The federal government didn’t make prostitution illegal, so technically, a woman can be a prostitute in the US. Each state except for Nevada made it illegal, which is why anyone can’t legally be a prostitute outside of the very specific places where it’s allowed in Nevada.
Additionally, Roe v. Wade wasn’t about bodily control. It was about a woman’s right to privacy v. society’s duty to protect life. The right to privacy argument was that government could not shove themselves in the affairs between a woman and medical staff. The duty to protect life argument was that society was ethically obligated to protect the life of vulnerable people. They found that life was more important than privacy, so it became a matter of when life began. The thing is that the beginning of a life isn’t so clear.
According to science, life begins at conception. That’s when the new DNA mix is created and a new being is created. Yet, that zygote cannot live on its own and is 100% dependent on the mother to exist, so is it really alive? That was the debate. The Supreme Court divided pregnancy into trimesters representing the incremental development of an individual human life.
Since a fetus was viable starting in the 3rd trimester, states could pass laws banning abortions then. Since a fetus had a heartbeat but was iffy on being viable in the 2nd trimester, states could regulate but not ban abortions in then. States couldn’t do anything about abortion in the first trimester. That was what Roe v. Wade was about, and why many people were upset with the ruling. It never really addressed the fundamental issues of body autonomy from the government on one side. When it came to protecting life, it didn’t really decide to do that either since they established periods in the life of the fetus during which it was legal to allow it to die. No one was happy with the decision because it was a negotiation that was hypocritical on both ends, which I guess is how you know it was a proper negotiation 😄
My personal opinion was that the judges were buying time to allow the legislative process to address the matter in a more democratic manner rather than allowing the court to decide. However, the topic was so politically costly that no one did anything to definitely address it, making the country depend on the ruling of 9 unelected officials.
Also I think you’d be hard pressed to find any credible biological scientist willing to define “life” let alone define when it “begins.” I’m sure there are scientists who will, but they’re probably not biologists, or they’re “scientists.”
Not all fertilizations create viable zygotes. Not all zygotes become viable blastocysts. Not all blastocysts successfully embed in the uterine wall. Not all embedded blastocysts develop into viable embryos. Not all embryos become viable fetuses.
So I’d take exception through all of that to say any of those are protectable “lives” in any meaningful sense.
Roe was a very imperfect solution to the problem of men wanting to control women’s bodies. The best decision would’ve been to say that any abortion a woman and her doctor agree on is legal.
A moral or ethical doctor’s willingness to perform an abortion is inversely proportional to the gestational age of the fetus. Medical boards are charged with only granting licenses to moral & ethical doctors.
The federal government didn’t make prostitution illegal, so technically, a woman can be a prostitute in the US. Each state except for Nevada made it illegal, which is why anyone can’t legally be a prostitute outside of the very specific places where it’s allowed in Nevada.
Additionally, Roe v. Wade wasn’t about bodily control. It was about a woman’s right to privacy v. society’s duty to protect life. The right to privacy argument was that government could not shove themselves in the affairs between a woman and medical staff. The duty to protect life argument was that society was ethically obligated to protect the life of vulnerable people. They found that life was more important than privacy, so it became a matter of when life began. The thing is that the beginning of a life isn’t so clear.
According to science, life begins at conception. That’s when the new DNA mix is created and a new being is created. Yet, that zygote cannot live on its own and is 100% dependent on the mother to exist, so is it really alive? That was the debate. The Supreme Court divided pregnancy into trimesters representing the incremental development of an individual human life.
Since a fetus was viable starting in the 3rd trimester, states could pass laws banning abortions then. Since a fetus had a heartbeat but was iffy on being viable in the 2nd trimester, states could regulate but not ban abortions in then. States couldn’t do anything about abortion in the first trimester. That was what Roe v. Wade was about, and why many people were upset with the ruling. It never really addressed the fundamental issues of body autonomy from the government on one side. When it came to protecting life, it didn’t really decide to do that either since they established periods in the life of the fetus during which it was legal to allow it to die. No one was happy with the decision because it was a negotiation that was hypocritical on both ends, which I guess is how you know it was a proper negotiation 😄
My personal opinion was that the judges were buying time to allow the legislative process to address the matter in a more democratic manner rather than allowing the court to decide. However, the topic was so politically costly that no one did anything to definitely address it, making the country depend on the ruling of 9 unelected officials.
Also I think you’d be hard pressed to find any credible biological scientist willing to define “life” let alone define when it “begins.” I’m sure there are scientists who will, but they’re probably not biologists, or they’re “scientists.”
Not all fertilizations create viable zygotes. Not all zygotes become viable blastocysts. Not all blastocysts successfully embed in the uterine wall. Not all embedded blastocysts develop into viable embryos. Not all embryos become viable fetuses.
So I’d take exception through all of that to say any of those are protectable “lives” in any meaningful sense.
Roe was a very imperfect solution to the problem of men wanting to control women’s bodies. The best decision would’ve been to say that any abortion a woman and her doctor agree on is legal.
A moral or ethical doctor’s willingness to perform an abortion is inversely proportional to the gestational age of the fetus. Medical boards are charged with only granting licenses to moral & ethical doctors.
While Roe v Wade may have been legally about privacy, abortion rights are also absolutely a body autonomy issue ideologically.
I think RBG had it right that abortion should’ve been protected by equal protection instead of privacy.
https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/