Do you own your body?

[Fuzzy1975]

Why don't you ask the fetus first before you have an abortion? ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

We have prenups for marriage, why not prepregs for reproduction. Get the egg and sperm on board early?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Would work for me, but I can see a whole lot of people who would refuse to "contribute" their tax dollars to support the fetus,and of course after birth when the fetus becomes a legal person.

Said babies would get the financial support of the biological or adoptive parents.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Said babies would get the financial support of the biological or adoptive parents.

I don't think that would be fair and work, with the exception of adoptive parents. in the case of no adoptive parents? Who then? the State>?

 

[TastySuckToy]

I don't think that would be fair and work, with the exception of adoptive parents. in the case of no adoptive parents? Who then? the State>?

Your position then is the biological parents have zero financial obligation towards children?

 

[SimonDoom]

The last reason, may not seem believable, at least you seem in doubt by your comment above, but there are many women who don't realise they are pregnant, and in several cases, already over 24 weeks upon learning the news they are pregnant.

Here is a link to one of the multiple studies or medical sites which offer the information.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/

I read the article. It's based on interviews with 28 women who obtained abortions after the 24th week.

Something that bothered me about the article is its anecdotal presentation of the evidence. It describes a few reasons why women choose to have a third-term abortion (principally, receiving new information (e.g, "Oh no, I'm pregnant" or "We discovered something wrong with the fetus), or barriers to acting earlier, such as life circumstances, job concerns, or the availability of care). But it doesn't make clear that these factors account for ALL the 28 cases, or the relative importance, in terms of percentage, of these reasons. Only two cases are described of finding out at a late stage that there was a significant defect in the fetus. There were no cases where new information was obtained that indicated the woman was at greater health risk than previously believed (other than the fact, in two cases, of finding out late that she was pregnant).

The article definitely does NOT demonstrate that the majority of third-term abortions are undertaken for reasons that could not plausibly be described as "elective."

 

[SimonDoom]

The thing is, Roe v Wade dealt with all this. It was a 24 weeks maximum limit nationwide. Now we have Republicans and Democrats playing culture wars. Republican influence has seen states where abortion has been banned altogether (currently at 14 states) or a maximum limit of 6 weeks (Georgia, South Carolina), which is before a lot of women even know that they are pregnant. There are other states that have a maximum limit of 12, 15, 18 weeks, a limit which are all before viability, even 22 weeks. And on the Democratic side, as I mentioned in a previous post, there are some states plus DC that allow legal abortion all the way through to just before childbirth. It's all intended to create greater conflict and argument, when under Roe v Wade there was a national 24 week maximum limit and people being able to act according to their conscience on the matter.

So basically, if you (and others who make similar arguments) oppose the abortion law currently in force in Vermont, New Jersey, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska and DC, then why oppose Roe v Wade, which had a national 24 week maximum limit?

This is incorrect. Roe provided that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion in the first trimester. It granted states the right to regulate abortion in the second trimester to advance legitimate state interests, such as the life of the woman or of the fetus, though the regulations had to be narrowly tailored. It gave states substantial rights to regulate abortion in the third trimester as they saw fit.

I never said I opposed Roe v. Wade, so I don't know what that comment is about. My policy views roughly dovetail with the policies under Roe v. Wade. It's the others in this thread who believe the abortion right should be absolute and extend to term who oppose Roe.

 

[SimonDoom]

The fetus is not viable outside the womb until at some point during the third trimester. Legally, the fetus is a part of the woman's body, not a life in itself.

You may believe this is what the law SHOULD be. It's not what the law IS.

Many states recognize a fetus as a life.

38 states recognize a fetus as a life in this sense: If some shoots and kills a woman who is pregnant, the death of the fetus is considered an additional homicide victim. A life that is taken. In 8 of those states, whether or not it's a life depends on the period of gestation, but in 30 of them it's a homicide regardless when in the pregnancy it takes place.

The law is not absolute, black and white. It takes into account many facts and considerations and engages in balancing. It does that in many contexts.

 

[SimonDoom]

You claim to be asking questions, and don't hold a steadfast view.

Yet you have denied the legal definition of a baby, and now seem to be inferring a fetus is a baby. Those are words straight out of the anti-choice side of the debate.

