And we can agree on that part. What's unifying those who are on different parts of the spectrum is the move to outright ban abortions, bounty hunting, classifying abortion as a homicide to charge the woman and the provider, etc, which as posted earlier is happening or part of the laws that will kick in if Roe is overturned. Health of the mother is the biggest issue with later term ones because it does happen. I'd actually be ok with the Florida one if it included rape/incest in the wording. Not ideal but 15 weeks = nearly 4 months. Enough time for choices to be made. I'd prefer 20 which is still before viability.
I support keeping Roe v Wade in place and am pro choice, not to be conflated with pro murder by the intellectually dishonest. If someone does not believe in abortion it is simple: do not get one. It should not be up to you or anyone else, let people make their own decisions. That should be consistent with a small government philosophy, correct. So sling out some more insults.
I should also note that you're not actually applying the dominant strain of originalism used today in this post. Values are irrelevant. The idea behind original public meaning originalism is that the meaning is fixed at the time of ratification. You attempt to argue that gay people can't have the same rights as the rest of us because they weren't granted those rights at the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment, but unless you're arguing that the words "person," "equal," "protection," or "laws" meant completely something different back, then, you're not actually arguing based on the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
And this is all abortions not late term(after 21 weeks) or third trimester. Thank you I once again was right.
In some professions that is true even though the licensee is issued by the state lawyers and medical professionals come to mind. The case of a marriage license is on totally different level and is entrenched in federal and state governments. (taxes, property rights, entitlements, etc....) Why states are required to recognize each other’s marriage certificates
Interesting that you posted this without a link. Actually it’s not interesting at all, nor is it a surprise since it can’t be found via Google search. My guess is you grabbed that table from somewhere and attributed it to the Guttmacher Institute. Do better.
You can certainly begin the legal process so that at birth all that needs signed is the final adoption consent paper. So you actually can for all intents and purposes give a fetus up for adoption. Its like any other adoption in that it can be backed out of, but the same basic process exists in many places for a unborn child. No adoption is final without the consent form filed, but that is often the last paper.
It's also nonsense. Abortion was legal until the quickening (generally, around 16-17 weeks) in America for much of its early history, including at the founding. Op-Ed: The Supreme Court flunks abortion history
You're misunderstanding the point. The woman still has to carry the fetus to term, deal with all of the infringements on personal liberty that come with that, and then risk death delivering it.
Nope someone else was. He was supposed to post where he saw it last night when he got off work. I think your the chart you posted was what he was misremembering.
Sure. But i dont get the parallel between that point and the statement that a fetus cant be adopted. It is actually the peace of mind that their child has a safe home waiting for them through a process that amounts to unborn adoption basically, that helps some women make the choice to take the normal risks.
