CS221012-
#73 Canon Shooter • If you kill a person or steal from them, you should be punished because you've broken the law. •••• But if a woman goes to New York to get an abortion, she should not be punished because she's broken no law. •••• If someone kills you, that person has adversely affected your life (obviously). If I steal all of your money from you, I've adversely affected your life.
If a woman in Portland gets an abortion, the impact on you is nil; nada, zip-squat-shit...
CS222013-
#86 Canon Shooter • do you believe abortion should be banned nationwide?
^^
gfm1775221013-
#88 No, as that is unconstitutional. Congress has no power to legislate abortion. It is a State level issue in which the people of each State get to decide. SCOTUS ruled correctly in Dobbs.
dudmuck221014-
#114 the 9th amendment is relevant here because it protects rights not specifically enumerated. •••• The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman's right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother's physical and mental health; and because there may be "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child" •••• At the same time,
the Court rejected the notion that this right to privacy was absolute, which means states can impose some limitations on abortion.
schmidlap240119-
#323 • If and when viability and sentience develops, they are then deserving of society's protection. Until that stage is reached, a woman's right to control her body in consultation with trusted medical and spiritual advisers and loved one is far superior to the dictates of impersonal politicians and bureaucrats.
^^
HeyNorm230119-
#324 So, I will ask again, when is this moment achieved?
^^
schmidlap230119-
#327 • Roe v Wade was a compromise that recognized the precise moment viability and sentience is achieved is indeterminable. An informed judgment based upon the best medical science is the best we can hope for.
Blues Man230127-
#375 I don't agree entirely with that. IMO once development reaches the stage of fetal viability outside the womb there is an argument at that point the fetus can be called a person
^^
HeyNorm230128-
#376 In all seriousness, how does one determine that, short of an autopsy.
^^
HeyNorm230128-
#391 • You gave a time frame to protect the fetus. Granting it the right to exis
^^
NFBW230130-
#431 • The time frame set by a government is not to create a right for an individual viable fetus, or for all viable fetuses as a class. The timeframe of which we speak set by the government is to put a restriction on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy on a timeline consistent when the scientific medical community ascertains that a fetus could survive outside the womb, which generally is around 24 weeks. •••• All that Dobbs did was determine that states have a constitutional right to regulate the medical procedure of abortion as the white Christian Nationa Republican voters in each state see fit. •••• In other words, get it out of your head
HeyNorm that Roe v. Wade or Dobbs granted personhood rights to a fetus because it has developed to a stage of viability where it can live outside the womb
HeyNorm230130-
#432 • Regardless. Then the scientific community created a class! And the government used it! It created a class based on a subjective calendar date that many, not achieving THAT DATE, have advanced to a stage EQUAL TOO OR GREATER THAN, some that have. •••• THEREFORE ARBITRARY!
BluesMan230130-
#433 No it didn't •••• The Dobbs decision said nothing about fetuses all it said was each state has the right to regulate the procedure of abortion within its own borders. •••• States that ban abortion have not given the rights of personhood to a fetus.
HeyNorm230130-
#441 You give arbitrary protection to one, but not the other.
NFBW: All these people have been trying to reach you some reality
HeyNorm . No the 24 week viable fetus is no more protected than the 23 week not viable fetus when a woman is not charged with murder if she comes home after she goes outside the state to get a legal abortion . No woman can leave a state to murder her one year old after live-birth child and then come back without prosecution. Children who have experienced live birth are protected.
An unborn living human organism is not protected anywhere in the US because they are not considered persons. Setting a time where the state begins to have an interest in limiting a woman’s right to have an elective abortion on or around the arbitrary concept if viability doed not protect the fetus from women who decide to abort. You are absolutely wrong
HeyNorm
END230130231152
erlc.com
