A centrist perspective on abortion

Nobody ever gave anyone the right to decide who or what lives or dies for any reason.
I'm too tired to argue one way or the other and nobody would listen anyway.
personally, I wouldn't kill anything living or anything that has a chance to live.
All I know to be sure is we all have to answer for our actions at some point.

From what many on ATS consider an alt-right radical - my stance: (as if anyone cares)


First trimester: sad but acceptable to be legal for many reasons


Second trimester: queasy over this one, but should be legal until 24 weeks (6 months)


At 24 weeks is when babies have been born and lived to be healthy adults. They are a person at this point I feel there should be some regulation.


Third trimester: illegal unless the baby is found to have health issues that will drastically limit it's life. (i.e. anencephaly) The health of the XX with a uterus is better served with a C-Section. My daughters ER C-section took 5 minutes and saved her life. An abortion in the third trimester takes hours to days depending on the type of abortion and a XX with a uterus is far more likely to die than having a C-section for the health of the XX with a uterus.

Yet progressives, liberals, Democrats find me to be a alt-right radical when it comes to abortion.


Why? Democrats have put forth bills in California and Maryland that would not prosecute XX with a uterus for a post-birth abortion. Yes infanticide would be legal and considered an abortion if those bills pass. When it comes to those bills you bet your sweet life I am an alt-right radical against this mainstream liberal idea in CA and Maryland.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

" What makes my argument centrist is that both those on the left and right will have some issue with it "

Same with mine.

But on ATS I am often called alt-right radical and I'm coming to embrace what they intend as an insult.
Racist, sure I am, in a multi racial family.
Sexist, ok sure I am, retired from teaching PSY in Univ as an XX, woman, female
Homophobe, ok I'll go along and embrace that, even though most of my friends in college were gay and I went to drag queen shows with them
Religious bigot, yep they got that one for sure as how I treat others is based on "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I'll embrace their insults because they have convinced me that is what I must be based on the times I reject their ideology as unhealthy for individuals and society.

Seems that the pro-abortion crowd doesn't want to listen to anyone who disagrees doing all they can to silence, ridicule, and terrorize them as they did to the families of Supreme Court justices when they protested at their homes.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

An excellent discussion. As a male, I've counted myself lucky to never have to face such a brutal decision. I think it is the woman's right to do as she pleases with her body.

I find it interesting that some portion of those who vehemently protect children are quick to take their children in to be injected with an experimental drug. A real conundrum.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

An excellent discussion. As a male, I've counted myself lucky to never have to face such a brutal decision. I think it is the woman's right to do as she pleases with her body.

I find it interesting that some portion of those who vehemently protect children are quick to take their children in to be injected with an experimental drug. A real conundrum.

What about post-birth abortion? There are bills pending in two states to make post-birth abortion legal.

a reply to: The2Billies

Isn't "post birth abortion" an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms?

At that point it becomes murder IMO.

Legislatures are rarely guided by reason. More often by emotion.

a reply to: The2Billies

Are you mistaking the words lack of care? There are instances where a baby is born. A terminally ill baby. Maybe has hours or a week. The parents along with the doctor decide to give palliative care. Keep the baby comfortable maybe with drugs, hold the baby, love the baby. Instead of painful, scary treatments that may separate the baby from the parents and at best prolong the baby's life for hours or days. I've read of such situations. Very traumatic and painful for the mother or parents.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: The2Billies

Are you mistaking the words lack of care? There are instances where a baby is born. A terminally ill baby. Maybe has hours or a week. The parents along with the doctor decide to give palliative care. Keep the baby comfortable maybe with drugs, hold the baby, love the baby. Instead of painful, scary treatments that may separate the baby from the parents and at best prolong the baby's life for hours or days. I've read of such situations. Very traumatic and painful for the mother or parents.

There are those instances. But the language allows for lack of care for ANY newborn to be legal. It does not limit which newborns can be given lack of care.

a reply to: The2Billies

Lol, that is murder. It is noted that it has to be related to the birth or pregnancy. If you have read further, because so many are choosing to interpret the words incorrectly, they state before the bills go to vote they will very specifically amend the verbiage. At least one of the bills will not even be amended or voted on until next April.

I think if it can survive on it's own then the mother should be induced or c-section. Prior to that they can be aborted.
Arguing about the "right" to do such is pointless, there are many ways to derail a pregnancy without a clinic, so the "ability" to have an abortion will always exist and any ban is unenforceable.

I am 100% pro-life when it comes to MY kids, and by extension my kids kids, but beyond that not so much. I would like for my grand kids to not have to argue about this issue.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

No one is advocating for aborting a nine months gestational, healthy, viable fetus. There are times, however, where the fetus is so deformed, like the brain developed on the outside of skull, if there is a skull.

this pisses me off to a large extent. ether through immense stupidity, or flat out lying your ass off, you are wrong.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nobody is saying you are wrong and lying, nobody.

I have always felt that late term abortions are wrong. The only exceptions I would make is if it is determined that the fetus is due to rape or incest or something like that. I cant imagine making a woman carry then care for a daily reminder of something so traumatic. The other exception is if the mother's life is in danger.

I also believe the father should have some say in the matter. If the man can be obligated to 18 years of servitude for creating a child he should have some say in the matter as well.

I think the best thing that could happen is if government just stays out of it. Just agree that if the child is born or in the process of being born (if labor has begun) then abortion is no longer an option - except as noted above.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There is a period of time where the fetus is really just an extension of the mothers body, so the mother should have a choice over what happens to her body.

