Just Asking About Abortion

[AURex 2,011]

There are many variants of abortion restrictions being enacted by state legislatures.

I have questions. And this is irregardless of laws passed in specific states. This is just asking your thoughts.

1. If a child (lets say 13) is inseminated by a family member (father, brother, uncle, cousin), she is a child. Should she be forced by law to bear that child? And why should she?

2. A high school girl is fed drugs or alcohol at a party and sexually used. She is pregnant as a result. Should she be forced by law to bear the child? Any why should she?

3. A woman (lets say 28) is kidnapped and raped. She ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to bear that child?

4. A married woman and her husband already have kids. They don't want any more kids. Their protection fails and she ends up pregnant. They really cannot afford supporting another child. Should she be forced to bear that child?

5. A pregnant woman faces a situation in which the pregnancy could kill her (example being ectopic pregnancy, many other situations). If abortion of the fetus could save her life, should she be required to continue her pregnancy?

6. A woman is pregnant, but the child is severely medically damaged, unlikely to survive for long after birth or be a catastrophic medical situation after birth requiring huge support financially and familialy. Should the woman be forced to bear the pregnancy?

7. A woman (28) and hr husband (29) do not want children. Despite precautions, she ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to squirt out a kid?

Keep in mind that, in states that have restricted or eliminated abortion, they also do not support programs for child care or raising children, many have refused Medicaid, and the mothers/families are left on their own.

These are questions, not attacks. Can others help me understand?

I'm really trying to understand all of this, because even in Biblical times, the mother took precedence over unborn.

 

[autigeremt 6,643]

55 minutes ago, AURex said:

There are many variants of abortion restrictions being enacted by state legislatures.

I have questions. And this is irregardless of laws passed in specific states. This is just asking your thoughts.

1. If a child (lets say 13) is inseminated by a family member (father, brother, uncle, cousin), she is a child. Should she be forced by law to bear that child? And why should she? No!

2. A high school girl is fed drugs or alcohol at a party and sexually used. She is pregnant as a result. Should she be forced by law to bear the child? Any why should she? No!

3. A woman (lets say 28) is kidnapped and raped. She ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to bear that child?No!

4. A married woman and her husband already have kids. They don't want any more kids. Their protection fails and she ends up pregnant. They really cannot afford supporting another child. Should she be forced to bear that child?Make it before the end of the first trimester.

5. A pregnant woman faces a situation in which the pregnancy could kill her (example being ectopic pregnancy, many other situations). If abortion of the fetus could save her life, should she be required to continue her pregnancy?No!

6. A woman is pregnant, but the child is severely medically damaged, unlikely to survive for long after birth or be a catastrophic medical situation after birth requiring huge support financially and familialy. Should the woman be forced to bear the pregnancy? No!

7. A woman (28) and hr husband (29) do not want children. Despite precautions, she ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to squirt out a kid? Adoption 

Keep in mind that, in states that have restricted or eliminated abortion, they also do not support programs for child care or raising children, many have refused Medicaid, and the mothers/families are left on their own. 

These are questions, not attacks. Can others help me understand?

I'm really trying to understand all of this, because even in Biblical times, the mother took precedence over unborn.

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, AURex said:

There are many variants of abortion restrictions being enacted by state legislatures.

I have questions. And this is irregardless of laws passed in specific states. This is just asking your thoughts.

1. If a child (lets say 13) is inseminated by a family member (father, brother, uncle, cousin), she is a child. Should she be forced by law to bear that child? And why should she?

2. A high school girl is fed drugs or alcohol at a party and sexually used. She is pregnant as a result. Should she be forced by law to bear the child? Any why should she?

3. A woman (lets say 28) is kidnapped and raped. She ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to bear that child?

4. A married woman and her husband already have kids. They don't want any more kids. Their protection fails and she ends up pregnant. They really cannot afford supporting another child. Should she be forced to bear that child?

5. A pregnant woman faces a situation in which the pregnancy could kill her (example being ectopic pregnancy, many other situations). If abortion of the fetus could save her life, should she be required to continue her pregnancy?

6. A woman is pregnant, but the child is severely medically damaged, unlikely to survive for long after birth or be a catastrophic medical situation after birth requiring huge support financially and familialy. Should the woman be forced to bear the pregnancy?

