As I’ve thought about this it would seem that the pressing question is whether or not the unborn child can legitimately be considered a human or not, and exactly who gets to decide that? Am I really far off?
That they aren’t makes no more sense than wondering if a five year old is human.
I think the constitution deals with persons, not humans. So, possibly, the pressing question is whether or not the unborn child can legitimately be considered a person or not, and exactly who gets to decide that?
If it’s not a human, leave it alone.
Birth is “the bringing forth of life that is already there.”
Whether or not the mother wants to be pregnant should be the equally or more pressing question.
In that case there are a myriad number of ways to avoid getting pregnant.
Not if the GOP gets their way.
And of course that’s the other aspect of this. The aspect of the government being able to force someone to do something for 9 months of their life that they have no desire to do.
Tell that to Louisiana, whose planned abortion bill is going to make it very confusing as to whether IUDs (which can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting), would be considered abortifacients.
And what choice did the woman who was raped and is now pregnant have?
It doesn’t just end after nine months, assuming they survive a forced labor that was deemed fit to be a biblical punishment.
This is the entire point, in my opinion.
We will never answer the question of personhood in a way that everyone will accept.
But it is the dependency issue that is the sticking point.
And none of this is new, or surprising news. Just a basic, casual glance at politics should get us past glib answers about just not getting pregnant.
Which brings me to the other aspect of my OP. Is the Constitution really designed to deal with this issue?
Yes, it is.
Even if the constitution can’t figure out the personhood of a zygote, it still binds the smallest local tyrant to protect the rights of the mother.
Laws that restrictive will see them voted out.
The point is…they are passing them, or considering to pass them.
And a question I asked earlier still stands. All these laws are disproportionally affecting the mother.
If the GOP cares so much about the unborn, and also cares so much about them after they are born…
…where are the laws that would require any man who had sex with a pregnant woman in the appropriate time frame to submit to a paternity test, and then the identified father would be on the hook for child support?
Where are the contingency laws in place in case the father flees or can’t be found?
Where are the laws holding the man equally liable for the abortion decision as the woman?
Why haven’t these “pro-life” legislatures even considered such measures yet?
You really want to make this argument while the left is destroying pregnancy outreach centers?
Doesn’t it seem like an odd outcome in which from state to state there are completely different laws designating what a human or person is?
Does the unborn child have monkey DNA?
How about elephant DNA?
Oh wait, its human DNA, isn’t it? Science!