A sign held outside the Kentucky capitol building in Frankfort at the Rally for Reproductive Rights in 2013.

Recently a candidate for the US presidency made some horrifically ignorant and dismissive statements about 3rd trimester abortions. In response, several women stepped up and told their stories online about their late term abortions. I read some of them, and it got me thinking.

The pro-life movement likes to frame abortion in terms of morality. I’m not altogether in disagreement with them, even though I draw incredibly different conclusions. I think first trimester abortions are a no-brainer, since they generally happen before the blastocyst/embryo/fetus has developed anything that could be termed ‘personhood.’ However,  I have in the past been on the fence about whether or not abortions in the third trimester should be legal. But now I have made up my mind.

Consider this situation. A woman is pregnant and is going to to doctor for her 7 month appointment. At this appointment, it is discovered that something is wrong and that child has developed a condition that makes it impossible for it to ever live outside the womb –assuming it even survives to term. Do you think it is morally acceptable to deny this woman the opportunity to choose for herself and her unborn child whether she should abort or to try and go to term?

If you think that denying this woman the choice (maybe even the information that would make the choice possible) is morally permissible, then your morality is clearly very different from mine.

Essentially, the recent news and stories have affirmed to me that yes, abortion should be legal in all trimesters. The right to choose is vital, and moral.

EDIT: Just in case anyone thinks that scenarios such as the hypothetical one I described is unrealistic, check out this story. This is only one true-life scenario, but there are many others like it. Why This Woman Chose Abortion—at 29 Weeks