10 ms·

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

voisin 4y ago
I am fine with this contrarian argument, but why does it stop at birth? There’s no support (universal healthcare for children, paid maternity/paternity leave, etc etc). Conservatives apply these arguments inconsistently.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  - enumjorge 4y ago
    The next sentence in his post explains what he meant by support.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      I know that's what the post says. But that's not the actual equivalent. If we had free healthcare just for pregnant women, then it would be fair to say we should give free healthcare to children too, but we don't.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        The fact that there is no free healthcare for pregnant women demonstrates that noone actually cares about the child's life. It demonstates that you are willing to force a woman to carry the child of a rapist against her will (so it's not her choice) and then have her give birth without medical assitance if she can't afford hospital stay, potentially resulting in the death of the child and the mother. it shows what the game is really about - control over women
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  Actively supporting/helping vs not killing/preventing others from killing are pretty significantly different moral arguments. This always comes across as "If you're against abortion then why don't you support insert political position that involves drastically raising taxes and giving way more power to the state?"
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    You’re just describing a trolly problem. If you believe a foetus has more right to autonomy than the person carrying it, but you don’t believe in making sure that all children have what they need to survive, you’re avoiding “killing” by direct action in favor of killing by neglecting to act. As for paying for it… no taxes need to be raised. Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      >You’re just describing a trolly problem. Except the child's death isn't guaranteed if we fail to implement universal healthcare/free school lunches/insert welfare program here, so it's not really a normal trolley problem. And that's before you get into potential adverse second order effects of such programs. >Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military. GP mentioned universal healthcare as one of the ways in which to support children after birth, I don't think $800 million is going to be enough to cover it.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        There are cases where it will literally be a trolly problem. E.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-miscarriage-malta-not-allowed-to-get-abortion/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-misc...
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I'm not sure how one can call a woman carrying a child something other than "actively supporting/helping" that child. So this amounts to a hypocrisy where it's OK for the state to have power to force a person to keep another person[1] alive for ~9 months, but somehow wrong for the state to contribute resources to this effort. I'm also not sure how giving the power to pry into people's reproductive decisions is somehow less state power than administrative power to distribute resources. [1] That's accepting the argument that a fetus is technically a person, which can also be debated.
andsoitis 4y ago
then why do these same people not do other things to protect life that's already being lived? sorry, this is not enlightened.
- Clubber 4y ago
  I suspect people exist who are both pro-life and also pro-social safety net. You're falling into the trap created by the two political party system: binary thinking.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    People exist who satisfy any imaginable criteria - one guy cut out his own appendix with a kitchen knife and lived. What does that prove, we should be our own surgeons? The key questions is, how many of such peope exist.
    - stuckinhell 4y ago
      I think Trump proved many so called "conservative" voters are actually pro religion populists not republicans.
enumjorge 4y ago
It’s a surface level protection. Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. There’s a reason why women and couples opt for abortion. They’re often not ready for that responsibility, and it’s the kid who suffers most. Life for the sake of life feels like virtue signaling, especially since those who espouse it have no interest in providing social programs to help these mothers and couples raise the kid they were forced to have. That’s pretty barbaric. Congratulations. You saved a life you almost immediately stop giving a shit about.
- sssilver 4y ago
  One could argue that every living human — all of us — are a product of generations of rape and unwanted children whose lives no one cared about, who survived to have their own. Civilized humans who enjoyed enforced women’s rights are a laughably short segment of all human history.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    We're also the product of generations of people dying prematurely of diseases like polio; our lives would be quite a bit different if infant/child mortality had been 0% for the last 100k years. Should we not wipe out polio because our ancestors couldn't?
