Is supporting term limits and exceptions for abortion radical thinking?

[Luvnit2]

(06-26-2024, 10:58 AM)CJD Wrote: The surveillance makes no distinction between medically necessary vs elective abortions because, as of now, that distinction is irrelevant. 6.9% is the percentage after 13 weeks. The 1 to 2% is my estimate of how many abortions are past 13 weeks and elective (because, logically speaking, if someone is willing to remain pregnant for 13 weeks, which is over 3 months, then the odds that they would suddenly have a change of heart and electively abort are fairly low, in my opinion. I gave it a 25% chance that they'd be elective vs 75% that they were medically necessary, which is a conservatively high estimate for the electives, in my opinion). 

As for why those who want no term limits fight so hard for the 1 to 2 percent, the answer is because in an attempt to capture that 1 to 2% of "unnecessary abortions" by the right's definition, we'd be impacting 6.9% of those trying to get abortions. So the majority of those abortions are likely medically necessary and then we'd be putting road blocks up that could negatively affect, and potentially harm or kill, the other 5 to 6% of mothers who need that 2nd trimester abortion. In an attempt to halt 1 to 2% of national abortions, are we causing 5% of mothers to die because they had to wait for an approval board to green light her medically necessary abortion? That's a net negative on society by nearly any estimation.

Not to mention, potential danger to a mother is always an estimate by doctors. What if a doctor believes that, if a woman stays pregnant, she has a 50% chance of dying. Is that good enough for this medical board? What if it's only 30%? Where's the line for determining if an abortion is necessary? What if an abortion with a 25% chance of harming the mother is denied because the chance isn't high enough, and then she dies?

It's just an awful lot of risk and effort to prevent a very small percentage of "unnecessary abortions" that could end up harming a lot more people.

With all that said, I think you have the question backwards. In order to outlaw that 1 to 2%, a new law would need to be passed. That is the action. Trying to stop that is the reaction. So the question should be, why are those who want term limits fighting so hard for that 1 to 2%?

The later an abortion is, the more likely that it is critically required and yet those are the ones that the right is targeting with these term limits. It's extremely counter intuitive to ban the ones that are more necessary.

You lost me when you mentioned put mother's life in jeopardy. I can't speak for others, but if a mother's life is in danger in month 8, it should be her and her partner if they have one to choose to abort the baby to save the mom's life.

My OP was it is radical to ask for term limits on abortion other than the health of the mother. In an earlier post you mentioned who determines need. The doctor who signs an oath has to be trusted with the decision, but after a term limit is surpassed, it should be eligible for POSSIBLE REVIEW IMHO only if there may be a case of impropriety by the doctor and those nurses attending to to the pregnant mothers.