Abortion opponents can have, logically, only one goal. If a fetus is a human life with all that entails, from the point of conception, to abort it is morally and legally the same as if I were to stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And the person who sold me the gun, or drove me there, knowing full well what I intended…
Abortion opponents can have, logically, only one goal. If a fetus is a human life with all that entails, from the point of conception, to abort it is morally and legally the same as if I were to stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And the person who sold me the gun, or drove me there, knowing full well what I intended, would have very specific and known legal culpability.
If you believe abortion is murder, it seems reasonable to expect it to be treated *exactly* like that.
Do I like this? No. But the through line is exceedingly clear, and a sincere belief about this matter should be expected to be taken to its logical conclusion.
This is a classic conflict-of-rights situation. Whatever one's views on abortion in principle, there are real-world cases where an abortion may be the least bad outcome. Conflict-of-rights situations in this country are usually resolved at the state level, because that's where the power resides. That's a process that was working itself out in the states until the Supreme Court short-circuited it in Roe, and that's the process that should be able to continue now, until the majority in every state is satisfied that they've reached the compromises that they're most comfortable -- or least uncomfortable -- with.
And what of the women who will die from lack of care, while states settle on this "compromise"? Or the women who will be denied care, even if there are so-called exemptions for rape, incest, or health of the woman in such a settled compromise? NYT compiled a nice article about how this is routinely happening now. Abortion is a part of women's reproductive healthcare, and Dobbs is the most awful decision to come down from the court since Korematsu.
The anti-abortion crowd will state some version of "...these deaths and adverse outcomes are a cost of doing business and returning our country to system of laws and morality in agreement with traditional patriarchal Christian values".
And even if they don't include the "patriarchal", that's what they mean, because their actions and positions are totally at variance with genuine Christian values.
Abortion opponents can have, logically, only one goal. If a fetus is a human life with all that entails, from the point of conception, to abort it is morally and legally the same as if I were to stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And the person who sold me the gun, or drove me there, knowing full well what I intended, would have very specific and known legal culpability.
If you believe abortion is murder, it seems reasonable to expect it to be treated *exactly* like that.
Do I like this? No. But the through line is exceedingly clear, and a sincere belief about this matter should be expected to be taken to its logical conclusion.
This is a classic conflict-of-rights situation. Whatever one's views on abortion in principle, there are real-world cases where an abortion may be the least bad outcome. Conflict-of-rights situations in this country are usually resolved at the state level, because that's where the power resides. That's a process that was working itself out in the states until the Supreme Court short-circuited it in Roe, and that's the process that should be able to continue now, until the majority in every state is satisfied that they've reached the compromises that they're most comfortable -- or least uncomfortable -- with.
And what of the women who will die from lack of care, while states settle on this "compromise"? Or the women who will be denied care, even if there are so-called exemptions for rape, incest, or health of the woman in such a settled compromise? NYT compiled a nice article about how this is routinely happening now. Abortion is a part of women's reproductive healthcare, and Dobbs is the most awful decision to come down from the court since Korematsu.
The anti-abortion crowd will state some version of "...these deaths and adverse outcomes are a cost of doing business and returning our country to system of laws and morality in agreement with traditional patriarchal Christian values".
And even if they don't include the "patriarchal", that's what they mean, because their actions and positions are totally at variance with genuine Christian values.
Those are certainly arguments to try to make at your state capitol. That's where the decisions will be made.