  - EForEndeavour 4y ago
    If anything, reflecting on the stress and violence of our collective ancestors should only further strengthen the desire to do better by supporting things like "enforced women’s rights". Was that your point?
    - sssilver 4y ago
      The only point I have is that I’m incredibly happy to exist.
- koheripbal 4y ago
lawn 4y ago
The direction they're going includes removing the right for contraception and same-sex marriage. That's not an enlightened or moral direction.
qalmakka 4y ago
Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. The fundamental Christians only care about seeing the rights of women being repelled, there are zero concerns about the life of children, otherwise they would be pushing for free childcare, support for mothers, parental leave, .... It's all a matter of punishing women for their own desire to be emancipated, it's a punishment for those women who have sinned by thinking they could act like a man and have sex whenever they wanted. If they truly cared about the unborn, they would 1. care about the already born, first, and 2. push for the widespread availability of contraception. Given that contraception is bad for them, too, it's clear this is not an ethical question, but a moral one: sex outside of marriage, or for pleasure really, should not be allowed, and it must always carry consequences, no matter if it vastly more impacts women than it does men. You know, a man can always run from their responsibilities, while a woman cannot run away from her womb.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  > The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, we don't vote for Supreme Court justices. There's no leverage to impose electoral or party pressure on a justice who has already been appointed, unless it is by impeachment. Your assessment of their motivations doesn't hold up.
  - zzleeper 4y ago
    Are you naive or what? Republicans have lists of candidates for justices that they have deemed so anti roe-vs-wade that they deemed safe to propose for justices. Someone like Thomas is not going to change his mind once he is appointed...
    - JasonFruit 4y ago
      Why not, if he's now free to act as he pleases? The assertion is that he doesn't believe he's acting rightly, but does so under electoral pressure. If I'm naive, please explain: what's to stop him doing as he thinks is right, now that he's appointed?
BowBun 4y ago
I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn't consider abortion), and our state does a terrible job at providing support to kids throughout their lives (healthcare, education, welfare programs are all notorious in the US) in the case where parents aren't reliable. As a pro-choice person, I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen. So without the appropriate follow-through, this is actually less enlightened and hurting both parents and children more.
- londgine 4y ago
  > I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen. Kids brought up with bad parents will be somewhat similarly disadvantaged. Why should potentially bad parents (eg. heavy drug addicts) not be banned from having kids? Both of them would be "forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them".
  - nulld3v 4y ago
    Isn't this essentially what CPS does today? The difference being that it's reactive instead of being proactive.
    - londgine 4y ago
      CPS can take kids from parents who are bad parents (drug addicts) just as they can take kids from parents who don't want the kids (and presumably would have aborted the kid if they could have).
acalmon 4y ago
Abortion restrictions do not reduce abortion rates. They only reduce safe abortions. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restricti...
myvoiceismypass 4y ago
To quote Carlin - “if you’re pre-born you are fine; if you are pre-school you are fucked!”
FiveClientAuto 4y ago
Unless it's young life that's already living and happens to be impregnated via rape? Then fuck her, right? Force her to give birth? And exactly how does banning an abortion when the pregnancy is not viable for any number of reasons (molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, anencephaly) help anyone? Why are we forcing women to carry dead fetus's around in their bodies? Because that's what a total ban on abortion does. It also makes IVF illegal if "life begins at conception". The notion that the only abortions happening are happy couples who find out they're pregnant, tell their friends and family, plan parties, and then in some sinister plot months later wake up and casually decide "you know what, let's just kill it" is absurd. Not all life is equal, and not all human life is equal. If you were driving down the street and two buildings were on fire, a IVF clinic with viable implanted eggs, and a preschool full of living children, you would 100% of the time try and rescue the preschoolers if you only had time for one. The idea that all human life down to a recently implanted egg has the same value as an 11 year old girl who's been raped and wants an abortion is an untenable position.
- azth 4y ago
