You're saying it's immoral to abort a fetus after the 1st trimester outside of the typical exceptions (assault, life of the birthing person, etc.). I'm saying that almost never happens, and you're saying even so it should still be illegal.
I think what you're missing is that it's probably impossible to craft such a prohibition bill that still protects the birthing person, because again the cases where abortions occur after the 1st trimester are innumerable. You can say you don't care, or that you value the fetus more than the birthing person, but I don't think it's useful to equate it with "infanticide... at the discretion of the mother". That's wildly out of bounds here. It's an extremely high stakes, complex issue and both sides deserve respect.
I think you need to think through exactly what that regime would look like because, and I'll say it again, we already had it. For some reason you really want there to be a law, but that law wouldn't change the numbers, and it wouldn't have many important exceptions. As a result, women would still seek abortions in unexempted cases (both "good" and "bad"), the same number of overall abortions would happen, all that would change is that more desperate women/girls and caregivers would go to prison, and more desperate women/girls would hurt themselves seeking unsafe abortions.
> When it comes to ending human life, we just don’t entertain the kinds of arguments you’re making about “access.”
You're missing my point. If you're serious about your position ("we want as many abortions as possible to happen only in the 1st trimester") then you need to dramatically increase the access to abortion in the 1st trimester. That's what you should be all over HN posting about. A draconian abortion ban won't do what you want.
> From the perspective of Danish law, most of the second and third trimester abortions in Canada are not happening for “good reasons”
Again you're not responding to the facts I've laid out for you. There are lots of other potential reasons for this (access, primarily), and your only evidence for this is your inference, which is no evidence at all. This is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which you're stubbornly making even in the face of other more parsimonious explanations. I don't know why you insist on believing there's a significant population of women out there that are doing this, but you've yet to show any evidence for it.
I think what you're missing is that it's probably impossible to craft such a prohibition bill that still protects the birthing person, because again the cases where abortions occur after the 1st trimester are innumerable. You can say you don't care, or that you value the fetus more than the birthing person, but I don't think it's useful to equate it with "infanticide... at the discretion of the mother". That's wildly out of bounds here. It's an extremely high stakes, complex issue and both sides deserve respect.
I think you need to think through exactly what that regime would look like because, and I'll say it again, we already had it. For some reason you really want there to be a law, but that law wouldn't change the numbers, and it wouldn't have many important exceptions. As a result, women would still seek abortions in unexempted cases (both "good" and "bad"), the same number of overall abortions would happen, all that would change is that more desperate women/girls and caregivers would go to prison, and more desperate women/girls would hurt themselves seeking unsafe abortions.
> When it comes to ending human life, we just don’t entertain the kinds of arguments you’re making about “access.”
You're missing my point. If you're serious about your position ("we want as many abortions as possible to happen only in the 1st trimester") then you need to dramatically increase the access to abortion in the 1st trimester. That's what you should be all over HN posting about. A draconian abortion ban won't do what you want.
> From the perspective of Danish law, most of the second and third trimester abortions in Canada are not happening for “good reasons”
Again you're not responding to the facts I've laid out for you. There are lots of other potential reasons for this (access, primarily), and your only evidence for this is your inference, which is no evidence at all. This is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which you're stubbornly making even in the face of other more parsimonious explanations. I don't know why you insist on believing there's a significant population of women out there that are doing this, but you've yet to show any evidence for it.