The bottom line is that there will never be compromise on abortion. When the bodily autonomy argument clashes with the life starts at conception argument, there is no middle ground.
Roe was the closest to compromise, and not enough people even agree it was….
Why not? The woman has that right to bodily autonomy, among others The life inside her has no federally recognized rights.
Agreed
Roe didn't go far enough. Casey was better as a "middle ground." But the life argument fails because it's based more on emotion than anything rather than reason or law. It only persists because are overly emotional and irrational. Besides, anti abortionists have demonstrated they were never interested in compromise. So there is none and they deserve none!
You mean like a federal law that establishes an EPA, which has the delegated authority to establish and enforce standards?Yes, I’m “suggesting” that the federal legislative branch make our federal laws - see the Constitution.
I support bodily autonomy. My point is that there will be no middle ground reached for purposes of legislation.
That same thinking also allows men to say no to having a kidney removed despite the fact that a kidney will save another persons life. Can you explain why it is that men can say my body, my choice when it comes to saving a life but women cannot.
And here you are giving support to the idea of my body my choice. When someone else causes harm to a pregnant woman then they are taking away her right to decide to have a child.
And your statement is not quite accurate. As women can and legally do harm their own pregnancy yet face no criminal charge.
The other argument that directly deals with your assumption of rights for a fetus brings up the question of who has the greater right. the woman to decide what happens to her body or the fetus the right to a life. Only by treating women as second class citizens whose rights are of lesser importance than a fetus can you demand that women must be forced to continue a pregnancy they do not want.
I would also bring up a point about logic.
Having a valid point does not mean you have a sound argument and you do not have a sound argument because you rely on one argument instead of looking at the many that support a women's right to choose.
Sure, I have opinions like everyone else. There must be reasons, excuses, or motivations to kill a baby, it's not done out of mindlessness.
Maybe because abortion is the killing of life and donating a kidney is in saving a life. Regardless, I believe abortion should be available to women experiencing major health issues during pregnancy. I am not opposed to it entirely.
The law begs to differ, harm or death done to an unborn, whether maternally or any person is against the law:
Protecting the rights of both the mother and unborn child does not treat women as second class citizens. It protects them equally, one cannot kill the other and vice versa. But when the life of the mother is in danger that choice should be up to the woman and her doctor, if she wishes to proceed or have an abortion to protect her life.
That's the huge difference between men and women. Have they spoken to this to the man involved.....do they even know who....what about his rights.....? It's not treating women lesser, it's that men and women are different, or haven't you noticed? Thus my opinion that far more pre-pregnancy education is much needed to help resolve this issue.
Why not? There's no legal, federal foundation to enable states to deny women a safer medical procedure. This was the foundation for RvW...neither RvW or Dobbs based their decisions on the unborn. RvW was about women's health and safety.
The states are avoiding federal challenge cases by criminalizing providing abortions, not having abortions. Women can still kill their own (pills, devices) or go to another state and have it killed. It's ridiculous but it's the states' "workaround" the Const.
Do anti-choice people really believe that "murdering babies" is a states' rights issue? Of course not.
Conundrum: a confusing and difficult problem or question.
There is no conundrum about your hostility toward a slogan. The sentiment expresses an independence of action by women that you believe they should not have.
There is no conundrum about the meaning of 'liberty' and 'privacy' explained by the SC justices in detailed and sourced referenced to amendments supporting abortion up to viability.
Nor is there a conundrum about overturning Roe; the Robert's Court cared nothing about states rights as proven by subsequent decisions. They simply ignored historical evidence and precedence in order to legitimize the decision they wanted.
And there is no conundrum about abortion. You believe women should not be allowed to abort except in cases of rape or risk of death.
Why you believe you have the only right answer to a question with multiple facets is the only conundrum.
Yes, the States are in the shadow of the federal government, when the federal should be in the shadow of the States. This keeps our government under control and closer to the People.
I think we are talking passed each other. Roe had to be decided by the SC. Even after Roe Congress never passed a federal bill codifying the right. Just to be clear that is what I am talking about. Congress is mimicking the populace. And by that I mean that not enough people are willing to compromise over this issue to affect national legislation. Personally, I always believed this should be between doctor and patient but that is a nonstarter.
Ok, no argument here.
LOL I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm using your posts to build further on the same arguments...I thought.
And that has been clearly cited for him but he refuses to accept it. Complete blind refusal.The body is not relevant under the 14th until legal personhood is established. Bodies without personhood are actually subject to a sort of quasi -property rights of another. that's why states provide specifics for just who gets to decide what happens to remains, after the legal personhood is compromised. The states regulate parameters of conduct post mortum, and its family that decides where Sheila gets buried, whether she has her favorite Teddy Bear with her, or what dress she will wear, or whether she gets creamated. Sheila gets to have her wishes honored about her body, if she expressed some when she was a legal person or when she becomes one.
The pro choice position is that the legal person who is pregnant has an an absolute right to decide what happens to her body, and as 'closest living relative' , the prevailing decider and quasi property owner of said body (not a legal person) inside her, absent clear instructions from the fetus when it was a legal person.