  As a non-American, non-Christian, I find the entire fiasco quite weird. Like a lot of cases in the US, why don't they address the core issue? If rape is so common, how about punish the rapists like other advanced countries do? Yes, including the death penalty for serial rapists or repeat offenders.
  - status_quo69 4y ago
    Because that's a reactive punishment that does absolutely nothing to help out the woman who might be carrying a fetus post rape, not to mention the fact that rape is already illegal and a rapist isn't exactly going to be deterred by the fact that there's illegality involved. The issue of abortion also touches upon things like ectopic pregnancies where the woman can/will die if an abortion is not performed.
    - dsego 4y ago
      > rapist isn't exactly going to be deterred by the fact that there's illegality involved Controversial opinion, prisons aren't a deterrent, corporal punishment would leave a more lasting impression and instill fear into would be offenders. It would also be more cost effective and efficient.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
I would have no problem with this line of argument if it was honest and genuine, but it's not - it's a pretence. If prolife movement actually cared about protecting life, they would not support policies that leave children to die of terrible diseases if their family can't afford healthcare.
zht 4y ago
in cases of rape too?
- typeofhuman 4y ago
  Yes. Because it's not about the mom. It's not about the dad. It's about the baby's life.
  - surajrmal 4y ago
    Pregnancy has nontrivial effects on women. There is risk of death, emotional and physical changes to the body, and you need to adapt your life around these things. In the case of rape there is also trauma. It seems incredibly unjust to rob the mom of the choice to decide what to do in that situation. Having a position that ignores the mom in favor of the baby is terrifying.
AlexandrB 4y ago
The Republican party's concern for young life ends at the moment of birth. After that it's: "Fuck you, got mine".
rg111 4y ago
I am not arguing here. But there are some stages in the life of a human fetus that is less sentient than a monkey, a horse, a dog, a fly, an ant, etc. Do you think abortion should be illegal at all stages? And, do you think that abortion should be illegal even if the woman faces life threatning risks?
- aksss 4y ago
  The legal question here is whether the federal government of the United States, absent legislation, is able to compel the states to allow abortions up to a certain time window of pregnancy. The ruling today says that the federal government does not have that power, absent legislation. But by the same token, it also could not BAN abortion absent federal legislation. Others have commented on the weakness of the original "penumbral reasoning" of Roe v. Wade decision establishing the government's ability to do this, and that this criticism is recognized by judges commonly perceived to be on either side of the political spectrum. A lens with which to view this decision through is the correction of technical debt, and it's really not that remarkable from a legal perspective. It's very remarkable from a social perspective, considering many of us have grown up in a Roe v. Wade world. But this returns the burden to states. In my state, today's ruling changes nothing, as abortion is protected by our state constitution. In other states, there's some political work to do assuming the citizenry in those states agrees that things should be different. If there's actually a consensus opinion on abortion in the US across enough states, federal legislation could be created some day. By design, federal legislation is a slow process - it's designed to be inefficient. One of the biggest liberal criticisms of Roe v. Wade is that it stopped the process cold, and we've lost decades of time to have that conversation about legislation in trade for a decision on very weak legal footing, which many have argued was long overdue for correction. From my vantage point, the questions you raise are immaterial to the legal issue decided in the SCOTUS. This decision was one about the structural relationship between the states and the federal government. The questions you raise are relevant to the state politics that need to take place going forward, for sure. But it comes back to this question - if the majority of people in a state believe that abortion past some point in time (1w, 14w, 24w, pick one) constitutes murder, should they not be allowed to have their state law reflect that? We believe other nations have that power for diverse views on the matter - France, I believe, doesn't allow abortions after 14w (it was merely 10 up until 2000). When evaluating law in the US, a key premise is the idea that the US is a collection of states that outsources certain functions to a central government, not a singular government with separate census areas.
ls-lah_33 4y ago
It's worth considering that IVF fertility treatment often has discarded zygotes.
Ekaros 4y ago
I think there is huge question of right of mother as well. Lets take hypothetical situation where someone forcibly mates two humans together in such a way that removing other would kill that other. Per anti-abortion people they would have to live together forever. Which seems bit sick...

