iirc it takes 9 months to birth a human on average. So someone could say abortion should be allowed at 8.9 month and someone can also say just 1 week.

I’m waiting for someone to say abortion should be allowed at 8.9 months cause i want to hear the reasoning.

Here’s my hot take: (ib4 ban) we should develop tech like artificial uteruses and just move unwanted baby/fetus/idk-the-terminology into these instead BUT we should also have a comprehensive social welfare program to raise ALL children/humans, and not conservative welfare where it’s like 1 mother figure taking care of 6 children with food stamps.

Given what i know about 2022 technology: if conservatives gave a hoot about child/fetus welfare, they’re have comprehensive social welfare programs, which would reduce the number of abortions bc at least the mother figure won’t be #rekt financially by have 6 kids.

There’s no limit on when an abortion is or isn’t ethical. If the foetus is developed enough that it’s possible to induce early birth (without risking the parent), I think that should be done (so that would cover your 8.9 month example), but in general the parent has the right to change their mind on the pregnancy at any time.

I was going to say something similar, but I think you covered it already.

Just want to add that even where late term abortions are allowed and available, they’re still very rare. Most people have made the decision to have the child by then, or would have already terminated. So the notion that “if we allow late term abortions then everyone’s going to do it” is not reflective of reality. By far the most common reason for late term abortion is medical complications, like severe fetal anomolies, the pregnancy becoming risky to the mother’s health, etc. At which point, it’s no longer simply a choice to not have a child.


there is a fundamental misunderstanding of abortions: women don’t just forget to get an abortion, so i’d argue that the upper time boundary for abortion debate doesn’t make a lot of sense in the first place, just leave it to the women and accompanying medical professional to decide 🤷‍♀️

but also, why would you even want such a system? like, there’s no reason to save any and all unborn humans, because they can’t feel or think, so they literally don’t care; many ppl at birth will have terrible diseases or disabilities, which would bring suffering upon both the person themselves and their parents, and there’s no benefit to this, no matter the way you look at it

the system you propose is not only has dubious viability, but even if it didn’t, it would create enormous potential for abuse, because capitalism really needs an ever increasing number of low-wage workers, and they don’t care what kind of hardships, troubles, disabilities they will end up with, and more workers very often leads to worse working condition (and vice versa: less workers -> better working conditions)

sorry if this sounds harsh, it’s just that i think that such a system would be really dangerous to virtually everyone involved

didn’t think about that, thanks!

sorry if this sounds harsh

A tip, say ‘I’ statements instead of ‘you’ statements


I generally prefer one for rhetorical questions and similarly impersonal statements, instead of the commonly abused you.

  • What choice does that leave one?
  • No matter the way one looks at it, …
  • If one examines the problem, one will see that …
  • One may find one’s issues are…

(and so on)

I believe they should be allowed at any time.

What does give me pause, though, is abortions that occur because of disabilities found before birth. When it comes to those, my belief in bodily autonomy crashes into my belief that eugenics is a terrible thing. In those cases I still believe it should be legal because there isn’t really a decent way to regulate that without hurting tons of innocent people, but I do believe that if you abort because you find out your child will have Down Syndrome, you are doing something awful.

If you’re taking this stance then you must also take the stance that a baby with Down Syndrome would not survive on it’s own in a pre-modern, natural selectionist era. Keeping it alive, nurturing and caring for it until you die, and then having them cared for through an institution until they die is extremely unnatural. Why would you bring someone into this life if they’re doomed to suffer? That seems awful to me. I’m sure we’ll just have to agree to disagree, but I can’t see the logic in it.

i’d be interested in this debate, if @whom replies!


Yeah I’m down to debate a little. I’m obviously getting some flak, but I just don’t understand how they can be for abortion to be allowed any time and then say that if the baby is in bad physical or mental condition, you shouldn’t because you’re doing something awful? It’s a contradictory claim.

what motivates that claim is a specific kind of cases where the abortion because of the disability and no other factor.

that claim is referring to cases where someone wants a child, and gets pregnant, and when they’re told that the child is autistic or has down syndrome they back down and no longer want them. That’s ableist.

that situation is different from an unplanned pregnancy.

a step in the right direction would be to have infrastructure that accommodates for mobility disabilities, education about parenting would be good as well

If the baby isn’t born, it’s the sole discretion of the mother. Ableist or not, the mother reserves that right.

Christofascists say so

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive
  3. Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
  4. not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 users online
  • 5 users / day
  • 30 users / week
  • 132 users / month
  • 468 users / 6 months
  • 19 subscribers
  • 521 Posts
  • Modlog