A woman has a right to control her body. A baby, if a person, has a right to live. Where two rights collide, such as the case here, it seems to me to be most reasonable to assume that those rights which have the most consequential risk for irreparable harm must hold sway. And of all the rights that one has, or can be taken away, which is more fundamental than life itself? What rights are then possible, and can either remain or be restored, in the absence of life? Would you rather be pregnant or killed, if no other choice existed? But we can’t simply say that an unborn fetus is a person, and is automatically granted those rights, any more than we can say that it isn’t, and deny that some rights exist. There are just as many good and valid arguments that it isn’t a person, as there are others that it is. This is exactly what the SCOTUS is for, and what many seem intent to force them to now decide. I don’t know how it will go.
I love this it’s her body stuff. Yet a lot of the people beating that drum would lose their mind over them selling their labor under a state minimum wage and want to limit all sorts of substances that they think are unhealthy.
So, the woman chose sex without the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy and end up pregnant. What happens in 9 months when they give birth to a kid they have no desire, ability, or means to care for, but don't put it up for adoption because "rea$on$"? I 100% get where you are coming from and used to have a similar opinion, but it definitely isn't that clear cut. My issue is that, more often than not, the burden of the "consequences" fall on the child and not the parents. When you see 5-6 year olds that only eat when given meals at school, have to sleep at school because mommy's boyfriend is running a drug house at all hours of the night, are molested by family members, show up to school with broken bones/burns/bruises regularly, murdered in a gas station bathroom by their "guardian", witness murders, etc. it makes the "you made the choice, deal with the consequences" argument seem absurd. If they want to ban abortions, then they absolutely need to have a plan in place to protect the unwanted children and ensure they are taken care of throughout their childhood.
I haven't a problem with the law. The intent makes it a bit dirty politically, but I have no problem with at least the highlights of it.
see, I bet it wouldn't. I think infant mortality death from childbirth would be a lot higher. More miscarriages, too.
yes, I tried to use an analogy. I want to understand why you think rape victims can murder babies. I don't think a fetus is a person, so this duality hasn't come up for me.
More miscarriages for sure just because of the sheer number of full term pregnancies. In developed countries with advanced healthcare facilities I’m not so sure about infant mortality though... I do think the welfare systems (in countries that have them) would eventually be overly burdened and massive changes would have to be made to keep them functional. The abortion issue is so complicated because there is no “one size fits all” answer to address it and both sides have extremely compelling points to bolster their views on why it should or shouldn’t be legal. There will never be a resolution to this that will satisfy even a simple majority of people. If it becomes a “state’s rights” thing, look for a fairly noticeable demographic shift in states that prohibit abortion... Red states will get redder and the same for blue states. Of course, this is provided these restrictive laws actually hold up in court, which I highly doubt will be the case. Like the 2A, Roe v Wade will forever be a fact of life in the US, imo.
It’s this part of your view that IP was highlighting - that the logic seems to be driven more by owning the consequences of bad decisions than it is driven by a value of a life or other ‘personhood’ (as I believe he called it) argument.
In reading your other posts it seems like you are starting with a value of life argument but recognize that it is nuanced and that other life (the mother) is wrapped up in this too and that her liberty in the case of incest or rape (and possibly her health?) outweigh this forming life’s liberty. But that wouldn't be the case where free choices led to the forming baby. Is that a fair recap?
If an unborn fetus is considered a person at some defined point prior to being born, it has rights, and with life being preeminent. The only way this isn’t definitively settled is if SCOTUS refuses to hear it, and I honestly can’t fathom their doing so. I’ll be shocked if they don’t reach down and grab it, tbh.
watch it become the gateway to socialism. if a fetus has a right to life, then children have a right to nutrition and healthcare. and so on.
If a fetus a right to life, then we should be able to take out life insurance policies on them (and cash in should there be a miscarriage), claim them as dependents, and where applicable, require men to start paying child support effective the day after conception.
Yeah. You don't like what I say, so you dismiss it. My post was substantive and truthful, and because you have no response, you answer with that bullshit. It suits you, though, to avoid the argument while feigning superiority; it's both feckless and arrogant, true to character.
She has the right to control her own body up to the point where it interferes with the rights of another body, in this case, the fetus, or at least that's how I think it should be. Although i am neither philospher or theologian, viability as a point of personhood does seem to make some sense to me. And I do not think there is any good, honest refutation of this.