walkingdork said:

Mrebo said:

If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?

The process of late term abortion is pretty morbid. I'm in favor of laws against it as a compromise with pro-lifers and an incentive for people to get their abortions before the fetus is fully formed.

I'm sure it's not compromise for the sake of compromise. The incentive part makes sense as policy, though I don't know how many women it would hurry along in their decision. I think it's pretty clear that you just recognize the terribleness of the act and that unless it is truly necessary to save the woman's life or something at that late stage, it's not necessary.

Should women be able to choose to have a late term abortion? Probably, but I am seriously against it since at that point the brain is the same as it will be the day it is born.

It's a good illustration how a moral philosophy - autonomy of the woman in this case - can give way to reality without voiding its validity. It's disturbing to kill a fetus with a near-complete brain, formed fingers and toes, a beating heart. It can seem more palatable to cut the development short at an earlier stage. That it is more gruesome for us to consider means we can 'control a woman's body'? I think we all know it's more complicated. I think it's unfortunate so many reject the pro-life side out of fear that all abortion will become illegal.

darth_ender said:

Or the inconsistency of those who favor letting a child who was born alive in a failed abortion to simply die?

My grandpa always said you can fix anything with a hammer...

My grandfather also reportedly held that view.