Well, you said:
This is why I asked if you think human life starts at conception. Are conceived humans fully entitled to the government’s protection? Clearly even in Texas the answer is “no”, but I’m more wondering how you think this government protection should properly be managed. Has Texas found the best time frame possible (for example), or should it be somewhere else?
Perhaps I was getting too nuanced, but my point is that no one (to my knowledge) is arguing for unborn babies to be “fully entitled to the government’s protection”…just a small fraction of the amount of entitlement that new born babies have.
As for your question, I would take a coward’s way out. There is little doubt that Roe v Wade and Casey are among the 2 worst SCOTUS decisions in history in terms of the legal reasoning used…even most pro-choice lawyers will admit this in conversations. I would like to see the reach of the federal government curtailed, and allow states to make their own decisions on these matters. In my state, I would hope that we would restrict abortions considerably.
To the best of my knowledge, you live in Taipei, Taiwan. Abortion restrictions are increasingly favoring the lives of the women, not the men trying to control their bodies “in order to protect the unborn children” (that they don’t want to protect once they actually enter the world). Thankfully, like gay marriage, I doubt abortion options are going anywhere here. This means women in difficult situations are able to make their own decisions based on what is necessary for them to live their best lives, rather than have the government tell them what they can and cannot do.
Enough people above have posted on the economic damage that abortion restrictions do. If your goal is for “your state” to become a shithole country like Florida or Alabama, where there are ultra-wealthy making up a minority, living right up against absolute third-world slums, you should continue to support abortion restrictions. Or take a look at the Philippines. That’s exhibit A for what total contraception and abortion bans lead to.
I don’t understand. The point in question is having a right to not be aborted and for all intents and purposes the usage of another person’s body potentially against their will in order to fulfill that right. What is that a “small fraction of” exactly? It seems like a very large protection to me.
Do you happen to have an article about that? In that I’d be interested. I think I have some handle on the moral and biological questions but I’m no lawyer 
I agree, I think the UK has it about right at before three months.
That’s been catching up to Roe for awhile.
It is a significant protection, but it is a small fraction of the protections afforded to newborn babies. You said “but does a small mass of cells have the same rights and claims on the state’s protection as a fully formed human?” I’m pointing out that this is not the case, and no one (that I know of) is claiming it to be. The argument seems to be the unborn babies have a right not to be killed, which is just one of many rights that newborns have.
This might interest you, but it doesn’t get into the legal reasoning in any detail. Honest pro-choicers admit Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision | Washington Examiner
If you are interested, you might want to read the decision and the dissents, as the former is weak on its face, and the latter make it clear why.
That’s the right you referenced, and the right I was referring to. Let me rephrase what I said as “but does a small mass of cells have the same rights and claims on the state’s protection against being killed as a fully formed human?” Would that make a difference?
OK, thanks!
Assuming I don’t get too ticky-tacky and read your “small mass of cells” to mean “the specific group of cells that approximately 96% of biologists agree is a human life” (or something similar to narrow the range of potential cells we’re talking about), no, it doesn’t change my original answer. It only obviates the need for me to make my clarifying point on your question.
As I said above: I assumed your point was that it would be normal for different “rights and claims” at different stages. I admitted that there was truth to this position (assuming that is your position), but I merely wanted to point out that no legal system of which I am aware puts a fetus’ rights the same as the post-birth babies’ (italics part no longer needed as you’ve amended your question).
That would be “ticky-tacky” alright. Uh, yes, those ones. What other ones could I possibly mean. Yes, that’s my point.
Well it certainly seems to have obviated any need in your mind to address the point!
You keep saying that, but who cares? I certainly didn’t ask you about it. I have to assume you simply do not want to answer my questions or address the underlying point. In that case, you could have just said so.
Holy shit. You’d say aborting a nine-month-old baby is fine because it hasn’t been born yet? That’s messed up.
Where did you get the idea I wanted to abort babies almost a year old?
You said life begins at birth. So aborting a day before birth wouldn’t be ending a life in your view.
That has nothing to do with nine month old babies. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about 9 month old babies.
I answered your question already a few times:
I even answered other questions:
Did I miss a question? If so, I’ll do my best to answer it if you can clarify to me what it is.
So when is your limit for abortions? And why wouldn’t it be okay to abort a 9MO baby if it’s life hasn’t begun in your view? I don’t understand your thought process.
I don’t understand why you keep talking about 9 month old babies. I’ve said nothing about 9 month old babies. I’ve never supported killing 9 month old babies.
I have not mentioned babies at all in this entire thread…save for this exchange.
You said life doesn’t begin until birth.
It follows that a 9mo fetus isn’t alive because it hasn’t been born. Is it OK to abort that fetus in your view? If not, what is your specific time table?
I think he’s talking about the fully formed baby before birth. I think he’s starting the counting like Chinese people and doctors do.
Yes, but I never mentioned anything about babies.
An abortion is an abortion.
If it’s not born, it’s not a baby. It’s a foetus. If we mix around the terms, we’re only causing confusion.