7. A woman (28) and hr husband (29) do not want children. Despite precautions, she ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to squirt out a kid?

Keep in mind that, in states that have restricted or eliminated abortion, they also do not support programs for child care or raising children, many have refused Medicaid, and the mothers/families are left on their own.

These are questions, not attacks. Can others help me understand?

I'm really trying to understand all of this, because even in Biblical times, the mother took precedence over unborn.

 

Well since you brought it up, in Biblical times marriage and babies occurred at very you ages. 13? IDK but not far off.  Ask the baby.  High school girl? Yes  28 y/o? Yes married woman? Yes  Every state allows medical doctors to intervene in this situation Tim Tebow says hi. 28 y/o kid squirter? Yes. All states have support systems. And all have adoption. The conglomeration of your situations covers only a tiny portion of the abortion cases. The vast majority are flat out abortions of convenience with a fully healthy baby. 
 

It is not that hard to understand that babies deserve a chance to live. Give the baby a choice. Every pro abortion advocate has already been born. Lucky for them.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 hours ago, AURex said:

There are many variants of abortion restrictions being enacted by state legislatures.

I have questions. And this is irregardless of laws passed in specific states. This is just asking your thoughts.

1. If a child (lets say 13) is inseminated by a family member (father, brother, uncle, cousin), she is a child. Should she be forced by law to bear that child? And why should she?

I would say no, but not because its incest.  It's because at her age, it isn't safe for her to carry a child to term and deliver it.  Most girls that age haven't had their pelvic bone spread and develop enough to properly deliver a child.  Her permanent health and her life are at serious risk.

 

11 hours ago, AURex said:

2. A high school girl is fed drugs or alcohol at a party and sexually used. She is pregnant as a result. Should she be forced by law to bear the child? Any why should she?

3. A woman (lets say 28) is kidnapped and raped. She ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to bear that child?

I always say this: this is the edgiest of edge cases.  Less than 3% of abortions happen for rape, incest and the health/life of the mother combined. I don't think you make broad abortion policy based on outliers.  On top of that, I don't think it's the child's fault that the circumstances of their creation are what they are.  Abortion in this case does nothing to actually bring justice to the situation.  It doesn't punish the rapist(s), it doesn't undo the trauma and horror of the rape for the victim.  It just kills an innocent third party.

From a pragmatic standpoint, if I could save 97% or more of babies with a rape/incest/life of mother exception, I'd take it.  But it's not really the best approach to the situation.

 

11 hours ago, AURex said:

4. A married woman and her husband already have kids. They don't want any more kids. Their protection fails and she ends up pregnant. They really cannot afford supporting another child. Should she be forced to bear that child?

7. A woman (28) and hr husband (29) do not want children. Despite precautions, she ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to squirt out a kid?

I don't think this is a valid reason to kill a preborn child.  Sex may not be ONLY about procreation, but making new people is part of what it's for.  We need to get out of this modern mentality that it's normal to divorce the two completely.  If you're going to engage in sexual activity, you have to be willing to take responsibility for its natural outcomes.

 

11 hours ago, AURex said:

5. A pregnant woman faces a situation in which the pregnancy could kill her (example being ectopic pregnancy, many other situations). If abortion of the fetus could save her life, should she be required to continue her pregnancy?

Without question, a mother's life is just as valuable as the unborn child's.  If a pregnancy or delivery is going to kill or permanently and seriously damage the mother's health, ending the pregnancy should be legal.  However, the most humane way of doing this should be employed.  This thing of chemically burning or tearing a child limb from limb with forceps and/or vacuums is macabre.  This is a human being we're dealing with and they deserve all the dignity and care that anyone else receives.

 

11 hours ago, AURex said:

6. A woman is pregnant, but the child is severely medically damaged, unlikely to survive for long after birth or be a catastrophic medical situation after birth requiring huge support financially and familialy. Should the woman be forced to bear the pregnancy?

This is a difficult situation.  I've watched couples walk through situations like this.  What I've seen are the mothers give birth and then hold their child and love them so they could feel human touch in their final moments.  Then they buried them and had the dignity of a funeral.

There are also some implicit assumptions in this question I have a problem with - like whether or not we treat a human being like a human being is contingent on how much it costs.  There are also some ableist assumptions here - that the only lives worth living and giving end of life care for are those who are healthy.

