Yep they’re trying(and succeeding at in some states) to frame women as cattle. Where the fetus no matter what the viability is, or the danger to the women’s health, and her socioeconomic status in regards to being able to raise a kid(with little to no help from the state that made her carry the fetus to term without any social safety net and if their is one it’s completely underfunded and has lack of easy access. Wtf is going on in peoples minds that think this is alright? I swear the alt right and republicans just give lip service “ small government” while they laugh all the way to the bank and damn well make sure that their daughters,wife’s, mistresses have access to those health services that is “plebs” are not privy too. /end rant
In Nebraska, The 12-week ban includes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This might indicate it was more of a socio-economic / psychological reason, which are not sufficient grounds under the law to terminate the offspring after that point.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform an abortion under those conditions. Whose responsibility is it to verify that the condition is met? Doctors are very afraid of being sued. Most just won’t perform any abortions just in case. This is the intended effect.
The actual crime she was nabbed for was illegally hiding human remains. Her mother who provided the abortion pills is the one actually going to be in a lot more trouble it sounds like.
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance.
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
What matters is what can be argued to be correct
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal.
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)
Finland:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
Yep. Know why she did it? Desperation + living in a state that already made it hard to get abortions, but also doesn’t provide good prenatal care. Nebraska has one of the higher infant mortality rates in the country (though it still pales in comparison to Mississippi).
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
regardless, it’s the law. if you want it changed, move to Nebraska, get residency, start a grassroots campaign, get elected to State government, and draft a bill into law.
you’re free to do that, after all - self government is one of our many freedoms. many other countries don’t allow people to do anything about how the government works.
It was always a crime to secretly force a stillbirth at 28 weeks and then bury the body without telling anyone. 28 weeks is almost 7 months (edit: math is hard). She had plenty of time to do it legally.
I wish people wouldn’t talk about pregnancy in terms of months.
40 weeks is at typical pregnancy. A nice, round, simple-to-remember number.
28 weeks is a pregnancy in the 6th month, just as a matter of fact. 28 weeks is also basically the earliest you would ever call someone in the third trimester and is the earliest a pregnancy is typically thought to have the possibility of viability.
There are quite a few medical complications that can be found after the 20 week ban. It is possible she did not discover it until after that. The article does not give information on the circumstances.
As for what she is being charged with, improper disposal of a body, that seems proper assuming there was some sort of biohazard issue.
agree. fetuses can live outside the womb starting at ~24 weeks, whether you are pro life or pro choice i think (and hope) most of us can agree abortion at 28 weeks is very wrong. i dont understand how people can think otherwise. plus the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health.
Absent more information, we cannot assert it was definitely wrong. You’ve intentionally framed this as “the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health” which I have to assume is an intentional lie of omission. What the article actually says is nothing at all about the health of the fetus. It does not imply there was no danger to her health. It says nothing. Likely because it is an unknown.
What we do know about a 28-week abortion is that such an abortion was not part of a normal, healthy plan. Late-term abortions like this are almost certainly from someone intending to carry to term who has some kind of crisis. We do not know the nature of severity of the crisis.
In such a crisis generally, the community and the state should’ve been there to help them navigate it and reach an outcome that kept her as whole as possible while doing what is possible to keep the child alive. This was possibly a viable pregnancy. But I totally understand, especially to a teenager and in the current political environment of a place like Nebraska, being rightly too frightened to reach out for help.
We can not agree on that because we have no fucking clue on the circumstances. It’s possible she learned of a medical complication for the fetus after 20 weeks. It is possible that it is really difficult to get an abortion in Nebraska and it took a couple months to be able to obtain the resources to do it.
We do not know because the information is not provided. It is possible that somehow after carrying a fetus for 28 weeks and likely knew for 22 of those weeks, she decided she no longer wanted it. We do not know but that seems unlikely to me.
To pretend that abortion after some arbitrary limit, should be illegal, is to make a mockery of pro-choice and bodily autonomy arguments. It even makes a mockery of pro-life. The whole thing is a complete joke. If you think abortion is murder, then agreeing to a term - based compromise is agreeing to let people murder children as long as they’re not too old. A compete mockery of pro-life. In reality, the arguments for bodily autonomy are so strong that everyone should have the right to abort at any term, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (Republicans are changing this).
When you support these arbitrary term-based bannings, you’re giving in to the social manipulation of pro-lifers who have successfully manipulated you into a compromise that supports their position.
Being pro-choice requires you accept abortion at any point is morally acceptable.
It does not mean it is desirable. You can have a preference that an abortion late term not happen. It’s just a preference for individuals to behave more charitably, after all. And you’re free to institute policies that make it less likely to happen so long as those policies do not trample on an individual’s ownership of their own body. For example, you can create financial incentives to complete the pregnancy – cover the person’s living and healthcare expenses or flat pay them to do it.
