My home state joins the 21st century

[lpetrich]

But if it can live on its own, then that complicates the issue, because instead of abortion one could have premature birth.

It doesn't complicate the issue much. If a patient has a choice between having a leg amputated, or having it treated (with the expectation that, if saved, it may never be useful for walking or balance*), then that choice is for the patient alone to make. They may consult with any number of experts; But the fact that the leg could be 'saved' doesn't make the decision any less the sole preserve of the patient himself.

Your example is for an injured leg. For a healthy leg, it would be much more difficult to justify amputation.

A fetus is not a part of one's body, at least not in the way that a limb is. We can't regrow lost limbs -- we are not starfish. A fetus is different. It grows from a fertilized egg cell, and it eventually gets expelled or removed. But for much of its residence inside its mother, it cannot survive on its own, and in the last few months, it can survive outside only with difficult. Furthermore, this residence -- pregnancy -- and "normal" expulsion -- birth -- are often very difficult for the mother, and a woman who wants to cut it short should have a right to, especially early in her pregnancy.

Then there is what might be called the Siamese-twin problem. Does one have a right to kill a Siamese twin that one does not wish to be joined to? But an early fetus is not nearly as well-developed as a Siamese twin.

 

[lpetrich]

The Uncertain Future of Roe v. Wade – Power Trip – Medium -- nice article.

Author Christine Grimaldi notes that there are 13 abortion cases that could soon come to the Supreme Court, cases that Brett Kavanaugh could rule on. She notes a classification into three types:

1. Pre-viability bans (before 24 weeks)
2. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, for regulating abortion clinics to death.
3. Bans of specific abortion procedures, like dilation & evacuation (D&E), a common mid-pregnancy procedure.

The second one I consider very dishonest and sleazy, because it is authored by politicians who profess to believe that government regulation is a great evil.

NWLC’s Borchelt doesn’t anticipate a head-on collision with Roe at the outset of the Supreme Court’s new term, which began Oct. 1. “The chip-away ones are just further along,” she said of upcoming cases. But she cautioned that Kavanaugh and fellow conservative justices could still use them to revisit Roe and perhaps even gut it while pretending otherwise.

The article mentioned a lot of specific laws and court cases, but it did not give a broader picture.

The most foreseeable possibility is a continuation of current trends, with state laws being a patchwork that is the outcome of the relative strengths of the two sides in each state. Anti-abortionists will push farther and farther with restricting and regulation abortion out of existence, and even with outlawing it outright. This will likely make abortion tourism into a big issue, with Congressional Republicans trying to outlaw travel across state lines with the intent of getting an abortion. Abortion pills may also become a big issue, with anti-abortionists bleating about how "unsafe" they are.

Although some opponents of abortion claim that they are content with letting the states decide, I am sure that that will not be good enough for them. After claiming states' rights for letting states decide, they will forget about their states'-rights rhetoric when it comes to the Federal Government opposing abortion. Or even claim to continue to believe in states' rights and claim that their opponents oppose states' rights.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Never understood why christians are so against abortions. Have they never read the bible?

Well, they love a fetus but hate providing things like prenatal care, health care and food security. So I see the same selfishness they ostensibly condemn in others.