That’s why a lot of people have a problem with the court’s stance on abortion. The government obviously can regulate medical procedures, or prostitution or any other thing having to do with your body and your privacy. Why did this one get cherry-picked as sacrosanct?
Yes, she should be able to inject heroin into it, and prostitute it. The seatbelt thing is a little different.
So the fetus isn’t a living thing that needs protection from murder if the mother didn’t consent to the intercourse? That doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Pro-choice people don’t really believe in a woman’s right to choose, they’re just racists who are so committed to their white separatism that they’ll sacrifice a few white babies for the sake of killing proportionally more brown folk
I believe the abortion of this, and your, strawbabiy to be wrong.
Because being pro-choice doesn’t mean you throw common sense and ethics out of window. Fetuses at the pre-viability stage aren’t persons in any sense of the word. They’re really just parasites feeding off of the host’s body, and the pro-life argument is that it’s murder to terminate a pregnancy at any stage no matter how early because it has the capacity to become a person if it’s not one already.
The argument of the pro-choice crowd has never been “it’s okay to kill a perfectly healthy and viable baby because it inconveniences you”. The argument is that it makes no logical sense to give what is essentially a cluster of cells more rights over the fully formed, legal person whose body is housing and devoting resources to that cluster of cells that has no personhood of any kind. IMO, it’s akin to calling chemotherapy murder.
A 9 month old fetus isn’t just a fetus, it’s a baby. It’s a person. Condoning the abortion of 9 month old fetuses for non-medical reasons would practically be no different than tolerating infanticide.
If the incest was not rape, then yes, she did.
:smack:
It is not like women only have so many babies to make and an aborted one means one less in the world.
Any given woman will be willing to have X-number of babies in her life. Just because she aborts when she is 16 does not mean she will not have children when she is 26.
If she was forced to have her baby at 16 then she may well skip having one at 26.
The minority community is not losing population because of abortion.
Cite? That pretty much ignores everything we know about the demographics of abortion. Black women are 5 times more likely than white women to have an abortion and Latinas are twice as likely. Black women are more likely than white women to have an abortion across every income demographic except the extremely impoverished. Even controlling for education and geography, black women are more likely than white women to have an abortion. 60% of abortions are to women that already have a child and are in their 20s. It’s not scared little 16 year old who made a mistake having abortions (teens only make up 12% of abortions, there are twice as many women over 30 having abortions than women under 20.) It’s women typically in difficult economic circumstances who can’t afford another child.
It’s always hard to know what someone would do after their abortion, but it’s very, very likely that the minority population in the US would be significantly higher if abortions had been magically done away with over the last 40 years. It’s also likely that these new children would be disproportionately poor.
I was being facetious, I thought declaring that I was aborting a strawbaby made that clear.
I just get sick of people instantly jumping to the worst possible motivation rather than the far simpler one of: these people actually believe abortion is morally wrong.
Also, does anyone have stats on a correlation between being pro-life and anti-aid to mothers amongst the general population or is that pulled from an orifice too?
Indeed, the “Roe Hypothesis” theorizes that abortion has been a big indirect boon to pro-lifers because pro-choicers are in a certain sense aborting their own future pro-choice voters.
That’s another reason Republicans would lose big if they truly banned abortion in the land. Abortion has prevented a lot of Democratic voters from being born and the Republicans would be losing elections in landslides if it weren’t for that.
Because they recognize that abortion always represents a weighing of the mother’s autonomy interest and the fetus/unborn child’s life interest. They value the fetal life interest very high, such that it ordinarily outweighs the mother’s autonomy interest. When the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, however, the infringement on the mother’s autonomy is that much greater, enough to override the interests of the fetus.
That’s a more succinct version of what I said, thanks.
The only reason some people see a rape or incest exception to an abortion ban as a ‘contradiction’ is that they insist the only way to look at the issue is as if either a) it’s exactly the same as an already born child and the mother would have no right to end that child’s life so why this one? or b) it’s a ‘lump of cells’, like a bunion on one’s foot, so who else’s business would it be for the person to have it removed?
But those are not the only two ways to think of it.
Can she do what she likes with her internal organs? If a woman asked a doctor to remove her kidney to sell or just because she doesn’t like that kidney would that be legal?
Obviously laws exist governing what you do with your body.
Is the fetus her property? There’s plenty of laws & regulations regarding disposal of property too.
If it isn’t her property, part of her body or it’s own person, what is it?
The question is not should it be legal, but does the Constitution require it to be legal. I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers believed a right of a woman to prostitute herself.
The most common reason is simply and solely because (A) the life of the mother, (B) rape, (C) incest, are very, very often lumped together, even though they have nothing in common.
It is quite rare that any poll or policy-maker talks about (A) without also including (B) and (C).
I believe that a genuine threat to the life of the mother is a potentially-valid reason for an abortion–one that the family should decide for itself on a case-by-case basis.
If, in addition to that, abortion is allowed for cases of rape and incest – I’m not happy about that, but I would take that situation in a heartbeat over the current situation.
I am honestly not sure there could be a cite for this. You’d need an alternate universe to see how things can work differently. We can postulate till the cows come home different circumstances where a woman has fewer babies, the same number of babies or more babies with or without abortion.
I have seen abortion referred to as a black genocide. I cannot see it remotely being a “genocide”.
Are there fewer children because abortion exists? Maybe but whichever way it goes I think it a small enough difference to not make a difference.
There are 37 million black Americans. There have been roughly 19 million black abortions since 1973. In 2016 as an example, there were roughly 550 thousand black births and 300 thousand black abortions. I’m not sure that these are small differences. They’re pretty large differences if you ask me. When over 1/3 of potential black babies are terminated, you can’t pretend that’s insignificant or beneath notice.
I think the point is that this may be attributed to a certain demographic not properly using birth control, yet still only wanting a certain number of children.
If a woman only wants two children, it doesn’t matter if she has two pregnancies and no abortions, or twenty pregnancies and eighteen abortions. The absolute number of abortions don’t necessarily correlate with a decreased population.
Black people or poor people?
Exactly.