voisin 4y ago

I am fine with this contrarian argument, but why does it stop at birth? There’s no support (universal healthcare for children, paid maternity/paternity leave, etc etc). Conservatives apply these arguments inconsistently.

josephcsible 4y ago
- enumjorge 4y ago
  The next sentence in his post explains what he meant by support.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    I know that's what the post says. But that's not the actual equivalent. If we had free healthcare just for pregnant women, then it would be fair to say we should give free healthcare to children too, but we don't.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      The fact that there is no free healthcare for pregnant women demonstrates that noone actually cares about the child's life. It demonstates that you are willing to force a woman to carry the child of a rapist against her will (so it's not her choice) and then have her give birth without medical assitance if she can't afford hospital stay, potentially resulting in the death of the child and the mother. it shows what the game is really about - control over women
HideousKojima 4y ago
Actively supporting/helping vs not killing/preventing others from killing are pretty significantly different moral arguments. This always comes across as "If you're against abortion then why don't you support insert political position that involves drastically raising taxes and giving way more power to the state?"
- kennywinker 4y ago
  You’re just describing a trolly problem. If you believe a foetus has more right to autonomy than the person carrying it, but you don’t believe in making sure that all children have what they need to survive, you’re avoiding “killing” by direct action in favor of killing by neglecting to act. As for paying for it… no taxes need to be raised. Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >You’re just describing a trolly problem. Except the child's death isn't guaranteed if we fail to implement universal healthcare/free school lunches/insert welfare program here, so it's not really a normal trolley problem. And that's before you get into potential adverse second order effects of such programs. >Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military. GP mentioned universal healthcare as one of the ways in which to support children after birth, I don't think $800 million is going to be enough to cover it.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      There are cases where it will literally be a trolly problem. E.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-miscarriage-malta-not-allowed-to-get-abortion/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-misc...
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I'm not sure how one can call a woman carrying a child something other than "actively supporting/helping" that child. So this amounts to a hypocrisy where it's OK for the state to have power to force a person to keep another person[1] alive for ~9 months, but somehow wrong for the state to contribute resources to this effort. I'm also not sure how giving the power to pry into people's reproductive decisions is somehow less state power than administrative power to distribute resources. [1] That's accepting the argument that a fetus is technically a person, which can also be debated.

andsoitis 4y ago

then why do these same people not do other things to protect life that's already being lived? sorry, this is not enlightened.

Clubber 4y ago
I suspect people exist who are both pro-life and also pro-social safety net. You're falling into the trap created by the two political party system: binary thinking.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  People exist who satisfy any imaginable criteria - one guy cut out his own appendix with a kitchen knife and lived. What does that prove, we should be our own surgeons? The key questions is, how many of such peope exist.
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    I think Trump proved many so called "conservative" voters are actually pro religion populists not republicans.

enumjorge 4y ago

It’s a surface level protection. Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. There’s a reason why women and couples opt for abortion. They’re often not ready for that responsibility, and it’s the kid who suffers most. Life for the sake of life feels like virtue signaling, especially since those who espouse it have no interest in providing social programs to help these mothers and couples raise the kid they were forced to have. That’s pretty barbaric. Congratulations. You saved a life you almost immediately stop giving a shit about.

sssilver 4y ago
One could argue that every living human — all of us — are a product of generations of rape and unwanted children whose lives no one cared about, who survived to have their own. Civilized humans who enjoyed enforced women’s rights are a laughably short segment of all human history.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  We're also the product of generations of people dying prematurely of diseases like polio; our lives would be quite a bit different if infant/child mortality had been 0% for the last 100k years. Should we not wipe out polio because our ancestors couldn't?
- EForEndeavour 4y ago
  If anything, reflecting on the stress and violence of our collective ancestors should only further strengthen the desire to do better by supporting things like "enforced women’s rights". Was that your point?
  - sssilver 4y ago
    The only point I have is that I’m incredibly happy to exist.
koheripbal 4y ago

lawn 4y ago

The direction they're going includes removing the right for contraception and same-sex marriage. That's not an enlightened or moral direction.

