the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion.

legally.... roe v wade allows regulation, but doe v. bolton in practice has effectively render void that legislative option.
"Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

not because that case is bad law, but because it's being applied too liberally. so, to keep with the snpirit of roe v wade, legally, more regulations should exist in the third trimester.

also, morally... only things like the health of the mother should allow abortions. maybe a little leniency on some other things, but not much. this is obvious... it's not a baby two seconds out of the birth canal but a baby two seconds before, and murder doesn't happen only out of the birth canal. this is not debatable, to rational people.

so, rationally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated.

I disagree.

There are many, many, MANY more women in the third trimester who want the baby as opposed to women in the third trimester who DON'T want the baby.

The third trimester of pregnancy should not be heavily regulated because all the happy, anxious mothers would have that important stage of their lives ruined by whatever heavy regulations you want to impose.

I believe that instead of regulating the third trimester of pregnancy, we should regulate abortion clinics.

so by regulating the abortion clinics, we're regulating woman's access to abortion. your idea would have the same effect as regulating abortions as i said, wouldn't it... i don't see your distinction?

also.. if we makes exceptions for things like the health of the mother, as i said above, then we don't have to worry too much about harming her. now, we might quibble over whether she should have access, say if her parents will disown her and make her destitute... cause i don't think her desititution justifies killing the baby that she conceived and brought to third trimester.

and allowing for hte mother and a few other exceptions doesn't mean we don't heavily regulate the mother?

we might just be seeing past each other. and need clarification.
how exactly do you think we're harming the mother?

My concern is with the way you stated your argument.

You state that the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion. I can only assume that this means some sort of regulatory measures taken for all women who are in their third trimester.

I find this to be unnecessary and wasteful of resources.

Instead of regulating something as general as the third trimester of pregnancy (which would apply to mothers who are and are not considering abortion) you should limit the regulation purely to women looking to abort their child.

In other words, instead of monitoring/regulated all women in the third trimester, we should just regulate and monitor all abortion clinics.

"both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion."

i'm not sure how you got that i wanted to regulate all women in their third trimester.
i'm not sure how if i said that, that ties into your thoughts about abortion clinics.

but annways, that wasn't what i was saying, so i guess there's nothing to debate.

"both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion."

This means you want to heavily regulate the third trimester of pregnancy as a precaution, to make sure women in their third trimester do not get abortions.

I took a reverse stance saying that we should instead regulates the PLACES where abortions take place instead of the actual people.

My argument is, and I repeat, that monitoring all women in their third trimester is unrealistic. Although I agree that it should be done, there are many drawbacks.

First of all, a woman in her third trimester has been pregnant for the other 7 or so months anyway, so we would have to start monitoring them from the beginning. The percentage of women who will consider abortion in the third trimester is extremely low. If they wanted an abortion, they would have gotten it earlier.

Instead of heavily regulating THE THIRD TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY in general, as you have stated in your arguments and in the topic title itself, I propose we monitor the abortion CLINICS.

My reasoning is as follows: Women who want abortions go to abortion clinics. There, a doctor can assess whether or not an abortion can be performed. If the woman is clearly in her third trimester, the doctor has an option to inform the state and opt out of performing the abortion.

Instead of keeping a file on every woman who gets pregnant, we can just deal with the problem once it occurs.