Late term Abortion

This video will be what launches my post here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXX9IJu_4pg


Abortion. I've looked at this from a very pragmatic view, it seemed that having abortion legal was good for the place it was legal in whole. Where its legal, those that partake are less:

Rates go down?

Is there a case to make for aborting lowering crime? Crime Case? Case for crime?

Can we even try to analyze the impact upon society with how many factors there are involved?
Do the numbers lie?

I'm all about the data, and the logical argument that can be made for or against (X). The video that kicks this off has some logical fallacies - showing the baby's heart beat - appeal to emotion. Is that invalid though, only if that was the whole of the argument, they also appeal to emotion by showing that baby's can be born early - and that is true. Something about them being in the tummy makes them invisible as people, so perhaps, they are trying to show that yes, they are human, just not outside yet.

Still, I could do without the emotional factor - but that sells. The fact is that the baby is in every way that counts, human. I value life. What do we do? A case-by-case basis might be the answer, rather then an over arching law.

This late in the game though, is just too far for me, but again if I (or anyone) draws the line broadly for the whole nation at (X) time, that will not cover every case. Its a problem of law needing to be simple enough to enforce without clogging up courts. Complex laws that are set for case-by-case might crowd the court. Perhaps so be it.

Certainly we should push for more birth control access, sex ed, and perhaps ways to turn off the ability to give birth and then, latter turn it back on, if we could develop drug or mechanism that was safe and effective, then we would simply use that.

The adoption system can not be left out of this, as it seems that the focus is "get the baby born" then worry about the life latter - but the fact is, the adoption system sucks bane in a jar, the worst kind of bane, its over flooded its terms to adopt are strict, they are run by church more often then not meaning that some couples or single people can't adopt not due to anything other then the church doesn't want them to.

Okay, so if we get some more kids in the adoption system at least we saved lives someone might say, but the quality of life has to be a factor right? But, if the baby is born, and the mother doesn't want it, could they still "abort" the child? Once its out - its murder - but when its in, its not. Right now its not because murder is only illegal killing.

For after term (X) that I'm not sure of the baby has a mind. So, we shouldn't end that, right? Or maybe we shouldn't end it at all. Or well, only in extreme cases. Yet... we pushed to far, and now what?

What about the father? His DNA is in there. Yet he gets no say? The "my body my choice" well... it is your body, but that human is not "yours" you do not own it and part of it is due to the man's DNA - yes you must carry it, but that doesn't mean you get to decide if it lives or dies. That seems to be the crux - that the freedom to abort must be tempered with the fact that this is a life. It should be harder to do, it should be on a case by case basis... yet it isn't.

So, I went from a simple clear stance to one where I'm not so sure anymore.