I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws. |
Actually, most rational people recognize that fetuses do not have personhood. |
LOL. Where are the rights for the developing-person-in-testes? |
Unfortunately, your statement can be misconstrued as being in favor of abortion any time prior to birth, which is just fodder for the right. |
The same as for unfertilized eggs, one might think. |
I’m loving how out of touch and deluded you are. Mostly because it makes fighting for women’s rights easier. Carry on. |
I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations. Is that “out of touch”? Those limitations are the state acting on behalf of the fetus. I disagree that this is an issue that can simply be left to the mother and her medical provider. |
And there it is. You're placing a fetus in a position equivalent to the women, whose life it depends on. No thank you. THe woman is an EXISTING person who comes first. Always. If she CHOOSES to put herself second or sacrifice herself, that's her choice. You will have no say, nor will the state, in my -or my daughter's- medical decisions including whether to give birth. I'll never concede it. And if I have to be a one-issue voter the rest of my life, so be it. |
You don’t know what gerrymander means. It has nothing to do with state-wide elections. Omg. |
You may disagree, but it isn't your business. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Don't tell other people what they can, or cannot do, with their bodies. |
I find this argument specious. No provider will perform such an abortion when it is safer to the mother to delivery the baby— which has been documented on this forum ad infinitum. So just because it will be “fodder” for people arguing in bad faith (just like the whole “late term” and “partial birth” hysteria were in bad faith) doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t hold or state the view that fetuses aren’t people. In other words, everyone can stop worrying about offending the rights fake sensibilities— they’ve already shown their true colors. |
Then how do you explain the fact that Ohio voters have paved the way for a constitutional amendment protecting pregnant people from exactly your argument? |
By the way, I think fetal “personhood” is fine. I don’t think fetus’ are a special kind of person with a right to unfettered access to the body of another person who is unwilling to host them.
Case law on this kind of bodily autonomy for **men** is quite clear— they cannot even be compelled to donate a drop of blood to save a living child. |
The developing person isn't a person. problem solved. |
Prediction: they regulate eggs before they come after sperm. |