Makes me wonder about your reason for posting....

I don't believe in resolving legal questions by getting hung up on definitions. I have a personal motto that debates over definitions are meaningless.

A fetus, at a sufficiently advanced stage of pregnancy, whatever you want to call it, has, in my opinion, rights or interests that the state should be interested in protecting, similarly to, but not identical to, the way the state has a legitimate interest in protecting a newborn infant, and doesn't give the parent carte blanche to do whatever he or she wants with it. You can put whatever label on it; I don't care. I'm not playing hide the ball. I've been pretty clear what my position is, and my reasons for it. If you don't agree with my position, fine. I don't understand why you would wonder why I'm posting. I've stated my reasons. If you doubt them, then in effect you are saying that you cannot comprehend how a person can have a different opinion from yours in good faith. In this thread, I have dealt in far more good faith than has anyone responding to me and taking a contrary position. I address the issues they raise; they don't address the issues I raise. I avoid ad hominem attacks and accusations of bad faith. I don't challenge people as ignorant. I don't accuse people of having unstated agendas. When people bring up evidence, I look it up and respond to it. When people bring up the law, I look it up and respond to it.

If you disagree with me, fine. But if after all I've done to engage in a constructive way in this thread you want to accuse me of ignorance or bad faith while failing yourself to engage, then it's you who have the problem.

 

[ll74]

You may believe this is what the law SHOULD be. It's not what the law IS.

Many states recognize a fetus as a life.

38 states recognize a fetus as a life in this sense: If some shoots and kills a woman who is pregnant, the death of the fetus is considered an additional homicide victim. A life that is taken. In 8 of those states, whether or not it's a life depends on the period of gestation, but in 30 of them it's a homicide regardless when in the pregnancy it takes place.

The law is not absolute, black and white. It takes into account many facts and considerations and engages in balancing. It does that in many contexts.

That's not an individual life. That is different because the woman is attacked. It just makes the crime more severe.

 

[adrina]

And, yet still, not one single example of an elective 8 month abortion.

For all the attention this is getting you'd think there'd be at least one verified account of this bogeyman.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Your position then is the biological parents have zero financial obligation towards children?

If you take away the right to abort, and force her to into your hypothetical "womb" situation. then I say Yes they have no legal obligation. If the artificial womb is an option, and not a forced choice, then No I'd say they have some sort of legal obligation, such as is with current adoption.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I read the article. It's based on interviews with 28 women who obtained abortions after the 24th week.

As I pointed out, that is just one of many. I used it to illustrate, not as the a definitive compilation of evidence.

Something that bothered me about the article is its anecdotal presentation of the evidence. It describes a few reasons why women choose to have a third-term abortion (principally, receiving new information (e.g, "Oh no, I'm pregnant" or "We discovered something wrong with the fetus), or barriers to acting earlier, such as life circumstances, job concerns, or the availability of care). But it doesn't make clear that these factors account for ALL the 28 cases, or the relative importance, in terms of percentage, of these reasons. Only two cases are described of finding out at a late stage that there was a significant defect in the fetus. There were no cases where new information was obtained that indicated the woman was at greater health risk than previously believed (other than the fact, in two cases, of finding out late that she was pregnant).

Again, as I stated, this is not a list of the whys and how, it is a case study, one of hundreds available. It's weight doesn't appear until the preponderance of the evidence is added all up.

Remember these studies are about a person's personal medical history. Done before Roe v wade was squashed. As such they would need to follow ( as is mentioned in this particular study) protection of an individual's rights to privacy

The article definitely does NOT demonstrate that the majority of third-term abortions are undertaken for reasons that could not plausibly be described as "elective."

Again, you're taking this as the be all to end all study, of course the study doesn't justify every single late term abortion, my point was to show you there is easily accessed information to read and make up you're own mind on third term abortions. If however your mind is already made up, I'll just stop trying to point you to the information and save us both further embarrassment.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don't believe in resolving legal questions by getting hung up on definitions. I have a personal motto that debates over definitions are meaningless.

If that is your opinion, then there is no need to any further discussion. The legal definition is the standard. If you don't accept it as the starting point to any discussion on Abortion then this is waste of my time. The law may not be agreed upon by all, but it must be obeyed, else Society will break down. You can't have a large segment of society saying, I don't agree with that law, and as such I'm going to not obey it.

