[flagged]
You're absolutely right, and we know so, because that middle ground actually existested before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Abortion was available but regulated.
That's the middle ground.
Maybe the far-left should wake up and ask for mandatory abortions up to carrying term for every woman so that the far-right finally understand that "allowing abortion" is already a middle ground.
It's funny how when one side is reasonable and the other is not, the middle ground must lean towards the unreasonable one.
The obvious issue here is that conservative pro-life is nit about life, it is about punishing women. They don't care about anyone born.
When this started happening, I expected to see a bunch of malpractice lawsuits but that doesn't seem to have happened.
It's like making it a crime to cut someone open for surgery if you can't absolutely PROVE that they needed the surgery to save their lives, and then being surprised that doctors don't do surgery anymore. Any case even close to the grey line isn't worth your freedom over.
I expect doctors to provide the same care to my wife, mother, and daughters that they would want the women in their lives to receive.
It's absolute insanity, but it's reality.
But that is only till 2023. It is probably higher in 2024.
However, while most conservatives are too politically correct to admit it, a spike in dead women is an acceptable price for the salvation that comes from removing abortion access.
People love sacrifices to their gods when other people are making them.
This exact situation was the final straw that triggered a referendum in my country to legalize abortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
Imagine if we made it illegal to stop early cancers and required doctors only to treat it when it's terminal.
There is no scientifically plausible basis for a ban on abortion - it's entirely rooted in Christian fundamentalism, and those people do not believe in a middle ground.
A secular, liberal-democratic society is based on property rights and bodily autonomy. In such a society, banning abortion makes no sense.
Science has nothing to do with it.
Is there a scientifically plausible basis for a ban on other forms of homicide, or on genocide?
Science just tells us that a 24-year-old Korean, a 6-year-old English child, an American five minutes before birth and a Frenchman 5 weeks before birth are all equally human beings and all equally different from any other human beings. It doesn’t have anything to say about the morality of killing any of them, or in what circumstances.
If your moral position is ‘no homicide except in self defense,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in one direction. If your moral position is ‘homicide of slaves, children, fœtuses and other humans owned by another is permissible when the owner desires,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in another direction. If your moral position is ‘homicide of those without a functioning brain is permissible,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in yet another direction.
Scientific facts on their own are just facts; they just talk about what is, not about what one should do or not do.
Of course, you still need a non-scientific, moral basis to decide whether murder is bad, and other circumstances pertaining to abortion (in general and each case specifically).
Except killing another human is allowed in other circumstances, especially in Texas. Using "science" to make a special case for a fetus seems like a pretext when that science no longer applies outside the womb.
"kill" = "cause to cease living", "living" is pretty well defined (it's not entirely obvious for edge cases, like viruses, but quite obvious for cells)
"human" = pretty obvious as well, simply look at genetics. I mean, obviously an offspring of two humans is a human (for the next 100k+ years)