As far as I know, RvW does not establish when a fetus becomes a person, which is the question. RvW simply established some (relatively) loose rules based on the trimesters of pregnancy.
Yes "that's bullshit, you're a doody head!" is quite the heroic attack. Phew, you sure are whittling me down. I'll break any day now.
I’m not trying to “break’ you and I’m not trying to be a “hero”. Stop seeing this as some sort of competition and get over yourself.
Any standard one could propose is based on at least some rational grounding. No abortions should be allowed, period is based on the stance that life begins at conception and that it should be protected as such. There's not anything inherently irrational about this stance. Abortions should be allowed up to the moment of regular birth up to 9 months after conception. As long as the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother should have ultimate say on whether to abort or not. Also a rational stance. Abortions should be disallowed after a fetal heartbeat can be detected because that is an important stage in development and a sign that the fetus is more fully a person. Abortions should be disallowed after any independent brain activity, under similar logic. Abortions should be disallowed after the fetus is viable. Abortions should always be allowed if the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother. Abortions should always be allowed if the fetus shows signs of serious birth defects. Abortions should always be allowed if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Abortions should be allowed in the first three months of pregnancy, because that gives a woman sufficient time to discover the pregnancy and explore options. There are rational arguments for and against any of the above positions.
Nah. Well, I mean yes. We all should. But he doesn't need to do so any moreso than me, you or Terry the Salmon. Maybe I do a little bit, since I've come up with a hallucinatory salmon. But you and Dicky are definitely just as fucked up as each other.
However one might look at Roe, it does establish broad standards for when abortion can be limited or not. In other words, one can reasonably reject your proposition that the personhood of the fetus is/should be the deciding factor of when abortion should be permitted and create another standard. To quote Roe itself:
Nah, there's a better one. Ages ago, I read a SF novel (don't ask me the title or who wrote it, because I don't fucking remember too much shit that happened almost 40+ years ago) where when someone had an abortion, that meant that they had the fetus extracted from their womb and transplanted into an artificial one where the fetus could grow to term. We're almost at the point where artificial wombs are actually a thing. So if we ever get to the point that it's possible to have an artificial womb that can bring a fetus from X point to full gestation, I'd have no problem with that happening, rather than a traditional abortion.
Why is that the measure? There are plenty of circumstances under which you’re allowed to kill people, and not all of them require actual intent to kill or hurt.
Precisely. Neither does the actual controlling case on abortion, Casey. It’s as if the Supreme Court says this is not a thing that matters.
throughout history, people recognized that there was something distinctive about what they called "quickening" which coincidentally aligns fairly well with the current court designated status of viability. It seems to me that if someone wants that standard changed, the burden is on them to make a convincing argument for their proposed point. I, for one, am open to the designation of 20 weeks in that it allows a "safety margin" on the viability question and has the neatness of being half-way through an "official" term of pregnancy (notwithstanding many babies are actually delivered between 38 and 40) with the caveat that second-half abortions are allowed for rational reasons related to the health and safety of both parent and child. But less than that? If (generic) you wish to argue for that, present an objective, non-religious, scientifically sound rational that is convincing enough to shift the burden of legal protection from the parent to the "child"
As Raoul said, a lot of things can happen, including denial or in the case of extremely you ng victims, may not be aware of the signs to look for, especially if they hadn't had a first period yet. Plan B also doesn't work for anyone over 150 pounds, by the by.
I guess I am just trying to comfort my disgust at what is being done. Even if I am right and most rape victims would immediately seek to terminate any conception that might happen, that does not mean that those who wait should not be allowed to. On top of that, I do not want it to be limited to rape victims. What if your partner dumps you mid pregnancy because they can't deal? Obviously you will never get what you need from that person as a parent. Situations change, and in 9 months maybe it is not the time. Oh, and thank you for the info about plan B as I was not aware of it. I would imagine the dosage is not set for heavy people, and that is just wrong. That is the problem with hiding these options behind the veil of shame. This is just not the place the law should be meddling in, and it is certainly not the place for people to be imposing their opinions on people they do not know based on a fantasy book and fan club that was made thousands of years ago to oppress women.
Remember when Storm Rucker said he used to be anti-abortion until he realized "the right sort of people" were getting the abortions? I do. Anti-abortionists don't give fuck one about "babies" they want more meat to throw into the war against brown people. Having your wife being an obedient spirit-broken Geisha is an added bonus.
Storm gave off more red flags than the USS-fucking-R about what a fashy he was and everyone who wasn't Mewa and Vandygoddess glossed over it. Geez.
