Why would a person who thinks """No abortion ever except in the case of rape or incest"" justify "MURDERING" the fetuses from rape or incest? Are they evil and should be killed? What TF is the difference? ??
That’s the issue that they have — they cannot claim that the life of the child is the main concern and also support any abortion that wouldn’t kill the mother as that would also kill the child — especially when they believe it also has a soul. That leads to 11 and 12 year olds being forced to have children, children being born with horrible disfigurements and impairments, rape victims being forced to have their rapists child. Not to mention all women losing their right to bodily autonomy.
I honestly think there is no really good answer to this. An unwanted pregnancy is a dilemma, which by definition presents no good answer. So I think they should have left Roe alone, unsatisfying as it was.
I have no idea. I put that as a choice because there are some people who feel that way. Their theory, as I understand it, is that the baby is in those cases an unwanted intruder in the womb, especially if the woman is underage and can not consent even if she doesn't affirmatively object.
Roe vs Wade had it mostly correct. It has stood scrutiny for 50 years, till a extreme Right-wing, religiously based and biased court, shot it down. The Pro-birth people are ignorant to the extreme on how human reproduction works and the Court is no exception. Abortion is above all, women's healthcare. No medical ignorant, political body should be standing between the woman and her doctors. They have no idea what's involved with the woman. None. When they pass laws the get in the way of proper health care, that puts women at risk of dying from being denied obviously needed health care.
I voted “leave it to the states because that was the Supreme Court’s intention. Personally I am in favor of early term choices, but opposed to very late term abortion. Killing live born babies is murder. If that is the way the abortion extremists have to have it, I have to join the pro-life movement.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why would a person who thinks """No abortion ever except in the case of rape or incest"" justify "MURDERING" the fetuses from rape or incest? Are they evil and should be killed? What TF is the difference? ?? Thank you for your honesty. Their thinking is totally illogical but at least you tried to explain...no one else who feels that way has ever answered my question. I feel that they think that way because the raped woman had no choice and shouldn't be punished with an unwanted pregnancy but a woman who had consensual sex and had an unwanted pregnancy should be punished.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why would a person who thinks """No abortion ever except in the case of rape or incest"" justify "MURDERING" the fetuses from rape or incest? Are they evil and should be killed? What TF is the difference? ?? I feel that they think that way because the raped woman had no choice and shouldn't be punished with an unwanted pregnancy but a woman who had consensual sex and had an unwanted pregnancy should be punished.
That is a Republican talking point, noting more. They are thinking rational people will believe it. Only their own simple minded do.
I've always felt there is far too much focus on timing and gestation length when the condition and circumstances of the mother and fetus is much more important. Gestation is commonly an estimate and even if it can be accurately determined, I don't see why it should be such a major factor whether a woman is (say) 20 weeks pregnant rather than 19 weeks and 6 days. The relevant circumstances and conditions can be massively varied and case-specific, something legislation is generally bad at handling. That is really why the idea of it ultimately being a decision between the woman and her doctors comes up, since they're the only ones fully informed on all of the relevant factors in their unique individual situation. Rules and laws need to account for that, and rather than establishing hard cut-off dates or trying to impose defined clinical procedures, it should establish broad principles and expectations for both patients and doctors to operate within. That isn't to say other people can't or shouldn't have input (family members, other medical professionals, ethics boards etc. and courts in extreme cases), but I don't see how the default position can be anything other than a decision of the woman herself, just like any other medical procedure. While abortion is something of a unique thing since it impacts a second individual who can't express their own opinion, I don't think there is any viable way that could be directly addressed.
Perhaps because some of us have some consideration for woman who has gone through those traumatic situations. Is the child important? Yes, but the child does not trump every other consideration. I know that this is a value judgement, so we shall eternally agree to disagree.
There are views all over the spectrum. I would say it is an extreme minority of pro choice people want the right “abort” a live born baby. You shouldn’t let the extreme push you to supporting anti choice positions
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why would a person who thinks """No abortion ever except in the case of rape or incest"" justify "MURDERING" the fetuses from rape or incest? Are they evil and should be killed? What TF is the difference? ?? WHO are YOU to determine what is or isn't traumatic to women ? Why not ? """Are they evil and should be killed? What TF is the difference? ??""" On what ?
This is from the dissent in Roe v. Wade: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. — Doe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting).[130] I find this argument utterly convincing and would have dissented from Roe. As for Dodd, overturning Roe, I'd have voted with Justice Roberts, who said this in his concurring judgment: Both the Court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share. I am not sure, for example, that a ban on terminating a pregnancy from the moment of conception must be treated the same under the Constitution as a ban after fifteen weeks. A thoughtful Member of this Court once counseled that the difficulty of a question “admonishes us to observe the wise limitations on our function and to confine ourselves to deciding only what is necessary to the disposition of the immediate case.” Whitehouse v. Illinois Central R. Co., 349 U. S. 366, 372–373 (1955) (Frankfurter, J., for the Court). I would decide the question we granted review to answer—whether the previously recognized abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, such that a ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy is necessarily unlawful. The answer to that question is no, and there is no need to go further to decide this case. I therefore concur only in the judgment.
And who are you to demand that she carry a child to term under such circumstances? I offer her a choice. You demand that she has to do as you command. We will never agree so we may as well drop the discussion.
FoxHastings said: ↑ WHO are YOU to determine what is or isn't traumatic to women ? WHERE TF did I do that ?????????? NOWHERE! WHERE TF did I do that ?????????? NOWHERE Nice DODGE around the question : WHO are YOU to determine what is or isn't traumatic to women ?
