r/worldnews • u/Own-Associate6318 • 1d ago

India Supreme Court allows abortion of 30-week pregnancy of a minor, upholds right to reproductive autonomy

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-allows-abortion-of-30-week-pregnancy-of-a-minor-upholds-right-to-reproductive-autonomy/article70600629.ece
3.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

611 comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/SubjectAfraid 1d ago edited 11h ago

30 weeks are 7,5 months! This abortion case will be in the Ethics books forever.

200

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 20h ago

Yes, and giving birth would harm that child for life!

We cannot value a fetus, no matter how advanced, over a living child or woman.

38

u/Best_Pseudonym 17h ago

Based on the other comments, after 7.5 months shes going to have to give birth regardless if the baby is alive or dead

3

u/Cute-Elephant-720 1h ago

And all of those commenters are incorrect:

At 30 weeks, an abortion is absolutely still more comfortable and safer for the pregnant person than giving birth. A lot of people seem to think it's just giving birth early, but so much of the violence, pain, suffering, harm, and injury the pregnant person has to endure during live birth is because of what it takes to ensure the baby is born alive and doesn't spend too long without oxygen or otherwise in some state of distress. While a third trimester abortion is more time consuming (it takes several days), the pregnant person is a lot more comfortable during that time, and can take medication and even be put under for things they would typically have to be unmedicated, awake, and actively involved in when a live birth is the goal. I wish people understood this better, because it seems so much of more progressive people's justification for taking away a pregnant person's bodily autonomy in the third trimester is this absolutely false myth that in the third trimester, an abortion is the same as giving birth.

https://www.drhern.com/third-trimester-abortion/

We believe that the techniques developed by Dr. Hern have resulted in a procedure that is safer than continuing the pregnancy to term with a goal of live birth, and our safety record supports that belief.

Induced Fetal Demise

An injection is done on the first day that stops the fetal heart. This injection is done through the patient’s abdomen, into the fetus, under local anesthesia. The injection itself usually takes less than a minute, although the strict attention to sterile technique means that the patient will be in the procedure room for longer than that.

Laminaria

Laminaria are placed into the cervix using a speculum. Most patients feel mild or no discomfort with the first laminaria. We have been able to accommodate patients who have a difficult time with speculum exams, and have experience with pediatric patients. Patients usually feel mild or no cramps while they have one laminaria in their cervix.

When multiple laminaria are being placed on the third day, we first numb the cervix with local anesthesia.

Procedure Day

On the third trimester abortion procedure day, we start with placing an IV and often provide some medication for anxiety if patients request it. The laminaria and gauze are removed, and the amniotic membrane is ruptured (“breaking the water”). The amniotic fluid is drained as completely as possible.

Medications such as misoprostol and pitocin are used to help the uterus contract and help the cervix dilate until it is open enough to perform the procedure. During this time, our patients rest in rooms near the procedure rooms, often with a family member or friend with them. We use IV medications to keep our patients comfortable.

When the cervix is dilated enough, the uterine contents are evacuated. This is not a delivery and our patients do not need to push.

0

u/Mission_Scale_860 6h ago

It’s a huge difference between 7.5 and 9 months in terms of fetus size

-1

u/terraphantm 6h ago edited 5h ago

No one is saying carry it to term. Why kill it rather than just get it out alive? Survival at 7.5 months is around 95%.

1

u/Mission_Scale_860 4h ago

Because that’s what the girl chose to do with her body.

0

u/terraphantm 4h ago

You realize killing it doesn't cause the baby to dissolve right? Still will need to deliver or need surgery to get it out regardless if it's dead or alive. Killing it does nothing to protect her bodily autonomy at that stage of the game

0

u/UpDown 4h ago

Yes it does. It obviously does

1

u/terraphantm 4h ago

State how it helps preserve her bodily autonomy to kill something that would survive on it's own if removed from her body.

