Kasich vetoes heartbeat bill; bans 20wk abortions to challenge Roe v. Wade

With legal fight during “Trumpmania,” conservatives see potential for abortion laws.


Read the whole story

 

[drachasor]

jpurmel[/url]":13a6ba77]All of history's greatest abuses against a group of humans has been based on "dehumanizing" them and denying their humanity. Abortion is the same. We need to stop the war on the unborn.

Do you also think everyone should be kept on life support as long as possible no matter the brain activity or cost?

 

[usernamehere]

drachasor[/url]":2ky36pb6]

jpurmel[/url]":2ky36pb6]All of history's greatest abuses against a group of humans has been based on "dehumanizing" them and denying their humanity. Abortion is the same. We need to stop the war on the unborn.

Do you also think everyone should be kept on life support as long as possible no matter the brain activity or cost?

Does this analogy still hold if the person being kept on life support has had a chance to create a living will?`

 

[Static and Noise]

drachasor[/url]":r81kjfrs]

maximus1901[/url]":r81kjfrs]

UltimateLemon[/url]":r81kjfrs]

MikeSafari[/url]":r81kjfrs]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

Rise of Sharia law in western country unfolding before our eyes.

I guess Sharia law has overtaken all of Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

SWEDEN
Availability: On request
Gestational limit: 18 weeks
Conditions: Between 12 and 18 weeks of gestation, the women must discuss the procedure with a social worker. After 18 weeks, permission must be obtained from the National Board of Health and Welfare

DENMARK
Availability: On request
Gestational limit: 12 weeks
Conditions: After 12 weeks, if the pregnancy does not pose a risk to the woman's life or of serious deterioration to her physical or mental health, the abortion must be approved by a committee of four people.

They also have a really strong social safety net and universal healthcare (which covers contraception for everyone). I think both of those Nations also pay mothers to care for their kids. I think all those dramatically change the calculus.

Mothers?

Are you forgetting that Sweden & Denmark is godless liberal communist Nordic countries?

Parents!

 

[Hekatombe]

drachasor[/url]":35jxry5p]

maximus1901[/url]":35jxry5p]

UltimateLemon[/url]":35jxry5p]

MikeSafari[/url]":35jxry5p]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

Rise of Sharia law in western country unfolding before our eyes.

I guess Sharia law has overtaken all of Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

SWEDEN
Availability: On request
Gestational limit: 18 weeks
Conditions: Between 12 and 18 weeks of gestation, the women must discuss the procedure with a social worker. After 18 weeks, permission must be obtained from the National Board of Health and Welfare

DENMARK
Availability: On request
Gestational limit: 12 weeks
Conditions: After 12 weeks, if the pregnancy does not pose a risk to the woman's life or of serious deterioration to her physical or mental health, the abortion must be approved by a committee of four people.

They also have a really strong social safety net and universal healthcare. I think both of those Nations also pay mothers to care for their kids. I think all those dramatically change the calculus.

It is also important to note both countries have an approval process for later abortion*. I dont know about Sweden rules/ruling and I dont care enough to look them up, but when it comes to Denmark reasons for a 'late abortion' can be social (age, occupation of the women, relationship status....) and economical factors. If you want the whole picture you would have to analyse these decisions rather than just having a naive look at at the gestational limit.

*) Late abortion: Abortion after the gestation limit

 

[sthornton]

sthornton[/url]":37m7veur]

Fiendish[/url]":37m7veur]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

So because a child is unwanted it supersedes any right they have to life? That is a scary thought. I can think of a lot of unwanted people in this world that harm society.

See? This is a good example of moving the goal posts.

-Fiendish makes a statement about abortions, and considering the social impact of unwanted children.

-sthornton responds by suggesting that Fiendish is saying that children don't have a right to life if they are unwanted, which drastically reframes the conversation from one about long-term social consequences to non-access to abortion services, into one about murdering children you don't want. This is, of course, because sthornton seems to be putting the 'child' label on embryos and fetuses, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about sthornton's position on this matter.

The more you know (TM).

Moving the goal posts? Not really, but you certainly did. 1) I didn't put the label of 'child' that was Fiendish. Please read the quote... 2) There is no difference in the logic that -Fiendish uses which according to the statement society impact overrides any right to life a life a 'child' or 'unwanted children under duress' may have. This Utilitarian point of view has some obvious flaws. But i guess your response tell you pretty much all you need to know about akiel's position on the matter.

 

[AM16]

There's something to be said about the party that claims to be all about being responsible with money and great with money that is placing into effect limitations on abortions that will lead to draining of government and natural resources, increase in poverty and crime rates because of the poverty.

All in the guise of religion, when it is really just either for donor money or to punish women who are already down on their luck.

If they honestly think that religion hocus pocus should be more important than actual effects, none of them should be in office and they should be in a straitjacket and medicated.

 

[AndrewClarke]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1c7yz1qn]

I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

When people adopt the mindset that abortion is absolutely a subset of capital-M Murder, then they have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to considering the issue in any other way. To them, it resolves issues quickly and efficient. For example, if you can't afford to raise a child, is murder the solution? No? Then neither is abortion. By reducing everything to this black-and-white polemic, they avoid having to deal with most issues.

[...]

OK, I'll bite.

Yes, I believe that abortion is "capital-M Murder". Please allow me to explain my point of view before getting too upset.

First, I'm a Christian. Therefore I believe that our moral absolutes are externally set for us, rather than being socially defined. For example, I believe that if we as a society believe murder is OK, it remains not OK regardless of what we may think.

Even if we feel we are the final arbiters of our own moral standards, as a society we have decided that killing people for our own convenience is bad (unless you're the government) and we call it murder. Killing a baby post-birth is murder. Killing a baby a week before birth if you're in the US is considered murder because the foetus is "viable". The problem here is that we're relegating our morals to science. I think we can all see that as medical science improves, the viability deadline goes earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. It's also not a clearly defined line; there will obviously be non-viable pregnancies much later, and viable ones earlier.

