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:
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.
I understand your point, but my view is different than yours. I view our God-given inalienable rights as ABSOLUTE. They are above other humans' wants or desires. You cannot terminate another human because you desire it. Do I believe that making abortion illegal will end all abortions? Absolutely not. But the government should not be in the position of vacating God-given inalienable rights for some for the convenience of others. Clandestine abortions will always be available " I know a guy", but parties to that kind of arrangement are aware that their actions break both man's and God's law. "If women are going to get abortions anyway, let's make them legal so they are safe". If I decide to draw down on a drug dealer on a nearby corner, should I have government protection so that he cannot shoot back? To make it safe? Or is my action action to kill him illegal? Are his rights different because he is post-birth? My stand is that his rights are the same as mine and any other human pre or post birth. Sorry, no amount of debate will change my belief that all humans are created equal .
And THAT is what we are discussing here.
Yeah but privacy and bodily autonomy IS an inalienable God-given right. I see that to bolster your point you're trying to reduce THAT inalienable right to a human want or desire but it's not very persuasive. I have an inalienable God-given right not to put a vaccine in my body if I don't want to, no matter how many people my decision may impact, including if it kills them. That's the same right being asserted here in this discussion. When rights come into conflict in this way we as a society don't just throw one right completely out the window. We compromise. Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, was an excellent compromise. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Viability seems like a good line to me.
It seems we agree about most everything, except when life BEGINS. Your stated position is "viability", meaning as you use it, unassisted survival outside the womb. But as someone else here pointed out, even toddlers cannot survive on their own. Are they not "viable"? My position is that life BEGINS at conception. Either that new human exists, or it does not. ALL humans have the same rights. Simple. Clear. No questions about "how human is this person". If you do not want children, do whatever you want to prevent sperm meeting egg. But if you engage in risky behavior, you must bear the consequences.
BTW, I would like to thank you for the intelligent discourse. I love discussing ideas, even if we don't agree, and never will. GAW simply has the best community I have ever found online. Peace.
No, we agree on where life begins. We disagree on when society's obligation to protect that life supersedes a woman's right to bodily privacy and medical autonomy. I value both rights, so I'm in favor of a compromise, and I think Roe v. Wade gave us a solid, rational basis for that compromise. I'd be open, as technology for preserving premature babies improves, to moving the date of viability back to account for those advancements, but until then I feel comfortable with how Roe v. Wade currently defines it (24-28 weeks).
Agreed. I love it here.