Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the consenting adults who willingly engage in the course of action that leads to the procreation of a new life.
There was no law. There was only a legal decision, which is, by definition, not a law.Can the legal experts help answer this.
OK so the court has struck down the 50 year old law. A law that even the late Ruth judge did not like due to how it was written.
So could not congress right now correct the law or pass a new abortation for all law. After all the democratic control all 3 "houses".
Sure, but like I've said, we don't live in the world we'd like to imagine, we live in this world. Much of human suffering can be attributed to other humans. So the alleviation of suffering falls to other humans in the world we actually live in.
This is the primary reason that I don't argue/debate abortion with those who support abortion. We have an unresolvable disagreement on a foundational issue: whether or not the developing entity is a living human being. If we cannot resolve that disagreement, then the rest of the discussion is at an impasse. And I agree that neither side does itself or the other side any favors by ascribing moral failure to that disagreement. I do not say that pro-aborts are in favor of "murdering babies", because, while I disagree with their belief, they do not believe that the fetus is a living human being. Thus, "murdering babies" is as much a straw man from the right as is the "just want to control women's bodies" claim is a straw man from the left.
Phrasing it as 'least worst' is just throwing shade. For a finite array of choices, 'least worst' is exactly equal to 'best available'
Please articulate your concern. The Dobbs decision simply said that the constitution is silent on abortion, and therefore the issue is correctly left to the states.
Part of this has been addressed. The process is onerous and requires a lot of money, patience, time. I'd like to see that process streamlined.American Adoptions - How Many Couples are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?
As you start to look for the perfect family, you might have one big question: How many couples are waiting to adopt a baby? Find the answer here.www.americanadoptions.com
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Latest available data shows just under 630000 abortions in that year. The backlog of waiting couples is enough to absorb 3 years worth assuming no damping of careless reproduction in the now changed environment. I am not seeing any grave mismatch in numbers of adoptable children vs number of willing adopters. 3 years would seem to be plenty of time for a new equilibrium to establish itself
The concern is overblown and potentially a cynical tactic to argue to maintain the status quo
I don't engage in the ad hominem. I merely point out that more than 98% of abortions are purely elective. I make no judgment on the reason for engaging in the single action that led to conception, because that's not for me to judge. I do point out that we are each responsible for our own actions, especially when those actions are willingly engaged in by consenting adults.
Apparently, knowing things about the Clintons increases said convenience.
I'm sure this will convince deadbeats to love their unwanted kids.
I don't understand where you get that it's throwing shade. I think "least worst" more accurately reflects *my* sentiment about politicians than "best available" does.
So, 'your truth', no dispute of the accuracy of my statement. Got it
That argument also, and fundamentally, ignores the agency involved in the fetus being present in the uterus of the mother. It is not through the agency of the fetus, but rather through the agency of mother and father, that the fetus finds itself in the uterus of the mother. The mother's own actions directly resulted in the outcome; therefore, it is improper to hold the fetus responsible for the result of the action of the mother.
I think he might be getting at how RvW was decided, that they inferred a right to privacy, and under that right they had a right to seek an abortion. So what happens to the right to privacy now that RvW is overturned? It wasn't rejected as far as I can see, on the grounds that there is no such right to privacy. I didn't read all of the decision, but I don't think it addressed that part either way. But mostly, among other things, on the basis on the 10th amendment, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the States. Since the constitution doesn't mention abortion, it goes to the states to decide.