I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

In my opinion, a ban on abortion needs to be included in a sweeping variety of other social and legal changes, including:

- Mercy for women, victims, mothers, fathers, and babies.

- Don't penalize women for having abortions. Life is complicated and people make difficult choices. Let's not blame but let's move on, showing support and mercy.

- A strong societal shift away from idea of a woman being shamed for being pregnant, whereas the man gets away with (maybe) having to pay child support. It's tough to be (for example) a teen with a pregnancy when literally everyone is against you. This whole attitude needs to be turned on its head. The people who need support the most need to get the most support.

- Much MUCH MUCH better social safety nets for the vulnerable members of our society. I'm an increasingly strong proponent of universal basic income.

Saying "abortion is murder" and trying to ban it without recognizing all the resultant evil that will follow from banning abortions is an ethically moribund argument. Murder is bad, but so is abandoning people to a life of stigmatism and unnecessary poverty. I don't think there's an ethical or moral argument for banning abortion without also recognizing and attempting to tackle related social issues. Personally, for example, I don't campaign outside Planned Parenthood with a placard, but I do support a local pregnancy support centre.

If a woman can decide to carry a pregnancy to term without stigma, and with all the support she needs, and if that baby will receive the support he/she needs to grow up on an equal footing with his/her peers, many of the arguments for abortion disappear. We're still left with moral disagreements, but on the other hand we could be doing a lot more to support marginalized people without arguing over abortion, regardless of our differences.

 

[arkiel]

sthornton[/url]":3g98uwvm]

sthornton[/url]":3g98uwvm]

Fiendish[/url]":3g98uwvm]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

So because a child is unwanted it supersedes any right they have to life? That is a scary thought. I can think of a lot of unwanted people in this world that harm society.

See? This is a good example of moving the goal posts.

-Fiendish makes a statement about abortions, and considering the social impact of unwanted children.

-sthornton responds by suggesting that Fiendish is saying that children don't have a right to life if they are unwanted, which drastically reframes the conversation from one about long-term social consequences to non-access to abortion services, into one about murdering children you don't want. This is, of course, because sthornton seems to be putting the 'child' label on embryos and fetuses, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about sthornton's position on this matter.

The more you know (TM).

Moving the goal posts? Not really, but you certainly did. 1) I didn't put the label of 'child' that was Fiendish. Please read the quote... 2) There is no difference in the logic that -Fiendish uses which according to the statement society impact overrides any right to life a life a 'child' or 'unwanted children under duress' may have. This Utilitarian point of view has some obvious flaws. But i guess your response tell you pretty much all you need to know about akiel's position on the matter.

Fiendish's 'children' was talking about progeny that might otherwise have been aborted. He's talking about children that actually exist. And he's not talking about killing unwanted children, he's talking about taking proactive measures to make sure that the only children that exist are wanted children. That's how I read it, anyway.

This is a reason to support abortion, but it isn't why abortion is currently legal. SCOTUS did a pretty close analysis on exactly when the rights of the fetus override the rights of the mother. The 'unwanted children' angle has come to light in the years that followed, and so probably wasn't part of the court's reasoning. In light of the purely utilitarian/socialist nature of this reason, it doesn't seem like SCOTUS would ever look that far (on an issue involving personal rights).

You shouldn't need an academic understanding of non-explicit constitutional rights in order to have a valid reason to support abortion. Fiendish has his reason. You seem to have taken the words he used to articulate that reason and treat them as a call to arms for the streets to run red with the blood of extant unwanted children. Either that, of you're including embryos and fetuses as 'children', which would explain how an argument about abortion in any way implicates the death of 'children'.

If you aren't moving goalposts by switching the definition of 'children', your misunderstanding of the point and issue easily transcends my sense of responsibility for misunderstanding you.

 

[ceb]

Tonkaman[/url]":2munj98v]

ceb[/url]":2munj98v]

UltimateLemon[/url]":2munj98v]

ritesh_laud[/url]":2munj98v]
Still others believe that no human being has the natural right to decide on life or death for any other human being. That is, the belief that not a single human being in the history of the world has ever actually had the right to end the life of any other human being. Millions have done so, obviously, but that doesn't connote a natural human right that a modern national constitution should necessarily enshrine.

Death penalty has been in history for a very, VERY long time. Funnily enough, something that Republicans traditionally had support for.

The opinions on this topic, from both sides, has always been a headscratcher for me. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. The god the the bible kills, and tells his followers to kill, people (men, women, and children) left and right. The commandment "thou shalt not kill" obviously isn't a blanket prohibition on taking another's life. It means "thou shalt not murder", i.e. "unjustly" take another's life. Therefore, someone who is anti-abortion but pro-death penalty (i.e. against taking an "innocent life", but has no problem taking the life of someone who is guilty of heinous crimes) is not being hypocritical. They're being perfectly consistent with their religious beliefs.

(Unfortunately I always feel I have to point out that I'm a pro-abortion atheist at this point.)

Edit: Couple of "taken"'s should have been "taking"'s.

I should point out there is some variation on what "unjustly" means. The Catholic position is that everything outside of self-defense is unjust, and therefore murder. Generally it's only the evangelicals that support the death penalty and are also against abortion. According to the Catechism, even war is only acceptable in self-defense and only after all other means to avoid war have been attempted. I give Catholics points for being consistent, while the others are the hypocrites.

Definitely, I agree completely. It's so inconsistent that just about anything could be argued to be either a justified or unjustified taking of another's life.

 

[Danrarbc]

UltimateLemon[/url]":1hurifa4]

MikeSafari[/url]":1hurifa4]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

Rise of Sharia law in western country unfolding before our eyes.

Levitical law, really.

 

[mattjreilly]

AndrewClarke[/url]":v3bk9r38]
I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

So easy to say when it will never be your body.

 

[CanadianLibertarian]

And yet they have it all now due to the ACA requiring electronic medical records and the DHHS being put in charge of all of it.... so if I understand the liberal reasoning correctly considering #2... government intervention in abortion is bad...but everything else medical is righteous, and is only a good for society for the government to be in control of healthcare.

