Why would defining personhood (I’m actually not exactly sure what that means) at the Federal level be any better?
You mentioned the debate was over the different definitions of human life, i.e. what is a person?
Allowing each state to have its own definition is problematic, legally if nothing else.
Should a state be allowed to decide who is and who isn’t a person? Should a 12 week old fetus be a person in Wisconsin but not Illinois?
And what happens if that can go beyond abortion rights? There’s already talk that overturning this case could have ramifications with gay marriage, privacy concerns and access to birth control.
What ramifications might there be if each state could have their own definition of a “person”? Seems like it could be a great tool to disenfranchise people.
Agree there–look at Oregon, which has basically Canada levels of access to abortion, right next door to Idaho, which I’d bet five bucks has laws already in place to stop all abortion access as soon as Roe bites the dust. I can just see women getting arrested crossing bridges over the Snake River to establish they aren’t trying any shenanigans with those precious, precious fetuses.
The right to have an abortion is unique. I was talking about the definition of a human life. Why would that have anything to do with gay marriage, privacy concerns, or access to birth control (unless sperm is alive).
Really??
Ever met an Idaho cop? Yeah, really.
If you classify people as legally not persons, they have no rights. Think of forced sterilization and forced lobotomies- both of which happened in the USA.
The only sensible choice here is for one country to have 50+ unique definitions of human life.
I live in Oregon. When I go to Idaho, no questions asked. When I go to California, I have to go through the Agricultural Check Point. I always get nervous that I forgot about a pomegranate or an orange left under the seat.
I can very well envision far right states declaring a blastocyst a person, but an EBT recipient not.
Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that abortion is murder. Then the question is simple.
Except for involuntary miscarriages, someone has to make the decision to abort or not, every time. Who should make that decision – the woman or the government?
Just for the sake of argument, when should the woman (or husband) be able to abort a life they’ve created? China’s one-child policy didn’t turn out well, for example. It’s obvious in cases of rape or incest. When it’s birth control, it’s less obvious.
What’s obvious in the case of rape or incest? (BTW, the incest exception is really a rape exception, too, for all practical purposes)
Neither of those things are a problem–commercially purchased produce can sail right through the checkpoints. What CAN’T sail through are produce items you grew yourself or purchased from a farmer’s market. Oregon grows neither pomegranates nor oranges so you’re golden!
Which is why people really shouldn’t rush into getting the government into regulating reproductive rights.
Yeah, except the oranges I buy here in Oregon came from somewhere, maybe Asia or Mexico. They don’t ask where it was grown. Don’t even think about bringing grapes or pears in; that would cause a scene.
Aren’t reproductive rights (in the context of the Chine reference) different from abortion rights?
No. Abortion rights are reproductive rights.
May as well ask if that orange in your pocket is different from a fruit.
I would say that abortion rights are a subset or category of reproductive rights.