10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in OH

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 09:25 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Post 2 was a response to the idea of banning abortion and violating bodily autonomy in general terms. It was not a specific discussion of post-viability, which is the one we're having now. As I stated in post 2, no one should have their autonomy violated by being forced to remain pregnant. That autonomy isn't violated post-viability for the reasons I gave in the post you've quoted, which you really didn't address directly.

In post 5, I was responding to the poster's notion that getting an abortion was akin to "killing a child." Again, to simply deem a fetus a child is to simply deem a sperm a fetus. A sperm remains just a sperm until a certain state is achieved, just as a fetus remains just a fetus until a certain state is achieved. 

As to viability, I'm comfortable with any consensus that is reliant upon the best scientific available at the time. That could change over time, but if we're using that criteria, the evidence based accuracy should bottleneck; where viability can only move back if the greatly increased survival rates and greatly decreased health risks eventually supports the move.

Just so we are sure we are talking about the same statements. Are you saying this statement, “ I don't want the state to have unfettered control over a uterus; in any scenario at all.” is consistent with what you are now saying about viability? “any scenario at all” would seem to exclude viability.

Of course the autonomy is violated after viability. Saying it isn’t because, well, you don’t think it is isn’t really a reason. You could say the state’s interest in protecting the now viable baby supersedes autonomy.