I voted yes. But not because its moral or even ethical. IMO its evil. But we don't yet live in a theocracy where morality is compulsed by law, and I don't want to. Abortion doesn't destabilize society like other forms of violence, and body autonomy is precedentially fundamental to individual liberty. Abortion should be entirely legal so long as no one is forced to participate in it, and that includes paying for it. Bottom line: its none of my business. Don't make it my business.
I don't need to read the column. I don't consume processed foods. I am, however, forced to buy unhealthy food for others through tax subsidies. In the end, there is never an excuse for government interference in a womans decision when it comes to her body.
One should examine all the evidence before rendering an opinion or risk appearing ignorant.....that has not stopped me, but you should really get in touch with reality.
Neither did the atrocities commited in the Soviet gulags destabilize Russian society like they would have had they been committed in Red Square, so I don't know what the hell your point is. Forgotten that there are at least two bodies to be considered, have you?
You don't think Soviet brutality had anything to do with its instability? No. But so long as those two bodies cannot be safely separated, the point is moot. Get back to me when the child can be removed alive and safely grown in a jar instead. Then it will be pertinent to the abortion debate.
Get real, it was stable enough under Stalin to repel an invasion by the Germans, never mind that the Wehrmacht didn't slaughter as much of the Red Army as did Uncle Joe himself. And you figure that how, exactly? Not as the debate currently exists, it won't, because there will then be no question of murder; so what you're really saying is that for bodily autonomy to be relevant to the debate as it stands today, a condition must be met that is relevant only to a purely hypothetical debate.
The fact that there are two bodies, and that one is taking from the other is the entire basis of citing bodily autonomy as the reasoning of why abortion is her choice.
It's not just that. The procedure to remove the ZEF alive would also have to be less physically traumatic to the body than the current procedure. Otherwise we are then forcing the woman into a procedure that she doesn't want.
Bodily autonomy is already relevant to the debate today. In fact it is the only truly relevant argument. The issue of whether or not the ZEF is a person is irrelevant, because of bodily autonomy. If you volunteered to hook yourself up to a machine with me that will keep me alive, do you or do you not have a right at any time to withdraw your consent and disconnect from the machine, even at the cost of my life? Let's say that after being hooked up and the process started, you found out you would be hooked up for a minimum of 3 years.
You are an artful dodger. I don't want to make you uncomfortable with my distorted view of consuming government subsidized products, so enjoy your burger, fries, soda, and the pharm products that follow.
