If a woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy, how does that figure into your calculus?
Mostly abortion is contraception after the fact, I think this part is morally wrong, a bit like killing a baby.
You can wave your « killing babies » to try to prove your point all you want, it won’t work, because fetuses aren’t babies.
I would adopt a baby if it would save his life.
Also, it’s funny that states that now ban abortions have the highest teen pregnancy rates so someone isn’t teaching them the consequences of sex.
Lastly, there are plenty of already born children waiting to be adopted. Are you doing your part?
These fucking monsters want her to carry this non viable fetus for 5 more months to deliver a guaranteed stillborn baby with 0 chance of survival. Can you even imagine the trauma that would inflict on the mother? The number of people who are going to ask about her pregnancy? The severe health impacts she’s going to face because pregnancies are extremely taxing on the body? The most ignorant among us are making laws based on their uniformed feelings and it’s going to cause serious harm to a lot of people.
The laws are based on a moral code that protect the most vulnerable.
And no, our laws are not based on that fundamental principle. The US legal system is built on the English system, which emphasizes autonomy in the forms of property, self-legislation, and all of those other things that actually appear in our foundational documents.
If we accept the right of bodily autonomy then the fetus has no right to the mother’s blood and sustenance.
If the state denies pregnant women bodily autonomy then it must assume the responsibility to care for them. Stats that ban abortion should cover all costs of pregnancy, at minimum.
You know, small government stuff.
You are left with the 99%: mostly a lazy and horrible way to do contraception.
Ok: abortion legal for that 1%, I would go with that no problem.
And no, it’s not 1%. It’s closer to 10% in self-reporting figures[1], which don’t include the obvious problem of shame associated with rape and one’s own inability to healthily deliver a baby.
[1]: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/3...
Did you read Justice Thomas' concurrence? This court has contraceptives in its sight as well. I'm sure it's going to be a few, harmless steps towards theocracy?
2) does it matter?
3) does it matter?
4) does that matter?
We close our eyes, we don’t see it’s there, we pretend it doesn’t matter, we call it clump of cells, we call advocates ’pro choice’.
Let’s face it, it’s the killing of a human, that have no voice, no choice in the matter.
If animals do it in nature, and humans do it with dangerous methods when denied access to safe methods, it's going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law.
Let's face it, this is just another drug war. An opportunity for Republicans to deny Americans personal autonomy and liberty. A justification for state aggression against your neighbors and friends. Wake up.
As for my moral argument, I invite you to read about the history of abortion, the history of abolition, and/or the history of America's war on drugs. I expect you will find abolition the easiest example to grok, since it's no longer a political issue. Note the moral arguments for abolition still stand, and yet it's no longer law.
Why is it important to you?
The law said that at one day after birth if you kill a baby it’s murder but one day before it’s fine, do as you please it’s ’her choice’.
I think we are too far gone in that direction, a fetus still something, a human life in formation, damn you would face legal consequence if you mistreated a dog.
I find it strange that we get from zero value before birth to full human live once born and try to disregard the baby before birth.
I think we have to do a conscience examination, are we blind to something because it’s more convenient for us?
Do we though? Abortions statistics would show that progressively fewer abortions are performed the later the pregnancy, with 99% occurring before 21 weeks.