I generally appreciate what you call a "centrist" perspective, and your attempt to apply thought and reason to a complex and very emotional issue. But I gotta tell you, it's damn hard getting over this sentence. The premise seems to assume that women/mothers do not have any right to bodily autonomy simply by virtue of their reproductive capabilities, but by golly gee we'll be nice and let them have some say about their own bodies. Rather than starting from the basic principle that we all have bodily autonomy, and that free will to do for ourselves and by ourselves is the default -- not the exception. And that this includes the choice of whether to nurse and nurture a developing person in their body, in order to give the gift of life. It's more than a little disingenuous to even speak in terms of taking a life which has not yet been given that gift.

To be clear, I consider this ability to co-create with God & Nature a sacred honor and privilege... but it's not a duty. God & Nature do not compel women to bring forth life. God & Nature do not even guarantee or promise the ability to bring forth life. In fact, the very high miscarriage rates tell us that not all conceptions are destined for life.

Approaching this from the proper perspective that women do in fact and in deed have an absolute right to bodily autonomy, it follows that any restrictions must start with this premise, and intervention is only appropriate when and if that choice conflicts with the rights of others. In this case, specifically, the unborn. We find ways to balance conflicting rights in all sorts of matters. We can do so with abortion as well.

But FIRST we must acknowledge and respect the rights of women/mothers.

a reply to: network dude

I read somewhere that about 11% of American believe that the government has no business whatsoever regulating abortion. It appears that Mayor Eric Adams is one of those people. Do you think that means that Eric Adams advocates for aborting a gestational nine month healthy, viable fetus?

I doubt it. I can't read his mind, nor the minds of the 11% of Americans that want the government to butt out of bodily autonomy issues. But I doubt that they actually do want healthy, viable, fully developed fetuses aborted.

I doubt you'll even find even the shadiest of doctors to do it too, because infant trafficking is so much more profitable than murdering them.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: The2Billies

Lol, that is murder. It is noted that it has to be related to the birth or pregnancy. If you have read further, because so many are choosing to interpret the words incorrectly, they state before the bills go to vote they will very specifically amend the verbiage. At least one of the bills will not even be amended or voted on until next April.

They say they will amend the verbiage but until they do, it is still saying engaging any infant in a post-birth abortion (infantcided) would be legal. I never said it was law now, simply that these were bills. I do expect however that eventually, the way things are going with the liberals and their slippery slopes of denial, it will happen eventually. They will be ok with a post-birth abortion on a healthy infant, and it will be eventually legal in some states.

I truly believe that it is part of the liberal mind and heart that the "XX with a uterus" wishes are far more important than the life of the infant.

I read a defense of last minute abortion of a healthy infant with a healthy XX as being better than adoption because adoptive parents who aren't "culturally the same" as the infant is not in the infants best interest, that abortion is a better option for a late term healthy infant with a healthy XX.

Post-birth abortion IS on the slippery slope when people start writing and speaking publicly about it's defense and making laws in its defense. legalinsurrection.com... Once our nation degrades into infanticide as something praiseworthy for a healthy infant because to be adopted might not be in it's best interest, then our nation is no better than cultures that practiced infant sacrifice in the past.

a reply to: Boadicea

Not sure what you are getting at, I said women should have a choice for a period of time, but I do also believe there is a time where it becomes morally wrong. A mother should not be able to decide one day before giving birth she doesn't want a child anymore. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I wont give an exact time frame, but at some point the baby should be recognized as a legal human being with human rights.

a reply to: The2Billies

Well the CA bill has been amended already stating due to a pregnancy-related cause. The other bill cannot be amended to clarify the verbiage on lack of care because the session ended this April and will not reconvene until next April.

The only people who were taking the meaning to be murder after birth are so extreme in their beliefs that they really think anyone is trying to allow a mother to murder her baby up to 2 weeks after birth. Any babies death will have an autopsy. Anything other than a natural death due to a health defect would be investigated for murder. I mean even if they change the verbiage if you want to still believe it and claim it will happen, go for it, but other than your echo chamber, people will refute your claim.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Boadicea

Not sure what you are getting at, I said women should have a choice for a period of time...

Okay. Let me fix that for you: Women not only DO have a choice, simply by virtue of the fact that they CAN have a choice, and can ACT on that choice, by the grace of God and Nature. But they also have the absolute inalienable RIGHT to a choice in accordance with what they can do for themselves and by themselves, again by the grace of God and Nature.

No "shoulds" about it. No "ifs" or "maybes" either. Women have rights. Pregnant women have rights.

...but I do also believe there is a time where it becomes morally wrong. I mother should not be able to decide one day before giving birth she shouldn't want a child anymore.

Again, by the grace of God and Nature, of course she CAN decide AT ANY TIME that she does not want a child, and it is her absolute RIGHT to do so. That's not really the issue though, is it? What she wants is what she wants... what she does about it -- both legally and morally -- is the subject of the debate.

Like I said, I'm not an expert so I wont give an exact time frame, but at some point the baby should be recognized as a legal human being with human rights.

Then can we agree that at some point we need to balance conflicting rights of the mother and the possibly/probably viable child growing within her? And focus on solutions that start from the position that mothers do have rights and find solutions that respect the rights of the mother?

One way to do so is to legally recognize her right to terminate the pregnancy at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all, but at some point of potential viability, "termination" will constitute undergoing C-Section or induced labor, with physicians doing everything they can to nurture and sustain this new life.

a reply to: frogs453

I guess time will tell.