 

11 hours ago, AURex said:

Keep in mind that, in states that have restricted or eliminated abortion, they also do not support programs for child care or raising children, many have refused Medicaid, and the mothers/families are left on their own.

This is wrong and needs to change.  Being pro-life has to be bigger than just being pro-birth.  If you want a truly pro-life society then you need to find ways to order it toward human flourishing, especially the flourishing of mothers and children.  You have to address the reasons most women see abortion as a valid or desirable option.

 

 

[aubiefifty 16,807]

no one ever considers the harm done to a child just by rape or incest. if you force them to carry a child i believe you will do irreparable harm to that child besides what she has been through. every single time she looks in the mirror she relives her trauma. if she is in school then the anxiety increases as well as the talk she would probably have to deal with even tho that might happen anyway. a rape by a step dad pretty much ruined my sisters whole life. this is fact. she turned to drugs and alcohol to help her get through the pain  tho she was fortunate to not get pregnant. she hid this horror for about fortyfive years. she ran away from home at about 12 and tho she would call they were drunken rants and we never had a clue because she moved up north and refused to let anyone know where she lived. so now i come in and have to deal with not talking to her because i thought she was being an ass and not hurt. the same thing with my last ex wife. her uncle got her from four until sixteen when she finally screamed at her unles while he was on top of her. and she was terrified of him. i mean she would tremble and shake and cry. i tried all i could to help her but in the end i could not handle it as well as our age difference so we parted ways. when some of you claim a child should be having a baby after she is raped just sickens me. children should not have children. it is a mean and terrible to put a child through and if you talk to mental experts about the damage done you might get your eyes opened. now if she is in love with some kid and gets pregnant and wants to have it then that is on her and there is not trauma so to speak. but trying to make children who are victims of rape carry is an evil itself in my opinion. lets remember these folks mostly threaten these kids families to get there way and to hopefully  shut them up. no one much can imagine just how bad that hurt runs. and i hope none of you or your family have to live through it.

[PUB78 1,358]

On 9/2/2022 at 10:28 PM, AURex said:

There are many variants of abortion restrictions being enacted by state legislatures.

I have questions. And this is irregardless of laws passed in specific states. This is just asking your thoughts.

1. If a child (lets say 13) is inseminated by a family member (father, brother, uncle, cousin), she is a child. Should she be forced by law to bear that child? And why should she?

2. A high school girl is fed drugs or alcohol at a party and sexually used. She is pregnant as a result. Should she be forced by law to bear the child? Any why should she?

3. A woman (lets say 28) is kidnapped and raped. She ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to bear that child?

4. A married woman and her husband already have kids. They don't want any more kids. Their protection fails and she ends up pregnant. They really cannot afford supporting another child. Should she be forced to bear that child?

5. A pregnant woman faces a situation in which the pregnancy could kill her (example being ectopic pregnancy, many other situations). If abortion of the fetus could save her life, should she be required to continue her pregnancy?

6. A woman is pregnant, but the child is severely medically damaged, unlikely to survive for long after birth or be a catastrophic medical situation after birth requiring huge support financially and familialy. Should the woman be forced to bear the pregnancy?

7. A woman (28) and hr husband (29) do not want children. Despite precautions, she ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to squirt out a kid?

Keep in mind that, in states that have restricted or eliminated abortion, they also do not support programs for child care or raising children, many have refused Medicaid, and the mothers/families are left on their own.

These are questions, not attacks. Can others help me understand?

I'm really trying to understand all of this, because even in Biblical times, the mother took precedence over unborn.

