No, I'm not. The unborn are not a people group. "People" is one of the plurals of "person." The Unborn are not persons, so they are not people. They are embryos and fetuses.
Certainly there were birth control choices in the US before Roe. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_in_the_United_States
Partly correct. Prior to RvW, many states had already gone to legal abortion. So whether a given woman had a choice for legal abortion or not depended on where she lived. However, she still had a choice. Illegal abortions were available, as well as travel to a legal state. Although I will concede that in some cases, be it due to lack of resources or knowledge, the abortion choice can be rendered moot.
You seem to ignore the rest of that section, which expressly mentions medical technology and knowledge.
Which would put things at odds with the idea of viability. Especially when we are using it as an end point to when an abortion can be done. All premature birth that we expect to be able to live even if it requires medical care would per force be after the point of viability. That is why the point of the level of medical tech/knowledge would be key to when viability occurs.
I'm not going to agree exactly. Women before Roe v Wade did have access to contraception and some people used it rigorously. My mom was one of them. She and my dad decided to have a child each time before my mom got pregnant, and my sister and I were definitely products of such choices.
My grandson was born at 26-27 weeks. He was in NICU for well over two month and remains on oxygen right now. If nothing else, you keep them on until you know they cannot be sustained or they can survive on their own, or with any supplement that a child or adult gets nowadays as well.
Lets hope the little angel will get well and strong.
Nope they most definitely are people. Go ahead and look in the dumpster of your local planned parenthood and you should be able to find some dismembered remains test your radical idea and and have the DNA analyzed. I'm 110% certain it will come back as "human" DNA. Not banana, not werewolf, not ZEF and not fetus. You wouldn't kill a sapling, would you? Because you know its going to grow into a big beautiful tree eventually. just because it wasn't sticking out of the ground yet.
My point is Sanger was a very evil person with very evil intent.
Just illustrating the fact that we have a double standard in our society. Main take away here is that a majority of states give the fetus just as much right to live as the mother. So your argument gets a little wonkey sometimes when you guys try to move the goal posts and claim they arent human beings. Sure they are, and 38 states recognize them as human beings, since murder is defined as the unlawful act of one human killing another. Otherwise, if they didn't care, there would never be a 2nd murder charge.
So if they have no rights why do 38 states (the majority) believe that two counts of murder are justifiable when a pregnant women is killed? If the ZEF/fetus/etc had no rights as you stated multiple times, there would never be a second murder charge, since murder is defined as one human killing another unlawfully. So 38 states disagree with your premise.. just FYI
He's doing good so far. My point in bringing him up is to point out that were he in some other countries, he would not have made it. The viability point would have been later in the gestation. But because of technology he was able to survive. In fact part of that were drugs that accelerated his growth. Because of them, his lungs were more developed that they normally would have been at 26 weeks, and he came out pink instead of grey, as a lot of real early premmies do.
Understand that there are a lot of pro-choice people who feel that Sanger was wrong in her goals and misused abortion towards that. That does not automatically mean abortion itself is a problem. The Nazis did a lot of medical experiments on Jews, and horrible as they were, there is a lot that was learned that we use to this day. Additionally, abortion was legal and was not an uncommon procedure in the US from it's founding until around the 1860's when the first laws banning abortion started up. So it wasn't just a Sanger thing. Basically Sanger is a red herring in the overall issue.
Not as much of a double standard as you claim. If anyone is taking of another's bodily resources without consent (this can be anything ranging from organ theft to rape and many other things), then the used has a right to have it stopped, even if it is because they withdrew consent. If the only way to stop the user, results in the user's death, the user is the one in violation of the used's right to start with. Now if possible, the user should not be terminated, but that right to life doesn't get to override the right of bodily autonomy when the user is the one violating the right. Do you have any way of ending the violation of the woman's bodily autonomy rights if she doesn't consent to the use of her bodily resources without terminating the offspring?
Still a choice available, within the bounds I noted. I did specify about illegal abortions being available. Note that I was not responding initially to a point about legal vs illegal abortions and how safe either were or were not. I was making a point on the idea of whether or not we had a right to be born. I'm willing to go over the exchange again when I get to my laptop, if you want. I might have missed some wording along the way that would alter my logic chain.
