Florida’s house introduces abortion bill similar to Texas.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
Unpopular opinion: Roe v. Wade was the right compromise on the issue of abortion at the time and should be revered as such regardless of your political or even religious persuasion.
If you can prove that viability is earlier than 24 weeks now, I'd be fine with updating that ruling to reflect that, but otherwise I'm fine with it.
I don't want to live in a world where viable babies are allowed to be murdered simply because the birth process hasn't taken place yet, but I also don't want to live in a world where women give up their medical privacy and autonomy the moment they have sex.
And Roe v. Wade forbids both.
You can be completely prolife AND fully defend a woman's medical rights and domain over her body. The reasoning is thus: The fetus is a separate human individual from the moment of conception because it is the offspring of two human individuals and has a unique genetic makeup, neither the Mother's nor the Father's. Therefore, the fetus is accorded complete natural rights, albeit supervised by capable adults until the age of majority. So in any decision that would affect the rights of the fetus, including it's right to life, its rights must be considered and respected, just as any decision that would affect the rights of the mother must take into consideration her rights. A grey area of overlap would be the life of the mother being threatened by the pregnancy. This anymore is seldom an issue due to technology, but may still occur rarely. I think in such a case, the fetus should be induced birthed and then every effort should be made to save its life once birthed.
Yeah. From my perspective, ending a pregnancy at any time should be a woman's prerogative as long as she wants to forfeit her right to raise the baby. Also, the "abortion" then, should be a live birth, and the doctors involved in the procedure should do their best to save the life of that baby, regardless of when it's removed from the mother (this would encourage medical advancement in this area, I think).
If you want the right to raise a child, you better show willingness to carry it to term. Otherwise I don't think you can be trusted, and, after we save the life of your premature infant (if we can), you should never be able to see it again. Some rich folks can adopt it and give it the life you couldn't or didn't want to give it.
Again, I believe in a woman's right to carry or not carry a baby. But I don't think she has the right to automatically determine if that baby currently living inside her should live or die once she aborts it. I know it's unlikely now that babies born younger than 24 weeks will survive given our current understanding and technology, but there are so many people out there who want to adopt it just doesn't make sense not to try to save them.
The abortion question is not one of viability. It is a question of the creation of a new life. Once conception occurs, it is no longer a question of the mother's rights alone. The new human life has the same inalienable rights as the mother.
There are plenty of contraceptive methods and devices. You can be sterilized if you wish. Either of those choices are yours too make as you wish. Don't try to frame those who storage up for the unborn as anti-choice. Science and common sense will tell you that if you are pregnant, you've already MADE YOUR CHOICE.
Agreed. Which is why SCOTUS drafted a compromise in Roe v. Wade. Human rights are human rights. Sometimes they come into conflict. When they do, a reasonable compromise must be struck to avoid extremism.
If you have 2 humans with equal rights, and at the end of the compromise one is dead and the other alive, I fail to see where the "compromise" is.
But you don't have "2 humans with equal rights." You have hundreds of millions of them. Nor is there an "end of the compromise." It's a give and take, legally. One side doesn't want any abortions to happen and the other side doesn't want government to have any say over someone else's body. So they strike a deal that neither of them will be happy about, but they can both live with.
In my opinion, Roe v. Wade is a pretty good deal. Viability is a line that I think we've proven that people can live with. Even if neither side is especially happy about it. I sincerely believe that if we veered too far from that in either direction that we wouldn't like the outcome.
I know for me, if in my home state, they were giving abortions out in the 3rd trimester, reaching up in there and cutting the spinal cord of a viable baby simply because it hadn't been born yet..I'd literally be burning down abortion clinics.
Push too far in the opposite direction, and I'm not sure what people on the other side of the issue would do, but I'm sure I wouldn't like that either. Sometimes a lose-lose compromise is the only way.
Prove viability earlier than 24 weeks?
A toddler isn't viable. Stick them in the middle of a field and come back a week later, let me know if they were viable or not.
You're not going to find a "viable" human much under the age of 15 who can handle this world without assistance.
No different than the toddler example. The parents of the toddler have no autonomy when it comes to their child's safety and welfare, if they let it die they're going to prison. Whether before 24 weeks or after 24 months, the timing of the murder is completely arbitrary.
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade defined viability as the ability to survive outside the womb, not the ability to survive outside the womb with no other human assistance. Obviously we're social creatures. We need each other to survive. But we hold the right to privacy and bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. Every bit as important as the right to life. It's why we feel ok using deadly force against invaders trying to take our land or trying to enslave us. It doesn't matter if they want to kill us or not, because freedom is worth dying, and killing for.
Again you're ignoring realities about killing here in order to bolster a weak point. You know that not every killing is a murder. When a soldier kills another soldier in battle, it's not murder. When a father kills an intruder in his home, it's not murder. We define what types of killings constitute murder. Now, you clearly think that the moment a sperm enters an egg that nobody else's rights matter anymore, and frankly I agree with you in principle, but when I think about what this country would be like if we adopted that precedent, that the right to life immediately subordinates all other rights well...just think about that for a minute and tell me you'd be ok with that. Because I don't think you would either.
It was completely legal to kill Jews in Nazi Germany.
Completely legal.
Right?
Certainly. Like John McCain.
Worse than the industry of selling baby parts?
Name "all other rights" subordinated. I'm certain you have a long list, because it sure sounds like it.
But I'll be surprised if you name one.
I think so. I mean...I don't think the general citizenry were encouraged to kill them, but report them, so they could be arrested and deported--I was under the impression that Germans by and large had not idea the Jews were actually being murdered, do you know otherwise? Either way though I'm not sure I get your point.
Exactly.
That's quite the strawman. I never said I was in favor of selling baby parts.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Could you maybe rephrase your request?
I agree with this unpopular opinion also. I think in general 12 weeks would be a fair compromise and I think so for many reasons including that personally I still view an embryo of that stage as something capable of being a human (like an egg or sperm) and not really a human quite yet.
Agree with your unpopular opinion. Heck, limit abortion to the first trimester for all I care.
People love to take extreme stances on this topic and then circle jerk themselves in an echo chamber... debates on this always end up a shitshow.