You're conflating two separate issues. Electronic medical records are so that doctors can view a patient's medical history with the patient's consent. Paper records make that difficult, costly, and time consuming, even within public health systems. That is entirely separate from patient being legally required to violate their own right to privacy or a doctor being mandated to report a patient's medical history to state for review by police or administration. The right to privacy has reasonable limits however. In the landmark ruling, they limited a woman's right to privacy when the fetus can survive on it's own. Governments may also have exceptions for public health issues, such as highly infectious diseases (e.g., HIV).

These records should not be accessible to people without the patient's consent. If that's not the case in your area, this has nothing to do with "liberals", but just stupid policy making. If patient's medical information is accessible by doctors or, worse, politicians and police, without your consent, then it should absolutely be challenged.

 

[Z1ggy]

AndrewClarke[/url]":2s7ikly0]In my opinion, a ban on abortion needs to be included in a sweeping variety of other social and legal changes, including:

- Mercy for women, victims, mothers, fathers, and babies.

- Don't penalize women for having abortions. Life is complicated and people make difficult choices. Let's not blame but let's move on, showing support and mercy.

if there is a ban, but no enforcement(penalty for a woman who has one), why bother banning it?

seriously think that through.

I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

It is the mothers body that loses nourishment to provide for the embryo inside her.

While most of what you said makes some sense(the idea that we should support the mothers who dont abort), why dont we get those in place first, because once something is banned, those who need it will do it and be punished if caught(which your against).

We should be teaching children how not to have children if they dont want them(both girls/boys), and we should be providing them the ability to get birth control/condoms.

Otherwise its hypocritical.

You either care for all life(poor people who need assistance/embryos), or you choose which ones to help and which ones suffer.

If your going to make a choice for someone you need to help them deal with that choice(because it may not be the one they would make).

 

[AndrewClarke]

Z1ggy[/url]":2f9z66mn]if there is a ban, but no enforcement(penalty for a woman who has one), why bother banning it?

seriously think that through.

I said I disagree with punishing the women. That leaves a lot of other people to punish if you're really into punishing, which I'm not. At the very least I'd rather my tax money go to something else besides paying for abortions.

While most of what you said makes some sense(the idea that we should support the mothers who dont abort), why dont we get those in place first, because once something is banned, those who need it will do it and be punished if caught(which your against).

I completely agree. That's the point I ended my previous post with.

We should be teaching children how not to have children if they dont want them(both girls/boys), and we should be providing them the ability to get birth control/condoms.

Otherwise its hypocritical.

You either care for all life(poor people who need assistance/embryos), or you choose which ones to help and which ones suffer.

If your going to make a choice for someone you need to help them deal with that choice(because it may not be the one they would make).

I never said anything about a stance on birth control, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Also and again, I'm pro basic income and universal healthcare. In that scenario it becomes much easier for "poor people who need assistance/embryos".

I realize my comments are going to get downvoted here due to the overwhelming bias on this site. I just wanted to point out that the viewpoints on both sides of this argument are very broad. Either side caricaturizing the entirety of other side as monsters (baby killers, religious freaks) does an injustice to the significance of the discussion.

 

[AndrewClarke]

mattjreilly[/url]":1526ye64]

AndrewClarke[/url]":1526ye64]
I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

So easy to say when it will never be your body.

Well from my point of view it will never be ANY of our bodies, as we're all alive.

Thank you though for demonstrating my argument. Discussing whose body it is is pointless as we fundamentally disagree, and this line of reasoning will never change either of our minds. The buttons we're pressing by arguing about this point do not trigger a change in our point of view, so all it will do is cause both of us to become more entrenched in our own beliefs. I'd rather spend my time discussing an aspect of this issue where I might actually learn something.

 

[Sajuuk]

AndrewClarke[/url]":1azz02pr]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1azz02pr]

I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

When people adopt the mindset that abortion is absolutely a subset of capital-M Murder, then they have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to considering the issue in any other way. To them, it resolves issues quickly and efficient. For example, if you can't afford to raise a child, is murder the solution? No? Then neither is abortion. By reducing everything to this black-and-white polemic, they avoid having to deal with most issues.

[...]

I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

Ah, yes, female agency and autonomy need not apply. You're an incubator, get over it. /s

 

[Z1ggy]

AndrewClarke[/url]":2dwx14y3]

Z1ggy[/url]":2dwx14y3]if there is a ban, but no enforcement(penalty for a woman who has one), why bother banning it?

seriously think that through.

I said I disagree with punishing the women. That leaves a lot of other people to punish if you're really into punishing, which I'm not. At the very least I'd rather my tax money go to something else besides paying for abortions.

While most of what you said makes some sense(the idea that we should support the mothers who dont abort), why dont we get those in place first, because once something is banned, those who need it will do it and be punished if caught(which your against).

I completely agree. That's the point I ended my previous post with.

We should be teaching children how not to have children if they dont want them(both girls/boys), and we should be providing them the ability to get birth control/condoms.

Otherwise its hypocritical.

You either care for all life(poor people who need assistance/embryos), or you choose which ones to help and which ones suffer.

If your going to make a choice for someone you need to help them deal with that choice(because it may not be the one they would make).

I never said anything about a stance on birth control, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Also and again, I'm pro basic income and universal healthcare. In that scenario it becomes much easier for "poor people who need assistance/embryos".

I realize my comments are going to get downvoted here due to the overwhelming bias on this site. I just wanted to point out that the viewpoints on both sides of this argument are very broad. Either side caricaturizing the entirety of other side as monsters (baby killers, religious freaks) does an injustice to the significance of the discussion.

i brought it up because its a necessary factor (at least in my mind) to trying to stop people from having 'unwanted children'.
Shit happens, and we need to plan for that shit(part of that plan is birth control). TO leave that out of the equation is foolish.