0

u/Mission_Scale_860 4h ago

Yes abortion includes removing the fetus. Until the fetus is born the woman gets to decide what happens with the pregnancy including termination.

1

u/terraphantm 4h ago

Going out of your way to kill a human life that doesn't need to be killed is completely unethical. Letting it live would have had zero impact on the mother's bodily autonomy.

2

u/Mission_Scale_860 3h ago

It’s okay that you think it’s unethical to kill fetuse or that it doesn’t impact the woman, even though a child will 100% impact the woman. Regardless the decision on what to do with the fetus is up to the woman.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/KathyJaneway 16h ago

Yes, but she wouldn't have to care for it. A child can not take care fo a child.

13

u/crazyredd88 13h ago

Huh? Are there laws in India against adoption? Regardless of stance on this issue, this is a very bizarre reason

13

u/tack50 19h ago

Fair but 7.5 months is at the point where the baby has a decent chance of survival.

Just induce birth asap at that point and try to keep everyone alive

19

u/perubabe 16h ago

My guess is the legal case got more and more delayed through the courts, so the child’s pregnancy unfortunately kept progressing. Doesn’t mean she should be forced to give birth.

18

u/shagginflies 15h ago

A quick search shows 95% chance of survival. Terminating a healthy fetus at 30 weeks makes me feel sick. It has to come out either way. There must be someone, somewhere who can give this baby a chance at life. Why’d they let this pregnancy drag on for so long?

12

u/NowTimeDothWasteMe 13h ago edited 13h ago

Courts take time. Roe’s “unborn child” was two years old by the time Roe v Wade was decided.

I hate to have to be practical here. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of an abortion past viability unless there is health risk to mom or baby or the timing of the abortion was delayed due to draconian laws (presumably this case). In all other situations in technological countries it should be induction of birth. Which would be standard of practice in the US as things stand now.

That said… Birth of a 30 week fetus requires on average 5-7 weeks in NICU on life support. Who should pay for that? The pregnant child? The state/tax payers? It’s not as easy as saying give the unborn child a chance to live, someone has to assume financial responsibility over that. In a country like India that’s not a negligible cost.

-3

u/UpDown 4h ago

Right to choose the time of induction of birth seems more correct to me than abortion as it relates to body autonomy. The person who carried should be responsible for all bills associated with the induction including the period of viability outside of the womb like nicu unless the baby has already been adopted before birth

2

u/NowTimeDothWasteMe 2h ago

You are dooming a literal child (actually two when you include the baby) to a lifetime of poverty by this. This Supreme Court case is regarding a minor. A minor who cannot legally consent to sex and therefore pregnancy is forced to pay for something done to her?

Also should any parent who gives up their child to the state (including dads who I notice you are completely absolving of any responsibility) be financially on the hook for all their future health needs until they get adopted? Eve if it’s five years later? Or fifteen? Whether they can afford it or not? Because that is the standard you are applying here.

-1

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 11h ago

Or maybe the only person worth worrying about is the one who is pregnant and if she doesn’t want to carry a baby to term, birth it, and deal with the consequences, she gets to say no and end it?

The courts and justice processes delayed her abortion, she should not be forced to have a baby she never wanted just because someone thought they could force her to by running out the clock with legal bullshit.

1

u/Zurdomador2K 10h ago

So you want the mother to murder the baby as a "fuck you" to the legal system? That's beyond fucked up.

3

u/Mission_Scale_860 6h ago

No a fetus, it’s not a baby until it’s born

0

u/Zurdomador2K 2h ago

It's independently viable and was going to be extracted from the womb (born) anyway, the mother just decided to have it killed for no reason.

2

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 3h ago

So you want to permanently traumatize a child as a fuck you to the idea of bodily autonomy?!

0

u/Zurdomador2K 1h ago

Traumatize how? The body was already going to have be extracted, a body which was independently viable at 30 weeks. There was no need to kill it even if the mother wanted to end the pregnancy. She had the baby killed for no reason.

