There are literally billions of people who can take a newborn and nurture it to the next stage of life. But rewind 6 months, and there is literally only one, single person who has the ability to nurture the fetus to the next stage of life. And that's the pregnant woman. Therein lies the difference. Sure, you can sign an adoption agreement at this stage, but the adopting parents can't take care of the fetus until it is born.
Am I? Is it an extreme view? Yes it is and while I don't think that stage will be reached, it wouldn't shock me. You know me better than that. But I see where more & more restrictions, penalties, etc get thrown towards those that don't fit the ideal "Christian" folks want. Look at some of the laws being passed. So if you want extremists look around at those folks pushing their beliefs on others, and not just on this issue.
And that's a perfectly reasonable option & what's more there should be ways to reduce the fees/adoption costs. Things like that would help women make better choices. Emphasis on the word CHOICES.
Good point. I know my daughter is already looking at this and narrowing down where she'd like to live. You're going to see a lot of young, educated, professional women turning down positions in certain states. I know some companies with offices in Texas are helping but now Texas is trying to curb that.
I've also read that Sir Matthew Hale took the position that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife. There is some speculation out there that references to Hale may be omitted from the final opinion.
Right on cue, you can't make a coherent legal argument without a disingenuous misrepresentative slight of hand meant to paint me as bigoted.
Trump's lawyer said Trump could not be guilty of spousal rape because it wasn't a thing. I was shocked to find out, in New York at least, that was true until 1984. That's one problem I have with so much reliance upon history and tradition. People v. Liberta
Of course. But the fetus can still be for all intents and purposes just as much an adoption as a post birth adoption. Thats all I was saying.
My coherent legal argument is the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment. I didn't paint you as a bigot. I accurately stated your argument. Am I wrong? Are you saying that the 14th Amendment entitles gay people to the same rights as the rest of us?
This is what I responded to: "I really don't have an axe to grind on Roe v Wade, but this is easily solved by giving up the baby for adoption." Adoption doesn't resolve the bodily autonomy issue.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of State. Pp. 3–28. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf Reading that, I don't see how this Alito opinion would cause Obergefell to need to be revisited.
Your post reminds me of a thought experiment I have had for about 20 years. I will state it here although I've never yet persuaded more than a couple of individuals that it's remotely interesting to even wrestle with philosophically. To set it up, there are those who make the ethically irrefutable argument for pure protection of life, including potential human life. They certainly exist; I know many of them, especially some of the beloved nuns I have known over the years. But I don't think they represent a substantial part of the movement. Just speculating. I think the vast majority of people reach that side of the issue with at least some consideration of the pregnant woman deserving her fate through some choice, and being obligated to accept the consequences. Let's put that aside for a moment. But the distinction really arises in rape and incest exceptions, which are far harder to apply in practice. Because in those cases, the woman is plainly "blameless". There are those that will still argue that the preservation of life requires that the pregnancy not be terminated. Against that backdrop, let's imagine we perfect technology to essentially transfer a first trimester developing fetus into another womb/uterus that can develop till birth/deliver. Is a potential transferee woman who espouses a belief in the pure value of life requiring a pregnant woman to bear an unplanned pregnancy for that purpose alone morally obligated to accept a transfer? And even if an individual espousing the pure life distinction is not in the biological position to accept the transfer individually, are they morally obligated to seek to enact legislation requiring capable individuals of accepting the transfer, or otherwise put some effort into setting up a program, including dedicating significant governmental resources? I think that in the abstract, if one holds that their position is solely based on the preservation of life without any consideration of the pregnant woman accepting "the consequences" of her “action”, they are morally obligated to try to promote and/or accept such transfers.
Alito's entire argument against Roe is that it's not a right deeply rooted in our history and tradition. Guess what he said in his dissent in Obergefell?
But understand that in that opinion he has stated that Obergefell was wrongly decided as a matter of 14th Am substantive due process. He then said that abortion is so different that it is not his intent to carry his reasoning that far. But teh Roberts Court especially has followed a pattern of setting up future decisions similar But understand that in that opinion Alito stated that Obergefell was wrongly decided as a matter of 14th Am substantive due process. He then said that abortion is so different, it is not his intent to carry his 14th Amendment reasoning that far - that it applies only to abortion. But the Roberts Court especially has followed a pattern of setting up future decisions similarly. Voting Rights and Campaign expenditures are two obvious examples. Certainly many who want to overturn Obergefell says this opinion, if it becomes the opinion of the Court, sets up that result in little time.