Your in favor of a ban on abortions, but there is no punishment if you do have one(or at least your against a punishment).
Its a very strange connection. Why bother having a ban on something that has no punishment if you go against the ban?

do i want to live in a world where people having abortions is common place? Nope.
Do i want to live in a world where raping a girl and getting her pregnant is a sure fire way to keep her around? Nope.
Do i want to live in a world where a woman skips her BC pill/ or lies about being on the pill so she can get pregnant and keep the boy she likes? Nope.

The most vocal people on the subject are the worst(both sides).
However normally the ones who are yelling about baby killing monsters are religious nut jobs(because religion is normally their go to answer for most things).

Even if your tax dollars are spent on abortions(which they arent), a percentage of abortions are for unwanted children/children who would grow up in an abusive home, and your taxes would pay for them to live for at least 18 years, so purely as a percentage of your taxes, clearly abortion(which isnt even paid with in taxes), would be less of your taxes.

Now mind you thats a terrible way to think of a child(as a tax burden). But if we are going there lets go there(see previous paragraph).

Ive been 'fixed'. Ive have 2 great children, and thats all im going to have. But that is my choice, and people should respect it.

The only way to stop people from having abortions is to educate them and provide the materials to keep them from getting pregnant if they want to.

EDIT: also while i love my children, i have joked about them being parasites before while they were in utero.

 

[Outrider/Ronin]

AndrewClarke[/url]":nz4bchyx]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":nz4bchyx]

I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

When people adopt the mindset that abortion is absolutely a subset of capital-M Murder, then they have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to considering the issue in any other way. To them, it resolves issues quickly and efficient. For example, if you can't afford to raise a child, is murder the solution? No? Then neither is abortion. By reducing everything to this black-and-white polemic, they avoid having to deal with most issues.

[...]

OK, I'll bite.

Yes, I believe that abortion is "capital-M Murder". Please allow me to explain my point of view before getting too upset.

First, I'm a Christian. Therefore I believe that our moral absolutes are externally set for us, rather than being socially defined. For example, I believe that if we as a society believe murder is OK, it remains not OK regardless of what we may think..

I'm not sure you've actually explained your point of view. You've said that you believe it's "capital-M Murder" (presumably tantamount to our current legal definition) but never actually explain how you reach that conclusion from a Christian moral absolutist view.

Rather, the remainder of your post appears to be a condemnation of society-based morals and possible ways to ameliorate the impact of a ban on abortion. Both interesting topics to discuss, but they don't actually serve to justify your proposition that abortion is "capital-M Murder".

Do you derive this from the bible? If so, where? If not, from which theologian (and obviously, which work of theirs)?

 

[CanadianLibertarian]

I realize my comments are going to get downvoted here due to the overwhelming bias on this site. I just wanted to point out that the viewpoints on both sides of this argument are very broad. Either side caricaturizing the entirety of other side as monsters (baby killers, religious freaks) does an injustice to the significance of the discussion.

Bias or logic?

1) Most importantly, banning abortion does not reduce abortion. The number of abortions are similar in countries where it is outlawed and legalized.

See: http://www.economist.com/news/internati ... 1964d5247f

In particular, see "zero tolerance, zero result"

This alone makes banning abortion a pointless venture, which in turn, only increases risks to the women.

2) As pointed out already, it doesn't make sense to ban something if you have no enforcement mechanism. That's just a feel good moment for the religious right. Again, a pointless exercise.

3a) Re: tax dollars. Paying for an abortion is considerably cheaper than paying for the support costs you advocate for, which in practice, would never make it past the Republicans -- so it's a non starter. It'll cost you more and it's impossible in the US political climate. The Democrats would need a supermajority to put that kind of safety net in, and they surely will never outlaw abortion. So that's a non-starter, in practice.

3b) Taxes will go to things you, personally, don't like. My taxes go to public transport that I never use because it serves a large portion of the population. In the case of abortion, they're actually going toward something tax-efficient -- saving the state large amounts of money.

4) SCOTUS under Roe vs. Wade explain why constitutional rights to privacy limit the criminalization of abortion and have balanced it with the right to life (once a fetus can survive on it's own).

 

[SixDegrees]

h0nda[/url]":1gl335h5]I can see why the ability to abort a fetus at any stage of development is so precious to you liberals posting on this topic, It`s because you are part of the "ME" generation. All you are concerned about is me, myself and I. You don`t give any consideration to the possible consequences of your actions, it`s called lack of personal responsibility. With you libs it`s always someone else`s fault. If I get pregnant it`s because contraceptives are too hard to get, I have to take a pill everyday (not any more), condoms don`t feel right or I`m too embarrassed to purchase them, I was too drunk, I was high, heat of the moment, etc... Do you see a pattern here, excuses, excuses, excuses. Access to contraceptives has never been easier and yet the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions continue to increase. Why? Lack of personal responsibility.

I am happy Kasich vetoed the Heartbeat Bill, (was a poorly written bill), and put a stop to abortions past the 20 wk mark. Have any of you, that advocate abortion at any stage of pregnancy, every looked at actual photos of a fetus at 20 wks of development, and before. The fetus is fully formed, moving, can feel pain and is definitely a miniature version of a human being. Premature babies have survived at 21 wks, so to say they are not sentient human beings is false.

The fact that you are able to post about the abortion issue at all is because your mothers decided to keep their pregnancy when they could have aborted it. Perhaps they made the wrong decision?

Bad news: I'm a Conservative, with a capital "C", and I support leaving abortion up to women and their doctors.

 

[mattjreilly]

AndrewClarke[/url]":1miaoldh]

mattjreilly[/url]":1miaoldh]

AndrewClarke[/url]":1miaoldh]
I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

So easy to say when it will never be your body.

Well from my point of view it will never be ANY of our bodies, as we're all alive.

