No harm. It was imaginary anyway.No ice cream for David today. Sorry pal.
Of course it does. As long as that fetus resides in and is feeding off it's mother, whether it's viable or not, then it is ALL about that mother's personal autonomy. You may think restrictions after 24 weeks makes "common sense" sense, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that those restrictions are placed on a woman's autonomy.Limiting discretionary abortion to 24 weeks has nothing to do with personal autonomy.
As skin crawlingly despicable as she is, not a playa is the only one of you who is consistent in the support of a woman's full personal autonomy, at ANY time during pregnancy.
Why don't you ask her why she doesn't see the difference at viability, since as you said, any reasonable intelligent person would ?
Restrictions after viability protect no one. The fetus is a non person with no rights remember ? A woman is still free to assess the risks and choose not to abort.It has plenty to do with common sense.
You can certainly pluck an example of a time limit from your intelligent head.
US citizens have more freedom than most, but there are still laws in place to protect us and protect us from others. A post-vi abortion might just as well be considered delivery of a premature neonate. The risks of that procedure far outweigh personal autonomy unless there are compelling factors.(Strictly my opinion.)
Your position in support of post viability restrictions recognizes that it is no longer where the fetus resides, but WHAT the fetus is that matters.
On that much we agree.