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?
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?
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?
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?