Thank you though for demonstrating my argument. Discussing whose body it is is pointless as we fundamentally disagree, and this line of reasoning will never change either of our minds. The buttons we're pressing by arguing about this point do not trigger a change in our point of view, so all it will do is cause both of us to become more entrenched in our own beliefs. I'd rather spend my time discussing an aspect of this issue where I might actually learn something.

It's pointless to you not to me. A woman is a complete and functioning human being, a embryo is only a potential one. By insisting embryos are human beings and that a woman has no choice in carrying one to term you are diminishing the woman's humanity. I find that disturbing.

 

[arkiel]

AndrewClarke[/url]":wheii7fg]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":wheii7fg]

I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

When people adopt the mindset that abortion is absolutely a subset of capital-M Murder, then they have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to considering the issue in any other way. To them, it resolves issues quickly and efficient. For example, if you can't afford to raise a child, is murder the solution? No? Then neither is abortion. By reducing everything to this black-and-white polemic, they avoid having to deal with most issues.

[...]

OK, I'll bite.

Yes, I believe that abortion is "capital-M Murder". Please allow me to explain my point of view before getting too upset.

First, I'm a Christian. Therefore I believe that our moral absolutes are externally set for us, rather than being socially defined. For example, I believe that if we as a society believe murder is OK, it remains not OK regardless of what we may think.

Does Romans 13:1 still apply to your worldview?

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Because that seems to suggest that if we make it OK, it must be because God willed it to be thus.

 

[Baron von Robber]

T.N.Toluene[/url]":5jkhiglm]Ars is such shit-tier site now

Then go join a Christian Sharia blog.

 

[Baron von Robber]

ziegler[/url]":14udvd39]

CanadianLibertarian[/url]":14udvd39]

Brilliant post and summary of Roe vs. Wade, thank you. It's easy to forget about the level of nuance in that ruling and #2 seems to rarely be mentioned when people get in pissing matches. Our discussions of abortion ought to stem from this ruling.

And yet they have it all now due to the ACA requiring electronic medical records and the DHHS being put in charge of all of it.... so if I understand the liberal reasoning correctly considering #2... government intervention in abortion is bad...but everything else medical is righteous, and is only a good for society for the government to be in control of healthcare.

Well considering I work at a hospital....in an IT position...a position where my job is to know where PHI exists...and where it goes...I can firmly say. You're lying out of your ass.

 

[SixDegrees]

AndrewClarke[/url]":1lo14sxi]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1lo14sxi]

I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

When people adopt the mindset that abortion is absolutely a subset of capital-M Murder, then they have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to considering the issue in any other way. To them, it resolves issues quickly and efficient. For example, if you can't afford to raise a child, is murder the solution? No? Then neither is abortion. By reducing everything to this black-and-white polemic, they avoid having to deal with most issues.

[...]

OK, I'll bite.

Yes, I believe that abortion is "capital-M Murder". Please allow me to explain my point of view before getting too upset.

First, I'm a Christian. Therefore I believe that our moral absolutes are externally set for us, rather than being socially defined. For example, I believe that if we as a society believe murder is OK, it remains not OK regardless of what we may think.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. Because it means the government has no place imposing your self-described religious views on society as a whole, because Constitution.

Which also guarantees that you - and everyone else - gets to practice their religion as they see fit, for themselves. So if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

 

[Seraphiel]

maximus1901[/url]":2e088o03]

UltimateLemon[/url]":2e088o03]

MikeSafari[/url]":2e088o03]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

Rise of Sharia law in western country unfolding before our eyes.

I guess Sharia law has overtaken all of Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

SWEDEN
Availability: On request
Gestational limit: 18 weeks
Conditions: Between 12 and 18 weeks of gestation, the women must discuss the procedure with a social worker. After 18 weeks, permission must be obtained from the National Board of Health and Welfare

DENMARK
Availability: On request
Gestational limit: 12 weeks
Conditions: After 12 weeks, if the pregnancy does not pose a risk to the woman's life or of serious deterioration to her physical or mental health, the abortion must be approved by a committee of four people.

And how are those countries on the provision of contraception to their citizens?

How about coverage of prenatal care, which is known to dramatically reduce pregnancy complications?

 

[Z1ggy]

Baron von Robber[/url]":ryrfs3r5]

ziegler[/url]":ryrfs3r5]

CanadianLibertarian[/url]":ryrfs3r5]

Brilliant post and summary of Roe vs. Wade, thank you. It's easy to forget about the level of nuance in that ruling and #2 seems to rarely be mentioned when people get in pissing matches. Our discussions of abortion ought to stem from this ruling.

And yet they have it all now due to the ACA requiring electronic medical records and the DHHS being put in charge of all of it.... so if I understand the liberal reasoning correctly considering #2... government intervention in abortion is bad...but everything else medical is righteous, and is only a good for society for the government to be in control of healthcare.

Well considering I work at a hospital....in an IT position...a position where my job is to know where PHI exists...and where it goes...I can firmly say. You're lying out of your ass.

Its something ill never understand. On Ars most people actually look at data and come to conclusions based on that. And they have a variety of life experiences to pull the info from.

And yet people still come here and try to use information that has no basis on realty to try to influence people.

 

[Baron von Robber]

Z1ggy[/url]":gn9s702i]

Baron von Robber[/url]":gn9s702i]

ziegler[/url]":gn9s702i]

CanadianLibertarian[/url]":gn9s702i]

Brilliant post and summary of Roe vs. Wade, thank you. It's easy to forget about the level of nuance in that ruling and #2 seems to rarely be mentioned when people get in pissing matches. Our discussions of abortion ought to stem from this ruling.

And yet they have it all now due to the ACA requiring electronic medical records and the DHHS being put in charge of all of it.... so if I understand the liberal reasoning correctly considering #2... government intervention in abortion is bad...but everything else medical is righteous, and is only a good for society for the government to be in control of healthcare.

Well considering I work at a hospital....in an IT position...a position where my job is to know where PHI exists...and where it goes...I can firmly say. You're lying out of your ass.

Its something ill never understand. On Ars most people actually look at data and come to conclusions based on that. And they have a variety of life experiences to pull the info from.

