba

[Zoeisright]

39. Here's some education for you:

Late term abortions are ONLY done for health risk or poor fetal prognosis. It takes two doctors to sign off on one. There are NO women, EVER, who skip into a clinic and demand an abortion late term because they felt like it. NONE.

[TPaine7]

45. Hmmmmm...

Physician and Hospital Requirements: 39 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 21 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 20 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

The table is interesting too.

[Luminous Animal]

7. For this to make sense, you'd have to cite the extreme that advocates for aborting a full term fetus

There is no such extreme.

And, within minutes of birth, the fetus is no longer an embryo.

[juba]

12. I kind of agree

Is there any group out there that staunchly defends the right of a women to terminate a very late term healthy fetus?

[Luminous Animal]

19. Nope. But the OP is catapulting the propaganda that there is.

It's called "making your own reality" and hoping to suck people in.

[TPaine7]

38. You are the one catapulting propaganda, or, to use the more direct term, lies.

Here's what you answered with a lie:

Is there any group out there that staunchly defends the right of a women to terminate a very late term healthy fetus?

There is nothing in the OP about a group or organization doing anything.

You are making your own reality.

[boston bean]

48. When a woman is murdered and in the act of the crime her fetus is killed

there are laws (or potential laws being legislated) on the books where the murderer is charged with two murders.

Sometimes you will find that some people are against those laws, because it gives anti choice activists an opening in the law that all fetuses are life (no matter the gestation time, the health of the mother, the health of the fetus). And many feel it's a slippery slope where women, who have an abortion, will be charged with murder.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. The word is "fetus", not "embryo".

There's zygote (fertilized egg), and after it's multicellular but all organs are not fully developed it's an embryo for the first 8 weeks. From 9 weeks to 40 weeks (term) or delivery, it's a fetus. Generally considered viable outside the womb in some cases at 24 weeks.

B.A. in Biology here.

[TPaine7]

14. Thanks. I should have looked up my terms. I was trying to avoid the word "baby."

[Care Acutely]

31. Well, there's your problem. You need to educate yourself, earnestly,

before you construct such glarb.

[TPaine7]

32. And you need to look past minutia. When people focus extreme amounts of attention on

tiny details, I know that's probably all they have.

The fact that I used the wrong term is a big deal for you, so enjoy it, it's probably all you have.

Your problems are much deeper. You need to educate yourself, earnestly, about a lot more that terminology.

[Care Acutely]

41. When you obtain an education, you will know these are not "tiny details"

and then you may be able to have an adult conversation on the subject.

[TPaine7]

44. I take it you are "educated," but you can't see that my point had nothing to do with my mistake in

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:27 AM - Edit history (1)

terminology.

It takes a small mind indeed to focus on a grammatical issue or accidental misuse of a word that has no bearing on the point being made.

So I can't have an adult conversation on abortion because I mistakenly said "embryo" instead of "fetus"?!! Wow!

Telling me that I make a mistake would have been welcome, especially if you followed up with a cogent thought on the actual point (which had nothing to do with whether the proper term for a baby at a particular time is "embryo" or "fetus&quot . But perhaps cogent thoughts aren't within your capability, only nitpicking terminology and the like. Using that single mistake to draw broad conclusions about me or the strength of my argument is embarrassingly asinine—but you would only understand that if you had a worthwhile education.

Well if that's what your "education" has taught you, you have my condolences. Lame pedantry is not the result of a genuine education. I pity you, but not enough to waste more time talking to you.

You're dismissed.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. Thanks a lot for insulting my education.

I'm correcting you because the anti-abortionists misuse the terms "zygote", "embryo" and "fetus" with regularity.

I also earned a Juris Doctor degree.

I had a Constitutional Law professor who was a real pain in the ass. He was an ex-Jesuit priest, and kept ranting about how awful Roe v. Wade was, and didn't allow equal time for a counter argument. At least once, during a class, I and several other female students got up and walked out in disgust. We spoke to the Assistant Dean about his Catholic bias but of course nothing was done.

The guy was a lousy teacher. He had earned 12 college degrees (I kid you not) but when he lectured he shorted out and was damned near incoherent. And he kept saying "zy-gaut".

He later was fired from the faculty for plagiarism.

[TPaine7]

63. I did not insult your education or you. (Unless, of course you have multiple DU identities.)

Correcting my mistake in terminology or grammar and leaving it at that is never a problem, so the issue I had with that other poster doesn't apply to you in any way.

[fishwax]

22. You claim there are two extremes, but I've only seen one of them in the real world

I think you've offered a false equivalency. There are people who think an embryo is a person. Some of them are in positions of power in state and federal government.

Are there people who think that a full term fetus (it stops being an embryo well before viability) is merely "a collection of cells"?

