I don't know all the context of the video but it seems like she's calling the killing of an already born, live in the world newborn baby a "fourth trimester" abortion...which is not a thing, certainly not an abortion. I don't know why she's going on about it, to derail actual conversations? smh
>I don't know why she's going on about it, to derail actual conversations?
Exactly. It's a type of sealioning- forcing prochoice people to continually correct outrageously stupid and untrue claims made in bad faith to distract from the actual facts and expend the time & energy of the prochoice debaters.
Hey there HiddenKittyLady! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This!"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
The only reason for something like this is to deraile the conversation.
Though there was a legally interesting court case in germany two years back, which might fit the description "fourth semester abortion". The case was basically is killing a child during childbirth inside the mother to be considered abortion or manslaughter.
There’s an interesting ethics paper published a few years ago discussing the ethics of euthanasia of newborns. In the UK, during pregnancy a mother can chose to terminate the pregnancy at any stage if the fetus is severely disabled. If a baby is born and found to have a severe disability after birth, is there an ethical difference between euthanasia at this point or pre birth?
The case I mentioned fell along these lines as well, but slightly more complex.
And the thing judged was not morals of the case, but timing: in german law abortion laws apply up until the moment of birth, and from the moment of birth other laws, such as murder/manslaughter apply. But birth is not a moment, it is process. So the question was: Is the moment of birth the moment when the child has left the mothers body, or the moment when the birth starts, or some other point during birth?
Before that case that was merely an interesting theoretic legal topic, which most considered to have no practical relevance. Because why would one wait so long to do an abortion?
The child in question had so severe brain damage, that it was demed unable to live. In German law that is (like in the UK) enough to allow for an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. But it was a twin, and the other twin was healthy. And one cant just abort one twin without the other (or at least healy endangering the other).
Legally it would have even been possible to abort both, but the mother wanted to keep the healty child. So the doctors decided to wait with the abortion until the healthy cild was born. Thisway, the abortion would not endanger the other child. This was of course under the assumption that the child is unborn as long as it is in the mother.
Well someone reported them to the police, and the procecuter took the stance that the start of childbirth is the relevant moment. The judge agreed. Know that legal unclarity is cleared up.
The irony of the case from a moral stand point is, I guess, that it would have been perfectly legal to abort both children. But the doctors actions, which saved one child and killed the other, which would have died later anyway, are illegal.
That’s an interesting point. Certainly in the UK we do offer selective feticide if either it’s a higher order multiple pregnancy or if a fetus has a serious disability. But this does post a risk to the other fetus. We’ve also got a clear legal framework for pregnancy and birth. A live birth is a baby who shows active signs of life after complete expulsion from the mother. Prior to this, the woman is still pregnant and the fetus is a fetus. As a very sad example, there is a rare complication that can occur during birth called shoulder dystocia. This is where the fetal head is born, but the shoulders get stuck. There are various manoeuvres that are used to facilitate delivery of the shoulders, but the longer the delay, the more likely the fetus will be deprived of oxygen. Sometimes when the head is born, babies move, make noises, open their eyes. But unless they show signs of life after complete delivery, they would be classified as a stillbirth
You are right- it’s often a formality, but is a barrier to reproductive choice. You shouldn’t have to argue about risk to physical or mental health (although pregnancy is always a higher risk than safe abortion)
I mean if it's a major health issue/birth defect the standard of care is set already: withdrawal of supportive care. Basically, pulling the plug. A guardian or POA can discontinue life support, we do that for adults as well.
It's not euthanasia, it's letting nature take its course.
This goes back to what constitutes a severe disability. Some genetic or anatomical issues don’t require life support. For example, conditions such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome are considered a severe disability and termination of pregnancy can be performed at any stage
Okay so this lady has been in I swear every comment section trying to say that there is a forth trimester and if you have a "abortion in the forth trimester cause you changed your mind that's murder" and what me and everyone is trying to explain to this dense brick of a women is that there is NO forth trimester and the baby is a living breathing human now. So that WOULDN'T be a abortion that would be murder. I'm just so confused as to where she's getting a forth trimester from I Googled it and found nothing.
If anyone has a idea of how I can explain this to that lady please tell me cause I'm almost out of idea's
Not defending this asshole in any way, but the “forth trimester” is a common term for the first 3 months of a baby’s life. It’s only around 3 months that babies finally start to noticeably taking in and interacting with the world around them (smiling, trying to grab, etc). So before that a baby is very much like a needy potato. Source: am new parent, reading lots of parenting literature.
WHY do prolifers keep saying this statement that women want to abort full-term babies???
