So why ban it if you're going to have all these exceptions?
Do people think that there are women waiting until 21 weeks or whatever to terminate perfectly healthy, viable fetuses? I feel like that is what people want to regulate, some boogie (wo)man scenario that doesn't realistically exist. All you do by "banning" at some pre-determined spot and then working back from there with exceptions is forgetting some shit that probably should be an exception and making someone else's life hell.
These situations are incredibly different per person. How about we let the woman and her doctor decide what's best based on the circumstances? Or are we just afraid these women will make bad decisions and thus we have to regulate that?
I was about to say the same thing. Why do we need to regulate this at all?
It seems more like men's terror over some fictionalized scenario, where women just can't wait to terminate
their babies. But that's the problem - men not thinking about any of this from a woman's perspective, only their own.
Men have spent centuries trying to organize society in a way that benefits their breeding prospects, which has often entailed limiting women's own autonomy. The advent of birth control and the legalization of abortion threw wrenches into that endeavor. That's why men try to strip out maternal care, proper sex education, and abortion access.
All this philosophical debate about "when is a fetus a person?" is interesting and worthwhile on its own, but acting like that's really the driving concern requires ignoring the historical treatment of women, sexuality and paternity. The question is a moral distraction from a social issue.
Never forget, folks, that white men were willing to give Black men - who had been
slaves - the right to vote more than 50 years before women. The fear over female autonomy is unmistakable.
