Abortion should be legal under necessary circumstances.

These definitions and timelines are definitely important to consider!

Do you believe that an abortion should be legal only under those circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, physical/psychological danger)? Also, who would you recommend the independent third party to be?

Well in the first case definitely an independent third party would be some kind of financial official of auditor. In the second case, a doctor (gynecological specialist) would suffice. Yes I agree that abortion should be illegal if not for those circumstances, economic hardship, and perhaps mental and maturity issues as well (e.g the mom is mentally/emotionally unstable (as determined by a clinical psychologist) or a minor in which case her parents or legal guardian can ask for an abortion). The timeline still applies to everything though.

Do you believe that the fetus being able to "exist outside the mother" should apply to time that the fetus that it has been in the womb, or simply what the doctor says/screening shows? Essentially, should there be a law in place that specifies a time in which mothers are no longer able to have an abortion (a specific trimester), or would the infant's development be solely based upon what the third party claims?

As I said, the 22 week mark is the earliest possible time that the fetus is viable. Each time depends on the baby and it's conditions. There shouldn't an exact time because every baby is different but yes the infant's development will be assessed by a third party medical specialist and he/she will determine if that specific baby can live outside the womb and therefore whether a legal abortion is possible.

Hi, Tuhin! I agree that women should be able to receive abortions if they are raped. However, I do see several problems arising when this is played out into policy. Physical evidence is difficult to obtain in such circumstances and places a large burden of evidence on a victim; therefore, it is unlikely that victims of rape would be able to receive such a service. Although, shouldn't evidence be a safeguard to prevent abuse of this policy? How do we best implement legal abortions in cases of rape?

I totally agree that currently the investigation of rape in criminal justice systems around the world is very flawed. However I also believe that it is much easier to be an acknowledged rape victim (in the US at least) than it is to find actual justice for the rape itself. The rape aspect of my proposed policy would not be so strict as to really delve into what evidence is posed from party in a court of law. This policy would allow an abortion is there is an indictment of rape (hence a possibility of rape) as opposed to a conviction of rape which would make it more accessible.

Also, can you explain how this power could be abused?

I completely agree that there should be an indictment rather than conviction. The term "abuse" was referring to people falsely claiming they were raped, which would, of course, be a very small margin. Those false claims do perpetuate rape culture, however, and that is why I mentioned it.

Anyone can make an accusation but only reasonably founded claims can prompt an indictment from a jury.

My opinion surrounding this issue has changed. I used to agree that it should only be legal under certain circumstances. Now, I believe that as long as the procedure takes place in accordance to the timeline and is before fetal viability, unless in an emergency in which it could occur later on, that it is the mother's choice regardless of the situation. It is the mother's body that is involved in the procedure. I think it is wrong for others to establish the rules regarding another person's procedure. In no other medical context, besides an emergency, does another person really decide what happens to a patient's body other than a patient. This is no different and should always be the mother's choice.

Having a third party judge of whether or not someone is "eligible" to receive an abortion seems like it could open the door to corruption from both belief systems. On one hand, you could have people who are very anti-abortion not allowing women to receive the care they requested because their third party judge does not believe in it. On the other hand, if the third party judge was someone very pro-abortion they could completely overlook the standards and allow anyone to get an abortion regardless of circumstance. The ultimate choice should lie in the hands of the person getting the abortion, simply because even if there was a system in place to deny people abortions based on reasoning, they would still happen either way. Allowing people the freedom to choose is the safest option because there would not be as much of a risk of "at-home" abortions or the negative consequences that go along with them.