You are correct, but state legislatures conferring those rights does, and that was happening before Roe was overturned and will expand now that Roe has finally been thrown in the bin.
That is correct. When a fetus is legally granted a basic right to life a woman loses her full right to privacy and full bodily autonomy. The decision to end her pregnancy is no longer up to just her.
So the woman is not held responsible for failed birth control but the man is?
What is the benefit of the state attempting to protect your life? Or the lives of the members of your family? If you answer those questions honestly you will also have answered the question above.
Were you to come to harm, it would have absolutely no negative impact on me, In all likelihood, I would never learn about it; you'd just disappear from view here on DP. Yet I want our laws to protect you from harm because I care about human life, even in the abstract.
Yes, it is a moral judgement. Most every law we have on the books is little more than a moral judgement a majority of people have chosen to have enforced. Even your desire for women to have full bodily autonomy while pregnant is no more than a moral view.
I'll answer a question with a question whenever I feel like it, thank you. And as instructed, if you answer my question, you'll have an answer to yours, which is the point.
That is nonsense. You are trying to have your moral views codified, too.
Are your trying to argue that "deciding our individual liberty is more important" is something other than a moral view?
Nothing cowardly about it. In fact, you avoiding the question out of fear as you know answering my question will answer your question, and that's not what you want.
You want women to have full bodily autonomy during pregnancy. That is a moral view.
So what? Making that assertion does not make it something other than a moral view.
You certainly act like your views are moral truths. And so what if a pro-life moral view causes pain? Not wanting others to incur pain, your position, is no less a moral view.
)
The definition of life doesn't change but if you're saying the movement broadly known as "pro choice" can't come to an agreement on the specific arguments for abortion rights, you'd be right.
It was not true. In the third trimester, a state could but did not have to ban abortion except to save a woman's life or major health functions. Roe would not have let states decide if it had recognized the fetus had a right to life, nor would it have forced states to have an exception for saving the woman's major health functions.
When did I ever say a state “had to ban abortion” in the third trimester? And Roe absolutely would have — and did — allow them to recognize a fetal right to life in the third trimester. The words “fetal life” are literally in the text of the Roe decision regarding that point. Seriously, go find a copy of that decision on the web and search for those two words.
Please respond to this, since you like to pretend it hasnt been spelled out for you before.
Why on earth would I “let it go?” We’ve just tossed Roe — the worst act of judicial activism in living memory — on the ash heap, This is a time for celebration. And that you’re still here arguing that 50 years ago the majority of the now wonderfully inoperative Roe decision didn’t mean what their words clearly said is, well, icing on a three layer schadenfreude kuchen.Still lying about this eh? You'd think you'd want to let it go now. Since you have never once quoted a single law, pre-RvW's overturning, where a state recognized rights for the unborn, no matter what your agenda-based wordsmithing of convenience says.
"Fetal life" nor "protecting fetal life" do not mean doing so recognizes rights for the unborn.
Do the words "bovine life" mean that cows have rights? Does the fact that states protect other life, like endangered species and forests mean that those species and trees have rights recognized in those states?
The science hasn't changed for a very long time, although it could somewhere down the road. Social/political/religious definitions seem abundant. I prefer to skip arguments tailored for a desired outcome on either side of the issue. A little compassion shown by both pro and anti would help.
I'm sure your credibility would reflect that if you actually start posting like you understand it.