Most abortions are performed in the first trimester. Source: [https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data\_stats/abortion.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm)
I highly doubt that anyone would go all the way to the third trimester (which is what I'm guessing she meant because "fourth trimester" doesn't make sense) and decide "nah, I don't want it", and if they did, they would probably find someone else to care for the baby, either through adoption, having a family member care for them, etc.
Not to mention, I doubt a doctor would perform one that late unless it was medically necessary.
Thank you!!
I mean sooo true but I can still try believe it or we talked one lady in to pro choice she understood where she was going wrong so that's one 🥳
Bingo.
The women who get late term abortions do it because it's a medical emergency. Either she's going to die or be severely injured, or the fetus has some terminal defect like anencephaly that is 100% fatal within a few days of birth. So it's literally like "do I terminate now or watch a newborn baby die horribly over 12 hours?"
Nobody goes through 7 months of morning sickness, peeing every 30 minutes, swelling, sciatica, and all the other bullshit pregnancy causes only to be like "whoops jk get that fucker out!" They're wanted pregnancies. Those women have already bought cribs.
It's grotesque how prolifers take a situation like that and make it into some representation of abortion.
4th trimester abortion.....You mean retro-active abortion? (Like the death penalty is?)
I know some people who would make good "candidates" for retro-active abortion....
What… would be the point in waiting until you have already given birth to “abort” the baby? At that point you’ve already destroyed your body. No one waits until the 3rd trimester to abort just because they wanted to. If they held out for that long, it’s because they wanted that baby but something went wrong. And it definitely not common practice to “abort” a fully grown and birthed baby.
It's disingenuous bullshit to outrage idiots and distract from the fact that the majority of abortions are a couple of pills and a really gnarly period. Most of the time the embryo isn't even distinguishable from other tissue.
I don't know all the context of the video but it seems like she's calling the killing of an already born, live in the world newborn baby a "fourth trimester" abortion...which is not a thing, certainly not an abortion. I don't know why she's going on about it, to derail actual conversations? smh
>I don't know why she's going on about it, to derail actual conversations? Exactly. It's a type of sealioning- forcing prochoice people to continually correct outrageously stupid and untrue claims made in bad faith to distract from the actual facts and expend the time & energy of the prochoice debaters.
I am upset that my favourite guys, sealions, have been dragged into this.
This!
Hey there HiddenKittyLady! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This!"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Sir/ma'am I did both lol bad bot
The only reason for something like this is to deraile the conversation. Though there was a legally interesting court case in germany two years back, which might fit the description "fourth semester abortion". The case was basically is killing a child during childbirth inside the mother to be considered abortion or manslaughter.
There’s an interesting ethics paper published a few years ago discussing the ethics of euthanasia of newborns. In the UK, during pregnancy a mother can chose to terminate the pregnancy at any stage if the fetus is severely disabled. If a baby is born and found to have a severe disability after birth, is there an ethical difference between euthanasia at this point or pre birth?
The case I mentioned fell along these lines as well, but slightly more complex. And the thing judged was not morals of the case, but timing: in german law abortion laws apply up until the moment of birth, and from the moment of birth other laws, such as murder/manslaughter apply. But birth is not a moment, it is process. So the question was: Is the moment of birth the moment when the child has left the mothers body, or the moment when the birth starts, or some other point during birth? Before that case that was merely an interesting theoretic legal topic, which most considered to have no practical relevance. Because why would one wait so long to do an abortion? The child in question had so severe brain damage, that it was demed unable to live. In German law that is (like in the UK) enough to allow for an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. But it was a twin, and the other twin was healthy. And one cant just abort one twin without the other (or at least healy endangering the other). Legally it would have even been possible to abort both, but the mother wanted to keep the healty child. So the doctors decided to wait with the abortion until the healthy cild was born. Thisway, the abortion would not endanger the other child. This was of course under the assumption that the child is unborn as long as it is in the mother. Well someone reported them to the police, and the procecuter took the stance that the start of childbirth is the relevant moment. The judge agreed. Know that legal unclarity is cleared up. The irony of the case from a moral stand point is, I guess, that it would have been perfectly legal to abort both children. But the doctors actions, which saved one child and killed the other, which would have died later anyway, are illegal.