And then we can begin to explain the legal rights of personhood to minors and legal gaurdianship.
Hmm… the federal government doesn’t lack law enforcement agencies, but those law enforcement agencies don’t make laws.
You mean like a federal law that establishes an EPA, which has the delegated authority to establish and enforce standards?
You mean like a federal law that establishes an EPA, which has the delegated authority to establish and enforce standards?
But I digress, the OP is over this glaring contradiction between the 14th Amendment and the slogan, "my body, my choice". In their minds the unborn are their body, then logically that part of her body has all the legal rights as her whole.
Fetal homicide laws, despite being illogical, are centered around harm inflicted against the pregnant woman. It does not establish rights for the unborn or prohibit a woman from having an abortion. And what makes fetal development important? At what point would it be important? Many states seem to have completely arbitrary points of "importance."
So now your position is the EPA is unconstitutional. We must allow polluters to continue through the courts while they dump toxins into our water. The EPA unconstitutionally prevents that. It is the right of the polluter to continue in their ways up until SCOTUS says they have violated a constitutional law. Got it.There is nothing in the constitution allowing the EPA to make laws. Should the IRS be able to establish and enforce tax laws?
That's nowhere near an agreement, it's just ground-level perspicacity.I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon.
Not only did the authors of the fourth amendment not contemplate equipment with which to record telephone calls, it did not envision telephones or telephone wires, or overseas calls, or satellites or cell phones. And yet justices are obliged to apply the language and principles well beyond federal marshals rummaging through your desk drawers, your pockets and unlocking your safe. Its a given that the written words of the constitution will lead to applications, not anticipated by people of that generation, culture or space. The fact that there was no discussion of a fetus' rights or those of its mother in the post civil war era, and that virtually nobody's imagination took the debate there, does not mean Justices should not, do not, and have not since. Fetuses are not legal persons with bodily rights that they can express, anymore that cadavers are. That means that another party, person or institution must have the vested quasi legal property rights over those decisions instead. Many many many states decided that the legal person in who's body they are encased, should bear those rights and responsibilities.The time of the adding of the 14th Amendment was post-civil war to reunite the nation and give liberties to those enslaved prior. The entire context of time and reason had nothing to do whatsoever about abortion, neither hinting or speaking towards the rights or non-rights of unborn children. This has to be 'read' into the text. Using this preconceived notion from the 14th amendment is what causes the usage of 'personhood', 'legal person' onto an unborn child and turns it into a non-human form without any rights.....herein lies the error, imo.
It's a very difficult decision to write into law on either side, for of all the 'illegal abortions' which occurred causing the death of many women. Then there's the faith of many to take into consideration.....wanting to not being responsible for the deaths of unborn children, plus not wanting women to turn to dirty, illegal abortion places where women have died by the thousands. So, it's a conundrum....some go too far on the religious side forbidding any abortions, then some go too far on the pro-abortion side by wanting abortion at any time. Bickering back and forth to a boiling point has solved nothing but division.
My thoughts are more onto pre-pregnancy and educate, educate, educate on what happens once pregnant, giving birth, raising a child and the joys and hardships of being a parent.....these are far reaching responsibilities. Everyone's life dramatically change once becoming a parent or at least to those who stick around. Admittedly, men are not in the same sphere of courage when it comes to giving birth and raising children with the 24/7 amount of work they do.....this education will also go a long way to educating these responsibilities it takes for a man to stick around and be a father.
Imo, thankfully women give birth, for if it were the men, the human race would have been extinct many years ago. I would say, "hell no" that's not happening to me, lol.
So now your position is the EPA is unconstitutional. We must allow polluters to continue through the courts while they dump toxins into our water. The EPA unconstitutionally prevents that. It is the right of the polluter to continue in their ways up until SCOTUS says they have violated a constitutional law. Got it.
Nope. Everything was handled by the courts, states suing other states for years. It was clearly an unworkable system.The US had environmental laws prior to the creation of the EPA in 1970.
And having the right to refuse donating a kidney means there will be a death. You have no problem that a man can refuse to donate a kidney which will cause a death .Maybe because abortion is the killing of life and donating a kidney is in saving a life. Regardless, I believe abortion should be available to women experiencing major health issues during pregnancy. I am not opposed to it entirely.
The law begs to differ, harm or death done to an unborn, whether maternally or any person is against the law:
Protecting the rights of both the mother and unborn child does not treat women as second class citizens. It protects them equally, one cannot kill the other and vice versa. But when the life of the mother is in danger that choice should be up to the woman and her doctor, if she wishes to proceed or have an abortion to protect her life.
That's the huge difference between men and women. Have they spoken to this to the man involved.....do they even know who....what about his rights.....? It's not treating women lesser, it's that men and women are different, or haven't you noticed? Thus my opinion that far more pre-pregnancy education is much needed to help resolve this issue.
The number of women in Texas who died while pregnant, during labor or soon after childbirth skyrocketed following the state’s 2021 ban on abortion care — far outpacing a slower rise in maternal mortality across the nation, a new investigation of federal public health data finds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?