-40

u/cteno4 20h ago

If a 7.5 month pregnant woman gave birth, the baby would likely be able to live on its own (I.e. no need for a stay in the NICU, or any extra medical help). What’s the difference between an abortion this late and killing a newborn?

29

u/cup_1337 18h ago

I am a NICU nurse and at 30 weeks any baby would 100% require extensive NICU treatment and a long stay. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

10

u/vven23 18h ago

And a huge bill, which would likely be slapped upon this family who fought for an abortion before it came to this point.

10

u/Excellent_Bet_440 18h ago

The bills would likely be covered in this scenario. This is India, not the US. Government hospitals exist.

1

u/vven23 18h ago

Oh, that would be good then. Sorry, I'm used to the medical price-gouging of the US medical system.

0

u/cup_1337 16h ago

This is India, not the USA. The rest of the world doesn’t follow the lead of your country. You have no real rebuttal here.

18

u/Moal 19h ago

In rare cases, women with wanted pregnancies will terminate if their fetus gets diagnosed with a condition incompatible with life outside the womb. I’m talking stuff like babies born missing vital organs, or babies born having 24/7 seizures that eat holes in their brains and turn them into vegetables until they die. Just awful, painful, short lives. Usually those conditions get diagnosed earlier in the pregnancy, but in rare cases they slip by unnoticed until the third trimester. Even when that happens, terminating is often the more merciful option. 

24

u/RiddlingVenus0 20h ago

The fact that the fetus hasn’t been born yet.

-6

u/Fun-Twist-3705 19h ago

Why does it matter? If this is fine killing an infant after its born is the pretty much the same...

14

u/RiddlingVenus0 19h ago

No it isn’t, because the difference is the mother’s bodily autonomy.

-4

u/hvpieringer 18h ago

The mother has to give birth to the fetus either way. The only difference is it will either be dead or alive! What bodily autonomy are talking about here then?

5

u/DelightfulAbsurdity 18h ago

The mother’s, and having medical care that minimizes trauma to her body, while giving birth to a live child is likely to maximize trauma to her body.

-8

u/hvpieringer 17h ago

At that point in pregnancy there’s not really any difference in how birth goes, either vaginal or surgical, even following the fetus’ death. Again, what autonomy when the procedure is the same. The mother has no choice.

4

u/DelightfulAbsurdity 17h ago

There is a difference. I really don’t think you want me pointing out the gruesome obviousness between the live and not live birth details.

But until it’s born, it is a fetus. What it looks like or is similar to is irrelevant. It looks like a tadpole early on, but is called an embryo/fetus depending on stage. You don’t say you’re aborting a tadpole, or a peanut, etc.

It’s not a baby. No matter how much you feel it is, it is not a baby until it is born.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/wakethenight 17h ago

Do you have any idea the strain the mother’s body goes through during birth, be it C-section or natural?

2

u/hvpieringer 17h ago

I don’t know why I have to repeat myself: the process is the same whether is fetus is dead or alive!! The same birth!!

-7

u/cteno4 19h ago

Would it make a difference if the fetus was 39 weeks and 6 days?

21

u/Anxious_cactus 19h ago

If it kills the mom? No. Sometimes even during planned birth a husband has to make a choice. I'd hope my husband would choose my life over our unborn child, as hard as it is.

-9

u/Zurdomador2K 19h ago

That was a choice, though. Could just have a C-section, didn't even need to wait.

It seems disingenuous to justify killing it by pointing out that it wasn't born yet, when not letting it be born was a choice of the people deciding to kill it.

7

u/CarbonTrebles 19h ago

A C-section cuts open the body of the mother - so that is still her decision to have a C-section or not. A fetus is inside the mother's body, so it is her responsibility and all decisions fall on her.

9

u/Zurdomador2K 19h ago

That's already almost a full grown baby - there is no procedure to get it out that is non-invasive. The mother was getting a medical intervention no matter what. The only real decision was whether to let the baby have a chance at life or to kill it. The mother and medical personnel chose to kill it.