[TPaine7]

27. See posts 11, 13 and 20.

And I am comparing two views, not two movements. I acknowledge that one group is much more powerful than the other in post 5. They are by no means equivalent in strength, nor did I imply that they were.

[fishwax]

28. I know you didn't say they were equivalent in strength, but the value of the comparison depends,

on some level, on a similarity in that regard. If you want to make the argument that there is some rational middle ground between position A and position B, it helps if they are somewhat comparable.

On the other hand, though, saying something like "Believing Obama is not an American is extreme, sure, but so is believing Romney is a space alien" fails except as a means of ridiculing the first position. Because, yes, both are extreme, but only one really has an impact on the world.

Additionally, saying "a fetus is not a person" is not the same as saying "a fetus is just a collection of cells."

[TPaine7]

40. I agree that saying "a fetus is not a person" is not the same as saying "a fetus is just a

collection of cells," but how about comparing a fetus to a foreskin?

[fishwax]

59. that comparison is made within a very specific context

It isn't saying that, in reality, a full-term fetus is of no more significance than a foreskin. It is saying that, based on information from the Bible and on data from the world that he (in the logic of the argument) created, "it would appear that God does not have any more regard for the loss of a fetus than he does for the loss of a placenta or a foreskin." As it happens, I don't find that a very logical conclusion based on the rest of the article, since as the author himself points, Exodus imposes a penalty on causing a miscarriage, and there is no such penalty for causing the loss of a foreskin.

[TPaine7]

55. The positions are comparable in other ways, in that they are both religiious positions

supposedly derived from the Bible and they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

[ecstatic]

30. Regarding that thread...

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit, I was referring to a different thread than you were. I'll respond when I have time to read the other one.

[TPaine7]

33. So comparing a fetus—up until the first breath—to a foreskin

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:10 AM - Edit history (2)

does not logically support the proposition of abortions being OK until birth?

That's what that thread's OP's source does.

[ecstatic]

29. A full term fetus is not an embryo

And I've never heard anyone in pro-choice community argue that a full term fetus is a collection of cells. Well, maybe one, but that person is unhinged on just about everything. I think you're using a very broad brush here.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Sure. Women are running around pregnant for 8 mos & then aborting for the hell of it. All the time.

Give me a fucking break. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.

I don't know where you dreamed up your goofy 'example'. It sounds like it came out of the same binder that contains the scary slippery slope stories of people marrying turtles or trees, because Gay Marriage is legalized.

These "sensible laws" you seem to think should be sought exist already, under the precedence set forth in Roe and later Casey.

[TPaine7]

43. Yes, the OP talks about women running around for 8 months and then aborting the fetus for fun.

That is the subject and focus of the OP.



It seems some states allow abortion without regulation or restriction (not that facts matter or anything):

Abortion-rights groups are active in all states in the USA, campaigning for legal abortion with varying degrees of success. Few of these states allow abortion without limitation or regulation, but most do allow various limited forms of abortion. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Organization for Women, and the American Civil Liberties Union are the leading abortion-rights advocacy and lobbying groups in the United States. Most major feminist organizations also support abortion-rights positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_the_legalization_of_abortion#Terminology_controversy

[Warren DeMontague]

47. That presumption, or one like it, is the only way I can imagine anyone concocting the goofy example

in your OP.

You've been asked, repeatedly in this thread, where precisely these "extremists" are who are arguing for abortion right up until the second before birth? What exact situation in the real world, and not the fevered brains of right wing radio hosts doing "thought experiments", would this shit actually come up?

Oh, one extreme is very real: Not only does the entire anti-choice movement hinge upon the conceit that there is no difference between a fertilized egg and a baby, making them equivalent (and, by extension, outlawing not just abortion but IVF and most forms of birth control) is the core of the legislative agenda.

On the other "extreme" you've got.. well, nobody. There are no legions of people "demanding" to abort right before birth. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN, and the presumption or "fear" that it might is frankly insulting to the central philosophical no-brainer behind what it means to be pro-choice, namely that women themselves can and and should be the ones in charge of making these decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies.

What is the common thread to all the anti-choice bargle, to all the shit about "legitimate rape" and all the grousy whining by frustrated old white-haired dudes about how if women are "allowed" to get "exemptions" for health or rape they'll just take advantage of them So they can sneaksy sneaksy get abortionses that they shouldntses?



Tricksy! Tricksy womenses!

It's the idea that women can't be trusted to make the call themselves. It's the presumption that women, some women, women who get abortions, whatever-- they're doing it wrong and we know better and for goodness sake someone needs to correct their behavior. Because we know better than they do.