qalmakka 4y ago

Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. The fundamental Christians only care about seeing the rights of women being repelled, there are zero concerns about the life of children, otherwise they would be pushing for free childcare, support for mothers, parental leave, .... It's all a matter of punishing women for their own desire to be emancipated, it's a punishment for those women who have sinned by thinking they could act like a man and have sex whenever they wanted. If they truly cared about the unborn, they would 1. care about the already born, first, and 2. push for the widespread availability of contraception. Given that contraception is bad for them, too, it's clear this is not an ethical question, but a moral one: sex outside of marriage, or for pleasure really, should not be allowed, and it must always carry consequences, no matter if it vastly more impacts women than it does men. You know, a man can always run from their responsibilities, while a woman cannot run away from her womb.

JasonFruit 4y ago
> The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, we don't vote for Supreme Court justices. There's no leverage to impose electoral or party pressure on a justice who has already been appointed, unless it is by impeachment. Your assessment of their motivations doesn't hold up.
- zzleeper 4y ago
  Are you naive or what? Republicans have lists of candidates for justices that they have deemed so anti roe-vs-wade that they deemed safe to propose for justices. Someone like Thomas is not going to change his mind once he is appointed...
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    Why not, if he's now free to act as he pleases? The assertion is that he doesn't believe he's acting rightly, but does so under electoral pressure. If I'm naive, please explain: what's to stop him doing as he thinks is right, now that he's appointed?

BowBun 4y ago

I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn't consider abortion), and our state does a terrible job at providing support to kids throughout their lives (healthcare, education, welfare programs are all notorious in the US) in the case where parents aren't reliable. As a pro-choice person, I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen. So without the appropriate follow-through, this is actually less enlightened and hurting both parents and children more.

londgine 4y ago
> I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen. Kids brought up with bad parents will be somewhat similarly disadvantaged. Why should potentially bad parents (eg. heavy drug addicts) not be banned from having kids? Both of them would be "forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them".
- nulld3v 4y ago
  Isn't this essentially what CPS does today? The difference being that it's reactive instead of being proactive.
  - londgine 4y ago
    CPS can take kids from parents who are bad parents (drug addicts) just as they can take kids from parents who don't want the kids (and presumably would have aborted the kid if they could have).

acalmon 4y ago

Abortion restrictions do not reduce abortion rates. They only reduce safe abortions. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restriction-laws/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restricti...

myvoiceismypass 4y ago

To quote Carlin - “if you’re pre-born you are fine; if you are pre-school you are fucked!”

FiveClientAuto 4y ago

Unless it's young life that's already living and happens to be impregnated via rape? Then fuck her, right? Force her to give birth? And exactly how does banning an abortion when the pregnancy is not viable for any number of reasons (molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, anencephaly) help anyone? Why are we forcing women to carry dead fetus's around in their bodies? Because that's what a total ban on abortion does. It also makes IVF illegal if "life begins at conception". The notion that the only abortions happening are happy couples who find out they're pregnant, tell their friends and family, plan parties, and then in some sinister plot months later wake up and casually decide "you know what, let's just kill it" is absurd. Not all life is equal, and not all human life is equal. If you were driving down the street and two buildings were on fire, a IVF clinic with viable implanted eggs, and a preschool full of living children, you would 100% of the time try and rescue the preschoolers if you only had time for one. The idea that all human life down to a recently implanted egg has the same value as an 11 year old girl who's been raped and wants an abortion is an untenable position.