And yet people still come here and try to use information that has no basis on realty to try to influence people.

So you are telling me my org is sending PHI to the DHHS but yet there is no place in the system I work on set up for that. DLP isn't seeing it. You are an amazing piece of work ziegler. Are they hacking us ziegler? Did they send a mole from the DHHS deep undercover to extract that PHI?

PS: Woops, sorry Ziggy, wrong Z. :b

 

[woodelf]

DManatunga[/url]":15wvfzd8]Abortion is a complicated issue and in no way is any internet comment I write is going to solve it. That said, I'm incredibly sick and tired of people ignoring actual science or bringing false science into arguments. Part of me wishes that people who choose to ignore majority science findings are forced to do that for everything. Don't believe in global warming. Fine, you can't use the internet cause it is another kooky thing brought by those science loving folks.

Or, a more direct connection: don't believe in evolution? No modern medicine for you! Pretty much can't have modern medicine without understanding biology, and you can't really understand biology without understanding evolution.

 

[woodelf]

CanadianLibertarian[/url]":1rkyi9hi]

The issues are in fact, this (because this is the issue that the SCOUS decided on in Row. vs. Wade)

1) How much can the government force you to do to save another. Can the government, for example, come up to you and tell you they need one of your kidneys to save someone, or is that an overreach of power.

2) If the government doesn't have the right, what is safe guarding the population?

3) If the government dose have that right, when, and under what circumstances?

To 1, they ruled ... kinda. The government can make some acts of compassion mandatory. Child abandonment, for example, was already a crime and stood up to constitutional challenges.

For 2, and pay attention, is the ONLY part that matters, they ruled that the safe guard the people have is the right to privacy. This was the first time this right was ever considered or granted; that the government can't ask you what diseases you have or if your working kidney is compatible with one they need ... or if you're pregnant. Doctors could preform medical procedures and did not have to betray this trust. Thus, a woman could get an abortion because the doctor doing it had no obligation to report it and the woman getting one had no obligation to tell anyone she was ever pregnant. Furthermore, it was NOT permitted for the government to request this information.

For 3, they focused on the case at hand. When can the government force a woman to bring a child to term. They decided that at the point where a child can exists on it's own, outside the mother, the states obligation to protect that child outweighed the woman's right to privacy.

SCOUS doesn't give a shit about the right or wrong of abortion and honestly, no matter what side you fall on, neither should you. All you should be considering is this; should the government have the right to medical information about you at all times, and based on that information should they have a right to impose restrictions on your rights. Some examples might include:

State programs screen for common contagious diseases at school and work places. Anyone with a disease is placed under house arrest.

A law requires woman of child bearing age to register complete medical information such that living fetuses in dying mothers can be transplanted and saved.

A law requiring people with incurable, terminal illnesses to donate non-vital organs before they are damaged by the illness.

The short answer is no. The long answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And that's life. Sometimes you have to just accept that we can't stop people from doing something we might not agree with, because if we try to, we give up a LOT of our own rights.

Edit and PS: I feel I should note that for 3, it's more accurate to say that's the point at which the woman was obligated to tell people she was pregnant, not the point where she "couldn't get an abortion". This is important because Row. vs. Wade wasn't about abortion; it was about a woman not telling the father of her child she was pregnant. The right to an abortion was granted because that's how the law played out. If the decision was overturned, woman would be obligated to tell men they were pregnant with his child, but it wouldn't have a imitate effect on the constitutionality of abortion, as there is a lot more case law on that subject now.

Brilliant post and summary of Roe vs. Wade, thank you. It's easy to forget about the level of nuance in that ruling and #2 seems to rarely be mentioned when people get in pissing matches. Our discussions of abortion ought to stem from this ruling.

Only if (1) you're not interested in making new law, only interpreting existing law and (2) you're only concerned with what the law does say, not what it should say. I'm not the only pro-choice advocate to argue that "privacy" was and still is a dumb thing to hang abortion rights on, both because it's tangential to the real issue and because we don't apply the same standard to dozens (hundreds?) of other things that personal privacy obviously or arguably applies to. "Bodily autonomy" would be a better measure of the balance of maternal and fetal rights.

Of course, what's really needed is better understanding of science: a fetus is by definition a parasite. It's a parasite that many people want, but it's still a parasite. And the biological systems of the mother and fetus aren't neatly separate like both pro-choice and anti-abortion people frequently depict them. They are inextricably intertwined throughout the pregnancy--even after viability.

 

[Magius]

dde guy[/url]":1cdx4pc4]I hope that the impending legal battle doesn't focus solely on pain. False scientific claims notwithstanding, it seems like a bit of a straw man argument anyway. Far more valuable than preventing fetal pain is preserving potential human lives.

For the record, before I'm drowned in the inevitable sea of downvotes from the far-left mafia that seems to lurk here, I think this is an issue that needs less legislation, not more.

Edit: English is hard.

So, let me see if I follow you:
- Not the pain but prohibit abortions because we want to preserve potential human lives.
- Issue needs less legisla, wait what? Does that mean we should leave it to the mother or does that mean outright authoritarian prohibition? Your angle is a bit murky around that part.

The issue is "simple":
- We either stop meddling in other people's affairs that do not impact society.
- We meddle and prohibit abortions BUT take responsibility for doing so. This means that unwanted babies will be supported by society, preferably by the individual States & religion institutions in the area, under supervision of the Federal Gov., with a minimum provable set standard of living. Nothing of that Foster care thing. Some foster homes may be good, many of them are not.

I am sure all those christian middle to upper class families will volunteer in droves to help the children. Just like they do now... right?

Any other course of action would indicate you are not really pro-life; you are pro-birth, an irresponsible human being, and a hypocrite.

 

[DameonK]

AlexisR200X[/url]":x6zz41h8]

bthylafh[/url]":x6zz41h8]

Fiendish[/url]":x6zz41h8]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

Understanding doesn't matter - they don't care. If they didn't want abortions they wouldn't push their regressive abstinence-only bullshit. It's about control.

