What if it’s the government that wishes harm? Pro-fetus/anti-women’s bodily autonomy laws that don’t even have a carveback for the health of the mother will absolutely harm some people.Originally Posted by Alan
What if it’s the government that wishes harm? Pro-fetus/anti-women’s bodily autonomy laws that don’t even have a carveback for the health of the mother will absolutely harm some people.
Apparently, a lot of men don't consider women "persons" worthy of equal treatment under the law.
Any harms a living person may fear, just doesn't matter as much as "harms" to unborn persons.
Trees don't grow on money
And then--as George Carlin pointed out--as soon as they're born, they're on their own.
And that’s the crux of it. A popular Republican talking point for the pro-fetus perspective is that abortions of fetuses that have likely birth defects are wrong. But those same republicans are adamantly against the government providing any support to those kids and their parents once they are no longer in the womb. And then those same republicans wonder why people point out that there is nothing even vaguely ‘pro life’ about them despite the obvious fact that being ‘pro birth’ and ‘pro life’ are two completely different things.
From Justice Breyer, the Dobbs dissent:
" Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs. An abor- tion restriction, the majority holds, is permissible whenever rational, the lowest level of scrutiny known to the law. And because, as the Court has often stated, protecting fetal life is rational, States will feel free to enact all manner of re- strictions. The Mississippi law at issue here bars abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. Under the majority’s rul- ing, though, another State’s law could do so after ten weeks, or five or three or one—or, again, from the moment of ferti- lization. States have already passed such laws, in anticipa- tion of today’s ruling. More will follow. Some States have enacted laws extending to all forms of abortion procedure, including taking medication in one’s own home. They have passed laws without any exceptions for when the woman is the victim of rape or incest. Under those laws, a woman will have to bear her rapist’s child or a young girl her fa- ther’s—no matter if doing so will destroy her life. So too, after today’s ruling, some States may compel women to carry to term a fetus with severe physical anomalies—for example, one afflicted with Tay-Sachs disease, sure to diep. 33 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting within a few years of birth. States may even argue that a prohibition on abortion need make no provision for protect- ing a woman from risk of death or physical harm. Across a vast array of circumstances, a State will be able to impose its moral choice on a woman and coerce her to give birth to a child."
Find it interesting that you, as a republican, continually lament about government intervention. Obviously, this is only the case when it is not in your interest or belief.
BTW your interpretation is not the same as what this amendment says… many above listed a variety of reasons. IMO all you need to do is look at the first 3 words for the abortion issue.
Also don’t believe your interpretation of this amendment to be accurate.
Next thing we know, you'll be telling him that the 2nd amendment has 13 words at the beginning that he has never heard.
I notice the Supreme Court decision didn't mention how "a well-regulated militia" fits into New York's new wild wild west firearm situation.
all I know is it is somehow the fault of Democrat mayors.I notice the Supreme Court decision didn't mention how "a well-regulated militia" fits into New York's new wild wild west firearm situation.
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote