do you support any abortion restrictions?

[WalterMitty]

no, absolutely not.

[Torie]

Sure, some. But not in the first trimester.

[Niemeyerite]

Sure, some. But not in the first trimester.

[Supersonic]

Yes, of course.

[Miles]

Yes, of course.

[Flake]

Not in the first two trimesters.

[Deus Naturae]

To people who are basing restrictions on trimesters: Why? Is there anything specific about the beginning of a specific trimester that causes you to oppose abortion once that point is passed? Wouldn't it just be better to tie restrictions to specific fetal developments than to tie it to the beginning of a trimester? If you support trimester-based restrictions because fetal developments that are tied to the beginning of a certain trimester, what development?

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes, of course.

[SPC]

People have the right to defend themselves from trespassers with lethal force, and I do not believe that rule is altered when the property is a uterus. However, I would certainly not consider it ethical to employ that option past the point of viability.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Some (moderate hero)

[Indy Texas]

To people who are basing restrictions on trimesters: Why? Is there anything specific about the beginning of a specific trimester that causes you to oppose abortion once that point is passed? Wouldn't it just be better to tie restrictions to specific fetal developments than to tie it to the beginning of a trimester? If you support trimester-based restrictions because fetal developments that are tied to the beginning of a certain trimester, what development?

How is that any less arbitrary? Which fetal developments are more important? Which ones create the line between personhood and non-personhood?

This would be analogous to changing the definition of adulthood from turning 18 to completing puberty (which happens as young as 14 for some and later than 18 in some cases). It's not illogical but it's also not necessarily any more intuitive.

[RogueBeaver]

Yes, of course.

[Niemeyerite]

To people who are basing restrictions on trimesters: Why? Is there anything specific about the beginning of a specific trimester that causes you to oppose abortion once that point is passed? Wouldn't it just be better to tie restrictions to specific fetal developments than to tie it to the beginning of a trimester? If you support trimester-based restrictions because fetal developments that are tied to the beginning of a certain trimester, what development?

Because that's very difficult to determine. More or less like the legal age of 18, supposed to be the age at what you are mature enough.

[DC Al Fine]

People have the right to defend themselves from trespassers with lethal force, and I do not believe that rule is altered when the property is a uterus. However, I would certainly not consider it ethical to employ that option past the point of viability.

That's a bit like using a shotgun to deal with that house guest who overstayed his welcome.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Yes, of course.

[RosettaStoned]

 Yes; no abortions after the first trimester.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course (not a monster).

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, although I have moved significantly to the left on this issue, I would still obviously like to have legal restrictions and requirements for an abortion.

[SPC]

People have the right to defend themselves from trespassers with lethal force, and I do not believe that rule is altered when the property is a uterus. However, I would certainly not consider it ethical to employ that option past the point of viability.

That's a bit like using a shotgun to deal with that house guest who overstayed his welcome.

If the guest in question were a stowaway that the invited house guest brought in his suitcases and refused to leave and stop raiding the pantry, then yes. Granted, the invited house guest is notorious for bringing uninvited guests with him, so ethically the homeowner should resort to less violent means of removing the house guest, such as preventing his luggage from coming inside the house or finding a suitable landlord for the house guest.

[Torie]

To people who are basing restrictions on trimesters: Why? Is there anything specific about the beginning of a specific trimester that causes you to oppose abortion once that point is passed? Wouldn't it just be better to tie restrictions to specific fetal developments than to tie it to the beginning of a trimester? If you support trimester-based restrictions because fetal developments that are tied to the beginning of a certain trimester, what development?

The break point of the first trimester is a reasonably proxy for when brain waves start, and the fetus begins to look human.

[BaconBacon96]

None whatsoever, except the basic restrictions that every medical procedure has.

[Mordecai]

No, because you have horrible cases where an abortion may be needed to save the life of the mother and the fetus is already dead. It's pretty sadistic to force a person to die just so you can be satisfied that the dead fetus was delivered.

[DC Al Fine]

No, because you have horrible cases where an abortion may be needed to save the life of the mother and the fetus is already dead. It's pretty sadistic to force a person to die just so you can be satisfied that the dead fetus was delivered.

Reread the title.

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[TNF]

No, I categorically reject both the idea that the "unborn" have rights and the idea that those rights would trump those of the mother even if they did exist.

As usual, Nix is right on the money.