[lelanthran]

> Why stop there? It can be a challenge to have a kid who is ADHD, or is susceptible to depression or mental illness, or a different sexual orientation, etc. It’s not wrong to abort those children either, right?

But we don't stop there. The bar is considerably lower than "the kid might have problems".

The mother, exclusively, can decide whether or not she wants to proceed with the pregnancy through to birth, and she doesn't need a reason other than "I don't feel like it". All those reasons you gave are still better than "I don't fell like it", and you somehow think that those are the wrong reasons?

[Broken_Hippo]

To be fair, the pregnant woman isn't a mother yet - unless she has other children. She's deciding whether or not she wants to (or can!) cope with pregnancy and the hardships involved. She's deciding whether or not to become a mother or bring another child into the world.

And yeah, it can look like "I don't feel like it" to a casual observer, but then again, it really isn't the casual observer's business. They won't know if it was planned or the result of failed birth control, if the father was/is abusive, and a myriad of other things.

And to be absolutely clear: People would try to tell me "I didn't feel like it" - nevermind that I've never wanted children. I'd have been sterilized years ago if it were readily available and cheap in the US.

[lelanthran]

> And yeah, it can look like "I don't feel like it" to a casual observer,

I think you misread my argument: if the bar is currently at "I don't feel like it" for abortions, then judging someone as morally or ethically "wrong" (or evil) for a higher bar is silly.

[EDIT: I'm not making any judgement on a pro-choice position, nor am I attempting to trivialise the complex and often traumatising decision-making involved in abortions. I'm simply saying that if we accept "I don't need to give any reasons" then we shouldn't judge the people who give medical reasons]

[rayiner]

> The mother, exclusively, can decide whether or not she wants to proceed with the pregnancy through to birth, and she doesn't need a reason other than "I don't feel like it".

The morality of that is quite vigorously contested. And even in places that have elective abortion, it’s often only available in the first trimester, while many of these tests are performed after that.

But even if we accept the notion of elective abortions, it doesn’t follow that any reason is morally acceptable. What if the parents don’t want girls, like often is the case in India and China. It’s okay to abort them? What if we had an in vitro test for sexual orientation? Would it be okay to abort fetuses in that basis?

[honkycat]

Moral and legal are two different classifications.

I think it should be LEGAL to have an abortion no matter your reasoning. The reason for this is we need to preserve the bodily autonomy of people who can become pregnant.

Weather or not it is MORAL is another question.

It is LEGAL to protest outside of a veteran's funeral. However, I would argue it is not a MORAL thing to do.

[JamesBarney]

There are plenty of ways we don't protect people's bodily autonomy though. For instance it was illegal for anyone to take Paxlovid until FDA approval.

If we can ban someone from taking a potentially life saving drug it doesn't seem crazy to ban someone from taking what half the population believes is a life ending drug.

[rayiner]

We’re talking about morality in the context of this article, since abortions based on this testing are legal in the United States and most other developed countries.

[watwut]

This is not true in every state. Abortion is in the process of being outlawed in United States. Texas outlawed it. Supreme court is hostile to it for religious reasons.

[rayiner]

Abortion isn’t primarily a religious debate in the US. There is a broad consensus view that elective abortion should be illegal after the first trimester: https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abort.... Even highly secular countries like France draw the line at the end of the first trimester, because after that point the fetus looks a lot like a baby (has a face, fingers, toes, etc): https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/13-weeks-p...

Roe continues to be controversial because it prohibits states from adopting abortion laws that reflect the consensus view. Roe mandates elective abortions until viability, which is toward the end of the second trimester. Roe is thus opposed by many people who don’t believe that life begins at conception for religious reasons. Those people oppose Roe for whatever moral reasons that drive highly secular countries like France to prohibit abortions in the second trimester.

[xyzzyz]

It is being outlawed in some states of the Union, not in the United States as a whole. Even if it repeals Roe/Casey, I don’t think that Supreme Court is at all likely to hold that abortion is in fact unconstitutional. As a result, some states will restrict abortion, but others will not.

[watwut]

Roe effectively does not exists. Protections that have been there are not anymore. And the court has very clear politics on the matter.