A fetus, at a sufficiently advanced stage of pregnancy, whatever you want to call it, has, in my opinion, rights or interests that the state should be interested in protecting, similarly to, but not identical to, the way the state has a legitimate interest in protecting a newborn infant, and doesn't give the parent carte blanche to do whatever he or she wants with it. You can put whatever label on it; I don't care. I'm not playing hide the ball. I've been pretty clear what my position is, and my reasons for it. If you don't agree with my position, fine. I don't understand why you would wonder why I'm posting. I've stated my reasons. If you doubt them, then in effect you are saying that you cannot comprehend how a person can have a different opinion from yours in good faith. In this thread, I have dealt in far more good faith than has anyone responding to me and taking a contrary position. I address the issues they raise; they don't address the issues I raise. I avoid ad hominem attacks and accusations of bad faith. I don't challenge people as ignorant. I don't accuse people of having unstated agendas. When people bring up evidence, I look it up and respond to it. When people bring up the law, I look it up and respond to it.

Yes your position is becoming clear, you are against abortion. As am I. The difference between you and I is, you are taking the Fetus's rights as greater than the Mothers. Which is problematic, since legally the Fetus doesn't have those rights, and as you say above, you disagree with the lack of a Fetus's rights. Which means you and I can't ever have a discussion based upon "facts" because you disagree with the facts on a personal level.

If you disagree with me, fine. But if after all I've done to engage in a constructive way in this thread you want to accuse me of ignorance or bad faith while failing yourself to engage, then it's you who have the problem.

I disagree with your claim that you don't need to accept the legalities. You do need to accept them. That is not me accusing you of ignorance or bad faith. That is you, refusing to accept the legal reality of the rights of a Mother over her body.

The laws are still pretty clear, until the Fetus is born, it is not a person. The standard of abortion after 24 weeks required "special permissions" to have access to an abortion procedure. Those requirements are available online to seek out, but do differ from state to state.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes your position is becoming clear, you are against abortion. As am I. The difference between you and I is, you are taking the Fetus's rights as greater than the Mothers. Which is problematic, since legally the Fetus doesn't have those rights, and as you say above, you disagree with the lack of a Fetus's rights. Which means you and I can't ever have a discussion based upon "facts" because you disagree with the facts on a personal level.

I disagree with your claim that you don't need to accept the legalities. You do need to accept them. That is not me accusing you of ignorance or bad faith. That is you, refusing to accept the legal reality of the rights of a Mother over her body.

The laws are still pretty clear, until the Fetus is born, it is not a person. The standard of abortion after 24 weeks required "special permissions" to have access to an abortion procedure. Those requirements are available online to seek out, but do differ from state to state.

This is pure silliness and deliberate mischaracterization.

I am not anti-abortion. I support a woman's right to abortion, without limitation, up to a certain point in the pregnancy. I've made that clear. That position is not reconcilable with being "against abortion." My position on this is mainstream.

I don't take the fetus's rights as greater than the woman's. They are both important and have to be weighed against each other. Early in the pregnancy, the woman's right over her body outweighs the fetus's life interest. At some point in the pregnancy the calculus changes. Again, this is a mainstream view. It is in accord with the majority, as shown by polls, and with most state laws.

You say "The legal definition is the standard." Defend your position. What is your source? Be specific. Don't rely upon generalities about what the law is. I don't think you are correct either in terms of what Dobbs says or in terms of what current state laws are.

Besides, this is primarily an ethical discussion, not a legal discussion. Those who are more pro-choice than I am concede that the law is not what they want it to be, which is perfectly fair. In making an ethical/policy argument, I'm not bound by what the law IS. I can argue about what I think the law should be, based upon ethics and policy, as others in this thread are doing. Ethics and policy come first.

The law regarding the "personhood" of a fetus since Dobbs in 2022 is in a state of flux. Some states want to grant fetuses personhood; others don't. But the question of personhood is not essential to the question of whether and to what extent the state can and should regulate abortion.

