I think you need to do a deeper dive into the efforts and methods women would take to prevent pregnancy in antiquity and the pre-modern era (e.g. before the pill was introduced).
You should also note maternal mortality ('cause pregnancy does have dangers): unfortunately, we don't have a lot of data as tracking only started in 1986, but we do know that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world.
Also worth discussing is the negative repercussions of forcing children to give birth: their bodies aren't ready for it, but anti-abortion maximalism doesn't take this into account.
Abortions by women 15 and under make up 0.4% of the total, and 15 to 19 years is 5.6%. I am more than happy to entertain the medical issues with young girls giving birth and cede that issue. Can we have the other 94% of abortions subject to 6-week limitations?
No. 6 weeks is effectively an outright ban, and as I stated elsewhere is too early in development to consider the fetus a person or even really human.
Those are the numbers for now: I see plenty of "Christians" that want to eliminate age of consent laws and ban abortion entirely. Expect those numbers to go up if they get their way.
Dig into the contraception: there's some...interesting things there.
My basic point: actually consider the female perspective, through history and today. Consider the reasons and legitimate interest women have in controlling their reproduction; how that balances with the government's interest related to the population and protecting potential citizens; and the need to ensure our American system of law - premised in equal treatment, if not so in reality - needs view women as individual entities with equal rights and not second-class citizens for whom their rights may be stripped without their consent.
I prefer viaibility as a cut-off; some may prefer the time period for "quickening" (15-20 weeks), others 1st trimester. No matter what, any option selected will be contentious: so let's focus on that which will be acceptable to most.
Quoting someone else's thoughts that I think are useful:
"The only thing about which I'm fairly adamant is that both sides have a legitimate argument, so there's no "[X] number of weeks" cliff that won't violate somebody's deeply held fundamental interest. That's the conundrum of mediating competing rights. There's no compromise without depriving somebody of something they rationally believe no one should be allowed to take.
My threshold question for these discussions is "Do you agree both sides are defending a legitimate interest?" With those who reply "Yes", a useful discussion can be had. With those who say "No", I find productive discussion is usually beyond me."
We "ought" to elevate ourselves to God's level in terms of the sanctity of life, but sin unfortunately doesn't allow it. Being that we have all sinned and come short of God's righteous standard, we give the murder of babies it's place. And sin becoming more and more acceptable societally in many areas, not just the taking away of human life via abortion, gives the practice it's air of respectability. This is all heinous in thought and deed, and misdeed if you will, but most of us seem to be ok with it as long as we can look the other way and not see it for what it is. I can't. I have to point out some obvious "oughts." Since 1868, abortion has been an illegal act, per the 14th amendment. But, since we no longer pay any attention to our Constitution, that holds no sway. Our founding fathers for the most part held a fealty to God almighty as the director of our charter, but we have essentially kicked Him out of our house, as it were, not to allow Him to darken our door again, which leaves us most vulnerable to God's ultimate judgment, which is most assuredly on it's way.
You're free to live your life per your religious beliefs, for yourself and yourself alone.
Those who believe differently or not at all can do the same.
You're wrong about the 14th amendment: it applies to those born or naturalized, not the unborn. And the unborn are not persons, at least not legally (at this time).
I assume that would have to be litigated, and SCOTUS would have to decide - 'cause there is no case precedent or law at the Federal level.
That will of course involve litigating when is a person actually a person: what level of brain activity, what kind of brain activity, etc... because what makes us human is our minds, not our heartbeats.
And ultimately we get back to whether we think it's appropriate to put a particular sectarian viewpoint as our legal basis - and whether we actually have freedom of religious belief or not.
That sadly seems to not be the case, and too many seem willing to subjugate others rather than protect their freedoms - which ultimately makes none of us free.
Support it, of course. SGMAN is wrong about the 14th amendment. Persons included the unborn in 1868 because abortion wasn't even on the majority of politicians' radar at the time. And neither was any concept of viability. The vast majority of the American public just didn't deal with such things. They considered unborn babies as people from conception.
Thanks for a very thought provoking piece. Some make a quick leap from “ought” to religious morality, but kudos to you for keeping it largely at a level of secular discussion.
Free birth control for everyone.
Birth control is not 100% effective. Not ever.
I know but it's a good start and generally better than abortion.
"An ounce of prevention..."
My thoughts exactly. Less costly, less risk and more private.
