Yes, you keep saying that. Why do you think that?
Questions of law are inescapably tied to questions of morality. If all mankind were moral, we would not need the law to hold us in line. You cannot successfully separate the law from morality.
Because your rights end where another’s begin.
The fetus doesn’t have rights to the woman if she doesn’t consent. This is true if you consider a fetus a person or not.
No question…and probably even moreso when it comes to this issue.
We haven’t had a good old fashioned abortion debate in a while. I’m not sure I have the energy to make the same arguments everyone here has already made time and time again.
Going to be a good time to be a back alley abortion provider though. Making abortion illegal isn’t going to stop it from happening. The thousands of women who died in the 60’s and 70’s from illegal abortions in Romania can attest to that.
If you’d have stayed pulled out you wouldn’t need to spring for the abortion!
1 Like
That, I believe, was its purpose. From what I understand it, the author intended to do something that would force a challenge.
There is a reason for that… Oh God, what have you done @Mufasa ?
1 Like
The death from back alley abortions in the year prior to Roe was not even in the hundred. Deaths from legal abortions were about par.
Edit: To be clear illegal =/= unsafe, nor is legal =/= safe.
Awh fuck, nope, no, I’m not doing this.
1 Like
I don’t have the energy for this.
This is only correct if the fetus is considered “not a person”/ unprotected by law. This is particularly so because the woman consented to make the fetus in the first place. (superfluous disclaimer: discussing only consensual sex).
Since technically a fetus has a body, albeit immature, using your logic a woman’s rights may also be argued to end where the body of the fetus begins. That’s why your assertion that the status of the fetus doesn’t matter is mistaken. Your same logic can use used to argue the other side.
The law affords protections to “persons”. Thus the status of the fetus is an inescapable question, regardless of which way it is decided. Again, law is not divorced from questions of morality.
1 Like
A change in law only affects poor women. Women of means will find ways to procure the procedure.
So often, the same people who decry abortion decry all the social programs that are required to take care of the underprivileged and unwanted children once they are born. Can’t have it both ways.
1 Like
I argue that the fetus should not be harmed in the abortion process, but should be removed from the mothers support. I think my logic can be used if that is the case.
Do you disagree? I lately have been thinking that abortion should not actually kill the fetus, but allow the fetus to die.
@Legalsteel I’m still confused as to why this administration is “deeply opposed to abortion”. Trump doesn’t care, he just wants to be seen “winning”.
1 Like
I’m nearly certain he doesn’t give a shit, but his base does.
1 Like
First, this isn’t what is done currently so your logic does not apply to current procedures, which are the ones at issue.
Second, science is progressing rapidly in the ability to provide life support or premature baby delivery. In the event that a hypothetical process such as the one you describe is used, it will eventually become possible to save these disconnected fetuses and allow “birth” ex utero. Do you support hooking said fetuses up to the new life support systems?
Third, the law still considers removal of life support from a non-consenting individual to be a serious crime if that person would otherwise develop/heal while hooked up. This is particularly true if medical power of attorney is not held by the person ordering the disconnection (which can currently only be given with consent).
Because the fetus will develop under normal life support circumstances–i.e. it is not a vegetable in an irreversible coma or similar–this again makes the status of the fetus an essential part of the debate on abortion.
Your logic is only feasible in a scenario that currently doesn’t exist. In all others at SOME point one runs into the question of status
Not if the life support system is another person. The life support system in that case would have to consent.
Yep, this is my proposal if it is deemed that a fetus=person. I have not conceded that a fetus is a full person with rights, yet.
The woman could consent only to having the umbilical cord cut within the womb, and not the removal of the fetus. It would be pretty hard to keep a fetus alive in that case. The woman would be required to consent to allow the fetus to be completely removed, because it involves her body too.
Did you voluntarily hook yourself up with this thread or…?
Edit Dang it. Just saw H’s witty pull out comment.
1 Like
Well illegal doesn’t have to end in death to be considered bad and of course all legal medical operations carry risk. I think everyone can agree legal abortions in 2019 should be safer than illegal ones although I know comparing the real old
I’m confused by this and the article linked. The article says:
“By making abortion legal nationwide, Roe v. Wade has had a dramatic impact on the health and well-being of American women. Deaths from abortion have plummeted, and are now a rarity”
Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying?
It was the source for the deaths that year, not an opinion endorsement.
I’m saying that it was unfair to compare the US in the 60’s to the Romanian death tally, nothing more than that.
Edit: not currently more than that anyway.
Agree.
I gotcha. I didn’t catch the source of that part which is why I had to ask.
Oh I wasn’t trying to say it’s exactly going to go down that way or that it’s the only thing to look at.
Romania had other factors as well. My point was making things illegal we all know creates a black market for them.
Still your articles says: **“By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.” **
“These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.”
Doesn’t seem like a ringing endorsement for it not being that bad back then.
Although as I’ve stated many times in here I’m for many methods which I believe would reduce the abortion rate which is what everyone who is rational wants regardless of sides.