Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gjcs14 t1_iwlfq77 wrote

Personally I think abortions should only be performed after that period if they're medically necessary (or maybe if it's a minor or rape victim who for some reason wasn't able to get one earlier), but technically that would still be the second trimester. Prior to that I think elective abortions are fine. Abortion really only came to be this culture war thing in recent decades. When Roe happened in the 70s, it was hardly the partisan issue it is today. In truth, I doubt half of these moral crusaders would give a shit if it weren't a matter of toeing the party line.

https://i.imgur.com/J6RGbOY.jpg

17

WeimarStreetCrust t1_iwmfkah wrote

All these state laws I mentioned have exceptions for medical purposes, etc.

So idk why people are downvoting other than they think it’s totally fine to kill a kid in the third trimester on demand…for no good reason.

−4

gjcs14 t1_iwmn66f wrote

I think the poster might have been referring to initiatives that were brought forward by lawmakers in the house that ended up blocked by your governor. Or maybe all the things Bolduc was talking about with it being too lax, how that might be off putting to voters. I won't speak for them, but where I live currently, it's a near-total ban including incidents of rape or incest, even for minors. So with that national backdrop, it would make sense to me. But I don't know. They're so rare it feels like a pointless issue to zero in on, but I wouldn't support a third trimester abortion without good reason like rape, incest, medical, etc. But of course, nobody's really doing it for "birth control" at that stage anyway.

So yeah, of course, have doctors or social workers assess the situation. But we're talking about something incredibly rare that has no business animating people like this, unless someone views it as a stepping stone to actually outlawing abortion in the state which politically isn't happening.

3