My Body, My Data Act Tackles Online Privacy in Wake of Roe vs. Wade Decision

i.e. They are designed so anyone can read them and fit their already held beliefs onto them. There is a some kind of interpretation of 'My Body, My Right' that can fit to almost any view on the whole political spectrum.

Largely because most late term abortions were the result of nonviable pregnancies. The laws in many of these states have already made that an uncomfortable proposition as women were given the choice of trying to bring obviously defective pregnancies to term, stillbirth is still a thing, and is particularly high in many of the sh$&thole states where women don't have good prenatal care.

I personally saw what it did to a woman I knew personally a few years ago. Due to TX's incredibly stupid laws, when the ultrasounds came back that the baby basically didn't have 1/2 a brain, sever spina bifida, and a few other details I don't remember. The woman was given the choice of trying to carry it to term at risk to her life, or abort it. And due to the timing, literally had to decide that day, then had to listen to its heartbeat, and listen to a bunch state mandated christian propaganda, sit around for 24 hours and then was allowed to terminate. All this bullshit magnified her sorrow. Losing a child one wants is bad enough, having to put up with a bunch of state mandated bullshit designed to make you feel bad and f*&k with your head? Criminal.

Without those laws, she probably would have waited at least a couple days to come to terms with the whole thing. I'm guessing some women in less clear cut circumstances might have waited to see how it develops until it was obviously nonviable resulting in a later term abortion.

The real criminals here are the ones in the legislature, and should be held responsible for the pain and suffering they cause.

A significant portion of the US doesn't think there is a meaningful distinction.

I’m really not taking sides here, I’m just pointing out that we should strive for self-consistency in our government regulations. And either you have a right to your body or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.

This is not quite correct. Some people were vaccinated against their will. Some old folks homes in the EU vaccinated residents even if they did not consent, for example.

The thing is that a lot of people think that a fetus is a person with rights. If a fetus is a person with rights then bodily autonomy doesn't quite apply. The bodily autonomy angle seems more of an escape hatch to sidestep the subjective and unsolvable issue of whether or not fetuses are people and have rights.

I'm pro-choice btw

"From these examples is derived the principle that when one evicts a trespasser, or deals with any other violator of rights, one is obliged to do so in a certain way; it must be done in the least invasive manner possible consistent with upholding property rights. If a trespasser is on your lawn and you have a bazooka, you are not entitled to blow him away - not as a first step in any case. That is far too extreme and incompatible with the doctrine of private property rights. The homeowner has the right to make sure that the outsider does not trespass further, but he must be evicted in the gentlest manner possible." -pages 21-22

When there is no possible gentle eviction, due to technological or other circumstantial limitations, Walter Block believes that one can evict even when the sure consequence is death of the tenant.

"Based on the private property rights philosophy, the individual then had the right to evict the trespasser in the most gentle manner possible. If there was no gentle manner feasible, an individual's property rights to her womb transcend the so-called "right to life" of anyone else." -page 22

It looks like the world "gentle" is doing a lot of work here. One could claim, in the spirit of your comment, that a 9 month notice period for eviction is required for gentleness. In an even more bizarre twist, one could argue that an abortion is only gentle when the fetus would be then transferred to a life support system that could bring it to full term. With today's technology, this would imply an earliest date for abortion instead of a deadline. Walter Block does not, in my opinion, clarify the issue of gentleness enough in the document to settle the issue.

[1] http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...

Before birth, he may sue for his sperm, or the equivalent, back. The truth is before birth absolutely nothing is physiologically required of the father. Yes, there’s clearly a cultural role for the father before birth, but that’s not actually necessary for the woman to give birth. They really don’t enter into the equation. After birth, sure, there’s plenty of precedent for that and I won’t argue that here.

Regarding evictionism, I have to admit that I too find the idea of very late term, elective abortions distasteful. However, the act of giving birth itself is very dangerous for women, so just because her pregnancy has been without complication doesn’t mean she won’t die giving birth.

Being pregnant can kill you. Giving birth can kill you. Birth and pregnancy are mortal dangers. We need to let women choose themselves over their baby if that’s what they desire.

And of course the truth is most will choose to have the baby. If reducing the number of abortions was ever the real goal we’d have free contraception for everyone and the state would pay for all pre-natal and birthing medical expenses.

There’d still be some, but there’d be far, far fewer.

If I've wrongfully created a situation where either an innocent person will certainly die or I have a risk of dying (under 0.06% for kidney donation) how is it fair or right that they die?

The whole point from OP though is just that nuanced debate isn't possible in a world where soundbites rule.

(i.e. You could support women getting abortions, but also believe that this should be determined democratically at the level of the state)

This is why things are much more nuanced than simple soundbites can manage to handle!

1. You're talking about a coalition like it was one person monomaniacally organized around one idea, which us unlikely to give true insight about that coalition.

2. It also feels that you likely have a distorted view (e.g. taking a oversimple slogan, interpreting it through your views, then misunderstanding the people who use it by imposing your interpretation on them).

3. Also, there are likely subsets of that coalition that actually believe very close to how you think they should (e.g. my impression is the Catholic Church is pretty close).

I know this decision is awful for many people and has created justified anger, but this isn't the Anschluss. The people who did this aren't trying to destroy every venerated legal structure in the country to impose their will.

Not saying it's 100% impossible for some crazy thing to happen, your wife's anxiety is understandable, but I think a bit of perspective could help avoid needless panic.

I would also remember that Trump's bid to disregard the election was shut down in part by judges he appointed. Legal conservatives do actually want to conserve the legal traditions of the country, for the most part.