I think abortion should be legal but this just is a mind boggling bad post. I don't think any logical person would argue "life" has begun before sperm has fertilized an egg. Sperm is not a living thing. Uh, people can attempt to sue birth control manufacturers when that product fails but I doubt they will have any success. I'm fairly confident no manufacturer of birth control guarantees it's effectiveness 100%. There is no expectation of that in society. If you choose to engage in sexual conduct you run the risk of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant. Most of us are able to navigate that world responsibly.
I have a feeling the conservative legal scholars are not going to be happy with the end result here. There's a pretty good chance that an appeals court kills it, and because it's so extreme, USSC decides not to touch it and lets the appellate ruling stand.
That's very possible, but they are going for broke. David French is right on this imo. They know this is the best chance they'll ever have. And, FWIW, if an appeals court strikes it down over personhood the SC would be affirming that ruling if they don't take it up. There would be consequences to NOT taking the case up. I could imagine a liberal court wanting to rule very narrowly as to not entice the SC to take the case.
It actually is though. If you consider cells to be alive (and science certainly does) then Sperm cells are living things.
Sure. Let me redirect you to the previous sentence then. Which you must have missed. "I don't think any logical person would argue "life" has begun before sperm has fertilized an egg."
Why do parents want to become grandparents? The question is rhetorical of course. To be sure, probably in a lot of cases, would be grandparents don't give a fig one way or the other. I think what I am saying is that the woman should have a large degree of choice, but it shouldn't be unilateral choice/power. Other stakeholders should have a say. That includes the would be father, and the would be grand parents. I personally know of a situation where a young unmarried woman had a child, and that woman's parents legally adopted that child, and are caring for the child and raising it. Isn't this better than killing the baby? To the degree that Roe gets revisited and revised along these lines, changes and challenges to Roe are a good thing.
Um... Yes they would? A single cell organism is a loving thing. It's not sentient but neither is a fertilized egg.
And the interesting sub-text to all of this is the declining fertility rate, a problem that all modern civilizations "suffer" from. Nations and societies have an inherent interest in there being a next generation. If nothing else, nations need future taxpayers. And we can't just import all the future generations, as much as the Leftists would love that. I think a growing awareness of this also plays a role in all these challenges to Roe. Again, 45 million abortions since 1970. People are starting to take notice of that number.
I mean...that's an argument that a lot of religious people make, against masturbation, and against p*rnography. I guess we could argue if these people are logical or not... But the point I'll make is that there's a lot of discussion about what is a person and what is life...if you're willing to say a glob of cells (fertilized egg) in a woman's body is life and deserves protection then it's consistent in saying that a sperm cell is also life. Each Sperm cell is basically a different person, each sperm cell carries a different genetic code and all we are, all we become, is from this genetic code. I think this is a pretty simple discussion but because of how polarized everyone is, no one wants to cede any ground. While I agree that most pro-lifer's aren't arguing that sperms are living Most pro-choice people aren't arguing for late-term abortion either.
Yep, that poster is suffering from Feminist delusion. There's no equivalency. It's similar to how the pro-choice crowd is losing generally, because of the fallacious rhetoric and illogical extremes they are going to. (Ie, post-birth "abortion")
If you want to be pedantic about it that’s your right. I think most people recognize the important distinctions between a sperm and a fertilized egg.
Unless the grandparents are carrying the fetus through birth, then no, the grandparents should have no say. The mother is certainly free to consult with the grandparents, and with the father. Hopefully there is a good relationship between all to facilitate that happening. But ultimately its the mother's choice. btw, your "personally know a situation" sounds like a wonderful situation. Glad it worked out that way. Apparently it was a decision made by the young mother. Which again is the point... it was the mother's choice.
He does too. He's just trying (and failing miserably) to create some sort of equivalency where there is none. The tried and true debate tactics of the strawman.
I don't understand how it is pedantic when the crux of the entire debate is basically over what is alive and what isn't. A fertilized egg is really just that, a fertilized egg. When you eat eggs are you eating EGGS or are you eating baby chickens?
See this is the entire point. Mothers have and probably always will have choices to choose from. It's just that ending the life of another...even their own child....is not one of those choices.
Who says there is an equivalency between a fertilized egg and a sperm? That's the true strawman. I'm saying they are both living things the issue is that people are equating these to actual babies, see the heartbeat bill, when at that time it is still just a fertilized egg... I would still like to point out that late term abortions and abortions past 8 weeks are pretty rare. People don't go into the 4th month of pregnancy just willy nilly killing their child. These abortions are because of complications to mother or child or both. Framing the debate this way is the same as framing the debate to say that republicans want women to carry rapist babies. Both are extreme 1% cases.
