• Kage520@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Viability. If we can safely take care of it outside of the mother then we should do it. That’s bare minimum 20.5 weeks, but realistically probably 23 or 24 weeks. I would like to see discussions about that range from medical professionals and lawmakers in charge of the budget since that early can be very expensive.

    • cricket98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So would you be okay outlawing abortions past the point of it being viable outside the womb? (assuming there is no threat to the mothers life)

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. I would also hope to expand adoption/ward of the state options, particularly for this age. Maybe they could basically write that if the mother is giving up the baby at (let’s just say 24 weeks), the state pays for the procedure to remove the child and care for them until they are able to be released home. That is a big expense but I think they do this a lot anyway.

        But in this case, you would also want to line up an adoption. With many weeks of hospital care starting at 24 weeks, I feel like that would not be terribly difficult. I hope not. A lot of couples want kids but cannot have them. The new parents could take part in visiting the new baby at the hospital until it’s time to bring them home.