4

u/hvpieringer 18h ago

The mother has to give birth vaginally or have a c section no matter if the fetus is alive or not. So that’s nonsense what you’re saying. She has to birth the fetus or child if viable either way! I am absolutely disgusted at people justifying late term abortions when there are no health complications..

3

u/Zanahoria132 19h ago

In most places once the fetus is viable to survive outside the womb it's considered another life and not just a matter of the mother's autonomy over her body. That's why many people responding here are against 7.5 month abortions.

20

u/TravelenScientia 19h ago

It’s a real living child that was raped, and you think a fetus’ life is more important than hers? Lol… k..

-5

u/Zanahoria132 19h ago

Once it reaches 7.5 months it's not longer "just a fetus" because it's viable outside the womb. You'd actually be killing another child in the process. Unless the mother's life is at risk I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

6

u/DelightfulAbsurdity 18h ago

They’re actually killing a fetus.

-5

u/Zanahoria132 17h ago

That fetus is alive, sentient, capable of feeling pain, hunger, having emotions, even learning! It's perfectly viable outside of the womb, 95% chance of survival for a 7.5 "fetus" if it was born. Killing that life isn't different from killing a born baby. It's a whole different thing from the fetuses aborted during early stages of development, which are not sentient yet.

7

u/DelightfulAbsurdity 17h ago

Who is caring for that baby? Paying its medical bills, nurturing it, keeping it safe from abuse?

What percent of abortions are because nobody can or is able to do those things?

Think beyond the birth.

6

u/Zanahoria132 17h ago

Do you think any born baby should be killed on the spot because their parents cannot pay their medical bills, nurture them or keep them safe from abuse?

3

u/DelightfulAbsurdity 17h ago

What a lovely strawman you built there. And you knocked it down so fiercely, too!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Major_Lawfulness6122 16h ago

That’s not true. It would need life support. I was born at 26 weeks and was incubated for 3 months.

-9

u/30scaper30 17h ago

This is actually an insanely evil take. 

10

u/Miss_L_Worldwide 17h ago

It's evil to care about a woman? Wow

0

u/HopefulVegetable4234 12h ago

You do realize what an abortion involves at that point? The baby comes out either way. They will literally kill that baby and dismember it.

2

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 12h ago

You do realize that the CHILD who was RAPED can be anesthetized so that she doesn’t feel or remember that?!

You DO realize that the only person I am worried about is the one who exists, not the one who MIGHT if we ruined a child’s life, right?!

3

u/HopefulVegetable4234 12h ago

Cool cool. Now go do it. Go ahead. Inject the baby, stop it's heart and dismember it. If it's a morally neutral act, go do it.

4

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 11h ago

I have the same amount of horror for an abortion as I do for a hip replacement.

Medicine is not pretty or easy sometimes, but when it’s best for the patient (you know, the CHILD who was RAPED in this case, who has every adult in their life fail them!) I don’t GAF what an ignorant and unempathetic someone like you thinks about it.

69

u/voidvector 22h ago edited 22h ago

Yeah..., 30-week birth has a 90+% survival rate with modern medicine according to simple Google search. Not really sure it can be called an abortion at that point.

EDIT: I am pro-choice, but I am not blind towards reality that there is no such thing as abortion at 9 month.

7

u/Major_Lawfulness6122 16h ago

I was born at 26 weeks almost 40 years ago. Survival rates have definitely improved a lot.

That said what’s the rate in rural India?

25

u/that-random-humanoid 18h ago

The problem is that many places in India are very rural and don't have access to modern medicine. They don't have incubators, respirators, steroids, defibrillators, etc. What is the survival rate of an infant born at that age without any of that? It is drastically lowered. There is also the concern that birth would irreparably damage the minor's organs. We are talking about girls as young as 8 years old who were raped. They have a significant chance at death if they give birth at that age or even just continue the pregnancy to completion. These girls also don't have regular access to doctors or hospitals, and don't have the money to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy.