Roe v. Wade said this: "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words." The majority opinion also said, "We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."" So even in Roe v. Wade, the 7-member majority recognized that the state had an interest in protecting the potential for the life of the unborn, which became compelling as birth approached. That's all I'm saying. The court in Roe did not find it necessary to define "person" or "baby" to reach its decision. It is not essential to determine that a fetus is a person to find that the state has a legitimate interest in the late stages of a pregnancy to protect the potential life of the unborn and to therefore regulate abortion. That's not me talking; that's the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has since overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs in 2022, giving the states even more latitude to decide for themselves what the competing interests are and how abortion should be regulated.

 

[ll74]

The law regarding the "personhood" of a fetus since Dobbs in 2022 is in a state of flux.

This is incorrect. No state recognizes individual "personhood" of a fetus and Dobbs did not change that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

This is pure silliness and deliberate mischaracterization.

I'm just stating my opinion of you, based upon your posts.

I am not anti-abortion. I support a woman's right to abortion, without limitation, up to a certain point in the pregnancy. I've made that clear. That position is not reconcilable with being "against abortion." My position on this is mainstream.

Great that you support 70% of their rights over their body.See that's the difference, I support 100% of their rights.

I don't take the fetus's rights as greater than the woman's.

That's good, because, unfortunately the Fetus doesn't have rights.

They are both important and have to be weighed against each other.

Ummm no, again, legally speaking ( whether you like it or not) the Fetus doesn't have rights.

Early in the pregnancy, the woman's right over her body outweighs the fetus's life interest. At some point in the pregnancy the calculus changes.

Yes it does, and that timeline is around 24 weeks, since prior to that point in the pregnancy, the Fetus cannot survive without the Mother. After 24 weeks, it has a chance. None of which says anything about the "later term" abortions. Let's also put "late term"in perspective, numerically only 1.2% are "late term".

You say "The legal definition is the standard." Defend your position. What is your source? Be specific. Don't rely upon generalities about what the law is. I don't think you are correct either in terms of what Dobbs says or in terms of what current state laws are.

I did define my position. I am against abortion at any point. I also admit, my feelings should not impinge upon another person's right to control their bodies biological process.

Besides, this is primarily an ethical discussion, not a legal discussion.

Actually this is not an ethical discussion, it is about the legality of Abortion. Which up until recently, was legal. Since then that "right of privacy" has been removed as a Federal Protection, and pass back to each State to determine what "rights" a pregnant woman has.

Those who are more pro-choice than I am concede that the law is not what they want it to be, which is perfectly fair. In making an ethical/policy argument, I'm not bound by what the law IS.

The go somewhere else and argue the Ethics.

I can argue about what I think the law should be, based upon ethics and policy, as others in this thread are doing. Ethics and policy come first.

The law regarding the "personhood" of a fetus since Dobbs in 2022 is in a state of flux. Some states want to grant fetuses personhood; others don't. But the question of personhood is not essential to the question of whether and to what extent the state can and should regulate abortion.

States don't get to speak for the law on what a "person" is. That is a Federal responsibility.

 

[Lazaran]

This is pure silliness and deliberate mischaracterization.

I am not anti-abortion. I support a woman's right to abortion, without limitation, up to a certain point in the pregnancy. I've made that clear. That position is not reconcilable with being "against abortion." My position on this is mainstream.

I don't take the fetus's rights as greater than the woman's. They are both important and have to be weighed against each other. Early in the pregnancy, the woman's right over her body outweighs the fetus's life interest. At some point in the pregnancy the calculus changes. Again, this is a mainstream view. It is in accord with the majority, as shown by polls, and with most state laws.

You say "The legal definition is the standard." Defend your position. What is your source? Be specific. Don't rely upon generalities about what the law is. I don't think you are correct either in terms of what Dobbs says or in terms of what current state laws are.

Besides, this is primarily an ethical discussion, not a legal discussion. Those who are more pro-choice than I am concede that the law is not what they want it to be, which is perfectly fair. In making an ethical/policy argument, I'm not bound by what the law IS. I can argue about what I think the law should be, based upon ethics and policy, as others in this thread are doing. Ethics and policy come first.

The law regarding the "personhood" of a fetus since Dobbs in 2022 is in a state of flux. Some states want to grant fetuses personhood; others don't. But the question of personhood is not essential to the question of whether and to what extent the state can and should regulate abortion.

