That is just not true, the life of the mother takes precedence at all times over the life of the unborn child.
For you. But several states have passed, or have indicated they plan to pass, abortion legislation that doesn't allow for abortion even if the life of the mother is threatened.
Perhaps to you. But the reality is that no, it's not. Not when a woman can't get basic care out of fear of being arrested. That's the unintended consequence I suppose. But a consequence nonetheless.
Theoretically, and while I cannot speak for you my impression is that unless there is very strong evidence that continued pregnancy could jeopardize the life of the mother the preferred alternative among prolifers is for continuation of pregnancy. The possibility of maternal death would not be sufficient.
Let's remember the specific context of this most recent exchange. In Texas, which already has a de facto complete been in place, pharmacists fear filling prescriptions for ectopic pregnancies, which could result in serious harm or death, because they're afraid they're going to get sued. What are Texas authorities doing in response?
We will have to agree to disagree on this. I have had this discussion with my Catholic Priest and he said the life of the mother would take preference.
You have a very wise priest in terms of pastoral guidance. But unfortunately, that doesn't set legal standards of general applicability. Were that it were so
Liz Phair: "I heard the rest in my head" & in this case what these folks said in their heads was: But, girls/women balling the shit outta whomever they like scares me. & to end with music lyrics, "and that's why the small dicks have it all" Drive By Truckers.
You also can arrest and jail fetuses (by arresting and jailing the woman carrying them) without due process of law. Why? Because they're not persons.