 

No on 1, 2, 3 and 5.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

9 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

no one ever considers the harm done to a child just by rape or incest. if you force them to carry a child i believe you will do irreparable harm to that child besides what she has been through. every single time she looks in the mirror she relives her trauma. if she is in school then the anxiety increases as well as the talk she would probably have to deal with even tho that might happen anyway. a rape by a step dad pretty much ruined my sisters whole life. this is fact. she turned to drugs and alcohol to help her get through the pain  tho she was fortunate to not get pregnant. she hid this horror for about fortyfive years. she ran away from home at about 12 and tho she would call they were drunken rants and we never had a clue because she moved up north and refused to let anyone know where she lived. so now i come in and have to deal with not talking to her because i thought she was being an ass and not hurt. the same thing with my last ex wife. her uncle got her from four until sixteen when she finally screamed at her unles while he was on top of her. and she was terrified of him. i mean she would tremble and shake and cry. i tried all i could to help her but in the end i could not handle it as well as our age difference so we parted ways. when some of you claim a child should be having a baby after she is raped just sickens me. children should not have children. it is a mean and terrible to put a child through and if you talk to mental experts about the damage done you might get your eyes opened. now if she is in love with some kid and gets pregnant and wants to have it then that is on her and there is not trauma so to speak. but trying to make children who are victims of rape carry is an evil itself in my opinion. lets remember these folks mostly threaten these kids families to get there way and to hopefully  shut them up. no one much can imagine just how bad that hurt runs. and i hope none of you or your family have to live through it.

Irreparable harm to that child is being sliced into pieces and sucked into a sink. Looking into a mirror is not.

[aubiefifty 16,807]

7 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Irreparable harm to that child is being sliced into pieces and sucked into a sink. Looking into a mirror is not.

i know exactly what i have seen and i stand by it.what you are promoting is child abuse. there are legit reasons for kids not to have a child. many doctors would disagree with you and pardon me if i take their advice over yours. besides if a man gets a child pregnant that makes him a ped. what if the baby is a female? in most cases you are basically putting the baby at risk of being molested. peds are the gift that keep on giving. and i will side with the child that is already born and breathing in this case anyway than a baby that has not been born yet.and i will never agree the female is pregnant as soon as she is ejaculated in. god makes them carry to term for months for a reason. you eant to stand up for child abuse you go right ahead. and you punish the rapist and not the parents for not wanting to put their child through that crap.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

38 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i know exactly what i have seen and i stand by it.what you are promoting is child abuse. there are legit reasons for kids not to have a child. many doctors would disagree with you and pardon me if i take their advice over yours. besides if a man gets a child pregnant that makes him a ped. what if the baby is a female? in most cases you are basically putting the baby at risk of being molested. peds are the gift that keep on giving. and i will side with the child that is already born and breathing in this case anyway than a baby that has not been born yet.and i will never agree the female is pregnant as soon as she is ejaculated in. god makes them carry to term for months for a reason. you eant to stand up for child abuse you go right ahead. and you punish the rapist and not the parents for not wanting to put their child through that crap.

What I stated is truth. Your rant about your life is irrelevant to this conversation. Yes pedophilia is wrong evil and criminal. Your family experienced it terribly. But none of it produced a pregnancy.  So you actually haven’t seen a pregnancy as in the OP.  Many doctors would agree with me also.  Nobody said a girl is pregnant as soon as she is ejaculated in. More fantasy/lies being introduced by you as factual but no one has said that. You made you choice, siding with the “child” already breathing and born. In your case we have a live child/mother and a dead baby. In my case both are alive and the baby can be removed from the danger by adoption. Who you need to side with are the ones that will punish the pedophile, remove them from the equation, permanently. Not the side that excuses pedophiles, releases them from jail, explains their perversity as just another sexual lifestyle which is “normal” for them. In case you need help you should be on the Republican side. That’s where you belong based on your life history rant.  Democrats have enabled exactly what happened to your family for decades by excusing perverts, evil liberal judges, legislation supporting all kinds of unnatural abnormal sexual behavior and weirdo professors and teachers hell bent on destroying the nuclear family…the family you wanted all your life.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

That’s where you belong based on your life history rant.  Democrats have enabled exactly what happened to your family for decades by excusing perverts, evil liberal judges, legislation supporting all kinds of unnatural abnormal sexual behavior and weirdo professors and teachers hell bent on destroying the nuclear family…the family you wanted all your life.

Yes but,,,, it's Alabama.  You have to expect heavy liberal bias in Alabama.  Maybe one day, a conservative can get elected in Alabama.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

36 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Yes but,,,, it's Alabama.  You have to expect heavy liberal bias in Alabama.  Maybe one day, a conservative can get elected in Alabama.

