Peeling the onion.

[911Sparky]

You are absolutely correct. “What is a human being?” is the core of the abortion debate, not privacy. No one in their right mind would believe a mother’s right to privacy (or any other of her Constitutionally enumerated rights) allows her to end the life of her 2 year old child because we all agree a 2 year old child is a human in possession of the most basic of human rights: the right to live.

The debate hinges on the reality that some believe we don’t become human in this way until birth. Others think it is the point of viability. Still others think it’s the moment of conception. All three perspectives — and just about every other point along this spectrum — have elements of a reasonable argument. And this speaks to the reason Roe had to be overturned. If the abortion debate is really about “what is a human being?” (and it is), it’s just a simple fact that the US Constitution does not grant the courts the authority to make that decision on behalf of the country.

This is a debate that should — and now will — revert to the people and their elected officials. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years as states sort this out, but ultimately we’ll settle on a collection of abortion laws that represent the will of the people, not the will of a committee of lawyers with lifetime appointments.

Honest legislative victories and honest legislative defeats will leave both sides of this debate in a better place than has judicial fiat.

There are some laws that need to be nationwide, abortion in my opinion is one of them. Just as an example, could you imagine driving on your vacation and having to exchange currency in every state for whichever money is accepted in that state.

 

[NatMorton]

There are some laws that need to be nationwide, abortion in my opinion is one of them. Just as an example, could you imagine driving on your vacation and having to exchange currency in every state for whichever money is accepted in that state.

You're welcome to that opinion, but that opinion alone doesn't create the authority to enact a nation-wide law. In order for an issue to be subject to a national law, a super majority of states need to agree that matter should fall within the scope of the federal government. That has not happened with regard to a legal definition of human life, so it remains a state issue.

 

[Lursa]

You're welcome to that opinion, but that opinion alone doesn't create the authority to enact a nation-wide law. In order for an issue to be subject to a national law, a super majority of states need to agree that matter should fall within the scope of the federal government. That has not happened with regard to a legal definition of human life, so it remains a state issue.

Then what is this?

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

 

[Torus34]

Perhaps deserve is the wrong term. Imo, they 'deserve' 100% autonomy over their bodies. My point is that is we flipped the scenario, and men were the ones having babies, this would not even be a question.

Hi, mrjurrs.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards, best to you and yours.

 

[bluesmoke]

Not the unborn. Also determined by the Const and confirmed by SCOTUS. I posted it early in the thread altho the OP did not acknowledge it.

Two points. I said: "can be" not "are" and, as you point out, "can be" was termed, in so many words, "not are" by the SC.