“This thought experiment has grown in popularity over the years, and it's quite common to see smirking activists use it to stun pro-lifers into silence, touting it as the end-all defeater of pro-life arguments.”
And this is where I stopped reading.
You have been hinting at your lack of regard for pro-choice “activists” before this point, but quite obvious you have no intention of listening to others, why should anyone listen to your views on the subject? The simple matter is you may disapprove of abortion all you want, but no argument for banning it, especially in the first trimester, has ever been convincing.
For me, abortions are morally acceptable and abortion access *should* be available precisely because a zygote/embryo/early fetus isn’t suffering from an abortion while a sentient girl/women may suffer from pregnancy/childbirth or postpartum physical or mentally. No women knows if a pregnancy will harm them physically or even kill them, every woman’s pregnancy and situation is different, therefore it should be a voluntary health decision. There’s a minority of (mainly) religious people that feel their opinions on abortion should be law, which I also find reprehensible. And we have already seen maternal mortality increase in states with bans, women going into sepsis/hemorrhaging before being given what would have been routine abortion care, and OBGYNS leaving states work bans creating even worse situations for women with wanted pregnancies. Cities in Texas are trying to enact travel bans to pull over women traveling to other states for abortions. The fanatic zeal in which anti-abortion groups have tried to curtail other civil rights in the short time after Dobbs has been frightening.
You also state that “men controlling women” through abortion is “plainly silly”, yet there are countless examples of comments online of “women should just shut their legs”, “sluts are mad”, other disgusting, misogynistic views on women when discussing this issue. Alito wrote that women aren’t without political power now, yet we know that men are over-represented in legislatures, creating these bans. Polls have consistently shown men being more in favor of bans than women. It may not be an overt, concerted effort to control women, but in effect, that’s what abortion bans do.
Here’s a thought - maybe this decision shouldn’t be up to the state, but the county, or city, or neighborhood, or individual household?
“More scenarios can be listed, but the point here is to show the price of holding the Sovereign Zone view is a steep one and ends up meaning virtually any and all abortions which can be conceived of are acceptable. “
Possibly, but that has not happened in 50 years. Women do not have “frivolous” reasons for having abortions in late term. If women are having “frivolous” elective abortions early, why would you then want them to be mothers?
Halfway through this, but the reason pro-choice people cite the rarity of “late-term” abortions is because they ARE rare. There also aren’t any research studies willing to pay for purposely harming a embryo in utero nor do companies buy body parts directly as you mentioned. You are arguing for a “slippery slope” that hasn’t happened in 50 years.
I don’t think it’s right to jail women who abuse substances while pregnant but to offer treatment. Just because pro-choice people show empathy to pregnant women who might want to keep their pregnancies yet are addicted to drugs doesn’t mean bodily autonomy goes out the window.
It’s very clear to me that you are giving attributes to zygotes/embryos/early fetuses that aren’t present. You cannot “dehumanize” an entity that does not have feelings. Girls/women who do not want to go through a pregnancy, however, will suffer mentally or physically and ARE being dehumanized.
“This thought experiment has grown in popularity over the years, and it's quite common to see smirking activists use it to stun pro-lifers into silence, touting it as the end-all defeater of pro-life arguments.”
And this is where I stopped reading.
You have been hinting at your lack of regard for pro-choice “activists” before this point, but quite obvious you have no intention of listening to others, why should anyone listen to your views on the subject? The simple matter is you may disapprove of abortion all you want, but no argument for banning it, especially in the first trimester, has ever been convincing.
For me, abortions are morally acceptable and abortion access *should* be available precisely because a zygote/embryo/early fetus isn’t suffering from an abortion while a sentient girl/women may suffer from pregnancy/childbirth or postpartum physical or mentally. No women knows if a pregnancy will harm them physically or even kill them, every woman’s pregnancy and situation is different, therefore it should be a voluntary health decision. There’s a minority of (mainly) religious people that feel their opinions on abortion should be law, which I also find reprehensible. And we have already seen maternal mortality increase in states with bans, women going into sepsis/hemorrhaging before being given what would have been routine abortion care, and OBGYNS leaving states work bans creating even worse situations for women with wanted pregnancies. Cities in Texas are trying to enact travel bans to pull over women traveling to other states for abortions. The fanatic zeal in which anti-abortion groups have tried to curtail other civil rights in the short time after Dobbs has been frightening.
You also state that “men controlling women” through abortion is “plainly silly”, yet there are countless examples of comments online of “women should just shut their legs”, “sluts are mad”, other disgusting, misogynistic views on women when discussing this issue. Alito wrote that women aren’t without political power now, yet we know that men are over-represented in legislatures, creating these bans. Polls have consistently shown men being more in favor of bans than women. It may not be an overt, concerted effort to control women, but in effect, that’s what abortion bans do.
Here’s a thought - maybe this decision shouldn’t be up to the state, but the county, or city, or neighborhood, or individual household?
“More scenarios can be listed, but the point here is to show the price of holding the Sovereign Zone view is a steep one and ends up meaning virtually any and all abortions which can be conceived of are acceptable. “
Possibly, but that has not happened in 50 years. Women do not have “frivolous” reasons for having abortions in late term. If women are having “frivolous” elective abortions early, why would you then want them to be mothers?
Halfway through this, but the reason pro-choice people cite the rarity of “late-term” abortions is because they ARE rare. There also aren’t any research studies willing to pay for purposely harming a embryo in utero nor do companies buy body parts directly as you mentioned. You are arguing for a “slippery slope” that hasn’t happened in 50 years.
I don’t think it’s right to jail women who abuse substances while pregnant but to offer treatment. Just because pro-choice people show empathy to pregnant women who might want to keep their pregnancies yet are addicted to drugs doesn’t mean bodily autonomy goes out the window.
It’s very clear to me that you are giving attributes to zygotes/embryos/early fetuses that aren’t present. You cannot “dehumanize” an entity that does not have feelings. Girls/women who do not want to go through a pregnancy, however, will suffer mentally or physically and ARE being dehumanized.