Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

I suspect that depends upon what state you were in.

Either way, it was still old white men regulating females bodily autonomy or giving state legislatures full of old white men the power to regulate females bodily autonomy.

 

Okay. Will you feel better if that person rephrases it with "old white men placing restrictions on women"?

I'm sure women would appreciate a old white man if they are in a position of power and lesson restrictions on women.

 

Depends on the women. In my experience the pro-life movement is extremely women heavy. The notion that it's a bunch of men telling women what to do is nonsense.

 

Sure, but most women are pro-choice.

 

We don't permit mercy killing outside the womb (and definitely not without the person's consent), so I don't understand the clamor to allow it pre-birth. Even worse is the notion that we must allow abortion on demand because of this extremely rare circumstance.

Abortion is murder in almost all cases. But it is no doubt difficult to enforce in many circumstances.

 

What do the majority of women believe?

 

Depends how you break it down.

Nationally? That's true.

Not sure how it breaks down in every state.

 

I don't think that every person has to draw the same line to be on the same side when it comes to being pro-choice, no more that I believe that everyone that supports international aid has to draw the same line to be on the same side of the position.

Accordingly, I don't really think there is a lot of relevance that not everyone on the pro-choice side of the argument has the same line.

Yes, states at this point draw the line, at least until the configuration of the Court changes, and depending on public politics, we may see a different rule all together.

Abortion is an issue that has very little wiggle room, and I understand the position of both sides. One side believes it is the killing of an unborn child and the other side does not believe it is a child yet, and that as a result, people have bodily autonomy.

 

Okay, but those are two different things.

Someone can believe that the Supreme Court should be more representative of the people that they represent AND also believe that the standard that a the Court reached IS a good standard.

There is no contradiction there.

 

Any ruling of the Court in theory is restrictive of bodily autonomy in a vacuum.

However, this ISN'T in a vacuum and the ruling on Roe made it overall LESS restrictive on bodily autonomy for pregnant women..... of course, if you believe that the fetus is an unborn child, then any autonomy of the child is gone.

 

I don't think I said that every person on the pro-choice side has to draw the same line. So..

 

But you did? That is the premise of your central argument. We understand you aren't pointing a gun to our head and demanding a singular answer but you are making the argument that no singular answer means the argument for choice is invalid.

 

Not arguing here that we should allow abortion just to accommodate a rare medical circumstance. I'm arguing here that we shouldn't blithely point at legal exceptions intended to accommodate those rare circumstances and believe that alone is enough to protect women with "legitimate" abortion needs. It obviously isn't enough because this woman couldn't get an abortion even though her child isn't viable.

Since you brought it up, we should have a protocol to allow assisted suicides. I may have a need for it someday. Much like the abortion debate, assisted suicide is about the limits of bodily autonomy. Sounds like we'd be in different places there too.

Murder is just a legal construct for a disallowed homicide. Every legal abortion is not a murder, just like wartime killing isn't murder and "self-defense" killings aren't murder. Enforcement among abortions has not been at all a problem. Apparently even legal abortions are hard to obtain in some states. So far at least, there isn't evidence of many illegal abortions being conducted. Most women who cannot find a legal abortion just give birth and suffer all the attendant consequences.

 

No, incorrect. I don't require everyone on the pro-choice side to give me the same answer.

I simply require an answer.

At what point should abortion be proscribed?

That's going to be somewhere between 0 and 36 weeks.

Ok, now that you've given me a day/week/month/trimester or whatever.

What is the justification for this date?

Most people will not answer that.

 

My justification for a date range is depend on context of the individual birth. We can give a general month range based on science and when the development stage occurs for things like higher functions that allow the entity to understand the concept of pain and want to be adverse to it.

 

Then what is the relevance?

 

We (the pro-life movement) were told for decades that this would not be the case. Every abortion argument included that outlawing abortion would not reduce the number of abortions, they would just be done in back alleys with coat hangers and women would die. Are you saying that argument wasn't true?

 

https://www.webmd.com/baby/when-can-a-fetus-feel-pain-in-the-womb

Is that an acceptable answer? If this is the general scientific consensus, I'm comfortable with that number.

 

[QUOTE="JuanValdez, post: 14519008, member: 35"Most women who cannot find a legal abortion just give birth and suffer all the attendant consequences.[/QUOTE]

Women who have an abortion suffer the consequences of that decision too.

It's not a pretty picture no matter how you slice it.

We, as a society, should encourage conduct that prevents women from being put in such a bad situation.

 

Besides advocating against rape and providing free contraceptives what else does that look like?