- Sep 4, 2005
- 28,304
- 17,065
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Because it's not ideal.If something is safe and legal, why should the government be limiting access?
If a person is getting an abortion for any reason other than rape/incest/health at later than 16 weeks, that means "mistakes were made" and we need to be encouraging caution and not making it "the norm"
Going to the ER to get my stomach pumped for doing too many shots of Patron is safe and legal, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be discouraging the behavior that led to that outcome.
A) Yes, some are, I've shared before that certain clinics even advertise that service specifically. I can get the links from my previous posts if you really want to see them.Nobody's having elective third trimester abortions, though.
B) If it's not a case of rape/incest/health... why is someone waiting until after 16 weeks to "get it taken care of"?
The one question nobody's been able to provide a cogent answer for any time I've asked...
Why is it that the most progressive nations on the planet (Nordic countries) seem to get by just fine with setting the limits somewhere between 14-18 weeks (and if you want an elective one beyond that, you have to get approval from a review board), yet, when a red state here says "we're capping it at 20 weeks", all of the sudden "the sky is falling, this a war against women"?
Upvote
0