It’s telling that the “pro-life” types aren’t out here advocating for these kinds of policies that prevent individuals from WANTING to have abortions. If they truly were concerned about murder, they’d be out there making education and contraception available and pregnancy care available and cheap. They’d be expanding things like TANF. All sorts of policies that are normally part of the agenda of the same people that tend to be pro-choice.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt “take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body” were the doctors orders.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
Revolting that this is now a “crime.”
Yep they’re trying(and succeeding at in some states) to frame women as cattle. Where the fetus no matter what the viability is, or the danger to the women’s health, and her socioeconomic status in regards to being able to raise a kid(with little to no help from the state that made her carry the fetus to term without any social safety net and if their is one it’s completely underfunded and has lack of easy access. Wtf is going on in peoples minds that think this is alright? I swear the alt right and republicans just give lip service “ small government” while they laugh all the way to the bank and damn well make sure that their daughters,wife’s, mistresses have access to those health services that is “plebs” are not privy too. /end rant
Jailing women. Jailing gay people. Killing Trans people. Banning books. Get ready the GOP/Nazi party is spreading their wings.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
In Nebraska, The 12-week ban includes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This might indicate it was more of a socio-economic / psychological reason, which are not sufficient grounds under the law to terminate the offspring after that point.
It doesn’t matter when the effect prevents basically everyone from getting an abortion.
Not “everyone”. There are exceptions for rape, incest, and mortal danger to the mother.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform an abortion under those conditions. Whose responsibility is it to verify that the condition is met? Doctors are very afraid of being sued. Most just won’t perform any abortions just in case. This is the intended effect.
Could you imagine telling other people what medical procedures they are allowed to have?
Land of the free, my ass.
Because it is a garbage law
The actual crime she was nabbed for was illegally hiding human remains. Her mother who provided the abortion pills is the one actually going to be in a lot more trouble it sounds like.
Killing a baby at 28-weeks of pregnancy and hiding the body is illegal in the vast majority of the US, including in blue states.
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
“(your) right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
Exactly, If you care so much transplant it into your uterus.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
I disagree, but once again, almost any western nation disagrees with you.
There’s a decent argument bringing a life into this world by choice is consent.
Canada is one of the very few nations to decriminalize abortions totally.
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
surprising really, Canada could use more citizens/a higher tax base. really, very few people in Canada, all told
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
Removed by mod
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
Where is your evidence that “almost every western nation disagrees with you”? Because I’ve seen many polls that say otherwise.
The fact that almost every other western democratic nation has abortion policies more restrictive than most american states.
Almost every single one has the limit under 14 weeks.
Notable exceptions: Netherlands - 24 weeks Iceland - 22 weeks Sweden - 18 weeks
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
Finland:
Latvia:
You said disagree. Since when have laws been indicative of current public opinion?
The country as a whole has laws that disagree with it.
The U.S. doesn’t permit honor killings, as a country we’re against it.
In Iran, it’s legal, the country agrees with it.
It’s not that hard to understand.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You gotta make a series of bold assumptions to believe her only option was to get an abortion pill at 28 weeks and hold onto the babies remains.
She had 20 weeks to get an abortion, which is more liberal than almost all progressive european countries.
deleted by creator
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
deleted by creator
Hard dissagree. It’s wrong in Nebraska, wrong in Germany, and wrong everywhere else where the standard is some date before birth.
That’s fine, but that still makes the comment I’m responding to absurd.
'revolting that this is now a ‘crime’ - it’s almost always been a crime in almost every civilized country for the last 200+ years.
It’s not a crime in at least seven US states, and would not be prosecuted in at least 13 more because of the vague definition of viability.
She wasn’t charged for the abortion, she was charged for hiding the remains. Did anyone read the article here?
Yes. I read the article. I know that already. The fact that she felt she had to do this is an indictment of Nebraska.
deleted by creator
Yep. Know why she did it? Desperation + living in a state that already made it hard to get abortions, but also doesn’t provide good prenatal care. Nebraska has one of the higher infant mortality rates in the country (though it still pales in comparison to Mississippi).
Removed by mod
Did this article hit a nerve on you or something? You’re spamming the thread and not even contributing with anything of value
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Either a bot or someone being weird. Blocking just to be safe. Bye 👋
If course I am a bot because you don’t agree with me.
Ok. 7 months abortion is not ok.
Especially without a medical professional and then hiding the body.
Th fact that this seems to be controversial worries me.
28 weeks is about 7 months.
I don’t know you.
You know why she did it?
deleted by creator
So you are certain?
deleted by creator
So happy to hear that you are certain.
You know why she did it too.
