Yet again, you are ignoring the discussion being held in this thread.
It’s not about the legality of Roe. We all get the fig leaf this SCOTUS used to overturn it.
This thread is about why abortion needed to be abolished in this country, and you have not answered that question at all. Furthermore, you have not answered the questions that have been posed to you in this thread, and it would be easy to conclude you are not arguing in good faith.
That’s not the question that was asked. Abortion hasn’t been abolished in this country. It was taken out of the federal level and sent back to the states to decide. Some states all but abolished it. In all states the plan-B bill is still available.
The question was what is the point of abolishing abortion and it was already known before it was asked. Some people believe it’s murder and in some cases all the way back to fertilization. Some people believe abortion should be available even up to delivery.
I’ve been pretty clear on why the court case failed and what it will take to codify abortion. Most of the groundwork is still in the original case but will have to be argued on the basis of what defines human life.
Congress can amend the Constitution or the court can rule on what constitutes human life. That’s how it’s going to go down and neither side is going to like the ruling.
Here, exactly, is the question that was asked. It has nothing to do with Roe. It has nothing to do with the question you continue to answer, which is the “reasoning” this SCOTUS used to overturn Roe.
You are myopically focused on this question, have responded with mind-numbing repetitiveness – and it’s not the discussion.
Off to bed with me.
Again, no. RvW was overturned because they are misogynist partisan hacks. “Defining human life” is irrelevant. And fixing the problem requires driving the Right out of power, not changing the law because they don’t care about the law.
It shouldn’t be. If your life is threatened by a bear or by a man, you are allowed to defend yourself. It doesn’t matter whether the party threatening your life is human. To the extent the fetus is human, the fetus is a pursuer (a technical term used in the Talmud to describe someone threatening you that you can’t just run away from). You ought to have a right to defend yourself against it. It’s only because of misogynistic supreme Court justices that you don’t.
Roe wasn’t absolute. It actually did a good job of balancing the rights of the potential person with that of the person it was growing in.
Please. The Chinese government was actually pro abortion, and forced women who were illegally trying to have too many kids to abort them. The US has never had any law that was pro-abortion.
Anyway, reading the penumbra of your posts, i believe your answer to the question of why ban abortion is that the fetus is a person, too (at least at some point) and therefore should also have legal protection. I think you are wrong, because the fetus is a pursuer of the pregnant person. And i think the reason to ban abortion is to control women. You aren’t going to convince me by saying we don’t know exactly when that tadpole turns into a human being.
I’m happy to admit that our constitution sucks. As-written, it included all sorts of administrative nightmares that had to be amended. It allowed slavery. It dances around a lot of specific narrow rights instead of broadly affirming the value, dignity, and right to self-determination of human beings. And that’s why the Supreme Court was ABLE to rule that women must be enslaved by a pregnancy. But it doesn’t answer the question of why they choose to make that ruling, and not leave an excellent precedent alone, a power they certainly held.
(And, of course, our constitution couldn’t have been written to broadly affirm human rights, because to do so would be inconsistent with supporting slavery. So i guess the reason that a handful of people who can’t have babies can impose involuntary servitude on those in this nation who CAN have babies is because our constitution was written to support slavery.)
WHAT!!! You are implying that a baby, that you’re referring to as a fetus, is a threat to life? The odds of a US mother dying from maternal mortality are between 1/10,000 and 3/10,000.
Maternal mortality numbers in the U.S. have been overestimated, study shows : Shots - Health News : NPR.
Whatever argument you want to make about abortion, the argument that having a bay is a threat to the life of the mother is ridiculous.
And can be expected to rise sharply because of abortion restrictions.
Yes. As i said above, i personally know three pregnant women whose baby had to be removed to save their life. (One baby was developed enough, and the woman stable enough, that an emergency c-section was an option. The other two, a full-term baby and a non-viable fetus, were sacrificed to save the mother.) Pregnancy is ALWAYS a significant cost to the mother, a form of involuntary servitude. But it’s often a significant risk, too.
Which would be because of the mothers choosing to have illegal abortions, correct? Or has there been a citable study that the rise in births resulting from a ban on abortions would lead to more baby delivery deaths?
No, it’s because mother’s with potentially deadly complications aren’t close enough to death for doctors to feel safe conducting an abortion. Those women are being concerned to leave the state, it in some cases, to return to the emergency department after they are in imminent risk of death.
For example, in a civilized place, an ectopic pregnancy is terminated as soon as it is detected, before it has done much damage to the mother. Some of our states are no longer civilized places.
So far as I’m aware, this thread isn’t about abolishing Caesarean section deliveries. I’m not aware of any groups supporting that idea, although there’s always the possibility of wacky fringe groups existing. An unborn baby who can’t survive to birth is a difficult issue. My opinion is that unfortunately the unborn baby is a lost cause and the mother’s life should take precedence. But how many pregnancies does that apply to? As for a full-term baby sacrificed to save the mother, I don’t know a way to politely discuss that circumstance. But I believe it would be included in the 1/10,000 and 3/10,000 odds I cited earlier.
*Just to clarify, I don’t believe extremely late abortions done to save the mother’s life were included in the study I cited earlier. I believe the odds of such events occurring wouldn’t alter the pregnancy death rate.
The odds of a pregnancy being an ectopic pregnancy are around 2%.
About 1 in 50 pregnancies (2 percent) in the United States is ectopic.
About 1 in 50 pregnancies (2 percent) in the United States is ectopic.
