I mean literally. I donāt know how you can sit here and say āokay, well someone might believe that itās a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending itās life could be wrong!!ā - if you canāt grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldnāt continue this conversation.
I donāt believe a fetus is a human.
Once again - youāre the one that said āeven if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protectedā - so I donāt care if you actually believe it or not, you set that up to be the basis of your argument.
because if your argument is that this unborn humanās life should be protected above a womanās, youāre still taking away that womanās rights.
My argument is they are equals, and ending either life is something that is a moral question, not an objective answer like you portray it to be.
The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?
No, but I think that there should be some sort of consent (generally a medical POA would suffice) necessary to have someone make the decision to remove life support. If you can get a medical POA from the fetus, then I would buy into this argument.
Iām sorry, but if you honestly think itās up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, youāre incredibly out of touch with reality.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, thereās a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? Thatās like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didnāt know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
Contraceptives arenāt 100% effective.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
Rape is a thing.
Iām for exceptions in the case of rape.
Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes.
Sure, but that doesnāt give one the right to end anotherās life.
Women donāt just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, itās not a fun procedure and itās not without risk.
Did I say that?
The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someoneās rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other peopleās lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Womenās rights.
Thereās an argument that abortions donāt respect the babies lives, male or female.
There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else whoās dying,
If you have 1 year old baby and you donāt feed him and in result they die, do you not think thereās a policy that punishes you for this?
This is fine, but whatās not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women.
They didnāt force women to have sex. They didnāt force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such thereās a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.
Iāve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I mean literally. I donāt know how you can sit here and say āokay, well someone might believe that itās a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending itās life could be wrong!!ā - if you canāt grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldnāt continue this conversation.
I donāt believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending itās life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but itās so cut and dry to me that itās just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, thereās a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? Thatās like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didnāt know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
There are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. Thatās a lot of women youāre saying intentionally got pregnant.
Did I say that?
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. Iām guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.
Thereās an argument that abortions donāt respect the babies lives, male or female.
Okay, but that argument isnāt in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, youāre choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesnāt get to choose whoās rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.
If you have 1 year old baby and you donāt feed him and in result they die, do you not think thereās a policy that punishes you for this?
Actually good counterpoint I hadnāt thought of. In my opinion itās still different and a very special case because youāre the legal guardian in that case. If someone drops a baby off at your doorstep and you donāt feed it and it dies, there arenāt legal protections there.
They didnāt force women to have sex. They didnāt force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such thereās a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Then why arenāt republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who canāt consent are taken off life support because theyāre brain dead or because their insurance wonāt pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. Whatās not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.
Iāve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I thought you had, but I couldnāt find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Hereās the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. Theyāre focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that donāt even have brains.
I donāt believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending itās life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street.
Wouldnāt it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball.
In my scenario, I clearly didnāt.
here are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. Thatās a lot of women youāre saying intentionally got pregnant.
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people havenāt had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who donāt have consistent sexual activity.
If you have a good argument, you donāt need to misrepresent facts.
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. Iām guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category.
Okay, but that argument isnāt in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, youāre choosing which life you respect more.
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are āchoosing between the life of the mother and kidā - itās simply that the baby is āundesirableā to the mother. I donāt think killing my twin brother simply because I donāt desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
Then why arenāt republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support?
Because of medical POAās, or other legally recognizable authority given by the person on life support, to another individual. Iāve given my parents the right to decide what happens to me in such an event. A baby doesnāt given that consent, to my knowledge.
Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle.
Itās clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if theyād like.
No republican is talking aboutā¦
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think theyāre too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesnāt change the fact that me being pro-life doesnāt mean i simply want to enslave women.
I had a whole lot to say, but Iāll just reply to the last point, at this point weāre disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think theyāre too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesnāt change the fact that me being pro-life doesnāt mean i simply want to enslave women.
I wouldnāt go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I donāt think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. Iām making the assumption that itās religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasnāt also religious. Apologies if Iām wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldnāt prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.
I realized something recently, too. Conservatives arenāt anti-government like they claim they are. Theyāre anti ānot-their-governmentā. Conservatives donāt care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I donāt want any government stepping on anyoneās rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.
