Fetal "personhood" is one of the forced birthers favorite arguments, but it's disingenuous at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.
In terms of body autonomy, it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a cluster of cells or a "person". The hospitals are full of patients who are full-fledged persons. Some of them need blood transfusions, or tissue samples, or organ donations. And THEY can't demand them, EITHER, at least not without the consent of the donor -- not even if they'll die without them.
If these folks want to deem consent irrelevant, we'll be at their door tomorrow morning to harvest their organs for my uncle who needs a kidney -- with or without their permission.
"According to a poll published today by 19th News, only 13 percent of people in states that have banned abortion actually want their states to ban abortion."
This really gets up my nose.If 80% or 90% of citizens voted to ban access to abortion, it would still be a form of reproductive slavery, and I wouldn't be HAPPY about it... But that would at least be somewhat fair. This is basically six people, at least two of whom shouldn't be on the bench at all, taking basic human rights away from literally 100 million women.
I've been told that this argument is legally invalid, and laughed off as the intellectual masturbation of first year law students who are too green to understand why it doesn't hold up (like the libertarian ramblings by freshmen who just discovered Philosophy 101 and Ayn Rand), and that's why no politicians or lawyers ever seem to put forth that argument.
People have tried to explain to me why it's a "weak" point that no experienced lawyer would entertain, but I guess I'm too stupid and not-a-lawyer enough to get it. It's always sounded like a self-evident winning argument to me and still does.
If the law's struck down, good. If it's upheld, anyone planning to vote for Kemp has some thinking to do: do they most want Governor Kemp OR bodily autonomy, because they can't have both.
If this is what gets Stacey Abrams over the line, I will laugh and laugh and laugh.
The question isn't at what point the fetus is a person... It's at what point is the woman stops being a person, and starts being a state-sanctioned incubator.
At 6 weeks, an embryo resembles the product of a very productive sneeze…
At 10 weeks, it resembles a slimy Cheeto…
At 16 weeks, it looks like a cross between Chucky, and that thing that jumps out of people stomachs in the Alien franchise
Fetal "personhood" is one of the forced birthers favorite arguments, but it's disingenuous at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.
In terms of body autonomy, it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a cluster of cells or a "person". The hospitals are full of patients who are full-fledged persons. Some of them need blood transfusions, or tissue samples, or organ donations. And THEY can't demand them, EITHER, at least not without the consent of the donor -- not even if they'll die without them.
If these folks want to deem consent irrelevant, we'll be at their door tomorrow morning to harvest their organs for my uncle who needs a kidney -- with or without their permission.
"According to a poll published today by 19th News, only 13 percent of people in states that have banned abortion actually want their states to ban abortion."
This really gets up my nose.If 80% or 90% of citizens voted to ban access to abortion, it would still be a form of reproductive slavery, and I wouldn't be HAPPY about it... But that would at least be somewhat fair. This is basically six people, at least two of whom shouldn't be on the bench at all, taking basic human rights away from literally 100 million women.
This.
I like the way this person puts it: https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Less bodily autonomy than a corpse. Damn.
When did we start voting on who gets which civil rights?
I've been told that this argument is legally invalid, and laughed off as the intellectual masturbation of first year law students who are too green to understand why it doesn't hold up (like the libertarian ramblings by freshmen who just discovered Philosophy 101 and Ayn Rand), and that's why no politicians or lawyers ever seem to put forth that argument.
People have tried to explain to me why it's a "weak" point that no experienced lawyer would entertain, but I guess I'm too stupid and not-a-lawyer enough to get it. It's always sounded like a self-evident winning argument to me and still does.
If the law's struck down, good. If it's upheld, anyone planning to vote for Kemp has some thinking to do: do they most want Governor Kemp OR bodily autonomy, because they can't have both.
If this is what gets Stacey Abrams over the line, I will laugh and laugh and laugh.
The question isn't at what point the fetus is a person... It's at what point is the woman stops being a person, and starts being a state-sanctioned incubator.