What abortion policy set would you prefer?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I ask because I was surprised to realize that the time limitations to abortion are actually a lot more stringent in France (12 weeks, apparently) than they are in the US (at least, in jurisprudence). On the other hand, in France and most European countries, to the extent that an abortion is legal, the public health insurance program will pay for all or most of it.

I thought this could be an interesting debate, helping to unveil the existence of very different rationales among both supporters and opponents.

Option 1 for me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 1.

Antonio, are you sure it's not 16 week in France?

Wikipedia says it's 12.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lots of people fine with forcing poor women to have kids against their will in this thread.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed by the pro-choicers here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course I've made this poll because the choice is not an obvious one, and you guys are entitled to your opinions. I am also entitled to mine, and to express my disappointment when these opinions are not shared by other posters.

My progressive principles make me privilege the importance of equality of access to abortion, because "freedom of choice" is worthless to me if it is reserved to a privileged elite. This is something very important to me, far outweighing the (undoubtedly serious) damage of stringent time limitations. I would have liked to see this view prevail, and am disappointed to see it's not the case. Doesn't mean I don't accept different viewpoints.

[Antonio the Sixth]

TNF's post was hyperbolic in an Atlas fashion, I wouldn't take it at face value (though, for the reasons stated above, I do agree with the broad feelings behind his post).

I think I remember that an abortion may cost up to several thousands of dollars, which I'm pretty sure would be a significant burden to a lot of women. Maybe not to the point of reducing access to a privileged elite, but certainly enough to deny this right to many working-class women. Conversely, as it has been said before, a large majority of abortions occur before the 10th week, so the proportion of denied choices would be roughly the same in both situations. If the dilemma is between denying choice to the poorest women or denying choice to late-deciders, the latter definitely strikes me as the least worst option.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Apparently it can go from $90 to $4520. Abortions before the 10 weeks limit can be as expensive as $1800. Extreme case, but still.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I guess option 3, but the choices certainly are far from ideal.

Well I don't think many people have similar abortion policies to these.

Voted Option 2.

Also, pro-abortion seems like bad language. I'm not pro-abortion, but I do respect and support the women's right of choice and feel that it is necessary in certain circumstances.

     I agree, though I went ahead and voted option 4 in protest. I first heard "pro-abortion" being used as a dysphemism by people like Libertas, because abortion is a hideous thing and strawmanning abortion rights advocates as supporting abortion itself is a very easy way to delegitimize their position. Using the term to describe yourself is purely senseless.

I had to pick neutral terms, and my alternative was either this or the traditional "pro-choice"/"pro-life" dichotomy, which I would never use because I loathe the term "pro-life" (I'd have gone for "anti-choice", but some people wouldn't have liked it). Pro/Anti abortion rights would get too lengthy.