“In May, Burgess pleaded guilty to a felony charge of removing or concealing human skeletal remains.”
Yes, I think hiding and/or stealing human remains should remain a crime.
regardless, it’s the law. if you want it changed, move to Nebraska, get residency, start a grassroots campaign, get elected to State government, and draft a bill into law.
you’re free to do that, after all - self government is one of our many freedoms. many other countries don’t allow people to do anything about how the government works.
Removed by mod
It was always a crime to secretly force a stillbirth at 28 weeks and then bury the body without telling anyone. 28 weeks is almost 7 months (edit: math is hard). She had plenty of time to do it legally.
wow, time sure is crazy, 28 weeks for 8 months, and then 24 weeks for the remaining 4
I wish people wouldn’t talk about pregnancy in terms of months.
40 weeks is at typical pregnancy. A nice, round, simple-to-remember number.
28 weeks is a pregnancy in the 6th month, just as a matter of fact. 28 weeks is also basically the earliest you would ever call someone in the third trimester and is the earliest a pregnancy is typically thought to have the possibility of viability.
There are quite a few medical complications that can be found after the 20 week ban. It is possible she did not discover it until after that. The article does not give information on the circumstances.
As for what she is being charged with, improper disposal of a body, that seems proper assuming there was some sort of biohazard issue.
28 weeks is 6.2 months.
agree. fetuses can live outside the womb starting at ~24 weeks, whether you are pro life or pro choice i think (and hope) most of us can agree abortion at 28 weeks is very wrong. i dont understand how people can think otherwise. plus the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health.
Absent more information, we cannot assert it was definitely wrong. You’ve intentionally framed this as “the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health” which I have to assume is an intentional lie of omission. What the article actually says is nothing at all about the health of the fetus. It does not imply there was no danger to her health. It says nothing. Likely because it is an unknown.
What we do know about a 28-week abortion is that such an abortion was not part of a normal, healthy plan. Late-term abortions like this are almost certainly from someone intending to carry to term who has some kind of crisis. We do not know the nature of severity of the crisis.
In such a crisis generally, the community and the state should’ve been there to help them navigate it and reach an outcome that kept her as whole as possible while doing what is possible to keep the child alive. This was possibly a viable pregnancy. But I totally understand, especially to a teenager and in the current political environment of a place like Nebraska, being rightly too frightened to reach out for help.
We can not agree on that because we have no fucking clue on the circumstances. It’s possible she learned of a medical complication for the fetus after 20 weeks. It is possible that it is really difficult to get an abortion in Nebraska and it took a couple months to be able to obtain the resources to do it.
We do not know because the information is not provided. It is possible that somehow after carrying a fetus for 28 weeks and likely knew for 22 of those weeks, she decided she no longer wanted it. We do not know but that seems unlikely to me.
To pretend that abortion after some arbitrary limit, should be illegal, is to make a mockery of pro-choice and bodily autonomy arguments. It even makes a mockery of pro-life. The whole thing is a complete joke. If you think abortion is murder, then agreeing to a term - based compromise is agreeing to let people murder children as long as they’re not too old. A compete mockery of pro-life. In reality, the arguments for bodily autonomy are so strong that everyone should have the right to abort at any term, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (Republicans are changing this).
When you support these arbitrary term-based bannings, you’re giving in to the social manipulation of pro-lifers who have successfully manipulated you into a compromise that supports their position.
Being pro-choice requires you accept abortion at any point is morally acceptable.
It does not mean it is desirable. You can have a preference that an abortion late term not happen. It’s just a preference for individuals to behave more charitably, after all. And you’re free to institute policies that make it less likely to happen so long as those policies do not trample on an individual’s ownership of their own body. For example, you can create financial incentives to complete the pregnancy – cover the person’s living and healthcare expenses or flat pay them to do it.
It’s telling that the “pro-life” types aren’t out here advocating for these kinds of policies that prevent individuals from WANTING to have abortions. If they truly were concerned about murder, they’d be out there making education and contraception available and pregnancy care available and cheap. They’d be expanding things like TANF. All sorts of policies that are normally part of the agenda of the same people that tend to be pro-choice.
This has always been a crime in the US.
Third trimester. No.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Sounds like you don’t know the circumstances. This is why we have a jury of our peers.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt “take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body” were the doctors orders.
If abortion is banned after 20 weeks, a doctor cannot advise on abortion.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob-gyn-shortage-roe-v-wade-abortion-bans/
The circumstances are laid out.
The circumstances of why she sought an abortion so late are NOT laid out in this article.
The circumstances of what she did are laid out. And they are disgusting.
I don’t know all of the facts. But the ones presented are enough.
deleted by creator
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Your opinion is outside of both science and morality
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
Removed by mod