I think you need to do a deeper dive into the efforts and methods women would take to prevent pregnancy in antiquity and the pre-modern era (e.g. before the pill was introduced).
You should also note maternal mortality ('cause pregnancy does have dangers): unfortunately, we don't have a lot of data as tracking only started in 1986, but we do know that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world.
Also worth discussing is the negative repercussions of forcing children to give birth: their bodies aren't ready for it, but anti-abortion maximalism doesn't take this into account.
Abortions by women 15 and under make up 0.4% of the total, and 15 to 19 years is 5.6%. I am more than happy to entertain the medical issues with young girls giving birth and cede that issue. Can we have the other 94% of abortions subject to 6-week limitations?
No. 6 weeks is effectively an outright ban, and as I stated elsewhere is too early in development to consider the fetus a person or even really human.
Those are the numbers for now: I see plenty of "Christians" that want to eliminate age of consent laws and ban abortion entirely. Expect those numbers to go up if they get their way.
Dig into the contraception: there's some...interesting things there.
My basic point: actually consider the female perspective, through history and today. Consider the reasons and legitimate interest women have in controlling their reproduction; how that balances with the government's interest related to the population and protecting potential citizens; and the need to ensure our American system of law - premised in equal treatment, if not so in reality - needs view women as individual entities with equal rights and not second-class citizens for whom their rights may be stripped without their consent.
I prefer viaibility as a cut-off; some may prefer the time period for "quickening" (15-20 weeks), others 1st trimester. No matter what, any option selected will be contentious: so let's focus on that which will be acceptable to most.
Quoting someone else's thoughts that I think are useful:
"The only thing about which I'm fairly adamant is that both sides have a legitimate argument, so there's no "[X] number of weeks" cliff that won't violate somebody's deeply held fundamental interest. That's the conundrum of mediating competing rights. There's no compromise without depriving somebody of something they rationally believe no one should be allowed to take.
My threshold question for these discussions is "Do you agree both sides are defending a legitimate interest?" With those who reply "Yes", a useful discussion can be had. With those who say "No", I find productive discussion is usually beyond me."
We "ought" to elevate ourselves to God's level in terms of the sanctity of life, but sin unfortunately doesn't allow it. Being that we have all sinned and come short of God's righteous standard, we give the murder of babies it's place. And sin becoming more and more acceptable societally in many areas, not just the taking away of human life via abortion, gives the practice it's air of respectability. This is all heinous in thought and deed, and misdeed if you will, but most of us seem to be ok with it as long as we can look the other way and not see it for what it is. I can't. I have to point out some obvious "oughts." Since 1868, abortion has been an illegal act, per the 14th amendment. But, since we no longer pay any attention to our Constitution, that holds no sway. Our founding fathers for the most part held a fealty to God almighty as the director of our charter, but we have essentially kicked Him out of our house, as it were, not to allow Him to darken our door again, which leaves us most vulnerable to God's ultimate judgment, which is most assuredly on it's way.
You're free to live your life per your religious beliefs, for yourself and yourself alone.
Those who believe differently or not at all can do the same.
You're wrong about the 14th amendment: it applies to those born or naturalized, not the unborn. And the unborn are not persons, at least not legally (at this time).
Interesting thought. If a state made the unborn legal persons in its state constitution, would the 14th Amendment support that or deny it?
I assume that would have to be litigated, and SCOTUS would have to decide - 'cause there is no case precedent or law at the Federal level.
That will of course involve litigating when is a person actually a person: what level of brain activity, what kind of brain activity, etc... because what makes us human is our minds, not our heartbeats.
And ultimately we get back to whether we think it's appropriate to put a particular sectarian viewpoint as our legal basis - and whether we actually have freedom of religious belief or not.
That sadly seems to not be the case, and too many seem willing to subjugate others rather than protect their freedoms - which ultimately makes none of us free.
Support it, of course. SGMAN is wrong about the 14th amendment. Persons included the unborn in 1868 because abortion wasn't even on the majority of politicians' radar at the time. And neither was any concept of viability. The vast majority of the American public just didn't deal with such things. They considered unborn babies as people from conception.
Yeah, no.
At the time, everything was related to "quickening", which is when the fetus's movements could be felt. Before that time, abortion was legal.
And the 14th amendment made it illegal.
Nope: it was never in the discussion/intent/words of the amendment.
Thanks for a very thought provoking piece. Some make a quick leap from “ought” to religious morality, but kudos to you for keeping it largely at a level of secular discussion.