Have any US states forbidden the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy? And for the other 98% of non-ectopic pregnancies, and the low percentage other situations, how is an abortion justified as a “pursuer” threatening a woman’s life. Human unborn babies unequivocally have an evolutionary interest in their mother’s survival.
No, none have explicitly banned abortions of ectopic pregnancies. But some of the laws are written so broadly that doctors are afraid to perform them until the mother is in immediate risk of death. A few have since written amendments to clarify that ectopic pregnancies may be terminated. That’s just one high-profile deadly complication of pregnancy, though.
Also, i meant to add, now that there are safe and effective drugs to induce abortion, most illegal abortions are quite safe. No doubt there will be a few people, desperate to end their pregnancy, who don’t have the knowledge or access to obtain a medical abortion who will turn to coat hangers. But i do not anticipate many coat-hanger deaths this time around.
So, from a health risk perspective, what would be the actual anticipated health risk to expectant mothers if abortion was banned throughout the USA, and done in a sensible way? Presume that non-violable pregnancies could be terminated and doctors could be trusted.
There are states that investigate miscarriages on the premise that they may have been caused by the woman’s deliberate or habitual actions. Georgia has a law that could put a woman in prison for life if she has a miscarriage that the court deems inappropriate.
These things are not about protecting potential babies. They are unmistakably about subjugating women. There is no other way to look at it.
I think when people talk about this issue, there are three different kinds of “beginning of life” moments to their arguments.
For me, I would answer like this:
Legally protected life: the moment of birth. Prior to that, it’s the property of the pregnant person to do whatever they want with it. That includes terminating it at any time for any reason.
Life is a baby: Sometime in the 2nd trimester. With my kids, that’s when the feelings about the pregnancy change from “ethereal hopes and dreams” to “there’s a baby inside”
The spark of life: The moment of conception. Logically and philosophically, the beginning of when I think of life is so blurry that I think it makes sense for me to move the point back to the first spark of life happening at the moment of conception.
Although I support abortion at any time, my feelings about late abortion are similar to how I feel about infanticide. It’s easier to understand if it’s because of a serious health issue, but harder to deal with emotionally if it’s done for discretionary reasons. Kind of like how people put down dogs. If it’s because the dog is sick and dying, it’s understandable. If it’s for something like the dog is inconvenient, it’s more distressing. But the dog is the property of the owners, so that’s their decision to make no matter how I feel about it.
Quite a lot of people think that privacy is a human right.
WTH? Why are you claiming it wasn’t argued in good faith? And what would that have done to make it stand the test of time? The people who argued that Black people weren’t fit to be citizens very likely believed it.
What about when it’s still alive, but not viable?
What about when continuing the pregnancy will kill or seriously injure the mother, while standing little or no chance of producing a living child?
What about when the only way to end the pregnancy without killing the mother or causing the mother serious injury is to do so in a fashion that kills the fetus?
And ending the pregnancy in the case of a viable fetus close to birth when a normal birth process won’t endanger the mother isn’t called an “abortion”. It’s called “induced labor”, or possibly a “scheduled cesarean”. For some mysterious* reason nobody seems to be up in arms about induced labor or scheduled cesareans.
Cite?
I mean, it’s poorly worded: it reads as if it’s the abortion that’s life threatening, not the pregnancy. And I suppose that sometimes it’s because there’s no question that the fetus can’t survive, but the mother might, possibly, survive carrying it to term anyway; if it doesn’t die first and become septic inside her.
Why would that settle it?
I mean, I suppose it would settle it if human life were defined, as some religious traditions have it, as beginning at the first breath; because in that case the breathing child is already outside the womb. But if it’s defined as at some point during the pregnancy, the issue still remains of whether one human has the right to hijack another human’s body against their will; and, even if so, under which exact circumstances.
How do you know that it’s not going to be at conception? That’s what many of the abortion opponents are calling for, and what some religions currently preach.
How do you know that it’s not going to be after the beginning of labor pains? Other religions say it’s with the first breath.
Also their partners, who are mostly men; and their loved ones and any existing children, of any gender.
That doesn’t answer the question you were asked.
Both of those are misnomers. People arguing for the right to make medical decisions for their own (and/or other’s own) bodies are not “pro-abortion” in the sense of wanting there to be as many abortions as possible. People arguing against that right are not “pro-life” as often they are arguing in favor of risking the life of the mother; also many of them argue in favor of the death penalty and/or in favor of particular wars and/or in favor of the right of police officers to shoot people in particular circumstances. (There are some people who are opposed to the death penalty, arming police, or fighting any wars at all; and who would allow abortion at any point during the pregnancy if the mother’s life is at risk; but they’re certainly not the bulk of the ones claiming to be “pro-life”. And they’re also certainly not the Supreme Court, which has upheld under at least some circumstances the death penalty, the right of police to kill, and the right of the military to do so.)
For one: all of the data discussed in that story is taken from when Roe v Wade was in effect. It’s entirely irrelevant to what the data might be with abortion unavailable.
For two: Having some specific babies is unquestionably a threat to the life of some specific mothers. Having any baby may be a threat to the life of any mother. There’s no way of knowing for sure in advance that any specific case won’t be (though sometimes it’s possible to know that a specific case will be; and any birth control can fail.)
How many such deaths are acceptable to you?
Presume that you will personally know the victims of them.
All of the questions posed to me assume I’m against abortion. This is a false assumption.
Actually answering them would sure erase all doubt, wouldn’t it?
Go ahead-prove me wrong.