Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,047
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
There is so much wrong with this statement. Firstly, what group? Right now, abortion rights are favored well above that of eliminating access to abortion. So currently, if we went the "group" way, abortion would be legal. 1000%. But "the group" isn't the people, it consists of partisan politicians elected to office in states with gerrymandered districting. So your statement above, in order to make it accurate with the conditions in the US, "the broader question is whether a bunch of partisans elected to office in gerrymandered states has something to say about considering it..."I know, but the broader question is whether the group has something to say about it considering it is about human life.It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.Why did you specify women?What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.
Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?
Then the moral question is actually, at what point is it moral to tell the woman she no longer has self-autonomy over her body, and instead is at the whim of the majority. And when we say majority, we mean a bunch of Republicans that fixed election borders to gain supermajority control in state legislatures, and not the actual majority of people in the US.
And of course, that then leads us to "is it moral for a bare minority to supersede in the self-autonomy of a woman's body"? If it were the Catholic Church enforcing this type of edict, I bet a whole bunch of people would be upset over that. But make it a bunch of government officials?