I suggest you make that argument in Court and see how it goes for you. Meanwhile, the Courts, myself, and a vast majority of people, will wait until conception (or implantation, it’s certainly debateable) to grant something Constitutional protection.
I seem to have missed his answer. I’d really like to know.
Cite, please, that the “vast majority of people” want to ban abortion after conception or at latest implantation (which occurs six to twelve days after conception)?
Pregnancy tests don’t work until implantation has occured.
I didnt say that. Didn’t even imply it.
I really dont want this thread to devolve into yet another stupid abortion thread where people dont even try to understand a point and just want to rant.
Would it be fair to say that some Courts, yourself and people that agree with you will wait until conception?
Then what did you mean by saying:
What kind of “Constitutional protection” were you expecting for a 6-to-12-day embryo, if not a ban on aborting it?
I am completely unaware of any court in America that has held sperm meets the definition of “potential life” that triggers the state interest that was found by Roe. If you do, please let me know.
Would it help you understand if I rephrased it as:
“Meanwhile, the Courts, myself, and a vast majority of people, will wait until conception (or implantation, it’s certainly debateable) to find that a State has an interest in protecting it”?
If not, would it help if I, once again, pointed out that the State’s interest in protecting potential life is balanced against the woman’s right to bodily integrity and medical decisionmaking, and that said State interest does not always win?
If you still have problems, maybe read the Roe opinion, or Casey. Or Webster. Or Carhart.
“Nor is the interest in protecting potential life implicated in state regulation of contraceptives”. Carey v. Population Services.
That combination is indeed helpful, yes.
I’'ve lost track of exactly who said what earlier in the thread.
I just don’t understand this idea that abortion has serious, long-term consequences. Like what?
Early abortion is safe and easy with a quick recovery time. In many cases it’s a half day off work, a short procedure then it’s back to your uninterrupted life, like it never happened.
Carrying an unwanted child to term has serious, long-term consequences. Abortion doesn’t. What are the serious, long term consequences are you imagining?
Oh, The American Conservative gang has lots and lots of opinions about this.
Among them is that we are creating a society of consequence-free sexual behavior and one that is diminishing the critical values of motherhood and the traditional nuclear family. Women having easy choices, you see, means they might not choose child-bearing.
Those writers have never gotten over the development of the Pill.
I’m saying it doesn’t have long-term consequences and therefore should be compared to typical elective procedures. From a medical standpoint, it should be considered an elective procedure because there are no issues of quality of life or health risk. My original statement had to do with pointing out that statements like “medical decisions should be personal choices” isn’t really correct since many medical decisions today aren’t totally allowed by personal choice. I was bringing up stuff like kidney removal and blood donations to show that we can’t just have any procedure done that we want since the state limits our ability to have them. In an abortion-friendly state, it’s easier to get an abortion than many other medical procedures. Someone can get a same-day, no-questions asked, totally elective procedure to have a fetus removed. But if someone wants an elective procedure for something like removing their foot, there will be lots of questions and evaluations the person will have to go through, and they may not be granted the procedure if the doctor doesn’t feel it’s medically warranted regardless of how much the person wants it.
It may be pedantic to harp on this, but it’s more correct to say “medical decisions without long-term health risks or quality of life degradation should be personal choice”. That’s more accurate regarding the abortion procedure. From a medical standpoint, the lack of harmful effects to the person from having an abortion should mean that the state doesn’t have a right to step in and limit a person’s ability to have it done. The broader statement of “medical decisions should be personal choices” is not a good argument for abortion because there are many existing counter examples of medical decisions for which the state is involved and overrides the person’s personal choice. But in those cases, it’s almost always because there can be serious aftereffects of the procedure and the state steps in to ensure they are only done when medically necessary and the risks are worth it.
Sorry, I completely misunderstood. I agree and I basically think the state shouldn’t have input into medical decisions at all, they decisions should be made between patients and doctors, with oversight from hospitals and medical boards. The only time the state needs to get involved would be in order to put some legal force behind the medical professionals in certain cases, like those involving parents withholding medical treatments for minors.
Genuine question, as I don’t know the answer: does the state’s interest in potential life mean that once pregnant, a woman’s own interests are subservient to the state’s interest in ensuring that her offspring are born alive? Because if that’s true, wouldn’t it mean that pregnant women are under the conservatorship of the state in a way that other adults are not?
The devil is in the details, of course, but I would think the state’s interest in “potential life” means that pregnant people should have access to the resources they need to deliver (and raise) healthy children, not that they should be forced to carry each pregnancy to term. No individual is obligated to procreate for the state.
Very briefly, Roe/Casey held that the State’s interest in protecting potential life becomes “compelling” after viability. Before viability, the State’s interest was not compelling enough to overcome the woman’s rights. After viabilty, the State’s interest can be compelling enough for laws outlawing abortion to be Constitutional. (Again, briefly, so there is a ton of other factors/nuance that matter). I don’t think Conservatorship is a very good comparison because that deals with controlling almost everything a person who has been found incompetent does. I don’t think a law against arson makes the State a conservator of arsonists or a law against battery makes the State a conservator of people who hit other people. (And before there is a flood of anger against my examples, I completely understand that you may think terminating a potential life harms absolutely noone.)
You seem to be arguing about the best way for the State to protect its interest in “potential life”. And I agree. Any legislation that regulates abortion should be accompanied by legislation that financially supports pregnant women, that supports children after they are born, and even stops the interest from even starting by providing contraceptives and education. Those are uncaterogorically better ways to decrease abortions and to protect life. But there is nothing in Roe that requires the State to do ONLY the best way to protect its interest in potential life.
And, again, there is a bunch of nuance to this, and I dont want the discussion to devolve.
That’s hardly the only problem with your examples. Not committing arson has no impact upon the arsonist’s body, or upon their ability to do other things. Not committing battery has no impact upon the batterer’s body, or upon their ability to do other things. Not having an abortion has a huge impact upon the pregnant person’s body, and upon their ability to do other things.
Who in this thread is arguing for that?
You have yet to say what you are arguing for. What is your actual cut-off point when it comes to abortions?