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

[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.