Which is quite ironic since in this case they advocate for the state to take control and removing it from women who have every right to control what they do with their body and lives. Its also ironic because these folks tend to be strongly against government control and regulation. :/

You're mistaken. The current Republicans in power are against regulation of corporations.
This allows them to extort money from the corporations in order to keep regulations lite.
They want to control as much of our (average citizen) lives as possible, as long as it doesn't interfere with what the corporations want, lest, they stop paying. They want to keep the general population ignorant, poor, and disenfranchised so we won't do anything about it.

In other words, the current Republican governing philosophy can be summed up in one word, control.

 

[woodelf]

nosensewhatsoever[/url]":3duhjl09]

bthylafh[/url]":3duhjl09]

Fiendish[/url]":3duhjl09]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

Understanding doesn't matter - they don't care. If they didn't want abortions they wouldn't push their regressive abstinence-only bullshit. It's about control.

Bullcrap. Abstinence is 100% sure-fire to make sure you don't need an abortion. Yes, it's overly simplistic, doesn't take into account that many people will have sex regardless, and ignores that couples need alternative methods. But saying they don't care and that it's only about control is a strawman argument, and only paints you in an extremist corner.

1: why do boys get to have sex and girls don't? We don't make a boy carry a parasite for 40 weeks because of a moment of stupidity or tell a boy to be careful what they are eating/doing if they are sexually active because it could affect the health of a potential child (due to screwing up the sperm that created that child).

2: Abstinence will prevent (semi-)intentional pregnancy. It won't prevent rape.

3: Abstinence-only education is proven not to lead to abstinence. So how effective abstinence is is not the issue--how effective abstinence-only education is, is the issue.

4: If the real goal is to prevent unintended pregnancy, why not buy every girl a Norplant subscription and an IUD for her 12th birthday? And a reversible vasectomy for all the boys? The emphasis on preventing sex (by girls) is what makes it about control, because there are other methods to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and clearly many people don't choose "no sex" as their preferred method.

5: You didn't say this, but others have commented about "potential life". Why is a fetus at 10 weeks a "potential human" but a fertilized egg at day 0 isn't? Or, if you believe that "life starts at conception", why aren't the ova and sperm "potential humans"? It's not a hard line--really, birth (natural, induced, or Cesarean) is the only bright-line boundary in the whole process. It's all shades of grey and arbitrary distinctions before that (and after that, too). You can choose any one of them as a line philosophically, but scientifically they're arbitrary.

 

[CanadianLibertarian]

Only if (1) you're not interested in making new law, only interpreting existing law and (2) you're only concerned with what the law does say, not what it should say. I'm not the only pro-choice advocate to argue that "privacy" was and still is a dumb thing to hang abortion rights on, both because it's tangential to the real issue and because we don't apply the same standard to dozens (hundreds?) of other things that personal privacy obviously or arguably applies to. "Bodily autonomy" would be a better measure of the balance of maternal and fetal rights.

Of course, what's really needed is better understanding of science: a fetus is by definition a parasite. It's a parasite that many people want, but it's still a parasite. And the biological systems of the mother and fetus aren't neatly separate like both pro-choice and anti-abortion people frequently depict them. They are inextricably intertwined throughout the pregnancy--even after viability.

1) You're underestimating the value of the privacy issue. It is robust in the face of most logical criticism because nothing else really matters if the woman can't be forced to disclose her pregnancy and a doctor isn't permitted to disclose it to the state. Banning abortion is pointless at that point, so all further discussion is moot.

2) You can easily argue privacy + _____ if you feel the need... it's not one or the other. You can build off Roe vs. Wade, without losing it's strong legal footing.

3) Good luck with equating fetuses to parasites and getting any traction on that one. They share a facile resemblance if you examine specific aspects of biology and keep your thinking at the microlevel. SCOTUS set the limit on privacy as when the fetus can live on its own if removed, because that's when reasonable people will view it as a living being. A reasonable limit and one that clearly shows the difference between a fetus, and say, a tape worm. To invoke your fetus = parasite argument will lead to ridicule among anyone able to think conceptually and severely weaken your pro-choice argument. It will also have a particularly aggravating effect on the pro-life crowd, so it's a serious non-starter. Open with that line and expect to push more people to the pro-life camp.

 

[SixDegrees]

nosensewhatsoever[/url]":1ndx7v1u]

bthylafh[/url]":1ndx7v1u]

Fiendish[/url]":1ndx7v1u]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

Understanding doesn't matter - they don't care. If they didn't want abortions they wouldn't push their regressive abstinence-only bullshit. It's about control.

Bullcrap. Abstinence is 100% sure-fire to make sure you don't need an abortion. Yes, it's overly simplistic, doesn't take into account that many people will have sex regardless, and ignores that couples need alternative methods. But saying they don't care and that it's only about control is a strawman argument, and only paints you in an extremist corner.

No. Abstinence is absolutely the worst form of birth control.

When Arkansas stopped teaching about birth control methods other than abstinence in its public schools, its teen pregnancy rate, which had formerly been pretty much right around the national average, soared to the highest in the nation.

In real life, lots of people talk about abstinence, but no one actually does it.

 

[Seraphiel]

SixDegrees[/url]":25l1b015]

nosensewhatsoever[/url]":25l1b015]

bthylafh[/url]":25l1b015]

Fiendish[/url]":25l1b015]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

Understanding doesn't matter - they don't care. If they didn't want abortions they wouldn't push their regressive abstinence-only bullshit. It's about control.

Bullcrap. Abstinence is 100% sure-fire to make sure you don't need an abortion. Yes, it's overly simplistic, doesn't take into account that many people will have sex regardless, and ignores that couples need alternative methods. But saying they don't care and that it's only about control is a strawman argument, and only paints you in an extremist corner.

No. Abstinence is absolutely the worst form of birth control.

