I would argue that it’s the pregnant woman’s choice if she wants to include her partner, family, other loved ones, and spiritual leader into her circle to help her make the choice, but yes, ultimately it’s a medical decision.
What would you like to discuss outside those two categories? You’ll have to be a bit more clear about where you’re drawing your false equivalency.
Of course, she had the option to bid them into the stratosphere, get them to sign a contract saying that they were doing it and why, and then mail everything to the news. She must have been in severe financial straits to not do that.
Right, and again that’s exactly the underlying logic of pro-choice.
If it’s foolish to think there is a clear “right” or “wrong” moral position on abortion, it sure as shit shouldn’t be banned - so it shouldn’t be illegal and and whether it’s right or wrong and whether they’re going to do it should be an individual choice.
I’m not asking you to defend either position - I wanted to know why you think that is “sloppy logic.”
And I’m really curious now that it seems like you agree with a key concept that underpins it.
I wasn’t asking the same for the “pro-life” argument because we both agree it’s sloppy.
Real discussions would be nice. But I know better than to go there. Or do I …
Ironically, you are arguing for overturning Roe v Wade, though not in the way that is conventionally thought. Forgive me for quoting from Wikipedia, but it has a nice summary:
“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, it held that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life.”
People have a preconception of Roe V Wade and ignore the details because they are messy. It’s a weird hill for either side to die on.
I think of it this way, she bears 100% of the physical burdens and risks of the pregnancy. So she bears 100% of the decision making authority as to whether to keep it.
That’s doesn’t really answer my question, but ok.
Or a not-so-weird back alley, as it were (and as it may be again if the anti-choice crowd gets their way).
Roe v. Wade was already replaced and adjusted
The government’s interests are rather narrow here. They cannot attack it as a general right or attack general access to it.
One reason I bring up the religious/spiritual advisor part is because 1) it is important to a lot of people, and 2) there are pro-choice religions, so one’s spiritual advisor might in fact counsel that the woman consider her own health and her ability to take care of whatever family she already has as a crucial element of the decision making process. Not all religions put fetuses ahead of live women.
Legally forcing all women to undergo a life-threatening medical condition based on someone else’s religious beliefs is against the First Amendment.
I wonder if the multi-cultural-racial-human-flesh-props are still being paid to stand behind Trump at his rallies.
Yeah - property, but at a more fundamental level it has to do with wanting to control who gets to have sex. They think if you are going to have sex you better be ready to deal with the burden of parenthood - no shortcuts around that, no getting to have sex with out having babies as a result. Not because babies and life are important, but because poor pieces of shit don’t deserve the same sexy fun as rich folks. And we are going to make sure they don’t have it without unwanted parenthood punishing you and messing up your whole life. Thats what it’s about. Nobody that cares about babies and life works to set up a system where unwanted children will be born. Total horseshit.
See, now that’s what I’m talking about. Though replaced might not be the right word, it certainly adjusted it. It didn’t, however, repeal the state interest in abortion. Just put down more guardrails.
Roe V Wade is a weird hill to die on because it covers privacy, which conservatives nominally support (if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, go ahead and argue against that. I don’t care), and doesn’t fully protect abortion (as seen by all the other restrictions that have caused clinics to shut down). It makes a great rally cry, but poor legal ground to fight over.
Forcing anyone to undergo, or miss out on, medical treatment based on someone else’s religious beliefs is just wrong, as far as I’m concerned.
Yes. This. Seems like a solvable problem to me. Let women have control over their own bodies, and tell god-botherer busybodies to STFU.
There is nothing logical or consistent with the anti-abortion view. It was merely a way to get poor and working class people to vote for political candidates who attacked their economic interests.
They got their start doing so with another issue: Segregation. Like Segregation, is pretty much a lost cause from a civil liberties perspective that makes little sense logically or legally.
I think it’s even more basic than that. It’s about sex/reproduction, one of the most basic drives for any species. If you can control the specifics of that, you can control the species.
They chose the very primitive male oriented model, with women as chattel.
Hey Religion! It’s 2020, you could choose a progressive “hey, sex is fun, and it’s ok to do without making babies”, just follow our rules on how to do it in a safe and equally respectful environment (plus if you come to services, you’ll meet a lot of whatever sex/gender you’re interested in, who also has our permission to get funky), but nooooooo… Man, that would have made sunday school a lot more fun (buddhist sunday school, which wasn’t that bad, but was somehow less about the philosophy than it was BS fairytale history…)
Yeah, but you are imagining a master plan - that’s like imagining trump has a master plan and is not just a complete fuck up.
They don’t have plans for the species. They just feel joy at denying others pleasure. Its not sufficient that they have something, they don’t enjoy it as much unless they know you don’t have it too. And since anybody can have pleasure from sex, they want to make sure you get punished for it. Look out, they will come for birth control next.
I’ve met a handful of people who were actually “pro-life” in the sense that they opposed abortion, opposed the death penalty and personally dedicated much of their lives to combatting the worst effects of poverty.
Most of those people were actual nuns.
Almost everyone else I’ve met who claims to be “pro-life” really just means “anti-abortion.”
I would put it this way. If your objection to abortion is based on your fealty to a religious fantasy, your argument is bullshit.