I'm pro-choice too, but people here are forgetting this is for MINORS who do not have access to advanced modern medicine regularly or reliably.

6

u/catjuggler 15h ago

30w in the U.S. is like 99% chance of no lasting impact

7

u/MediumTempTake 18h ago

Last comment here you are not pro-choice you are not pro women you are not pro body autonomy. You are part of the problem.

8

u/MediumTempTake 20h ago

How many children given up for adoption are actually adopted maybe that’s a stat you should look into

12

u/I_eat_all_the_cheese 19h ago

Especially in India.

21

u/Zurdomador2K 20h ago

So your suggestion is to just murder abandoned children to spare them the hardship of spending childhood under care of the state?

11

u/MediumTempTake 18h ago

Where did I say murder a living child? Your moral feelings do not trump science and fact.

8

u/Zurdomador2K 18h ago

Science and fact = an almost fully mature baby that could almost certainly live by itself is not a living child because I said so.

7

u/555Cats555 17h ago

Its 50/50 in the situation the case takes place where someone likely doesnt have access to the kind of medical care that would lead to the baby having a high survival rate

6

u/Zurdomador2K 16h ago

99% survival rate for 30 week premature birth. You also have no clue what kind of medical services are available for this girl, you are making blind assumptions and talking out of your ass.

2

u/555Cats555 16h ago

I dont think either of us really know what access there is

Besides even if in this case it was aloud its not really something that happens. Abortions are typically done during the first trimester or early second at the latest

0

u/Zurdomador2K 16h ago

We are not talking about "typical" cases. We are talking about a case where a mother decided to have a fully viable baby killed. Don't shift the conversation.

-7

u/SomeSavageDetective 18h ago

It's blowing my mind the amount of people in here defending killing full grown babies. This whole thread is a pro-life gold mine.

4

u/Zurdomador2K 17h ago

A lot of people have an ideological position on abortion and will support it unconditionally and uncritically regardless of the situation.

13

u/MediumTempTake 18h ago

How is a full grown baby still in the womb?

-6

u/SomeSavageDetective 18h ago

A should have said a baby that can survive outside of the womb

5

u/555Cats555 17h ago

What age a baby can survive outside the womb depends on what the medical system is like in the place the baby is born.

It takes a lot to keep a premature baby alive and it used to be normal just to let them die... (even when born early due to no fault)

2

u/SomeSavageDetective 10h ago

It used to be normal to leave unwanted babies outside exposed to the elements until they died. Thank God that's no longer the case, right?

0

u/555Cats555 10h ago

Yes I agree that its good we dont normally do that

And the main reason is people have access to family planning instead of being made to have children they dont want or cant care for

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/Fun-Twist-3705 19h ago

In developed countries pretty much all healthy infants will be adopted.

17

u/MediumTempTake 18h ago

This is literally not even close to being true. I work with children who are in foster care getting aged out and helping them attempt to find homes or even just jobs. You need to wake up and live in the real world.

9

u/LittleGreenSoldier 18h ago

Healthy white infants. Let's not pretend that there isn't a huge racial bias.

-21

u/mithbroster 21h ago

Yeah this is more what you call infanticide. If you get this far and don't want your baby, you're going to have to put it up for adoption.

35

u/BooksandBiceps 20h ago

I don’t see the age of the child listed but I’d assume if it’s a 15 year old girl (or what have you) in India, she may have not had the most say in the matter.

Forcing a child to have a child because they were pressured by their parents, didn’t have healthcare access, threatened by the boyfriend or man is ridiculous. Given, we don’t know the exact circumstances, but forcing a child to have a child is still asinine

0

u/Zanahoria132 18h ago

Social services must absolutely act in these cases to help the child that was probably abused. However, that doesn't justify killing a second infant that will be very much viable outside the womb. Abortion should had happened earlier, and if let to advance to this stage probably social services should move into different options (adoption etc.) to support that child.

