Which is a human being. I personify it for the same reason I personify any other human being.
That's a your choice. One you choose to take away from others. Do you think you are entitled to force your view, with laws, on women that dont do so? If so, why?
You do not have a choice in "personifying" born people..the govt and the Const do that and you must at least outwardly respect it.
It is when said "safe" procedure means killing an innocent human being.
Well it's medicine and laws that are being discussed and they dont care about "innocent," that's your emotional fantasy apparently...because the unborn cant act or think or form intent. They are no more "innocent" than a couch or a flower. Right? Do they have that capacity? (Try to respect the analogy and not come back with, "she compared "babies" to couches and flowers!" That's not the case. )
But you choose to imagine it because of your emotions and it's self-indulgent and an excuse. The women are innocent as well.
You cited her right to "security in her person" which I took as the bodily autonomy argument.
The federal govt is obligated by the Const to protect all her rights, not just that one. It also includes a right to life, liberty, her health, and due process, for a few. These are also violated when laws criminalize her having an abortion or trying to stop her from having an abortion.
Impeding that right is justified as follows: When society has a compelling interest in doing so. Men can be conscripted and sent to war in defense of society, for example, and are penalized if they refuse. In this case, women can be penalized for killing their children, because society is interested in its own reproduction.
Very good! For a moment, let's forget that the unborn have no rights recognized by the feds that need to be balanced. What is society's compelling interest in the unborn? We dont need more people, there are millions willing to immigrate here legally.
And there are no negative effects of abortion
on society. If there are, please list some? So what are you balancing against the entirety of a woman and her life, everyday, as an individual protected by the Const, contributing to society?
So how do you balance the damage to women physically, emotionally, mentally, and potentially in their existing contribution to family and society? The risks to our own self-determination? Again, justification, the balance, is needed please?
That the unborn don't presently have those legal rights is irrelevant. Slaves didn't either at one point, yet we appealed to those rights to ultimately outlaw slavery.
SCOTUS continues not to address that. Do you know why? I'm not sure but they refused to consider it again last spring in a case brought in RI. If they do so, it will require balancing the rights of the unborn with those of women...and one or the other will end up with fewer rights than men, with women potentially being relegate to 2nd class citizens again.
So no SCOTUS bench is looking forward to that IMO. This bench avoided it last spring and clearly, in Dobbs.
Btw, slaves were considered property, not people. Freed blacks were considered people and had full rights. Slaves were capable of exercising their rights when freed, the unborn cannot exercise a single right independently...they are physiologically intertwined with the woman. This is the opposite of "equal."
That the unborn may not suffer is also irrelevant. It's not less murderous to murder a kid if you give them an anesthetic first.
It was a matter of balance and it should have been clear...I listed a number of things...when balanced, the unborn does not affect the lives of others the same at all, as pointed out, and also suffers nothing...while a women forced to remain pregnant by law does suffer. And does affect the lives of many others. She impacts society as well.
Get it? The unborn doesnt exist in a vacuum...every thing you consider about it affects the woman and vice versa. Yet you seem only to consider the unborn. Why is that?
