Five seconds on Google to find the answer to your question.
Embryos don't have a human brain when you use an abortion pills as well, and second/third-trimester abortions that are not "the mother's life is in danger" are incredibly rare, even in the United States where people are incredibly uneducated on the subject because of antiscientific religious pressure ( https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortion... ).
I find it really weird that this phrase is used when talking about things like abortion, but never gets used when talking about infant circumcision.
Isn't the only reason that infants are allowed to be permanently mutilated along with lifelong loss of sensation due to intense lobbying by antiscientific religious pressure?
First you'll note they dispute the fact fetuses can feel pain at all, because fetuses are not conscious. One questions at what point in the vagina consciousness develops. Inquiring minds want to know.
And my point is that even when the mother's life is in danger is no excuse to not anesthesize the child. Anesthesia for the child has nothing to do with the woman's body. Anesthetic does not cross the placenta from child to mother. The only explanation is we don't want to consider the fact that the child feels pain, whether the mother's life is in danger or not.
Is this a real cause for concern? I don't really know how abortions are performed, but doesn't the fetus die quickly? I imagine that once it's "unplugged", depending on its age, it's seconds to a minute from death.
You're really letting your partisanship shine through. Late term abortions are so exceedingly rare that they don't warrant serious discussion. They are exclusively happening when the risk to the mother is extreme, or the fetus is already dead (or has something like Trisomy 18, which is painful and 100% fatal within moments after birth, should the fetus survive long enough to see the outside of the womb).
> Late term abortions are so exceedingly rare that they don't warrant serious discussion.
Executions are exceedingly rare, yet they do warrant discussion. School shootings are also incredibly rare, yet they warrant discussion. Terrorist attacks are incredibly rare, yet they warrant discussion. All these discussions are warranted.
You're showing your partisanship by refusing to discuss something simply because it's rare. How many abortions of the kind I described would you be willing to tolerate? Why?
The CDC (hhttps://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm) says that about 5000 abortions occured in 2018 after 21 weeks. This is more than the total killed in 9/11, the total killed by school shootings (169 killed since 1999), etc.
So again, how many?
EDIT; downvoted for citing data. Sad that we can't have productive discussions on hacker news. My partisanship used to lie solely with the democrats until they became intolerant of any view other than abortion anytime, anywhere; now I'm a political outsider. When one sees engagement like this, these sorts of stories become unsurprising.
They are mostly happening for those reasons, but in many states it is legal through 3rd trimester with no restrictions [1].
If this argument was obvious partisanship, there would simply be a national ban on elective 3rd trimester abortion (as you argue, it's a no-brainer). Yet that is not a bill which can pass congress today, suggesting there is considerable support for elective 3rd trimester abortion.
Congress has come together to pass sweeping bills to prevent far fewer deaths than those abortions (think Patriot Act).