OTOH, the reason these states you refer to allow abortion "without restriction" is because these states understand that WOMEN CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WITH THEIR DOCTORS. When abortions take place later in pregnancies, usually it's for medical reasons. Pregnancies go wrong or other situations arise that, ah, maybe state legislators aren't the best people to pre-emptively figure out in a law. So that's why there's "no restrictions". Not because these states are leaving the door open for some "irresponsible" "woo-hoo-let's get a late term abortion because we can!" shit that, again, only exists in the imaginations of anti-choicers.

The idea that abortion needs "restriction", that somehow women can't be trusted to make that call themselves about their own bodies and pregnancies- when they can, and they do- that is offensive.

[TPaine7]

50. So essentially,

if a woman wanted an abortion minutes before birth, and her doctor agreed, you would support that decision?

...WOMEN CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WITH THEIR DOCTORS...

The idea that abortion needs "restriction", that somehow women can't be trusted to make that call themselves about their own bodies and pregnancies- when they can, and they do- that is offensive.

If you do think that abortion NEVER needs restriction in ANY circumstance, you are part of the extreme whose existence you deny.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. So essentially, you can't think of a response to what I just said, so you need to put words in my

mouth and argue against a straw man.

Fuck, if I had twenty bucks for every time THAT happens.

Go back and read what I wrote.

And then tell me why I would be in that room with the woman and her doctor, in the first place.

[TPaine7]

53. Ok, you're boring me now.

Your words, which I quoted directly, seem to say something. I didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you if your words actually meant what they seem to mean, what they all but state outright.

Get someone to explain the difference to you.

And then tell me why I would be in that room with the woman and her doctor, in the first place.

Are you confusing me with someone else?!! I said nothing about you being or not being anywhere, never mind in a room with a woman and her doctor. You are debating your imagination.

You were talking about LEGISLATION on abortion--what states allow. It was in that context that I asked about your support for a woman's decision. Read reasonably and in context, my question had nothing to do with you being in a room with a woman and her doctor.

Never mind, why don't you just go finish that other conversation? Perhaps that would be better for all involved.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. "Needs restriction" means "the situation as it currently is has some problem".

I do not believe that the situation as it currently is has a problem, I believe women are perfectly capable of making the moral choices pertaining to their pregnancies without supposedly well-meaning strangers inserting themselves unasked for into their medical decisions.

As you note yourself downthread, late term abortions are rare and generally performed only for medical reasons. And this is under the current legal regime, along with this supposed "problem" of all these states having "woo-hoo no restrictions" on abortion whatsoever.

So something must be happening... what could it be? Oh, yeah, women are not running around pregnant and then aborting at the last minute for the hell of it. Despite not being "restricted" from doing so (imagine that!) it would seem.

So that would mean abortion doesn't need these restrictions your long-winded, hypothetical hyperbolic OP seems to imagine it does.

As for the fact you don't understand my question as to why I would be in the room with the woman and the doctor in the first place- it cuts right to the core of the conceit these, again, frankly offensive arguments have; namely, it would seem you can't even fathom why I, a stranger who has presumably never met this hypothetical woman and her hypothetical doctor, wouldn't take it as my intrinsic right, nay DUTY, to clomp into her doctor's office/brain/uterus and immediately begin issuing proclamations about dontdothis and youshouldntdothat and yes it's MY JOB to decide whether what you're doing there is okay, or not, young Missy.

[cali]

36. your scenario is utter bullshit

and you don't reflect the American consensus. Furthermore, I have no fucking problem calling a 9 month fetus a baby.

[TPaine7]

42. Abstract thought is not everyone's strong suit. n/t

[mmonk]

46. I think one of the frauds the pro life side perpetuates

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

is that women seeking abortion wait until late in the pregnancy. Late term abortions tend to be exclusively for medical reasons, that for some reason the nature of the pregnancy has changed whereby the mother is at risk of death if carried to full term.

[TPaine7]

49. I agree that late term abortions are rare, as you say, and tend to be medically indicated. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Then what prompted your OP?

Is this like proposing that the Army develop a multi-million dollar Anti-Rabid Leprechaun Ray? I mean, no, there's no actual problem with rabid leprechauns. But it can't hurt to be ready.

[treestar]

58. Thoughtful post

We were practically better off when we didn't have the technology to know and even the Catholic church tried to pin it down to a time later than conception.

Now with ultrasounds and people knowing the child's sex and deciding on its name without having to pick one for each gender, it's harder and harder to say there is no person there.

But at the very beginning, it's also too hard to say there is one there. The Roe v. Wade standard is probably as good a standard as any.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Nobody aborts a third trimester fetus unless the mother's life or health is seriously in danger

People who say otherwise live in some fantasy world where women can walk into their doctor and get a third trimester abortion because carrying the fetus to term is mentally distressing. No doctor in their right mind will do it for that reason.