Quote (Handcuffs @ Dec 4 2021 12:00pm)
To me that perspective speaks more to the safety and risk-profile rather than the conferment of personhood. What, to you, would be the considerations to not allow an abortion at 23+ weeks due to fetal rights?
When balancing rights the practical aspects become important. Like when a state imposes restrictions on voting. They can have you drive to a polling place, but if that polling place is 500 miles away, that would be considered an unreasonable abridgement of rights. However, back in the day, traveling far for a polling place was just something that had to happen due to the practical reasons.
If the birth and the abortion would have the same risk profile and be practically the same procedure, there's no extra burden being placed on the woman seeking the abortion by mandating she just give birth instead.
Let's say in the future they can suck out a fetus at 26 weeks and put it in a development chamber at only minimal extra risk to the mother. In that case mandating the procedure instead of abortion would also be a minimal invasion. The end result is the same, the extra burden is minimal.