4 ms·

Except that's not the universal framing. There is one side that is fighting very hard to not only make it at conception, but potentially even before conception

Except that's not the universal framing. There is one side that is fighting very hard to not only make it at conception, but potentially even before conception (there are reasons to believe that the supreme court might come for birth control next - and there are large portions of the same religious community that put them in power that want that). For many people on the other side the fetus doesn't get rights until it is born. And up until that point, it is a bundle of cells wholly dependent on the mother, and therefor part of her body (and thus, her bodily autonomy). Indeed, there's a reading of the bible that supports this interpretation - it mentions multiple times a baby becoming alive "at its first breath". For many people, the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but it's not clear at all that those people represent a majority. The issue touches on strongly held moral beliefs on both sides - rights to life, right to bodily autonomy, and questions about when life starts. There is no simple universal framing that we can all agree upon. ---- And even aside from framing, even if we could agree on a framing, the issue gets really complex, really fast. Lets say we do agree that the question is about when a life becomes a life. Pregnancy is dangerous, as I well know. My wife and I lost three pregnancies. One of them was at 20 weeks. My son was already dead by the time we got to the hospital, but they had to remove his body from my wife's body or it risked a deadly infection. The medication they used to do that, in this case to trigger labor, was an abortion medication. The procedure they would have performed had that failed, was a DNC - an abortion. Both are already being banned by trigger laws in many states. In a room down the hall, a dear friend of ours who'd been struggling with infertility and loss was having a DNC the same day we lost our son, due to yet another failed pregnancy. Again, without that procedure, she would have died. So you very quickly get into other complexities even when you do boil it down into a question of when life starts. And even then, the argument for banning it the way many states are (completely, with no exceptions) becomes hard to make about anything but control. You can say it's about saving the life of the child - but we don't force dead people to donate their organs even when it would save a life. These laws will force women to die, even when there is no living child left to save.

native_samples 4y ago
Here's the thing. It's easy to believe that one side truly believes in the right to life, at least for innocents. Being against killing, at least for non criminals/enemies, is pretty common. The right to bodily autonomy is not believable because there weren't a whole lot of people campaigning against vaccine mandates because they were pro-bodily-autonomy. As for your examples, surely even pro-life people don't care about "abortions" of babies that are already dead? If laws are interpretable in that way it seems like an easy wording fix. Not many people would care about that even if religious.
- inlined 4y ago
  There have been explicit cases of republicans holding public office saying that abortion bans should explicitly not make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies or even cases where the mother’s life depends on it in general
- dbingham 4y ago
  The people who passed the laws know damned well what they are banning. They are intentionally and explicitly banning the procedures by name. Medical professionals and the people these would affect pointed out to them the impact of banning the procedures. They don't care, they passed the laws anyway.
- dbingham 4y ago
  As for bodily-autonomy, most people I know who are pro-choice are also in favor of the vaccine because - same as abortion - they view it as a life saving medical procedure. Those who weren't did protest about bodily autonomy in relation to the vaccine mandate.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    Doesn't matter if it's life saving, right? If you argue based on bodily autonomy, and then support vaccine mandates, you're not consistent regardless of what you think the vaccine does.
    - dbingham 4y ago
      One doesn't have to take extreme positions to be consistent. In order to believe that someone should have bodily autonomy over continuing a pregnancy (something potentially life threatening, and definitely life altering) I don't have to believe that bodily autonomy is absolute. Vaccines are something that touch on community health. When one person chooses not to get vaccinated they are putting everyone around them at risk. At the most extreme extent, abortion affects the potential parents, the potential life, and their families. It's a different risk calculation. A woman pursuing an abortion is making life and death decisions for (at most - because not everyone believes the fetus is a life with rights) two people. Someone not getting a vaccine in a deadly pandemic is making decisions that impact life and death for their whole community.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
>there are reasons to believe that the supreme court might come for birth control next Reasons like Justice Thomas explicitly and clearly saying they should reconsider the ruling that prevents states from banning them. From the NYT: >Then, [Justice Thomas] took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry. >Justice Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-gr...
Bud 4y ago
It's not nearly as vague as "there are reasons to believe" that the Court "might come for birth control next". Justice Thomas said it very very clearly in his opinion today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [contraception], Lawrence [sodomy], and Obergefell [same sex marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents." They ARE COMING for it next. They just said so.

native_samples 4y ago

Here's the thing. It's easy to believe that one side truly believes in the right to life, at least for innocents. Being against killing, at least for non criminals/enemies, is pretty common. The right to bodily autonomy is not believable because there weren't a whole lot of people campaigning against vaccine mandates because they were pro-bodily-autonomy. As for your examples, surely even pro-life people don't care about "abortions" of babies that are already dead? If laws are interpretable in that way it seems like an easy wording fix. Not many people would care about that even if religious.

inlined 4y ago
There have been explicit cases of republicans holding public office saying that abortion bans should explicitly not make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies or even cases where the mother’s life depends on it in general
dbingham 4y ago
The people who passed the laws know damned well what they are banning. They are intentionally and explicitly banning the procedures by name. Medical professionals and the people these would affect pointed out to them the impact of banning the procedures. They don't care, they passed the laws anyway.
dbingham 4y ago
As for bodily-autonomy, most people I know who are pro-choice are also in favor of the vaccine because - same as abortion - they view it as a life saving medical procedure. Those who weren't did protest about bodily autonomy in relation to the vaccine mandate.
- native_samples 4y ago
  Doesn't matter if it's life saving, right? If you argue based on bodily autonomy, and then support vaccine mandates, you're not consistent regardless of what you think the vaccine does.
  - dbingham 4y ago
    One doesn't have to take extreme positions to be consistent. In order to believe that someone should have bodily autonomy over continuing a pregnancy (something potentially life threatening, and definitely life altering) I don't have to believe that bodily autonomy is absolute. Vaccines are something that touch on community health. When one person chooses not to get vaccinated they are putting everyone around them at risk. At the most extreme extent, abortion affects the potential parents, the potential life, and their families. It's a different risk calculation. A woman pursuing an abortion is making life and death decisions for (at most - because not everyone believes the fetus is a life with rights) two people. Someone not getting a vaccine in a deadly pandemic is making decisions that impact life and death for their whole community.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

>there are reasons to believe that the supreme court might come for birth control next Reasons like Justice Thomas explicitly and clearly saying they should reconsider the ruling that prevents states from banning them. From the NYT: >Then, [Justice Thomas] took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry. >Justice Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-gr...

Bud 4y ago

It's not nearly as vague as "there are reasons to believe" that the Court "might come for birth control next". Justice Thomas said it very very clearly in his opinion today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [contraception], Lawrence [sodomy], and Obergefell [same sex marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents." They ARE COMING for it next. They just said so.