In the above highlighted portion, you concede that there are are situations where an abortion is acceptable. We both agree that infanticide in the same scenario (rape, incest) would never be acceptable. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I would say that you view the personhood of the newborn differently than the early stage pregnancy.
Sorry, hit reply too soon in my earlier post. I don’t have a problem saying yes, several stages from fertilization up until the first breath are quite different, scientifically speaking. Morally, it’s up to the people. I don’t mock or dismiss other people’s sincerely held beliefs.
I agree on the different stages from conception to birth. At some point we have a person.
It’s just that with Friday’s decision, many of the states are trying to make this choice for women. As I wrote earlier, if you don’t want a medical procedure, you shouldn’t be forced to undergo it. But those that don’t want it shouldn’t use the State to prohibit others from it.
Because as I just wrote to another poster, if you accept abortion in cases of rape, you obviously don’t also accept infanticide in cases of rape, so it would seem that even those that concede some narrow non-medical exceptions for abortions acknowledge a difference in personhood between an early stage embryo and a born person.
You keep saying things that beg the question of so what (like your earlier menses zygote search advocacy).
You are trying presumably to say the universally acknowledged difference between a breathing person and one in the womb means that you should be able to kill the one in the womb. That makes no logical sense. That difference alone is not enough in most people’s eyes to make termination okay, and for some, it’s a question of timeline, not a binary moral-or-not choice.
My personal opinion on that is of negligible importance as is the SCOTUS’ for that matter (as SCOTUS itself conceded last week) or “Dr. Wise Old Man’s” or any shrill BS artist on this forum. As I said before, the people as a whole determine that through representative democracy. Repeating for your benefit coz you seem slow in reading comprehension:
”The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.”
I can imagine Yawn or a person with religious beliefs understandably disagreeing with the state’s authority above (although he is actually pleased with the recent scotus-to-state transfer of regulatory power), but all the pro-choice blatherers can’t possibly disagree unless they are literally advocating for abortion rights at 40 weeks right up until the baby starts breathing? As decided by unelected “experts”??
State have always been free to define when a fetus becomes viable and is thus "life" that must be protected by restricting abortion. But it turns out that women are involved in this (remember them?). And for about 50 years, our constitutional law actually gave a sh$t about women and held that the state's ability to regulate had to be balanced against a woman's right to privacy. That right of privacy is perhaps the most essential right that we have under our constitution in that it recognizes that there are certain parts of our lives where the government simply cannot go. When you take that right away from women, you then make all women subjects of the state in that through the political process women are legally forced to conceive children, even in the case of rape or incest and even if death or severe injury is likely if the woman is forced to conceive. And this will mean that women in states that have banned all abortion will be imprisoned and forced to conceive if they are caught trying to obtain an abortion. But many women will just die after going to an underground abortion provider.
So, while you think you have check and mate with your reductivist theory about the state determining life and your little missive about abortion moments before contractions begin, you have actually highlighted the fact that the state's regulatory power is actually being used to enslave women to being birthing vessels with no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term. Even if the "woman" is 12 years old and was raped by her father.
Wait a minute….the right to privacy is “the most essential right” yet it’s not even expressly stated? That’s odd…
Nobody here is from the back woods of Philadelphia Mississippi. Go spend a month there and then tell me you still think abortion should be illegal. Mississippi lawmakers do not represent their constituents.
Nobody here is from the back woods of Philadelphia Mississippi. Go spend a month there and then tell me you still think abortion should be illegal. Mississippi lawmakers do not represent their constituents.
Abortion is still legal in the US though. Kavanaugh went to great lengths to mention that interstate travel is still a right. Plenty of companies and progressive action groups are setting up funds for women to be able to still get abortions. 6 states only had 1 abortion clinic per state in 2019. I imagine women were already used to having to travel quite a distance to have their abortions in some states, Mississippi being one of them.
Abortion is still available if you want one bad enough.
Also if you are so confident of popular support for Roe, you should be totally comfortable with Dobbs because the populous pro-choicers will just reinstate Roe one state at a time or federally in one swoop, right? What’s to cry for you? (None for me.)
I cry for the women who will be hurt in the meantime. I think we will legislate mostly legal abortion, but it could take another 20-30 years to get the right candidate and political climate.
Someone already made the point that people might feel bad and sympathize with rape victims and thus would be more supportive of abortion in that case. You're right, that doesn't logically make sense if you believe that abortion is murder and that's because it's based on emotion and not logic. That also doesn't mean that everybody who's only for abortion in the case of rape/incest just wants to punish women.
So if you can accept that most women who are raped don't want to be pregnant and can sympathize with them getting an abortion, then why can't you accept "don't want to be pregnant" as a valid reason for an any abortion?
Also, what level of scrutiny are you placing on these rape victims? Would they be required to prosecute their rapist, or would you just take their word?
It's all so flawed, just let women who are living their own lives with a myriad of different circumstances govern themselves.
Someone already made the point that people might feel bad and sympathize with rape victims and thus would be more supportive of abortion in that case. You're right, that doesn't logically make sense if you believe that abortion is murder and that's because it's based on emotion and not logic. That also doesn't mean that everybody who's only for abortion in the case of rape/incest just wants to punish women.
