I’m not defending that position, so I’m not sure why you brought it up?
So no counter points? My position feels pretty defendable at this point.
Completely agree, the process with lawsuits going forward on this is going extremely intriguing. From a purely scientific standpoint I think that – since we all hopefully agree that we want to reduce unwanted pregnancies and that Roe is at least partially about reducing unwanted pregnancy (my purely uneducated thought is the privacy argument in the case was almost purely a means to an end) – it is feasible. Any babies after a certain point are viable with science’s intervention and that margin will only grow.
It is political suicide / warfare, but technologically it’s feasible to make that claim at some point in gestation.
This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make with him.
1 Like
How come a man can’t opt out of child support in a country where a woman has a “right to choose” if he has expressed his opposition to having the child? If she chooses to keep it then, is she not solely responsible?
You are claiming that the a woman has a right to her body and that right is absolute for the duration of a pregnancy - so at all times prior to childbirth, her body, her property. Once the child is physically independent of hers, she ceases to have a right over it.
This is your position, right?
What about a set of Siamese twins, where one could live without the other, but the second one was completely dependent on being combined. Should the one be able to kill the other because it’s their body?
I believe this is the path to overturning roe. It has been the strategy of the right to humanize the fetus more and more. Lately their strategy has been to lower the pregnancy time permissible for an abortion, making mothers listen to heart beats, and reading them pro life pamphlets.
The effort is to keep moving the balancing point of mother’s and fetus’s rights towards the fetus.
I think they should have the right to separate. I don’t think it would be moral, and it is unlikely the healthy one would choose it, but I think he should have the option. What if the other is a total dick or something?
Mostly. I’ve stated above that I actually think the abortion process should be modified to not harm the fetus. I advocate that removing the mother’s support from the fetus is superior because it is only a removal of support, not harm. Outcome is obviously the same.
You sound like an incel.
Can a woman smoke and drink if pregnant? Can she ride a motorcycle or skydive?
You realize that’s really dangerous to the mother right? Like, malpractice or worse
@mnben87 In a different direction, I must wonder the point at which it should no longer be legal, in your opinion, to simply let the child be on its own. So you cut the umbilical cord in the womb and the child sinks or swims. Can a 6 month old be dumped in a trash can, and if it can’t suckle adequate nutrients from the refuse then that should be lawful? There is still a matter of when the pile turns into a heap.
If you’re changing oil and the jack gives and the car pins you under, it should be lawful for every capable person around to let you die needlessly? It’s not like I should have to run my cell battery down to call for help or get that gross black dirt from the car on my shirt (It’s cancerous you know and I only have a few nice shirts as it is). I can fire my rifle however I feel like, and if someone else doesn’t duck behind a barrier then it’s on them? Why should I not squeeze my finger when its makes me feel empowered, just because some other person might stop living over it - I have my right to positive self-esteem, don’t I? And surely the horrified panic of people cowering before me makes me feel godly, so it’s cool, what happens to them is on them.
Maybe I have taken your idea incorrectly, but all cases appear to me to have the same underlying principle at play: one person’s conveniences and comforts should legally be held more important than other’s merest chance of survival.
(And yet, IMO, much of the problem of abortion originates from that very idea, that what is convenient for me outweighs the need of those around me. If a neighbor needed help in their pregnancy or parenthood I would be thankful to help, but we have 400ish orphans living in jails in my State because people won’t commit to parenting them / CPS’ thoughtless idiocy regarding care providers. Just imagine if the women considering termination saw all the open arms around them. But that becomes quite a tangent)
Thinking someone has a right to do something is independent from thinking someone is moral for doing it.
Well this article says 22 out of 100 will get pregnant with pullout, 18 with condoms, 9 with the pill and one with an IUD.
I was hoping they would look at the anal sex rates. Butt fuck it they did not.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.self.com/story/the-pull-out-method/amp
Count my eldest as part of 9%! Unplanned pregnancies FTW!
I also see what you did with your last sentence.
I was having a think about this when I saw it on the news. I’m from Australia so apologies with I’m mistaken with this line of thinking:
Since Alabama’s laws would be the most restrictive lots of resistance and people have been riled up and directed against Alabama. The thing is the laws look so restrictive that they might get fought off at the lower courts and the Supreme Court likely won’t take a look at them so all the attention and action is for nought.
Could it be on purpose to draw attention and activism protest and such to Alabama and take heat off the other states with less restrictive laws that are likelier to make it all the way to the Supreme Court?
Is it a strategy?
It is trash though. Aside from the merits of abortion, the decision itself contains some of the worst legal “reasoning” I’ve ever encountered.
Oh, I agree. And we forget that a lot of people recognized that at the time - and shortly after the decision, one liberal constitutional scholar said “it isn’t constitutional law and doesn’t pretend to be.”
2 Likes
Very doubtful, @guineapig.
These laws are being driven exclusively by GOP/Conservative majorities.
The ultimate goal(s) is to 1) make abortion not only illegal, but a felony to both women who obtain them but the doctors who perform them and 2) declare Roe v.Wade Unconstitutional.
It is not a feign in order to make other States laws appear less restrictive.
1 Like