Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace Preston
Here is the thing-- I always hear the argument about the fetus being a separate life, etc...and to be fair, that IS a valid argument.. but.
Lets say little Timmy needs a kidney transplant. Now-- Timmy has a very very rare blood type and the only person on the face of the planet is Sam. If Sam does not donate a kidney to Timmy-- Timmy will die. But-- Sam cannot be compelled to donate a kidney, even if it means that Timmy will die because of it.
The uterus is also an organ. Without the use of it, the unborn baby will die. So why is it that one person could refuse an organ, even if it means death-- but a woman cannot if the organ in need happens to be her uterus?
This is why so many scream that it is a human rights issue. Yes-- abortion does result in death of life... but its literally the only area where a person can be forced to essentially sustain the life of another.
|
I really can't see your argument but any and all arguments should be made by states.
I know this decision is not supposed to be a political one but best case scenario for Republicans, would be the court dealing with the Mississippi law calling for a 15 week cut off except to safe the life of the mother and not what it might do the the family checkbook
This is not a case where one side has asked for reversal of Roe. That case is out there but this ain't it.
Pass the Mississippi law 6-3 and take away this argument from the mid-terms, plus IMHO, it would be more in line with the duty of the court to deal with the case in front of them, not expand the ruling beyond what the case presents.