Dang Iāve had that a few times, it sucks. I thought we actually were getting a bit closer.
I responded to a lot of your points with statistics, and other solid arguments, I donāt thinbk itās fair to continue a convo at this point where my criticisms to your points are all ignored now (due to a deleted comment, not blaming you), and instead reducing the conversation to that very last subjective point.
Wouldnāt it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
I wouldnāt say that, because thereās a guardianship responsibility there. When the choice has been made to have a child, there is legal responsibility.
In my scenario, I clearly didnāt.
I still donāt get the analogy. People have sex to have sex, not to get pregnant. Animals have sex too, and theyāre likely unaware of the consequences. Itās natural. It feels good. It brings people closer together. If youāre batting at softball and donāt want to hit the ball, swing somewhere random?
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people havenāt had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who donāt have consistent sexual activity.
I used simple numbers out of laziness/simplicity. But youāve also simplified your numbers. The probability applies to every time birth control is used, not just how many people use it. So letās say itās 30,000,000 instead of 175,000,000. If all of them had sex with protection exactly once you would be taking away the rights of 30,000 women. Average sex frequency is about once a week, which boosts that number to 1,560,000. Letās say the average is heavily skewed, cut the number in half, every year youāre taking the choice away from 780,000 women who did not intentionally get pregnant.
According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.
Okay, but that argument isnāt in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, youāre choosing which life you respect more.
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are āchoosing between the life of the mother and kidā - itās simply that the baby is āundesirableā to the mother. I donāt think killing my twin brother simply because I donāt desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
If the mother doesnāt have the means to take care of the kid, that kid is going to have an awful life, and so is the mother. If there is a man supporting the woman and heās threatening to leave, itās an even worse situation. You act as if the choice is as simple as āOh, I donāt really feel like having a kid right nowā but in reality itās "Do I want a chance to live a comfortable life with food and housing, or do I want to bring a baby into the world right now and be struggling for the rest of my life, both to support the baby, take care of the baby, and raise it. Growing up in poverty fucking sucks, because Republicans keep gutting aid to these people. Your take on āItās simply that the baby is āundesirableā to the motherā is an incredible over simplification that leads me to believe youāre either affluent or have no idea what it takes to raise a child.
Itās clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if theyād like.
I was surprised to find that there are states that donāt have term limits. My personal position is the government doesnāt have any business interfering with this, so itās not a state right one way or the other. People used to also debate the death penalty as a state right, and many republicans said āThe federal government should ban abortionsā while simultaneously saying āStates should be allowed to choose the death penaltyā. Iām not saying you feel that way, but I strongly believe itās not any of your business to choose what decision a doctor and a patient make about their own lives, and it goes against everything conservatives claim they stand for.
No republican is talking aboutā¦
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think theyāre too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesnāt change the fact that me being pro-life doesnāt mean i simply want to enslave women.
Thatās the thing with exceptions. Theyāre very hard to legislate.
Rape exceptions might as well not exist. Laws Iāve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law. Even putting aside the fact that most rape cases are never processed and prosecuted, thereās a very low likelihood that the case will conclude before the pregnancy does, thus rendering the exception useless.
Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life. Is it when we are losing her now? When sheāll die tomorrow? Next week? Dying now means risking that she wonāt survive the treatment or if she does, that sheāll lose her fertility in the process. Is that acceptable? The much higher chance of, in your view, losing two lives rather than one? I would argue no. This is exactly what led to these situations: women forced to endure trauma because doctors are terrified of life in jail if someone decides that the woman wasnāt in āenough dangerā or āin danger at allā. I donāt see any way around this outcome.
Third, Iāve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states Iāve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I canāt imagine the trauma of that. Isnāt it more merciful to allow those women to abort?
I think youāre throwing the baby out with the bathwater then.
Laws Iāve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law.
Iām not too knowledgeable about the language of rape exceptions in many states. My state is pretty liberal, so thatās not something I have in my state. I, along with others, think a good alternative could be that any woman who had a rape kit, or reported a rape (which I believe is the law in some states?). Iād even go 1 step further, Iād say that any woman that claims the baby is a result of rape, is allowed to have an abortion (up to some, fairly liberal point in the pregnancy, say 20 weeks for examples).
Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life.
