https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics/abortion-supreme-court-louisiana/index.html I am a progressive and I am also Pro life, I believe that life starts at conception. I think abortion is only justifiable if the mother's life is at risk, although I don't think it should be criminal to abort due to rape. I hope that the supreme court rules in favor of this law, I can not in good faith support abortion rights when my whole life has centered around children and now that I am in college for early childhood education for infants and toddlers as well as someone who hopes to have children of my own. BTW I am also anti gun, anti death penalty, anti war, and pro medicare for all and pro welfare.
I believe that if the government has the right to dictate how you regulate what exists entirely on the inside of your own body, then they certainly have the right to regulate everything outside of it. We get angry about government spying and government healthcare and government overreach as far as banning things and dictating what can and cannot be used and where. None of those things are as personal or self-contained within an individual as a pregnancy. None of those things, even your personal property, even your family and born children, are as personal or self-contained within an individual as a pregnancy. If you are not pro-choice because you believe a woman should be the decider when it comes to her own body, you should at least be pro-choice because you want to avoid absolute government control over everything. Because if the government can legislate your uterus, legislating your healthcare, guns, privacy, and everything else that exists outside your body cannot even be challenged.
It goes beyond her body, as it requires participation from another to get to that point. If it was a matter of it just being about the woman and her body we wouldn't have or need notions of child support, so clearly it goes beyond just her...
What's the point of turning it in to a simplistic binary question? This is clearly a complex issue, even you go on to qualify your position in a way that many other people who might call themselves "pro-life" would strongly disagree. To my mind, the whole thing just seems to be intentionally divisive, turning it in to a "for me or against me", which might be simpler than actually establishing and supporting an informed position but doesn't actually achieve anything positive. Why? As written, it doesn't prevent abortion but it is feared that t will be used to essentially ban it (even in circumstances you approve of), by ensuring hospitals refuse admitting rights to any doctor who performs abortion (by law, policy or underhanded methods).
The abortion issue only has 4 possible sides. Pro abortion (Eugenicists) Pro choice (Abortion at will) Pro life (No abortions unless the mothers health is at risk) Pro birth (Caring around the fetus not the baby or mother) No one is going to pick the 2 extremes on a poll even though many people are the last one. I just want them to gut Roe v Wade so that states can go back to how it was, no abortion unless the mothers life is at risk or the fetus can not survive outside due to a severe birth defect. Roe v Wade is bad case law. The 14th amendment gives one body, the congress the power to enforce the amendment, they have not enforced abortion as a right and thus it is not a right, nor does the constitution mention abortion.
The abortion issue doesn't have any sides, just millions of individuals, each with their own unique set of circumstances. There are single examples with no obvious "right" answer so to suggest you can come up with on to apply in every single case is simply ridiculous. You claim there are these simplistic positions yet you've added extra (and shifting) conditions to your own position right here (the early special consideration in the case of rape and only now making reference to birth defects). Also, my position doesn't fit any of your categories. That doesn't explain your support for this law though. If anything, it makes a challenge to Roe v Wade less likely if it gives scope to simply circumvent the law instead. Sorry, but you're defending a bad law for a bad reason.
Politically groups need to form. Individual beliefs might very widely but political beliefs must fit into boxes due to the numbers game nature of politics If a federal election became all about abortion, then these 4 groups would be running. Simple as that. Now individual situations might very but they will ultimately fall into one of those 4 political catagories On the exception for rape, it is more of, I won't judge someone for aborting due to rape, not that I necessarily support it. If the fetus is dead of course they should get rid of it, makes no sense otherwise. What is your position on abortion? I support these backhanded laws as it is the only way to make a direct challenge to Roe v Wade with Roberts on the courts who care way to much about legacy instead of case law. If I felt that Roe v Wade could be honestly looked at on the bases it case law and states rights under the constitution with the 5 nullifying it due to being a judicial amendment, I would support that, but we cant, so these laws that are bad faith laws have to do. This law is stupid, its cause is good. The law I would support would make abortion free when the mothers life is at risk, or when disposing of an already dead fetus, would leave the issue of abortion due to rape up to the morality of the woman in question, would allow men automatic fatherhood (unless rape) and would ban abortion for all other reasons. (While making Birth control and contraceptives free and without need for a doctors note). However this is much less likely to be upheld.
