Well, if you’re going to go that route, you have to take the whole thing:
ˆIf bretheren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto here, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstbord which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s bother refuseth to raise up unto his bother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her, Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Isreal, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
—Deuteronomy 25:5-10
What a weird basis for legal hypotheses but I guess we have to follow it or be smited. Fortunately, Gawd seems to be a bit behind on his smiting queue.
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away.
Price of relying on a bunch of unelected jurist to be the ultimate arbiters of so much of national policy.
This isn’t quite right. There are no criminal prohibitions on abortion.
There are provincial laws and policies which regulate abortion as a medical procedure, eg doctor’s qualifications to perform the procedure.
There are also policies in some of the territories and smaller provinces about not providing abortions after a certain number of weeks - not as a prohibition, but because they may not have the medical resources to provide late-term abortions. In that case the provincial or territorial Medicare plan will pay for the women to have an abortion performed in a larger province.
I think it’s very easy to understand. Sex (outside of marriage) is a sin, and having to bear and raise a child is punishment for that sin, and abortions (or birth control) are just trying to get out of your well-deserved punishment.
But if the sex wasn’t consensual, then it wasn’t your sin, so you shouldn’t be punished for that.
But that kind of reasoning hasn’t played well since the 1950s, hence the alternate reasoning for the public messaging.
Oh, a compromise is what you want? Okay, how about this one–MEN cause ALL pregnancies. Hence, MEN are responsible for ALL abortions. Therefore, all men should be required to undergo a vasectomy at puberty so they don’t cause pregnancies. If they want it reversed they have to go through at least six months of weekly therapy sessions to prove they’re up to the challenge of parenthood, also have to attend mandatory parenting classes and classes in baby care, early childhood education and basic first aid/CPR. Once they’ve jumped through all these hoops they may be granted a reversal. Fail any part of the program and the nuts stay clipped. This works for me, so it should be law.
There sort of is a hard line all or nothing on the anti-abort side, and that hard line is thou shall not murder. If one can terminate a pregnancy without murdering the unborn child baby then no problem. Take the child out in any way that allows the child to live then there is no issue.
Since that is currently impossible till late pregnancy, yeah no room there on that hard line. It’s also a convenient excuse to force their beliefs on others as that’s the way it works.
The other side has to combat being called murderers, so a big mess to begin with.
Maybe philosophically it shouldn’t matter the reason, but there’s no way that humans will emotionally feel that it’s no big deal if a fetus is terminated at 99.99% of development. I’m pretty sure most people feel that aborting a fetus one day before birth is not really all that different from killing a baby one day after birth. But people don’t feel the same way about aborting a fetus at 30% development, a non-viable fetus, or a fetus that may cause significant health risks to the person during pregnancy. So it matters because people emotionally feel it matters, and emotions often drive their actions. For abortion to be something that is generally accepted by the population, it has to be such that most people are not emotionally riled up to the max. And saying abortions should be legal so that the person can get one at 8.99 months so the pregnancy doesn’t interfere with a vacation is something that will greatly motivate people to change that stance.
The vacations part was in the quote. I added the 8.99 months. But that’s the implication. If “all” abortions are allowed, then that means abortions for any reason at any time before birth. Philosophically that might be fine, but there won’t be enough people/voters to support that position in great enough numbers to have it stand.
They do it all the time, it’s called “induced labor.” Or “planned C-section.”
That whole argument is so fucking stupid–literally no one would carry a baby that long then just decide to whoops abort it. You’ve already done the most damaging bit by viability, nobody aborts a baby that late unless it’s tragically fucked up or like to kill the mother.
You may have inferred, I did not imply.
Ignoring the strawman you admitted to making…
And therein lies the problem. A woman should not be subject to the emotions or feelings of “most people”. She’s not most people and she may even have emotions or feelings of her own (which you’re essentially saying are invalid). Since I presume you don’t want her making medical decisions for you because, emotionally, she feels you should have to get a vasectomy…or shouldn’t be allowed to get one. Hell, maybe she’s “sure most people feel” that men shouldn’t be allowed to get cancerous tumors removed. So, again, maybe let her make her own medical decisions, just like she lets you make your own medical decisions.
Pretend, for just a moment, she’s smart enough to know what’s best for her and know that you’re not smart enough to know what’s best for her. And keep in mind, what she chooses is all but guaranteed to have absolutely no bearing on your life in any way, shape or form.