Roe Overturned?

LuFins Dad

If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.

I do try to balance my ideals with pragmatism. Taking an all or nothing approach will likely result in nothing. Under current laws there were about 600K abortions in the us last year. If medical and rape exceptions are necessary to get a broader ban against abortion as after the fact birth control, and that gets those numbers down to say 100k abortions? That’s 500,000 babies you save per year.

Of course, it is absolutely a necessity to revamp and improve our adoption and foster care systems as well as support systems for poor young mothers and their children…

You want Universal Healthcare? Want more expansive welfare? Fine. Ban abortion as birth control and get your ideology out of our school curriculum and it’s all yours.

Copper

@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:

If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.

Yes, obviously

OK, so why does this argument persist?

Because if you don't agree with the idea that abortion is OK in the case of rape or incest, then the liberal has clearance to scream and yell as much as they want.

If you do agree that abortion is OK in the case of rape or incest then a brief period of civil discourse might ensue.

At least that seems like it's practical effect to me.

Jolly

@Axtremus said in Roe Overturned?:

@Jolly said in Roe Overturned?:

The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.

If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.

As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...

The “viability” argument as presented today is problematic. If a “viable” preemie is truly “viable” then simply induce early labor or C-section any post-“viable” preemie from its unwilling (or unfit) host who is seeking an abortion then transfer the preemie’s custody to the state’s adoption agency and you’re done. But instead the anti-abortion crowd often choose to insist that the unwilling (or unfit) host of the fetuses to carry the fetuses to term. If you want to be realistic about this, if a preemie does not have a realistic alternative outside its original womb to survive, than it’s not really “viable”.

My body, my choice!

I laugh in your face, inducible boy!

Copper

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

One of the Senate's dimmest bulbs:

Best response:

Horace

@George-K said in Roe Overturned?:

One of the Senate's dimmest bulbs:

Best response:

Did anybody mention 20 years of child support?

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

SCOTUS comments:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. . .

click to show

Aqua Letifer

Woke intersectionality.

89th

My planet, my choice.

jon-nyc

@George-K I would have thought that was well known.

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:

@George-K I would have thought that was well known.

Somehow, it never gets mentioned in the absolutist discussion on abortion. Besides, it was just a bunch of unelected old white men, which also never gets mentioned.