Are you pretending liberal activists have not worked their way into the judiciary, school systems, and universities?  I had one in 1974 at Auburn. Absolute liberal lunatic. In conservative Alabama. Your reply indicates you agree but just can’t write it down. Disengenuichy. Good call sign for you. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

9 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Are you pretending liberal activists have not worked their way into the judiciary, school systems, and universities?  I had one in 1974 at Auburn. Absolute liberal lunatic. In conservative Alabama. Your reply indicates you agree but just can’t write it down. Disengenuichy. Good call sign for you. 

I completely agree with you.  The only thing wrong with Alabama is too many liberals.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

20 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I completely agree with you.  The only thing wrong with Alabama is too many liberals.

Well that's true everywhere.😆

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Well that's true everywhere.😆

Of course.  It's is just magnified, therefore easier to see, in Alabama.

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

Fertilized fetuses are not human babies. Women should be given a choice whether to carry a pregnancy to viability or not. It's criminal and unjust to force women to suffer health and mental side affects of pregnancy against their will.  

 

No baby is ever given a "choice" of life or not. That is a false argument. you're born due to complete random chance of which sperm fertilizes which egg and then the natural path of fetal development going off without a major failure. If a fetus is aborted, the potential baby that could have possibly been born never knows it was aborted and has no ability to have any 'feelings' or 'thoughts' about it. 

It is much more humane to only bring a baby into this world when it will be born into a loving home and family that will love and desire it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

11 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Fertilized fetuses are not human babies. Women should be given a choice whether to carry a pregnancy to viability or not. It's criminal and unjust to force women to suffer health and mental side affects of pregnancy against their will.  

 

No baby is ever given a "choice" of life or not. That is a false argument. you're born due to complete random chance of which sperm fertilizes which egg and then the natural path of fetal development going off without a major failure. If a fetus is aborted, the potential baby that could have possibly been born never knows it was aborted and has no ability to have any 'feelings' or 'thoughts' about it. 

It is much more humane to only bring a baby into this world when it will be born into a loving home and family that will love and desire it. 

Well bless your heart.  Abortion is not a form of contraception.

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Abortion is not a form of contraception.

Didn't say it was. 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Didn't say it was. 

Essentially you did.

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

Fertilized fetuses are not human babies. Women should be given a choice whether to carry a pregnancy to viability or not. It's criminal and unjust to force women to suffer health and mental side affects of pregnancy against their will. 

If a women used contraception their chance of getting pregnant is greatly reduced.  If she still gets pregnant I understand you to say since it is an unwanted pregnancy she should, because she can’t accept responsibility for her actions, has the right to abort this child.  The disposability of a fetus, that if left alone would develop into a human being, is essentially preventing a pregnancy as easy as taking a pill without thought to the potential child.  JMO.

Most states will probably settle on 12-15 weeks so a decision will have to be made in that time frame.  The abortion would still be a fall back position if a women gets pregnant when she isn’t ready or its just inconvenient.

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

If a women used contraception their chance of getting pregnant is greatly reduced.  If she still gets pregnant I understand you to say since it is an unwanted pregnancy she should, because she can’t accept responsibility for her actions, has the right to abort this child.

I just don't agree with the idea I see a lot from pro-birthers that pregnancy should be a consequence or deserved punishment for women having sex. That's wording i see used a lot. "Well, she should not have had sex outside of marriage if she didn't want to get pregnant" "Well, having a child is just a consequence of her choices" "That's her fault for opening her legs for any man that gives her a smile. Maybe a kid will make that Little whore change her lifestyle" 

 

No, we shouldn't be encouraging bringing children into this world as a 'punishment' to their mother for not using contraception correctly and/or daring to have sex for enjoyment and not exclusively procreation. A woman that doesn't want to have a child shouldn't be forced by the State to have the child against her will. That is not humane and it's not good for a healthy society. It's also not a good system to ensure children are brought up being healthy, happy, and well developed. 

 

 

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 The disposability of a fetus, that if left alone would develop into a human being, is essentially preventing a pregnancy as easy as taking a pill without thought to the potential child.  JMO.

MAY develop into a human being. 

Even with all the advances of our modern world estimates are that 10-20% of pregnancies will miscarry. That's at least close to half a million 'babies' that die every year just to the unreliable, natural process of fetal development. 

