You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt “take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body” were the doctors orders.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
This has always been a crime in the US.
Third trimester. No.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Sounds like you don’t know the circumstances. This is why we have a jury of our peers.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt “take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body” were the doctors orders.
If abortion is banned after 20 weeks, a doctor cannot advise on abortion.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob-gyn-shortage-roe-v-wade-abortion-bans/
I don’t know all of the facts. But the ones presented are enough.
deleted by creator
The circumstances are laid out.
The circumstances of why she sought an abortion so late are NOT laid out in this article.
The circumstances of what she did are laid out. And they are disgusting.
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Your opinion is outside of both science and morality
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
Removed by mod