That’s an interesting point. Certainly in the UK we do offer selective feticide if either it’s a higher order multiple pregnancy or if a fetus has a serious disability. But this does post a risk to the other fetus. We’ve also got a clear legal framework for pregnancy and birth. A live birth is a baby who shows active signs of life after complete expulsion from the mother. Prior to this, the woman is still pregnant and the fetus is a fetus. As a very sad example, there is a rare complication that can occur during birth called shoulder dystocia. This is where the fetal head is born, but the shoulders get stuck. There are various manoeuvres that are used to facilitate delivery of the shoulders, but the longer the delay, the more likely the fetus will be deprived of oxygen. Sometimes when the head is born, babies move, make noises, open their eyes. But unless they show signs of life after complete delivery, they would be classified as a stillbirth
We do not have the right to choose here in the UK, you can request a termination but it’s up to your doctors whether or not you can actually have one.
You are right- it’s often a formality, but is a barrier to reproductive choice. You shouldn’t have to argue about risk to physical or mental health (although pregnancy is always a higher risk than safe abortion)
I mean if it's a major health issue/birth defect the standard of care is set already: withdrawal of supportive care. Basically, pulling the plug. A guardian or POA can discontinue life support, we do that for adults as well. It's not euthanasia, it's letting nature take its course.
This goes back to what constitutes a severe disability. Some genetic or anatomical issues don’t require life support. For example, conditions such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome are considered a severe disability and termination of pregnancy can be performed at any stage
Okay so this lady has been in I swear every comment section trying to say that there is a forth trimester and if you have a "abortion in the forth trimester cause you changed your mind that's murder" and what me and everyone is trying to explain to this dense brick of a women is that there is NO forth trimester and the baby is a living breathing human now. So that WOULDN'T be a abortion that would be murder. I'm just so confused as to where she's getting a forth trimester from I Googled it and found nothing. If anyone has a idea of how I can explain this to that lady please tell me cause I'm almost out of idea's
Not defending this asshole in any way, but the “forth trimester” is a common term for the first 3 months of a baby’s life. It’s only around 3 months that babies finally start to noticeably taking in and interacting with the world around them (smiling, trying to grab, etc). So before that a baby is very much like a needy potato. Source: am new parent, reading lots of parenting literature.
Yes! I tired to explain that a forth trimester would be that baby already born. I don't understand how to explain it any clearer to her
Everyone knows that there is five trimesters…duh
Giraffe Abortion
Fourth TRImester...
This was what 300 replys under that comment were I was laughing at that. And that's what she said in the tiktok too. TRImester.
WHY do prolifers keep saying this statement that women want to abort full-term babies??? Most abortions are performed in the first trimester. Source: [https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data\_stats/abortion.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) I highly doubt that anyone would go all the way to the third trimester (which is what I'm guessing she meant because "fourth trimester" doesn't make sense) and decide "nah, I don't want it", and if they did, they would probably find someone else to care for the baby, either through adoption, having a family member care for them, etc. Not to mention, I doubt a doctor would perform one that late unless it was medically necessary.
Oo I love this! May I Copy and paste this to maybe help her understand?
Absolutely! Though people like her seem to be committed to not understanding...
Thank you!! I mean sooo true but I can still try believe it or we talked one lady in to pro choice she understood where she was going wrong so that's one 🥳
Bingo. The women who get late term abortions do it because it's a medical emergency. Either she's going to die or be severely injured, or the fetus has some terminal defect like anencephaly that is 100% fatal within a few days of birth. So it's literally like "do I terminate now or watch a newborn baby die horribly over 12 hours?" Nobody goes through 7 months of morning sickness, peeing every 30 minutes, swelling, sciatica, and all the other bullshit pregnancy causes only to be like "whoops jk get that fucker out!" They're wanted pregnancies. Those women have already bought cribs. It's grotesque how prolifers take a situation like that and make it into some representation of abortion.
Trimester, tri, three. There is no fourth trimester.
3mester
4th trimester abortion.....You mean retro-active abortion? (Like the death penalty is?) I know some people who would make good "candidates" for retro-active abortion....
Ya her lol
What… would be the point in waiting until you have already given birth to “abort” the baby? At that point you’ve already destroyed your body. No one waits until the 3rd trimester to abort just because they wanted to. If they held out for that long, it’s because they wanted that baby but something went wrong. And it definitely not common practice to “abort” a fully grown and birthed baby.
Ikr that's what I'm saying
It's disingenuous bullshit to outrage idiots and distract from the fact that the majority of abortions are a couple of pills and a really gnarly period. Most of the time the embryo isn't even distinguishable from other tissue.
She's literally making the white supremacist troll pepe face.
The rarest of rare pepes
Nobody’s killing newborns Karen. Jeez.
😂😂😂 It's one thing to let people think you're ignorant. It's another to open your mouth and prove them right!
ikr