Mischaracterize? I used your exact words. You stated "there was no reason that abortion HAD to be available to her" which suggests that you do not believe abortion was warranted/necessary despite mental anguish of the mother, physical demands of bringing a baby up to and through labor, and the suffering of a dying baby with no quality of life.
How in the Hell do you quote me, then turn around and use a complete different set of words, and still manage to say that you're using my exact words, without your head exploding from the mindblowingness of it all?
I said that there was no reason abortion HAD to be available to her. The only reason abortion HAD to be available to her would have been if there was a significant risk to her health. It has NOTHING to do with abortion being "warranted." What we have is is a state law, enacted by the state legislature, who was duly elected by the people of the state. It is their decision whether to have such a law or not, and inasmuch as the law is the will of the people and does not violate the constitution then it is an acceptable law. If you live in that state, and you would like to see the law changed then you should write to your legislator(s) and let your voting decisions reflect those who will support your concerns. On the other hand, if you don't live in that state, then your only concern should be that no basic human rights are being violated, nor the constitution.
So if those three reasons aren't enough that abortion HAD to be available to her, what is?
I've already said it multiple times, if there was a significant risk to the woman's health by continuing to carry the pregnancy. A late term abortion cannot be justified on the basis of "the mother will be sad" which is essentially what your argument boils down to. I have no doubt that this whole ordeal has been the most difficult thing this woman has ever had to endure. But the law is not required to permit late term abortion just because
something had to be done to help the mother feel better. Pain and deeply upsetting experiences are a part of life. In this woman's case, this is one of those deeply upsetting experiences. Having a late term abortion would not have made a difference in the grand scheme of things.
You said you were a strong supporter of abortion rights, whatever those are, but you're not really showing it.
I'm showing an objective opinion on a specific incident. I am also deeply spiritual and devout in my beliefs. That doesn't mean that I want to legislate religion over other people. There is a difference between supporting an idea, and allowing one's biases to ruin one's objectivity.
This last statement is one on which you have no basis to make. You have no clue what that mother went through. You think PTSD is even a real mental health issue? You probably just made it up.
Okay, do YOU have any meaningful basis to say that the woman has suffered some kind of significant damage from the continued pregnancy? The fact that you're willing to dismiss PTSD as a "real" mental health issue shows that you don't have any actual care for a person's mental health. So you lose any place to invoke mental heath as a reason to demand a late term abortion.
Doesn't feel good when someone else minimizes or hand-waives your pain, does it?
Actually, I could care less what your opinion is of my PTSD. What an anonymous person on the internet has to say about the matter is of no concern to my life.
So why would you do it to someone else when you are in no position to understand what she went through?
I'm not minimizing anything. I've said already that I have no doubt that this has all been an incredibly difficult experience for this woman. But you obviously don't have any understanding about what mental health means or what mental health treatment is all about. If you think that a woman, wanting to have a child, suffers more from her continued pregnancy than she does from losing her child, then you're insane.
For someone who starts paragraphs with the ever so immature "you don't know me!" you sure have some audacity to believe you know what this woman went through.
I never said I know what she went through. But then again, neither do you. The difference between you and I is that I have a basic understanding of what mental health is all about. You're trying to invoke something of which you know nothing, in an attempt to support your position, which is otherwise unsupportable. Mental health is not about "Oh noes don't let her feel bad!" You invoke mental health and seem to think that doing so demands that the law must allow people to be sheltered from anything unpleasant. But in fact, that's more like the opposite of the truth. Mental health is about actually being able to deal with the stressors of life, overcome hardships and a healthy way, etc. I grew up with abusive parents. But to suggest that the law should have allowed me to kill them in self defense, to protect my mental health, would be insanity! The questions of my mental health then and now continue to be about my ability to cope with the things my parents did to me in a healthy way so that they do not inhibit me from having a happy and productive future.
Except, as previously mentioned, that something is productive. It reduces the mental and physical burden on the mother, and would have completely removed the relentless suffering of the child.
This is unsubstantiated. As already said, if you think that an abortion would have actually provided any comfort to this woman over losing her long anticipated and desired child, then you are insane! At best, it would have been a distraction from the woman's real issues, which would actually have been BAD for her mental health. You obviously don't know what you're talking about in all of this so just stop playing the mental health card.
There are clear benefits in this situation. How bad does it need to be before you see taking action as "productive?"
A significant risk to the mother's health.
