Both emotionally and logically, the arguments against abortion are strong. What is the beginning of life if conception is not it?
How can we choose a range of weeks at which a foetus is not viable if science consistently moves the date at which a premature baby can live to a shorter point in gestation?
Equally persuasive are the arguments in favour of a woman’s right to privacy.
Additionally, at least two of the former president’s nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court stated that Roe v. Wade established precedent in their confirmation hearings.
Did they make up a meeting to ensure their appointment so they could revoke it? Or did they interpret their words to imply that up until the Supreme Court overturns a decision, all Supreme Court rulings are conclusive?
The vast majority of Americans support the right to an abortion to some degree, according to polls that are consistently released.
Political scheming prevented that majority’s will from being carried out? By arguing that the people should choose their next president first, a Republican-controlled senate held up consideration of one Democratic Supreme Court nominee for ten months before rushing through the appointment of a Republican nominee before the electorate chose a different president four years later.
You should think about how you would feel if Democrats did the same thing, even if you agree with the outcome.
The draught opinion that was leaked months ago made the Supreme Court’s official decision to overturn Roe V. Wade on Friday less surprising.
However, both the leak and the final decision bring the abortion debate to the fore. And to be perfectly honest, we as a country have never had a real discussion about it. We’ve turned it into the most despicable political football.
A thorough national exchange, though? When both sides are entrenched so deeply, that is not possible.
In this case, there are significant concerns regarding a woman’s right to make her own health decisions, and the court’s decision may set a dangerous precedent, as some have warned.
In three decisions in a row, the conservative justices have overturned decades-old laws: they determined that Maine must, in certain circumstances, provide public funding to religious schools; they ruled that New York State’s long-standing concealed-weapons laws are unconstitutional, and they have now overturned Roe.
There are valid concerns regarding the extent of this court’s willingness to encroach on both state and individual rights.
We do, however, propose a different launching point for the rekindled abortion discussion: Who will care for the children that women are made to have by force?
Will the Supreme Court rule that the federal or state government must provide if a mother cannot afford to feed, clothe, house, or educate her child?
One could argue that a woman can avoid getting pregnant if she’s not ready. It is glib as well. Perhaps they were prepared, but something out of their control prevented them.
Perhaps they took precautions, but something went wrong. Both those who favour banning abortion and those who favour its preservation are unaware of all the circumstances.
Read more:-
- Have a significant tax debt? Be aware of your finest options for handling that debt
- A man from El Paso enters a guilty plea to a $670,217 tax fraud conspiracy involving a youth sports organisation
- GOP Candidate Broke the State’s Financial Disclosure Requirement, Say, Officials
But it’s actually easier than that. The people as a government demanded the birth of the child. He or she is coming. He or she will be entitled to every chance for success.
Are we as a society prepared to ensure that occurs? Will we increase our taxes to provide opportunities, food, and healthcare?
If we want to treat every child fairly, will we impose higher taxes on the wealthy? Will we raise the corporate tax rate? Will there be a universal health care system for parents and their kids?
Do we have the authority to forbid abortions without also foregoing our obligation to care for every child born?