Roe v. Wade said this: "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words." The majority opinion also said, "We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."" So even in Roe v. Wade, the 7-member majority recognized that the state had an interest in protecting the potential for the life of the unborn, which became compelling as birth approached. That's all I'm saying. The court in Roe did not find it necessary to define "person" or "baby" to reach its decision. It is not essential to determine that a fetus is a person to find that the state has a legitimate interest in the late stages of a pregnancy to protect the potential life of the unborn and to therefore regulate abortion. That's not me talking; that's the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has since overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs in 2022, giving the states even more latitude to decide for themselves what the competing interests are and how abortion should be regulated.

I think you are intentionally or unintentionally avoiding the main issue with giving "states" or "the state" any latitude at all in the decision making process. Also : there should be zero threats of legal consequences for the woman, her doctor, or anybody supporting the woman’s and her doctor’s actions . - A maze of legal considerations does nothing but delay medical treatment. - Medical treatment delayed is medical treatment denied.

I challenge you to argue for the absolute pro-choice position, with the accompanying "compelling" reasons why “the state” or “the states” should stay the fuck out of it.

Most people that enter into discussions on this subject have a clear understanding of the realities involving the termination of a fetus at ANY stage. - They also understand the MASSIVELY important privacy issues / concerns involving this most personal and difficult decision.

That ^ should be a good starting point for you to effectively argue the absolute pro-choice position. - Let’s see if you can.

Good luck!!!

I’ll wait…

 

[SimonDoom]

This is incorrect. No state recognizes individual "personhood" of a fetus and Dobbs did not change that.

It didn't, but it also did not specifically affirm the proposition that a fetus is NOT a person. Although the majority in Roe said that the law has traditionally not recognized an unborn fetus as a person, that statement was dicta and therefore arguably not controlling law, because it wasn't essential to the holding of the case. The court in Roe held that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus's life interest regardless whether it's a person, and that argument was central to its trimester-based ruling. Meanwhile, after Dobbs, multiple states are exploring fetal personhood laws, and my guess is that the current court would uphold at least some of those laws on the ground that the 5th Amendment is silent on the issue.

As I've said a few times, "personhood" is not the key issue. The Court has made clear that the state may have an interest in the fetus regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not. The Court in Roe specifically said it's OK for states to regulate abortion after the first trimester is over.

 

[ll74]

It didn't, but it also did not specifically affirm the proposition that a fetus is NOT a person. Although the majority in Roe said that the law has traditionally not recognized an unborn fetus as a person, that statement was dicta and therefore arguably not controlling law, because it wasn't essential to the holding of the case. The court in Roe held that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus's life interest regardless whether it's a person, and that argument was central to its trimester-based ruling. Meanwhile, after Dobbs, multiple states are exploring fetal personhood laws, and my guess is that the current court would uphold at least some of those laws on the ground that the 5th Amendment is silent on the issue.

Dobbs didn't talk about personhood.
It just said that the federal government defers to the state on abortion laws.

As I've said a few times, "personhood" is not the key issue. The Court has made clear that the state may have an interest in the fetus regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not. The Court in Roe specifically said it's OK for states to regulate abortion after the first trimester is over.

Yet you continue to bring up personhood. And no state recognizes individual fetal personhood

 

[SimonDoom]

I think you are intentionally or unintentionally avoiding the main issue with giving "states" or "the state" any latitude at all in the decision making process. Also : there should be zero threats of legal consequences for the woman, her doctor, or anybody supporting the woman’s and her doctor’s actions . - A maze of legal considerations does nothing but delay medical treatment. - Medical treatment delayed is medical treatment denied.

I challenge you to argue for the absolute pro-choice position, with the accompanying "compelling" reasons why “the state” or “the states” should stay the fuck out of it.

Most people that enter into discussions on this subject have a clear understanding of the realities involving the termination of a fetus at ANY stage. - They also understand the MASSIVELY important privacy issues / concerns involving this most personal and difficult decision.

That ^ should be a good starting point for you to effectively argue the absolute pro-choice position. - Let’s see if you can.

Good luck!!!

