1 0

There are arguments that Roe v. Wade could be seen as unconstitutional. That said, we need an immediate constitutional amendment that basically provides the same rights Roe v. Wade did, if not more abortion rights, immediately. What I would like would be nationwide abortion access up to 24 weeks for any reason, and no limits after that at all if the fetus is afflicted with birth defects, genetic disorders, or if the woman's health is in serious danger.

This is about basic human rights. You cannot harm a life form through death before it can experience pain, if it doesn't understand death. Now...lots of assholes will reply to that with the obvious strawman argument of "Well, by that reasoning you should be fine with us executing sleeping people," No...dumbass...that's not how things work. If you had thought about this more you'd realize, "Well, life would suck quite a bit if I had to be concerned about never awakening again if I might be killed in my sleep" and then you'd realize why that would be a bad ideal.

So...fetuses are basically immune to death...which should be obvious, except that everyone sucks at abstract reasoning. Death is merely the transition from being to unbeing. It's not a negative circumstance if you don't fear it, can't feel it and don't care whether or not you die. So, fetuses are immune to death, but not suffering. That said, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the U.K. say that fetuses won't be able to feel pain before at least 24 weeks. Some people disagree with that. Some people say the date is later. Some people say the date is sooner...but the earliest I've ever heard anyone who seemed to have reasonable qualifications and arguments say fetuses might be able to feel pain is 12 or 13 weeks...noting that about 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester, and that source said the likelihood of fetuses feeling pain before those dates was extremely low. They also didn't say that the ACOG was wrong...just that it could be wrong.

So, I would demand a bare minimum of abortion being legal for any reason up to 13 weeks nationwide.

Regarding birth defects and genetic disorders, oftentimes ultrasounds aren't gotten until 18 weeks or later, and that's how many birth defects are detected, so we need abortion legal until well after that point, at minimum, for birth defects and genetics disorders.

While there are birth defects and genetic disorders that are relatively mild, the maximum harm caused through death for a fetus is pain, and there are birth defects and genetic disorders (such as sickle cell anemia) that cause prolonged pain, therefore there's a strong argument to be made that abortion can be for the benefit of the fetus even after pain can be experienced. Furthermore, we quite often perceive pain as an acceptable treatment for medical ailments, and abortion prevents a child from being born with...any condition we might want, therefore accomplishing the exact same thing a cure for Downe syndrome, or missing organs, or congenital heard defects would accomplish.

It's important to note that in those circumstances, the fetus dying is not the same as a human dying. Fetuses lose nothing from death, because they don't care about it. They can suffer from it, so that's something to take into consideration, but it's more like a potentially painful side effect of a cure for a medical ailment than actual death.

What fetuses can gain from abortion, however, is that abortion functions as a miracle cure for any ailment with a potential side effect of pain. Therefore, if we ban certain types of abortions, we are doing the equivalent of the government injecting incurable diseases into children because they're worried about potentially painful results of them not doing so...against the wishes of the parents.

That's considerably worse if we ban abortion before pain can be experienced, by the way. That would be the equivalent of injecting incurable diseases into children against the wishes of the parents for no reason at all. I'd argue it would be closer humane for the government to mandate the euthanization of all born babies with cancer. That would would be horribly draconian...but at least it might be a form of draconianism that would serve a purpose.

Abortion protects children, on average, for the above reasons.

People are going to fight the removal of Roe V. Wade because they want to protect their children from being injected with diseases from the government. This is as much of an invasion of people's rights than racial segregation of schools was, IMO. We have certain basic rights that shouldn't be violated out of sheer decency. The right to an abortion when the abortion is likely to assist the fetus is one of those basic rights...and it would assist the fetus in every single incident when the fetus wouldn't experience pain from it, because there would be no possible negatives to that for the fetus, but the fetus wouldn't be born into whatever negative circumstance the parents got the abortion to avoid, and it will often benefit the fetus to be born at later stages of development when the fetus has a genetic disorder or birth defect, because abortion functions as a miracle cure for any ailment with a potential side effect of pain. above reasoning isn't even considering a woman's rights over her own body, which is another important element of the equation. If we're going to start taking people's rights away to "benefit" animalistic life forms, I have no idea why we haven't mandated covid vaccines, mandated blood donations, mandated donating organs after death, and banned factory farming nationwide. Factory farming, without question, causes more harm to animalistic life forms than abortion does, just through the much greater numbers of animals harmed.

Abortion, at most sacrifices the life of an animal to benefit a child, through preventing a child from being born into whatever negative circumstances existed that were the parents' reasons for getting the abortion. If we're willing to sacrifice animal lives just for the pleasure of eating at McDonald's, surely we're willing to sacrifice animal lives to benefit human beings in more concrete ways, such as preventing them from being born into households that don't want kids, if the mother wants an abortion. Otherwise, we're just logically inconsistent.

MrShittles 7 May 3

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Human rights are what humans decide they are. There's no such thing as a natural right.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:335469
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.