When Arkansas stopped teaching about birth control methods other than abstinence in its public schools, its teen pregnancy rate, which had formerly been pretty much right around the national average, soared to the highest in the nation.

In real life, lots of people talk about abstinence, but no one actually does it.

Abstinence works fine for the people who couldn't get laid anyway.

Maybe that's their way of trying to punish everyone else.

 

[Velma Velvet]

Banther[/url]":ykqrbths]I have a pro-life belief in that I believe in a babies right to life. That being said, I cannot put my beliefs in front of others choice to have an abortion. It is is and should be someones choice whether they want an abortion and it should be easily accessible to them if they do.

I know someone who is very pro-life and she would be anti-choice of it weren't for the fact that she doesn't want the government involved in pretty much anything.

 

[mltdwn]

Shimshon[/url]":1oig4i8d]"Pro Life" until the baby is born, then sorry kid if your parents are poor and deemed lazy no social programs for you!

Psst, it's not the poor and lazy that get abortions. It's usually the smart and responsible ones that do. So the people you want having kids because they would bring up more responsible and most likely contributory citizens aren't, while the ones that drag down the society have the most kids. That's kind of the catch 22 with it all.

 

[Geebs]

mattjreilly[/url]":21pqvubv]

AndrewClarke[/url]":21pqvubv]

mattjreilly[/url]":21pqvubv]

AndrewClarke[/url]":21pqvubv]
I also don't buy the "it's the mother's body" argument, because, well, it's NOT the mother's body. It's the baby's body. In fact, this "argument" annoys me greatly as it's the internet equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and running around shouting LALALALALALA. It's not an argument ender because it is fundamentally a false statement to anyone who disagrees.

So easy to say when it will never be your body.

Well from my point of view it will never be ANY of our bodies, as we're all alive.

Thank you though for demonstrating my argument. Discussing whose body it is is pointless as we fundamentally disagree, and this line of reasoning will never change either of our minds. The buttons we're pressing by arguing about this point do not trigger a change in our point of view, so all it will do is cause both of us to become more entrenched in our own beliefs. I'd rather spend my time discussing an aspect of this issue where I might actually learn something.

It's pointless to you not to me. A woman is a complete and functioning human being, a embryo is only a potential one. By insisting embryos are human beings and that a woman has no choice in carrying one to term you are diminishing the woman's humanity. I find that disturbing.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, an embryo has a larger number of potential years of life than its' mother - so it actually has more to lose.

There's already a clearly defined cut-off; at viability, a fetus can survive independently of its mother, and therefore termination of pregnancy moves from "withdrawal of care" to "intentional killing". That cutoff is clearly not at 20 weeks, yet, and hence this legislation is arbitrary and misguided.

Your assertion that declaring one individual's humanity somehow diminishes another's is spurious to any reasonable debate, and completely illogical.

 

[Geebs]

woodelf[/url]":xvh5udyv]

CanadianLibertarian[/url]":xvh5udyv]

The issues are in fact, this (because this is the issue that the SCOUS decided on in Row. vs. Wade)

1) How much can the government force you to do to save another. Can the government, for example, come up to you and tell you they need one of your kidneys to save someone, or is that an overreach of power.

2) If the government doesn't have the right, what is safe guarding the population?

3) If the government dose have that right, when, and under what circumstances?

To 1, they ruled ... kinda. The government can make some acts of compassion mandatory. Child abandonment, for example, was already a crime and stood up to constitutional challenges.

For 2, and pay attention, is the ONLY part that matters, they ruled that the safe guard the people have is the right to privacy. This was the first time this right was ever considered or granted; that the government can't ask you what diseases you have or if your working kidney is compatible with one they need ... or if you're pregnant. Doctors could preform medical procedures and did not have to betray this trust. Thus, a woman could get an abortion because the doctor doing it had no obligation to report it and the woman getting one had no obligation to tell anyone she was ever pregnant. Furthermore, it was NOT permitted for the government to request this information.

For 3, they focused on the case at hand. When can the government force a woman to bring a child to term. They decided that at the point where a child can exists on it's own, outside the mother, the states obligation to protect that child outweighed the woman's right to privacy.

SCOUS doesn't give a shit about the right or wrong of abortion and honestly, no matter what side you fall on, neither should you. All you should be considering is this; should the government have the right to medical information about you at all times, and based on that information should they have a right to impose restrictions on your rights. Some examples might include:

State programs screen for common contagious diseases at school and work places. Anyone with a disease is placed under house arrest.

A law requires woman of child bearing age to register complete medical information such that living fetuses in dying mothers can be transplanted and saved.

A law requiring people with incurable, terminal illnesses to donate non-vital organs before they are damaged by the illness.

The short answer is no. The long answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And that's life. Sometimes you have to just accept that we can't stop people from doing something we might not agree with, because if we try to, we give up a LOT of our own rights.

Edit and PS: I feel I should note that for 3, it's more accurate to say that's the point at which the woman was obligated to tell people she was pregnant, not the point where she "couldn't get an abortion". This is important because Row. vs. Wade wasn't about abortion; it was about a woman not telling the father of her child she was pregnant. The right to an abortion was granted because that's how the law played out. If the decision was overturned, woman would be obligated to tell men they were pregnant with his child, but it wouldn't have a imitate effect on the constitutionality of abortion, as there is a lot more case law on that subject now.

Brilliant post and summary of Roe vs. Wade, thank you. It's easy to forget about the level of nuance in that ruling and #2 seems to rarely be mentioned when people get in pissing matches. Our discussions of abortion ought to stem from this ruling.

Of course, what's really needed is better understanding of science: a fetus is by definition a parasite. It's a parasite that many people want, but it's still a parasite.

I'd love to know where people get this idea from, because it doesn't live up to the slightest scrutiny. A fetus is the only means by which a sexually-reproducing organism can pass on its genetic material; consequently it provides an enormous genetic benefit to the parent, which offsets the energy cost. Conveniently for all concerned, that provides the evolutionary drive for sex to be fun.