Political groups don’t need to form. They form not because people want to achieve the best outcome for pregnant women but because they want the best outcome for their political career. This is a medical and social question, not a political one. No election would be all about abortion, not least because of all the other issues that inevitably get dragged in to the issue such are women’s rights, the power of doctors, the balance of government authority with individual freedoms and the religious elements that inevitably get dragged in. The point is that is already going beyond the four simple categories you established and lots of people you imagine being part of your category would strongly oppose these additions. Mainly that I don’t know and suspect there is no right answer. For the vast majority of early-term medical abortions, while I’m not comfortable with how casual it has become, I wouldn’t want to see excessive restrictions on women in difficult situations either. The simple practical fact is that we couldn’t prevent abortion happening even if we wanted to so having it open and under professional medical supervision would be infinitely better than in backrooms and, these days, online. For the minority of last-term cases, medical reasons (be they health of the mother or child) should largely be down to a decision between mother (and father) and their doctors. There clearly needs to be regulatory and legal frameworks just as there is for any other medical or clinical procedure but I think there needs to be greater recognition that the decision is any given case can only possible be individual. There are all sorts of other possible circumstances, various complicated edge cases involving rape, incest, mental health issues, underage mothers etc. but beyond the separate legal aspects relating to them, I still see it as a largely individual decision for mother (or appropriate guardians) and the doctors. Again, this specific law makes a formal legal challenge to Row v Wade [i[less[/i] likely. It is a tool to specifically avoid that, to prevent abortion happening though local policy and procedure without having to make it illegal. You need to accept that you’ve been conned.
It opens up the possibility for the supreme court to rule that states have the complete right to regulate doctors and facilities like any other procedure. That would completely gut Roe vs Wade. That is all that is needed.
Child support deals with a born child, a new individual, that does not exist in a pregnancy. That's why there's no child support before the child is born. Prior to birth, as I'm sure you well know, the woman is the only person in the universe directly affected by the pregnancy without it being a choice to be involved, and the only one that takes on all of it's burdens and effects, including those that physically and mentally persist after the pregnancy is over. In a legal sense, the idea that a woman's body becomes "community property" while pregnant is no different than slavery because it results in a woman losing control of her own person.
It seems like you don't think a legitimate argument against Roe vs Wade could be legitimately won so you're supporting an underhanded trick to circumvent it.
""" the idea that a woman's body becomes "community property" while pregnant is no different than slavery because it results in a woman losing control of her own person""" YES! EXACTLY!
""although I don't think it should be criminal to abort due to rape.""" An abortion due to rape has the same procedure and outcome as any other abortion. Why are you against abortion in one case( pregnancy due to consensual sex) but not the other (pregnancy due to rape). The fetus dies in BOTH cases.
Infact I do, what I don't think can happen is that the supreme Court could overturn it based on case law which is the clearest argument without everyone crying politics. It was a judicial amendment to the Constitution as the Congress is the body allowed to enforce the a amendment
FoxHastings said: ↑ ""although I don't think it should be criminal to abort due to rape.""" An abortion due to rape has the same procedure and outcome as any other abortion. Why are you against abortion in one case( pregnancy due to consensual sex) but not the other (pregnancy due to rape). The fetus dies in BOTH cases. Oh, gee gosh, I bet they will be so relieved to know YOU didn't judge them. Now WHY wouldn't you "judge" them ? The fetus dies in BOTH cases.
Because they make up about 0.5% of all abortion and so okaying it makes the political goal of ending all non medically necessary abortions more easier. Ending all but 0.5% of them works
Gee, no hypocrisy there !! (sarcasm alert) So the real goal is to punish women who had consensual sex. Why is one abortion OK but not another unless Anti-Choicers want to punish women who had consensual sex?
What qualifies you to be the ARBITRARY DECIDER of where to draw the line? Why does NO ONE ELSE get to CHOOSE for THEMSELVES? Whatever happened to the concept of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and RIGHTS?
I thought they were quite different. The way I see it is that Roe v Wade establishes the 'right' and PP v Casey establishes a regulation framework.
Pro choicers YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS also pro choicers, you are a hypocrite for supporting rape victims choice