 

There is no reason for a person considering an abortion to "think" of the potential child because that potential child is not developed, formed, or independently functioning.  It has no feelings, emotions, or concept of reality or being. You're attributing real world human emotions and feelings to a clump of cells that does not have those. 

 

 

 

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Most states will probably settle on 12-15 weeks so a decision will have to be made in that time frame.  The abortion would still be a fall back position if a women gets pregnant when she isn’t ready or its just inconvenient.

You say "most", but almost half of all the states in the US currently have abortion completely banned or are trying to ban it outright or restricted to just 6 weeks. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

14 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I just don't agree with the idea I see a lot from pro-birthers that pregnancy should be a consequence or deserved punishment for women having sex. That's wording i see used a lot. "Well, she should not have had sex outside of marriage if she didn't want to get pregnant" "Well, having a child is just a consequence of her choices" "That's her fault for opening her legs for any man that gives her a smile. Maybe a kid will make that Little whore change her lifestyle" 

 

No, we shouldn't be encouraging bringing children into this world as a 'punishment' to their mother for not using contraception correctly and/or daring to have sex for enjoyment and not exclusively procreation. A woman that doesn't want to have a child shouldn't be forced by the State to have the child against her will. That is not humane and it's not good for a healthy society. It's also not a good system to ensure children are brought up being healthy, happy, and well developed. 

It takes two to tango and the father should bare some responsibility.   It seldom happens, but the responsibility should be shared.  That very well could cause a lot less pregnancies.  As to *punishment* for women to have sex line; the woman is the only one that has a consequence for having sex.  This is nothing new.  An ounce of protection and all that.  In this modern world if a woman wants to have sex without consequence there are ways to go about it.  She could get sterilized,  although that is a little drastic, I understand many women are looking at that option.  

Do you think women want to be more like men in that they don’t want the consequences of having sex?

30 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

There is no reason for a person considering an abortion to "think" of the potential child because that potential child is not developed, formed, or independently functioning.  It has no feelings, emotions, or concept of reality or being. You're attributing real world human emotions and feelings to a clump of cells that does not have those.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound of an abortion?  The *clump of cells* as you call it will avoid the hook as best they can.  Rather gruesome.

33 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You say "most", but almost half of all the states in the US currently have abortion completely banned or are trying to ban it outright or restricted to just 6 weeks

That’s right now, I predict things will loosen up as time goes on.  We are in a transitional phase of all this.

[homersapien 11,388]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Most states will probably settle on 12-15 weeks so a decision will have to be made in that time frame.  The abortion would still be a fall back position if a women gets pregnant when she isn’t ready or its just inconvenient.

In other words, pretty, much back to status quo ante, except for the states controlled by the religious right. If you are a woman in one of those states, sucks for you.

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Just now, homersapien said:

In other words, pretty, much back to status quo ante, except for the states controlled by the religious right. If you are a woman in one of those states, sucks for you.

 

If you are a baby in one of the other states, sucks for you.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In other words, pretty, much back to status quo ante, except for the states controlled by the religious right. If you are a woman in one of those states, sucks for you.

 

The whole point is it is up to the states to decide.  The *right to abortion* was never in the Constitution.

[homersapien 11,388]

18 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

If you are a baby in one of the other states, sucks for you.

Depends on how one defines "baby".  A fetus is not a baby.  It is only a potential baby.

The idea that a brand new diploid cell is literally a person with equivalent rights as the woman is a religious belief. 

On the other hand, the idea that a woman has the autonomy to make decisions about that potential baby - at least up to a point - based on her personal circumstances is a matter of believing in her inherent natural rights as an individual.

A religious belief should never legally trump a woman's inherent natural rights in this country, as our constitution clearly indicates.

Edited September 6, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,388]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The whole point is it is up to the states to decide.  The *right to abortion* was never in the Constitution.

Neither is the definition of when a citizen begins.

And like I said, states who are controlled by the religious right will make their own rules that every citizen is legally obligated to obey.  (That's what "control" means.) 

I suppose one can debate whether or not that constitutes a law "respecting the establishment of religion", but to me, mandating women must observe a particular religious belief qualifies.

We no longer will have equal rights as Americans.  Some women will have fewer rights than others in the same country because of the state they reside in.

Edited September 6, 2022 by homersapien