Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.

There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.

“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)

This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.

It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.

[–] Disinfect056@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wish you were correct. But that is not the case. "No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe." No matter what the case is you dint have restictions.

Qe have to understand that the reason we have some laws is to protect the most inosent, specially those who cant defend themselfs. We do this with the older, handicaped and kids. Kids are not able to drink, why? Why cant they smoke? They are not mature enough to make desitions for themselves, so we take that responsability upon their parents.

So, should laws be put to protect the unborn babies? Is their life worth more or less then yours? Why can you kill the baby before 9 months but not after? What is different? "If the baby continues to develop it will kill the mother so lets kill the baby so the mother can live" is the argument before 9 months but never after 9 months.

[–] dreugeworst@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

Wow, you just completely ignored what he said, and quoted the same short sentence you quoted before as if it settles the issue.

I hope you're trolling, in which case: A+ effort, well done