I agree, itās a tough line! if thereās a 1% chance, is that high enough? 2%? 20%?
A lot of law says āreasonable personsā - I think if a reasonable person would think there would be a high enough threshold of risk to the mothers health, thatās fine. Itās up to a jury of her peers, and court precedence. Many items in our law have these as gauges of whatās āreasonable.ā
Third, Iāve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states Iāve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I canāt imagine the trauma of that. Isnāt it more merciful to allow those women to abort?
I donāt know enough about the states laws, that sounds wrong to me, but maybe itās right. I disagree with that, if the baby is already dead, thereās no reason for a woman to endure the pregnancy further.
I appreciate your reply, but I was talking about his things actually played out. But the idealized version where every exception case is allowed. This is how itās played out. This article forcing people into traumatic experiences. I was talking about how itās really hard to legislate for, not the most idealized version. Please, recognize that banning abortion unduly hurts people rather than actually saves people. Exceptions arenāt really exceptions with the real, current requirements to take advantage of them. They are just lip service and a shield to hide behind.
I mean literally. I donāt know how you can sit here and say āokay, well someone might believe that itās a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending itās life could be wrong!!ā - if you canāt grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldnāt continue this conversation.
Once again - youāre the one that said āeven if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protectedā - so I donāt care if you actually believe it or not, you set that up to be the basis of your argument.
My argument is they are equals, and ending either life is something that is a moral question, not an objective answer like you portray it to be.
No, but I think that there should be some sort of consent (generally a medical POA would suffice) necessary to have someone make the decision to remove life support. If you can get a medical POA from the fetus, then I would buy into this argument.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, thereās a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? Thatās like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didnāt know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
Iām for exceptions in the case of rape.
Sure, but that doesnāt give one the right to end anotherās life.
Did I say that?
Thereās an argument that abortions donāt respect the babies lives, male or female.
If you have 1 year old baby and you donāt feed him and in result they die, do you not think thereās a policy that punishes you for this?
They didnāt force women to have sex. They didnāt force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such thereās a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Iāve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I donāt believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending itās life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but itās so cut and dry to me that itās just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.
There are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. Thatās a lot of women youāre saying intentionally got pregnant.
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. Iām guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.
Okay, but that argument isnāt in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, youāre choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesnāt get to choose whoās rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.
Then why arenāt republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who canāt consent are taken off life support because theyāre brain dead or because their insurance wonāt pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. Whatās not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.
I thought you had, but I couldnāt find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Hereās the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. Theyāre focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that donāt even have brains.
Wouldnāt it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
In my scenario, I clearly didnāt.
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people havenāt had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who donāt have consistent sexual activity.
If you have a good argument, you donāt need to misrepresent facts.
According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are āchoosing between the life of the mother and kidā - itās simply that the baby is āundesirableā to the mother. I donāt think killing my twin brother simply because I donāt desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
Because of medical POAās, or other legally recognizable authority given by the person on life support, to another individual. Iāve given my parents the right to decide what happens to me in such an event. A baby doesnāt given that consent, to my knowledge.
Itās clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if theyād like.
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think theyāre too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesnāt change the fact that me being pro-life doesnāt mean i simply want to enslave women.
Damn it Lemmy deleted my reply.
I had a whole lot to say, but Iāll just reply to the last point, at this point weāre disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.
I wouldnāt go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I donāt think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. Iām making the assumption that itās religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasnāt also religious. Apologies if Iām wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldnāt prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.
I realized something recently, too. Conservatives arenāt anti-government like they claim they are. Theyāre anti ānot-their-governmentā. Conservatives donāt care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I donāt want any government stepping on anyoneās rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.
Dang Iāve had that a few times, it sucks. I thought we actually were getting a bit closer.
I responded to a lot of your points with statistics, and other solid arguments, I donāt thinbk itās fair to continue a convo at this point where my criticisms to your points are all ignored now (due to a deleted comment, not blaming you), and instead reducing the conversation to that very last subjective point.
Thatās valid. Iāll come back and reply later, but I need to focus on work right now
also valid, thanks for revisiting. I agree, I should be working right now too, haha
My Lemmy instance has been down for like a week
I wouldnāt say that, because thereās a guardianship responsibility there. When the choice has been made to have a child, there is legal responsibility.