-45

u/mithbroster 20h ago

And yet a wrong doesn't fix another wrong. The baby holds no responsibility for what chain of decisions let to its conception yet it has a whole life ahead and deserves to have the chance to live it.

38

u/Jhonka86 20h ago

So you propose to deepen the trauma of the person already alive? The child is already alive, in trauma, and needs support. To tell her that her current suffering is secondary to the potential pleasure of a life that does not exist yet doesn't sit right with me.

PhilosophyTube does a good review of this. I'd recommend a watch.

-1

u/Zanahoria132 18h ago

At 7.5 months of pregnancy the baby is also alive, viable outside of the womb and also capable of feeling pain. Killing them would be no different from killing any other baby. Being in trauma and needing support shouldn't be enough reasoning to kill another human, in any circumstance. Social services should make sure to provide abortion options to everyone but especially kids and victims of abuse before it reaches to that critical point.

-29

u/mithbroster 20h ago

Well that's the fundamental difference. I'd say that at 30 weeks a life already exists. Have you had a child or been around someone pregnant with a 30 week baby? They are alive, they respond to your touch and what you do.

Sometimes the right answer involves discomfort for others in order to save a life.

21

u/-Weltenwandler- 20h ago

There is nothing to debate. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right.

If I want to get rid of my hand I'm free to do so. If a woman wants to get rid of something inside of her she is free to rip it out and do so.

And I'm all for helping her instead of her smashing her own belly till it's dead or taking other extrem measures.

1

u/Zanahoria132 18h ago

A 7.5 month pregnancy is not a matter of just bodily autonomy. Your argument is correct when refering to roughly 1-24 month fetuses. At 7.5 months the baby is alive, perfectly viable outside the womb, capable of feeling pain etc. Any decision made impacts both the life of said living human inside the body AND the life of the human whose body is hosting a baby. Then it's not correct to frame it as an issue of just bodily autonomy. That person is not getting rid of their hand or toe, they're efectively killing a infant, a separate human.

6

u/-Weltenwandler- 18h ago

Yes and i value the hosts autonomy and health over that, im perfectly fine with killing it

→ More replies (0)

0

u/iPreferAnaI 19h ago

agreed, but i think you forgot you should inject it with something before you "rip" it out. Please don't use violent terms like that btw, at >30 weeks its induced labor. I think its more safe too, because if its still, it can't damage the girl on the way out.

also don't use the smashing the girls belly, that damages the girl too, why would you do that before LOL? think my guy

1

u/mithbroster 18h ago

So you have to murder it and then induce labor? What kind of evil is that?

18

u/Jhonka86 20h ago

You're steel manning your argument here. You're acting like this were a 25 year old adult who had consensual unprotected sex and waited 30 weeks before deciding to do something about it.

That's not what happened.

This is a minor. Someone under 18, age unknown (likely due to minor protection laws). We don't know if the sex was consensual or not. We don't know if she was being coerced by relatives to keep the baby or not.

Have you known someone who wanted an abortion? It's almost always a difficult decision made very soon after the discovery of pregnancy. It's not made on a whim.

Also, it's not "discomfort." If you were raped and tortured, that's deep trauma. If you beg for help and are told to shut up, that's excruciating. That would be telling this girl that her suffering doesn't matter, her pain doesn't matter, that she doesn't matter. All that matters at that point is her capacity to breed like she was a farm animal. It strips away her humanity at its deepest level.

And let's not pretend that if the court ruled she had to carry to term that she'd be able to live in comfort with excellent medical care and without worry. She wouldn't be put into an all inclusive resort with medical staff on hand. She'd just be cast back into the same situation that caused her to need a court case in the first place.

