What so many of us more conservatives do not like is women who use abortion as birth control. If they are mature enough to engage in sexual activity that could more than likely produce a pregnancy, why don't they use one of the many forms of birth control that are available today? In cases of rape, why not immediately take the morning after pill? What does it say about mankind/society when we so easily decide to kill our own child?
Thank you very much for an insightful overview of what has really happened with respect to Roe v. Wade. Sensible discussions are sorely missing with regards to this issue.
Given that 20 states already had "trigger laws" in place to ban abortion under any circumstances the moment that decision was handed down, your belief abortion bans wouldn't spread widely was definitely underinformed.
Here's the thing. Abortion bans should never have happened to begin with. They were deliberately created in the mid-1800s in the US at the behest of the medical profession, and was based not on any concern for morality but rather for financial reasons. Too many poor women were being treated by midwives, whom those 19th-century docs saw as competition for revenue. Oh, they had all sorts of other reasons, but the bottom line was their bottom line.
Now we not only have states passing laws forcing victims of rape and incest to carry babies to term but literally criminalizing the fact of not doing so. One state is trying to make abortion for any reason a capital crime subject to the death penalty.
So, no, it's not a real quandary when the state legislatures provided their "rights" to deal with the situation are in the control of neo-fascist zealots pandering to a narrow bunch of pseudo-Christian neo-Nazis. There needs to be federal involvement. It just shouldn't be to pass abortion legislation.
All moral questions aside, abortion is, always has been, and always will be a medical procedure. The only people who should be involved in determining what medical procedure is necessary are the patient and their medical provider. You know—doctor-patient privilege. The US Constitution protects those living in the US against "unreasonable search and seizure", and it's my contention having ANYONE interfere in that doctor-patient privilege violates that protection. I suspect it's the same or quite similar in Canada.
So, what's needed is a law that unequivocally protects that privilege. By doing so, we also put the kibosh on an alarming new agenda of distributing personal medical histories already under way by Big Tech. Just because I want to use a Galaxy Watch to keep an eye on my health should give Samsung or Google carte blanche to do what they want with it. HIPAA is inadequate, and its inadequacies are becoming alarmingly clearer. Laws protecting privilege are vitally needed.
"Even when humans are not joined by an umbilical cord, it’s hard to balance rights. I want to play my stereo. My neighbour needs to sleep. I want to run a septic system in my yard. My neighbour just dug a well. Whose rights take priority?"
Is your neighbor planning to kill you if you play your stereo or dig a well?
The answer is clear in every case where death is the outcome: (assuming that neither human's existence poses a lethal threat to the other), the rights of the human who will be made DEAD by the actions/rights of the other human should ALWAYS take priority.
Many of the state governors (Democrats) announced on Twitter after the SCOTUS decision that their state was open for abortion, however many women can't afford a trip to another state & the insurance coverage is not guaranteed. Many red states immediately jumped on the opportunity for outright bans, no matter the number of weeks gestation. It really is much more complex than it seems.
What so many of us more conservatives do not like is women who use abortion as birth control. If they are mature enough to engage in sexual activity that could more than likely produce a pregnancy, why don't they use one of the many forms of birth control that are available today? In cases of rape, why not immediately take the morning after pill? What does it say about mankind/society when we so easily decide to kill our own child?
Very well written!
Lots of good points. I look forward to the next instalment.
Thank you very much for an insightful overview of what has really happened with respect to Roe v. Wade. Sensible discussions are sorely missing with regards to this issue.
Given that 20 states already had "trigger laws" in place to ban abortion under any circumstances the moment that decision was handed down, your belief abortion bans wouldn't spread widely was definitely underinformed.
Here's the thing. Abortion bans should never have happened to begin with. They were deliberately created in the mid-1800s in the US at the behest of the medical profession, and was based not on any concern for morality but rather for financial reasons. Too many poor women were being treated by midwives, whom those 19th-century docs saw as competition for revenue. Oh, they had all sorts of other reasons, but the bottom line was their bottom line.
Now we not only have states passing laws forcing victims of rape and incest to carry babies to term but literally criminalizing the fact of not doing so. One state is trying to make abortion for any reason a capital crime subject to the death penalty.
So, no, it's not a real quandary when the state legislatures provided their "rights" to deal with the situation are in the control of neo-fascist zealots pandering to a narrow bunch of pseudo-Christian neo-Nazis. There needs to be federal involvement. It just shouldn't be to pass abortion legislation.
All moral questions aside, abortion is, always has been, and always will be a medical procedure. The only people who should be involved in determining what medical procedure is necessary are the patient and their medical provider. You know—doctor-patient privilege. The US Constitution protects those living in the US against "unreasonable search and seizure", and it's my contention having ANYONE interfere in that doctor-patient privilege violates that protection. I suspect it's the same or quite similar in Canada.
So, what's needed is a law that unequivocally protects that privilege. By doing so, we also put the kibosh on an alarming new agenda of distributing personal medical histories already under way by Big Tech. Just because I want to use a Galaxy Watch to keep an eye on my health should give Samsung or Google carte blanche to do what they want with it. HIPAA is inadequate, and its inadequacies are becoming alarmingly clearer. Laws protecting privilege are vitally needed.
"Even when humans are not joined by an umbilical cord, it’s hard to balance rights. I want to play my stereo. My neighbour needs to sleep. I want to run a septic system in my yard. My neighbour just dug a well. Whose rights take priority?"
Is your neighbor planning to kill you if you play your stereo or dig a well?
The answer is clear in every case where death is the outcome: (assuming that neither human's existence poses a lethal threat to the other), the rights of the human who will be made DEAD by the actions/rights of the other human should ALWAYS take priority.
My hypothesis is that a human life begins at conception. It is a new genetic individual.
Many of the state governors (Democrats) announced on Twitter after the SCOTUS decision that their state was open for abortion, however many women can't afford a trip to another state & the insurance coverage is not guaranteed. Many red states immediately jumped on the opportunity for outright bans, no matter the number of weeks gestation. It really is much more complex than it seems.