azth 4y ago
As a non-American, non-Christian, I find the entire fiasco quite weird. Like a lot of cases in the US, why don't they address the core issue? If rape is so common, how about punish the rapists like other advanced countries do? Yes, including the death penalty for serial rapists or repeat offenders.
- status_quo69 4y ago
  Because that's a reactive punishment that does absolutely nothing to help out the woman who might be carrying a fetus post rape, not to mention the fact that rape is already illegal and a rapist isn't exactly going to be deterred by the fact that there's illegality involved. The issue of abortion also touches upon things like ectopic pregnancies where the woman can/will die if an abortion is not performed.
  - dsego 4y ago
    > rapist isn't exactly going to be deterred by the fact that there's illegality involved Controversial opinion, prisons aren't a deterrent, corporal punishment would leave a more lasting impression and instill fear into would be offenders. It would also be more cost effective and efficient.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

I would have no problem with this line of argument if it was honest and genuine, but it's not - it's a pretence. If prolife movement actually cared about protecting life, they would not support policies that leave children to die of terrible diseases if their family can't afford healthcare.

zht 4y ago

in cases of rape too?

typeofhuman 4y ago
Yes. Because it's not about the mom. It's not about the dad. It's about the baby's life.
- surajrmal 4y ago
  Pregnancy has nontrivial effects on women. There is risk of death, emotional and physical changes to the body, and you need to adapt your life around these things. In the case of rape there is also trauma. It seems incredibly unjust to rob the mom of the choice to decide what to do in that situation. Having a position that ignores the mom in favor of the baby is terrifying.

AlexandrB 4y ago

The Republican party's concern for young life ends at the moment of birth. After that it's: "Fuck you, got mine".

rg111 4y ago

I am not arguing here. But there are some stages in the life of a human fetus that is less sentient than a monkey, a horse, a dog, a fly, an ant, etc. Do you think abortion should be illegal at all stages? And, do you think that abortion should be illegal even if the woman faces life threatning risks?

aksss 4y ago
The legal question here is whether the federal government of the United States, absent legislation, is able to compel the states to allow abortions up to a certain time window of pregnancy. The ruling today says that the federal government does not have that power, absent legislation. But by the same token, it also could not BAN abortion absent federal legislation. Others have commented on the weakness of the original "penumbral reasoning" of Roe v. Wade decision establishing the government's ability to do this, and that this criticism is recognized by judges commonly perceived to be on either side of the political spectrum. A lens with which to view this decision through is the correction of technical debt, and it's really not that remarkable from a legal perspective. It's very remarkable from a social perspective, considering many of us have grown up in a Roe v. Wade world. But this returns the burden to states. In my state, today's ruling changes nothing, as abortion is protected by our state constitution. In other states, there's some political work to do assuming the citizenry in those states agrees that things should be different. If there's actually a consensus opinion on abortion in the US across enough states, federal legislation could be created some day. By design, federal legislation is a slow process - it's designed to be inefficient. One of the biggest liberal criticisms of Roe v. Wade is that it stopped the process cold, and we've lost decades of time to have that conversation about legislation in trade for a decision on very weak legal footing, which many have argued was long overdue for correction. From my vantage point, the questions you raise are immaterial to the legal issue decided in the SCOTUS. This decision was one about the structural relationship between the states and the federal government. The questions you raise are relevant to the state politics that need to take place going forward, for sure. But it comes back to this question - if the majority of people in a state believe that abortion past some point in time (1w, 14w, 24w, pick one) constitutes murder, should they not be allowed to have their state law reflect that? We believe other nations have that power for diverse views on the matter - France, I believe, doesn't allow abortions after 14w (it was merely 10 up until 2000). When evaluating law in the US, a key premise is the idea that the US is a collection of states that outsources certain functions to a central government, not a singular government with separate census areas.

ls-lah_33 4y ago

It's worth considering that IVF fertility treatment often has discarded zygotes.

Ekaros 4y ago

I think there is huge question of right of mother as well. Lets take hypothetical situation where someone forcibly mates two humans together in such a way that removing other would kill that other. Per anti-abortion people they would have to live together forever. Which seems bit sick...