I still donāt get the analogy. People have sex to have sex, not to get pregnant. Animals have sex too, and theyāre likely unaware of the consequences. Itās natural. It feels good. It brings people closer together. If youāre batting at softball and donāt want to hit the ball, swing somewhere random?
I used simple numbers out of laziness/simplicity. But youāve also simplified your numbers. The probability applies to every time birth control is used, not just how many people use it. So letās say itās 30,000,000 instead of 175,000,000. If all of them had sex with protection exactly once you would be taking away the rights of 30,000 women. Average sex frequency is about once a week, which boosts that number to 1,560,000. Letās say the average is heavily skewed, cut the number in half, every year youāre taking the choice away from 780,000 women who did not intentionally get pregnant.
If the mother doesnāt have the means to take care of the kid, that kid is going to have an awful life, and so is the mother. If there is a man supporting the woman and heās threatening to leave, itās an even worse situation. You act as if the choice is as simple as āOh, I donāt really feel like having a kid right nowā but in reality itās "Do I want a chance to live a comfortable life with food and housing, or do I want to bring a baby into the world right now and be struggling for the rest of my life, both to support the baby, take care of the baby, and raise it. Growing up in poverty fucking sucks, because Republicans keep gutting aid to these people. Your take on āItās simply that the baby is āundesirableā to the motherā is an incredible over simplification that leads me to believe youāre either affluent or have no idea what it takes to raise a child.
I was surprised to find that there are states that donāt have term limits. My personal position is the government doesnāt have any business interfering with this, so itās not a state right one way or the other. People used to also debate the death penalty as a state right, and many republicans said āThe federal government should ban abortionsā while simultaneously saying āStates should be allowed to choose the death penaltyā. Iām not saying you feel that way, but I strongly believe itās not any of your business to choose what decision a doctor and a patient make about their own lives, and it goes against everything conservatives claim they stand for.
I already replied to this in the previous comment
Thatās the thing with exceptions. Theyāre very hard to legislate.
Rape exceptions might as well not exist. Laws Iāve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law. Even putting aside the fact that most rape cases are never processed and prosecuted, thereās a very low likelihood that the case will conclude before the pregnancy does, thus rendering the exception useless.
Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life. Is it when we are losing her now? When sheāll die tomorrow? Next week? Dying now means risking that she wonāt survive the treatment or if she does, that sheāll lose her fertility in the process. Is that acceptable? The much higher chance of, in your view, losing two lives rather than one? I would argue no. This is exactly what led to these situations: women forced to endure trauma because doctors are terrified of life in jail if someone decides that the woman wasnāt in āenough dangerā or āin danger at allā. I donāt see any way around this outcome.
Third, Iāve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states Iāve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I canāt imagine the trauma of that. Isnāt it more merciful to allow those women to abort?
I think youāre throwing the baby out with the bathwater then.
Iām not too knowledgeable about the language of rape exceptions in many states. My state is pretty liberal, so thatās not something I have in my state. I, along with others, think a good alternative could be that any woman who had a rape kit, or reported a rape (which I believe is the law in some states?). Iād even go 1 step further, Iād say that any woman that claims the baby is a result of rape, is allowed to have an abortion (up to some, fairly liberal point in the pregnancy, say 20 weeks for examples).
I agree, itās a tough line! if thereās a 1% chance, is that high enough? 2%? 20%?
A lot of law says āreasonable personsā - I think if a reasonable person would think there would be a high enough threshold of risk to the mothers health, thatās fine. Itās up to a jury of her peers, and court precedence. Many items in our law have these as gauges of whatās āreasonable.ā
I donāt know enough about the states laws, that sounds wrong to me, but maybe itās right. I disagree with that, if the baby is already dead, thereās no reason for a woman to endure the pregnancy further.
I appreciate your reply, but I was talking about his things actually played out. But the idealized version where every exception case is allowed. This is how itās played out. This article forcing people into traumatic experiences. I was talking about how itās really hard to legislate for, not the most idealized version. Please, recognize that banning abortion unduly hurts people rather than actually saves people. Exceptions arenāt really exceptions with the real, current requirements to take advantage of them. They are just lip service and a shield to hide behind.