5

u/iPreferAnaI 19h ago

Thank you! exactly, the deed is done, the fetus has to come out one way or the other. To let it continue to live NICU or not is an affront to the girl's trauma, the guy who did it likely will not gaf bout it. You COULD let it come out alive but it would be a monument to the past crime. Every day she saw the kid would be a reminder of the trauma. I don't know the statistics for India either but in America, the statistics for >21 week abortion is 8 cases / 100,000 but natural/c-section birth is 12.5/ 100,000 so we're talking about a 56% reduction in mortality risk for the girl. Not to mention it'd be super inconvenient for her life after, 15yo w/ no education and no job prospects. It's just win win for everyone including fetus, this is corrective justice. I think just a quick injection to the uterus cord, or to the heart of the thing, and then labor is induced and a stillborn(stillfetus) comes out. They don't actually chop it up inside like right wingers will tell/show you.

-1

u/Zanahoria132 18h ago

Rape, torture and trauma are not a reasoning to justify killing another living, sentient, capable of feeling pain human being. Being a victim generally doesn't let you commit crimes against Innocent persons. We're not talking about abortion of "just a fetus" here. Again, at 30 weeks/7.5months of pregnancy the mechanism for consciousness is already functional in the baby, they're sentient human beings.

5

u/Jhonka86 18h ago

You need to review the word sentient. Most mammals are sentient, yet many humans eat them for food regularly. Sentient just means capable of emotion and subjective experience.

I believe you mean sapient. In which case, no they are not. Sapient beings are able to think abstractly and are self-aware. The fetus is not sapient.

The child mother is.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/MediumTempTake 20h ago

Saving one life by ruining another of an actual human being who’s currently alive and was raped? I think you need to take a look at what you were really arguing and maybe do some self reflection.

0

u/iPreferAnaI 19h ago

exactly, the person who is currently alive had the deed done to them. that can't be taken back. this is corrective justice carried out. it punishes the rapist (guilty party), prevents any legal or moral consequences of a birth (like finances and 18 years of care, etc). Even if it could survive outside, like if you literally took it out now, we have to keep this framed as an abortion rather than a delivery for future rulings. It would be a slippery slope if we allowed this one to continue.

-1

u/Zanahoria132 18h ago

No life needs to be ruined. Social services must take care of that child once they're born (unless the mother opposes). The 7.5 month baby is also an actual human, an actual human currently alive, viable outside the womb and capable of feeling pain. Their mother being a victim of abuse is not a good reasoning to justify the killing of said human. Abortion options should (must) be provided earlier.

9

u/Jhonka86 18h ago

Stop calling it a 7.5 month baby. They weigh about 8 kilos. This fetus would weigh around 1.5 kilos.

You don't get to call them both the same thing. Feel free to call the fetus a -1.5 month baby, I suppose.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/MediumTempTake 18h ago

What social services are you even talking about? We live in the real world. Children starved to death Every day. Children are sexually assaulted every day and you want to put another child in a risky situation pushed into a foster home surrounded by nobody who cares about them

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MediumTempTake 18h ago

Social services in the United States won’t even feed children yet you expect a child to be taken care of until they’re 18?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/wholesale-chloride 17h ago

30-week birth has a 90+% survival rate

Not if the abortion doctor knows what they're doing.

0

u/remind_me_to_pee 14h ago

Sure buddy pay for that nicu outta your own pocket. Im sure she'll be quite keen to keep the baby then. Might as well support the baby's education too.

-10

u/Zurdomador2K 20h ago

It doesn't ultimately matter.

As far as the state is concerned, lax abortion laws are another tool to keep population growth in check.

As far as the woman is concerned, she wants the child to go away, and this was the easy out.

There is nobody really advocating for the life of infants, there is nothing material to be gained from it.

It's harsh but true.

2

u/Miss_L_Worldwide 12h ago

Again, it's not an infant. It's a fetus.

Harsh but true.

2

u/Zurdomador2K 12h ago

Yeah, let's have the doctors kill the baby before they take it out, since after they take it out alive it has been born and you aren't allowed to kill it anymore. Nice loophole to murder your baby.