I’ll wait…

I don't understand what you mean by "effectively argue the absolute pro-choice position." I'm not arguing that position because I don't believe in that position. I don't believe in an "absolute" position in either direction, so I'm not going to argue for it.

I'm pro-choice in the manner I've described, but I'm also anti-Roe in the sense that I think it was a terribly reasoned legal opinion that was untethered to Constitutional text or legal history. I think Dobbs was correct to send the issue back to the states, but if I were a state legislator I would uphold a law that protected a woman's right to abortion in much the way Roe did.

Most laws that govern people's personal rights and rights vis a vis other people are state's rights. That's the normal in our federal system. Murder, rape, pornography, drug regulation, contract law, property law, marital law, tort law are all governed primarily by state law, so it stands to reason that absent a clear command in the Constitution to the contrary state law should govern abortion as well.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yet you continue to bring up personhood. And no state recognizes individual fetal personhood

That was a mistake in my original post. I should have said that in my opinion the fetus's life interest becomes greater as the pregnancy goes on, to the degree that at some point the state has a legitimate interest in regulating abortion. That's what I believe. That's also what the Court in Roe said. That position doesn't require deciding whether the fetus is a person or not. The determination of "personhood" is not necessary to the issue.

 

[ll74]

That was a mistake in my original post. I should have said that in my opinion the fetus's life interest becomes greater as the pregnancy goes on, to the degree that at some point the state has a legitimate interest in regulating abortion. That's what I believe. That's also what the Court in Roe said. That position doesn't require deciding whether the fetus is a person or not. The determination of "personhood" is not necessary to the issue.

You have brought up fetal personhood in every single reply you've made here.

If it's not your focus, you are doing a bad job demonstrating it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Great that you support 70% of their rights over their body.See that's the difference, I support 100% of their rights.

And in this respect your opinion is different from that of the majority of people who call themselves "pro-choice." Is it your position that somebody is "anti-abortion" unless they support an unlimited abortion right up to term?

Ummm no, again, legally speaking ( whether you like it or not) the Fetus doesn't have rights.

Roe v. Wade itself said that states have a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn after the first trimester. What is your citation?

Actually this is not an ethical discussion, it is about the legality of Abortion. Which up until recently, was legal. Since then that "right of privacy" has been removed as a Federal Protection, and pass back to each State to determine what "rights" a pregnant woman has.

In the majority of states pre-Dobbs, abortion was not legal to term. Roe expressly gave states the right to regulate abortion after the first trimester, and most of them chose to do so to one degree or another. The right of privacy was not absolute. It never has been, as I pointed out in my original post.

The OP's original post did not specifically say it was a "legal" discussion. Since that post, if one reads over the comments, they've ranged over legal, ethical, and policy considerations. If you want to limit your discussion to the law, do so, but if you are going to do so at least cite something.

States don't get to speak for the law on what a "person" is. That is a Federal responsibility.

Says who? Certainly not the Supreme Court. As I quoted above, the Court--in the majority Roe opinion, no less--specifically said that the Constitution is silent on the question of what a person is. And it further made clear that a decision on "personhood" is not essential to deciding what a woman's abortion rights are.

 

[SimonDoom]

You have brought up fetal personhood in every single reply you've made here.

If it's not your focus, you are doing a bad job demonstrating it.

You're dodging the point because it is inconvenient to you. Regardless of personhood, the US Supreme Court has made it clear, even in Roe, that the state has an interest in regulating abortion after the first trimester because, in part, of its legitimate interest in the potential life of the fetus. The fact that I mentioned personhood doesn't change this or undermine my point to the extent it is based on what Roe itself said.

This is a good example of my axiom that debates over definitions do not matter.

 

[ll74]

You're dodging the point because it is inconvenient to you. Regardless of personhood, the US Supreme Court has made it clear, even in Roe, that the state has an interest in regulating abortion after the first trimester because, in part, of its legitimate interest in the potential life of the fetus. The fact that I mentioned personhood doesn't change this or undermine my point to the extent it is based on what Roe itself said.

Roe, itself, said that right to privacy allows the right to abortion.

To be honest, you haven't really been specific on any point. You asked the question regarding abortion and I answered.

What argument are you trying to make? The only thing I've gotten from your comments is that you believe the Dobbs ruling was correct.