I think it’s fairly clear from my post I’m using “elective abortions” to refer to abortions performed for reasons other than medical reasons (health of mother, fetal abnormality). As you note, Denmark does allow abortions for both of those conditions after 12 weeks, but generally prohibits abortions after 12 weeks for other reasons. It has a second+ trimester abortion rate of 4%. By contrast, Canada allows abortions after 12 weeks for non-health reasons. It has a second+ trimester abortion rate of 17%. Since both countries allow second trimester abortions for health reasons, it stands to reason that a large fraction of later abortions in Canada are for other reasons that don’t justify an abortion in Denmark.
Guttmacher acknowledges that “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.“ (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013). That is consistent with the Denmark-Canada statistics above.
I haven’t mentioned any specific US abortion laws, so I’m not sure how you can say I’m “defending” them. I’m talking about the moral principle that’s accepted in Denmark and Germany and France that a second trimester fetus is sufficiently developed that it cannot be killed simply because the woman does not wish to be pregnant. That’s a principle that (1) American liberals aren’t willing to accept; and (2) which does not depend on the frequency of that outcome.
My post is expressly about “Roe” being an “outlier” in terms of requiring that abortion be available for non-medical reasons into the second trimester.
I’m not sure how you could interpret my post as being about the official “GOP” policy plank, since that’s long been a total ban which is obviously more restrictive than the laws in Europe. It that doesn’t change the fact that the European laws embody a meaningfully different moral judgment than does Roe about when the fetus is sufficiently developed that you shouldn’t be able to kill it without a heightened showing.
Guttmacher acknowledges that “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.“ (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013). That is consistent with the Denmark-Canada statistics above.
I haven’t mentioned any specific US abortion laws, so I’m not sure how you can say I’m “defending” them. I’m talking about the moral principle that’s accepted in Denmark and Germany and France that a second trimester fetus is sufficiently developed that it cannot be killed simply because the woman does not wish to be pregnant. That’s a principle that (1) American liberals aren’t willing to accept; and (2) which does not depend on the frequency of that outcome.