Do you mean a simple MRI, or do you mean they should be convinced by a video? Who would be producing it? would it be of their own clump of cells, or perhaps a video of someone else’s of undetermined age accompanied by sad music and dubious “facts”?
And yet, that’s not the stance of the Libertarian Party, which has in its platform this statement, “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” That sounds pro-choice to me.
You do? How do you advocate it? Planned Parenthood Centers are(were) a major force for effective birth control, and schools certainly aren’t going to take up the slack. You say you advocate increased access to effective birth control.
And?
The country has not spoken. The Supreme Court has spoken. The Supreme Court does not represent the country nor should it. The OP mentioned Texas as a place that is trying to shut down abortion clinics. The people of Texas have spoken through their elected representatives and lawyers are trying to get the unelected judges on the Supreme Court to overrule the people just as they did in Roe vs Wade.
Why does size enter into it? Do midgets have fewer rights than NBA players?
It is just as illegal to murder a premature baby the size of a large sandwich as it is to murder a five hundred pound biggest loser contestant.
that’s right-once it’s born. But when is it legally a person?
Regulating health clinics that offer abortion out of existence, with no interest in women’s health, which is what the Texas law is attempting to do, doesn’t sound Constitutional to me, and hopefully the Supreme Court will reject it.
Almost everyone believes that a newborn child has a right not to be murdered. No one would hold a funeral for a zygote that failed to implant. As you say the question of abortion is when the child acquires the right not to be murdered. I would agree with you that a child who is only 3 to 4 months old has not acquired the right, but the operative word is probably. If we are wrong and the 3 to 4 month old is a baby then allowing abortion at that time is condemning millions of them to death.
An analogy would be is it okay to play Russian Roulette with a gun that fires poison instead of bullet into a uterus with a full term baby in it. I would not be comfortable with a one in six chance of killing the baby. What about if the gun had 10 chambers instead of 6? I think it would still be wrong if the gun had 100 chambers.
Since the actual age when a fetus acquires the right not to be murdered is unknown and unknowable then the only moral choice is to find the age where a community has a consensus that the fetus acquires that right and then move legal line for abortion a couple of weeks before that line.
Whenever the law says it is. The question is what should the law say? Otherwise it is just a circular argument.
The first question you asked was answered in an earlier post.
The second question is also answered by that post.
The third and fourth, likewise.
In short: every single question you raise here is answered by the presence of a ten-letter word in the post which introduced the subject.
I have read the Constitution and I have not found anything about abortion in it. In questions where the Constitution is silent the people, through their electing representatives get to decide whether abortion clinics get to operate in their region.
And I do. My wife and I donate to Planned Parenthood, even though I disagree with their abortion stances. It’s vitally important for people, especially teenagers, to have access to birth control and sex education, and I support both in our public schools.
So if you’ve read the Constitution, you understand that the justices are not elected and you understand that, whether or not you feel they represent the country, their decisions are binding upon it.
As far as answers in this thread are concerned, I did find this earlier post from you on the subject:
So some might see why I am a trifle unclear as to your exact position on the subject.
Given that I specified “the GOP” rather than “pro-life people” and even caveated it with “by and large”, I find that to be an entirely unfair assessment of what I actually said.
Perhaps you may want to reconsider who is generalizing about whom in order to avoid dealing with the actual issue.
Rule of thumb - if it can’t survive outside the womb, it isn’t alive yet. It is a parasite supported by the woman’s circulatory system using the placenta as an interface. Until it can survive outside as far as I am concerned do what your choice is. [and despite my abortion for a kid that trying to remain pregnant would have killed me and me being personally against abortion for myself as birth control, unless the woman has CHOICE, it is being forced to be a walking womb and dehumanizing.You don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. ]
You replied to that guy, that was your first mistake. The second was assuming he has any reason between what he says and his unquestioned support of conservative beliefs. He will say anything, do anything, in support of his ideology. It doesn’t matter if he’s logically wrong, he will claim he’s right then ignore you
Great. Go about your GOP bashing. with my blessing.
Jesus, man! Why are you browbeating a guy who already said he changed his mind about supporting the ultrasound requirement? He used to support it, and then facts surrounding it changed his mind.
You should be happy that as much as he is against abortion, he recognizes the legitimacy of the laws in place that allow it, and even rejects new laws that, while hindering abortions, go against the laws already in place.
Considering abortion is legal I think this is a poor analogy. Try “YOU don’t have to drink, but you can’t force me not to drink” or “YOU may believe homosexuality is wrong, but you can’t force me not to be gay.”