Comparing Roe v. Wade to Alabama's heart beat abortion law
Super Esquire: Let me address Roe v. Wade v. Alabama's abortion law. Roe is implicitly, though not expressly, based on the principle of adverse possession of the womb. Under Roe v. Wade, if the woman doesn't take action within a certain amount of time, then the fetus inside acquires adverse possession rights of the womb, and it effectively becomes "a person" at that time that the state can regulate and protect. Under Roe, those adverse possession rights become finalized when the baby becomes viable, or able to live on its own outside the womb. With the rise of technology, the baby can live outside the womb earlier and earlier, as hospitals can prop up all kinds of ppl with intravenous feeding tubes, etc.
Here, the alabama law implicitly accelerates viability to when a heart beat is first detected by sonogram, allowing the state to get involved. The law effectively redefines viability to when the babies' heart beats. And once the baby is heart beating viable, the state can get involved to punish doctors who destroy that heart beat, who violate their hippocratic oaths to "do no harm to life." The bill punishes doctors and not women bc doctors have higher standards of conduct than regular ppl.
Nicotina's objection is one of lack of notice, though, bc this person within is being harbored by the woman, and she who is doing the harboring should have a say of what is going on, especially if she is put in this situation not as a result of her own free will, being on account of rape. Less say, however, if she volitionally had the sex.
Nicotina is contesting that the sonogram device shouldnt be used as a means to create the legal benchmark for viability bc the woman left to her own devices cannot sense the heart beat of the baby, or is aware of the baby's existence at such an early stage. However, the woman knows that pregnancy can always happen, coupled with sexual intercourse, even if birth control is used. Some actions or career choices are inherently risky, like sky diving, cliff jumping, or fire rescue, and ppl assume the liability if they volitionally engage in those behaviors. True, no
Super Esquire: Nicotina is contesting that the sonogram device shouldnt be used as a means to create the legal benchmark for viability bc the woman left to her own devices cannot sense the heart beat of the baby, or is aware of the baby's existence at such an early stage. However, the woman knows that pregnancy can always happen, coupled with sexual intercourse, even if birth control is used. Some actions or career choices are inherently risky, like sky diving, cliff jumping, or fire rescue, and ppl assume the liability if they volitionally engage in those behaviors. True, not everyone wants to sit at a desk all day long, but bear in mind, that is one reason we have insurance policies, to lessen risk. One can write insurance policies on anything, like impregnation risk.
The question is whether it is legally sustainable to force a woman to bear a child, bc there is no requirement that the woman raise the child, as she can give the child up for adoption. And there are multitudes of ppl desperate to adopt children, as some women cannot have kids and really want kids. Some women even try or intend to kidnap other's children to get kids (almost happened to me or siblings when I was a little boy, but that is another story).
But the state forces ppl to do things all the time, like incarcerating individuals in prison. Such an action is detestable to those individuals, but the state does it anyway. Childbirth is painful process, no doubt, like being locked up in jail for 9 months, and physically and emotionally taxed.
With a rape exception included, however, there seems to be enough women in favor of these heart beat law for them to stand, bc kids are too cute after they are born. And all of us were given a chance at life.
Therefore, do one to others as you would have them do to you. No one wants someone to stick a knife or drill bit in their head and then suck their brains out. Disgusting and appalling to think about.
10 hours ago • Reply • Delete • Report
Super Esquire: Redbob, it is ironic you write "Take your head out of a woman's vagina." As this is what these abortion doctors are doing, sticking their heads in womans vaginas.
Further, we aren't discussing Bible at all, but nicotina brought up the bible, as a conclusory objection, without grounds.
Also, let me know when you find a baby that is genetically monochrome, like it is the property of the body of a woman. Last time I checked it takes two to tango to make a baby, i.e. a person.
Super Esquire: Indeed, i think your going to see insurance companies start to insure unplanned pregnancies, and presetting up adoptive parent agreements in the event of unplanned pregnancies
Super Esquire: Agree its not babies fault, yet I have a problem with pushing that on the woman to carry the baby when she didn't choose the sex act.
Super Esquire: Castration is interesting concept, but i dont know if it would pass the cruel and unusual punishment standard, under constitution.
smokemeblind: sup, grease aka thehating, here is more of my most-hated wisdom
i dont buy anti-abortion sentiment isnt ever anything but religious. just like institutional racism, the patriarch continues to change the linguistics around its support for undermining womens rights.
This is a complicated/multi-layered issue that is misunderstood on many fronts. I think abortion is really ugly. I don't like it. But abortion that occurs in the early stages of a pregnancy where the neural pathways of a fetus aren't developed enough for it to have a conscious brain is not some immeasurably evil practice. There is at least a question mark there in those early months of pregnancy. It isn't so cut and dry. What IS evil is forcing a rape victim or a 12 year old child who gets pregnant to have a baby.
These are things that need to be discussed and figured out by rational/educated people. Obviously partial birth abortion is a hideous practice. But in some instances such as if the infant is horribly handicapped in a way that it would have enormous pain and suffering in life or if the mother's life is somehow at stake- Those are decisions that should be worked out between a health care provider and a mother. NOT a bunch of old scuzzy politicians. And by the way the overwhelming majority of partial birth abortions are for precisely those reasons. It isn't like people decide in their 9th month of pregnancy- "Oops I don't want this child anymore" and can get an abortion.
I am pro woman and pro child... But I think the love and respect for life should also extend to people outside the womb as much as inside of it. People want all of these children to be brought in to the world, but don't seem to care one iota for the well being of those same children once they're born in to impoverished situations where the mother can't afford to take care of it. The same people trying to overturn Roe V Wade are also doing their dead level best to get rid of the financial assistance programs that might ensure those same kids get a decent meal 3 times a day. But at the same time they're all about cooperate welfare, and making sure the top 1 percent get every break and kick back possible ... There is no compassion for life whatsoever unless it is unborn. Because abortion is just a manipulation tool to get evangelical votes.
If the church cares so much about life as it claims, why wouldn't we see more resources being put in to creating programs that would house and care for young pregnant mothers to give them some sort of viable option to take care of a child once it is born? How bout standing outside the abortion clinic with a sign that says- Let me help you- Instead of condemning them with signs that call them murderers. How bout cutting down on the production values in these mega churches and cutting the pastor salaries and using that money to build orphanages that could house and take care of babies who get born that all these mothers aren't going to take care of? Money talks and BS walks.
It seems like abortion is this issue where people get to feel righteous and superior because it doesn't require any real personal sacrifice. You get to stand in judgment on people without having a clue what their life is really like, and you don't have to do anything at all other than vote a certain way and point the finger at a protest rally. But real respect for life has to do with how we treat all life both inside and outside the womb. If you look at the statistics, abortion rates are highest with people in the lowest income ranges- So maybe if we started paying people a living wage in America, had some better sex education and gave women access to good health care where they could afford to take more preventative measures we'd really make a dent in abortion levels. Maybe if men had any kind of consequences at all, they'd start putting on a condom a little more often. It takes two to tango, yet the mother and the baby are the ones who pay the price.
Anyway- I know this probably won't be well received, but this issue isn't as simple as people think it is. These places passing all these extreme laws are going to end up actually doing a lot more harm than good, I'm afraid.
By the way- Twenty percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage so nature itself (which according to many who are Pro-Life is created by God) commits a lot of abortion too.
Surely God wouldn't have made human beings in such a way that their own bodies would murder innocent children? Should women who miscarry have legal consequences too?Should God? Or maybe the issue just isn't as simple as folks think it is.