So if you can accept that most women who are raped don't want to be pregnant and can sympathize with them getting an abortion, then why can't you accept "don't want to be pregnant" as a valid reason for an any abortion?
Also, what level of scrutiny are you placing on these rape victims? Would they be required to prosecute their rapist, or would you just take their word?
It's all so flawed, just let women who are living their own lives with a myriad of different circumstances govern themselves.
Sorry to spoil things for you all, but abortion is generally a hype issue affecting only a tiny minority of the actual voting population.
This is particularly true when you consider women of childbearing age (.1% of whom have abortions) are also in the lowest-turnout demographic of voters.
The argument is between two camps of dedicated fanatics pushing extremist positions instead of seeking a national consensus on the fundamental rights issues. The pro-choice position is correct by default because there is currently no legal basis for assigning a fetus the same natural rights already established for humans after birth, but that's not what the Democrats are interested in; they just want a motivated activist bloc to make noise and help them pose as friends of the poor and the identities.
Sorry to spoil things for you all, but abortion is generally a hype issue affecting only a tiny minority of the actual voting population.
This is particularly true when you consider women of childbearing age (.1% of whom have abortions) are also in the lowest-turnout demographic of voters.
The argument is between two camps of dedicated fanatics pushing extremist positions instead of seeking a national consensus on the fundamental rights issues. The pro-choice position is correct by default because there is currently no legal basis for assigning a fetus the same natural rights already established for humans after birth, but that's not what the Democrats are interested in; they just want a motivated activist bloc to make noise and help them pose as friends of the poor and the identities.
Some of what you say is like accurate.
We’ve lost the plot on this thread a long time ago, but the initial debate was whether or not the Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs was correct.
I say it was. Others say it wasn’t. We’ve gotten in the weeds in the debate on abortion itself, but the ruling is solid.
So yes, abortion is a bit of hype fest and the people who get upset about it have already determined their vote well ahead of time. But the ruling itself is important.
Sorry to spoil things for you all, but abortion is generally a hype issue affecting only a tiny minority of the actual voting population.
This is particularly true when you consider women of childbearing age (.1% of whom have abortions) are also in the lowest-turnout demographic of voters.
The argument is between two camps of dedicated fanatics pushing extremist positions instead of seeking a national consensus on the fundamental rights issues. The pro-choice position is correct by default because there is currently no legal basis for assigning a fetus the same natural rights already established for humans after birth, but that's not what the Democrats are interested in; they just want a motivated activist bloc to make noise and help them pose as friends of the poor and the identities.
No, the pro choice position is not correct by default on legal or moral grounds.
Sorry to spoil things for you all, but abortion is generally a hype issue affecting only a tiny minority of the actual voting population.
This is particularly true when you consider women of childbearing age (.1% of whom have abortions) are also in the lowest-turnout demographic of voters.
The argument is between two camps of dedicated fanatics pushing extremist positions instead of seeking a national consensus on the fundamental rights issues. The pro-choice position is correct by default because there is currently no legal basis for assigning a fetus the same natural rights already established for humans after birth, but that's not what the Democrats are interested in; they just want a motivated activist bloc to make noise and help them pose as friends of the poor and the identities.
No, the pro choice position is not correct by default on legal or moral grounds.
Just to add to the topic
According to a politico poll (read leftist leaning) not even a majority of respondents disapprove of the SCOTUS abortion ruling. 40% approve, 49% disapprove. You would think the disapprove percentage would be way higher, especially given how fresh the outrage should be. Doesn’t bode well for democrats depending on abortion to carry them across the line in November.
There is nothing so complicated to need a SCOTUS decision. Natural rights are protected broadly under the constitution, but there's no legal basis for extending those rights to fetuses. It's really that simple. You want them extended, write and pass a federal law about it.
There is nothing so complicated to need a SCOTUS decision. Natural rights are protected broadly under the constitution, but there's no legal basis for extending those rights to fetuses. It's really that simple. You want them extended, write and pass a federal law about it.
If you can't, it's not the end of the world.
How is abortion a natural right? It’s not, which is why SCOTUS had to read it into the constitution with muddled logic in 1973. Which is why SCOTUS in 2022 sent the decision back to the states.
Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The
You haven't spelled out your position at all besides vague moralistic hemming-and-hawing, complete dismissal of any drawbacks of the Roe overturning, open disparagement of maternal risk, over-focus on judicial doctrine (a classic fallback), and, oh yeah, repeated assertions that you have been clear.
At the end of the day, you end up just where all the other closet radical conservatives go: call the other side a shrill liberal. I guess I should have seen that coming. Far easier than actually grappling with your cognitive dissonance -- The repeal of Roe is hurting women and you are OK with that. That is objectively immoral and greatly threatens your self image. I don't envy the internal struggle.
I already responded to this silliness yesterday and the day before. Go jump. And acquire browser search (find on page) and reading comprehension skills and then come back.
Fairly standard: when pressed to actually take a stand behind their reprehensible beliefs, these guys just deflect, distract, and weasel to the nth degree.
