It’s relatively straight forward. The state passes a law banning abortion during the third trimester … as over 40 different states have done.
What would the interest in a fetus be vis-a-vis abortion if not the life of the fetus? Be specific.
Where or when did I dismiss the woman’s interest?
True. But not having sex is totally unrealistic. Let's face it, humans are a horny species.Cheaper than not having sex in the first place?
Rape victims do not get a choice to have sex or not. It's forced upon them.
Excellent point. The state is making the woman be a slave to the fetus too. It's government overreach to say the least.
That is not straight forward, that is simplistic. I can with out much effort come up with a few scenario's that where an abortion is necessary in the third trimester due to one complication after another. All of which would require more complex sub text of exceptions to your so called straight forward law. Yours really is just feeding the lawyers rather than finding a solution.
The states only interest should be on who gets to decide if an abortion is needed. It should then be the right of the decision maker.
Really! You do not think it is implied when you state that a fetus right to life outweighs the woman's right to decide if she wants to be pregnant?
I managed to not have sex the first 30 years of my life. Which includes when I was 15, 18, 21, and 25.
Those are arguments for an abortion policy you think it best, and you’re welcome to your opinion. That you prefer these limits does not refute my point: the state can take a compelling interest in the life of the third trimester fetus.
Alas, some states do not agree with you.
I have not said that. I have said states are allowed to legislate that in the third trimester and, once Dobbs is finalized, all three trimesters.
I am not being dismissive of women’s rights. I am defending the right to self-determination by a state and its voters, the majority of whom are women.
The states from which come the most insistence for overturning Roe are the states where men are most interested in preventing women from aborting their pregnancy and have created the legislation. Many of these same states have trigger laws that do not include abortion in case of rape. There is no way to account for this feature of their laws other than something considerably nastier than just dismissive.
My condolences.
Willfully abstaining from sex for a prolonged period of time is a superpower. Not one I'd want. But still a superpower.
Most pregnancies are not due to rapes.
Well I had no opportunities anyway.
That's easy for you to say I bet.
Right. Only a state full of hostile legislators waging a vendetta against women could write a law forcing those few women pregnant from a rape to carry the fetus to term. The monstrosity behind that legislation is inescapable
No argument. But when I point out that I am willing to accept abortions of pregnancies due to rape I get torn apart for it.
When lawyers have suggested this argument, a lot of people have trivialized it. That's been going on a long time.
That's because, if a woman said yes to sex but no to pregnancy, people get mad because, when the state wants to force any woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, that's also like the state is raping the woman.
A fetus doesn't have a right to life. They don't understand this, even though it's very clear in the constitution that women are persons and the unborn aren't, so women have rights to life, liberty, and property, but the unborn have no such rights.
Don't like babies don't have sex and remain a spinster. It's even simpler and a whole lot cheaper.
When a fertile girl/woman is raped by a fertile male she has a 5 percent chance she will become pregnant.
That was sweet of Ann Landers and let’s the woman get on with her life.