There is nothing democratic about banning abortion.
We can be sure that gay rights is next. Welcome to the 1950s.
1 Like
Would it be democratic to allow abortion up to the moment of birth in your opinion?
I refuse to answer stupid questions posed by republicans.
Right.
2 Likes
The science clearly shows that human life begins at some point during pregnancy, not as the result of some pseudoscience magic at the moment a child exits the birth canal.
The problem then is who gets to decide the balance between the competing rights of an unborn child to life and a woman to control her own body. In a democracy should it be five non-elected, unaccountable public officials or should it be elected representatives who decide where that line should be established?
3 Likes
The cutoff point has already been determined both legally and scientifically: it’s called viability.
Also, human rights should not be subject to vote. That could lead to tyranny of the majority. Consider a majority of bigots voting to oppress a minority. Human rights simply are, and they should be safeguarded.
3 Likes
I agree with your overall sentiment, but who gets to decide when the unborn’s human rights become as valid as the mother’s? I don’t think it’s as black and white as you make it out to be. Some, but very few, babies survive at 21 to 22 weeks. That’s not far off from @DrewC 's cutoff, and don’t you think the majority of voters should get to determine where this viability line is drawn?
1 Like
It’s legal for the Supreme Court to change its decisions.
Supreme Court decisions are determined by vote.
Easy. The mother is a living, breathing, contributing member of society. She has a life that she has been leading for hopefully at least the past 12 years and has responsibilities to herself and others. An unborn child is a mass of tissue that has the potential, given proper nourishment and medical care for the mother, along with a safe, stress-free womb to develop inside of, to grow into a living, breathing, contributing member of society. The rights of the child to live are fully dependent on the ability of the mother to provide that care. In the United States of America, we do NOTHING to support any pregnant women, which means only those who have money and spouses/family who are able to look after them can support the unborn child as it develops. By “protecting” fetal rights over the rights of the mother, you set the child up for failure long before it has popped out of a woman’s vagina.
3 Likes
You didn’t answer his question.
1 Like
I don’t agree with that logic. If I drop a two-year-old off in the woods and leave, it’s going to die.
Exactly.
So in your view human life begins when one develops into a living, breathing, contributing member of society? At what age is that?
Reminder that Conscription and Abortion laws are related.
Keep an eye on both as there has been a lot of activity in both arenas. The US is preparing for World War with China - and you will see a similar “threat” of erosion of rights across the board in other western democracies as well.
US struck down mandatory female registration for Selective Service in Dec 2021 – likely in favor of reducing access to abortions - or to use the narrative to energize the public. If the government plays their cards right, they can keep abortion rights in place, while energizing the female population to rush to sign up for selective service as a “patriotic show of support for their country and for equal human rights” before the draft happens. This would ensure a more rapid boost to troop numbers in the event of a draft.
Check this out… “in the event of a draft”
Just be aware before making this out to be some Left vs Right issue, human rights issue, or religious issue. Its primarily a military issue at its core, and the government is testing to waters to see how to better prepare for full-scale global conflict.
Anecdotally based on impassioned responses all over social media, this seems like a rallying cry for female voters (i.e. Democrats 
).
No, human life begins when it’s no longer being supported by the mother’s womb. If a baby is born premature at 20 weeks and lives, great, but it will have a plethora of health problems for the rest of its life. This is fine if it’s born into a family that has the resources to support it, but few families have those resources, especially in the US with healthcare costs what they are.
Consider triage, like who got care first at the start of the pandemic. People with families that they had to support got priority over people who needed support, like people with disabilities or the elderly. Did premature babies with COVID get more attention than a widowed mother of three? As horrible as it is to think people were making those decisions, they made them based on how the deaths would directly impact others. The death of your new born baby to COVID (or anything) would be devastating emotionally, but what happens to the children of the mother who died? That’s emotional trauma plus no one to look after them for safety, food, and shelter.
We put certain value on some lives over others. It’s sad to think of, but its true. If triage indicates that the life of a mother is more worth saving than the life if a new born, why would anyone make the case that a fetus should get more protection than a woman (and often a girl under the age of 18)
1 Like
Pay attention to recent news around Conscription as well as Abortion since they are related:
“Putin may declare war on May 9 and start conscription”
This is the machine being tested in preparation for Military Draft in the US - it randomly selects people based on their Birthday:
That’s a superficial, pseudoscientific definition of human life.
3 Likes
Hahaha…Roe caused much of the division by one of the most absurd Constitutional interpretations in our history. If Roe is overturned, it you want to live with moral laws based on scientific truths, you can go to a state in which all murder is illegal. If you want to live with sociopaths who ignore science and logic for their own personal pleasure, you can go to a place which allows abortion.