Quote:
Quote by: Maryjane  Maybe you need to consider that you are comparing apples to oranges. If Lacey had wanted to terminate the pregnancey, she should have the ability.
Her husband, Scott, did not have that right. It was against her will.
The topic is who has more rights...the woman or the fetus. Not the sperm donor. |
You seem to fail to grasp the signifigance of saying that an unborn is a person in one instance and not a person in another. They can not be both. Either they are or they aren't and while there is a growing body of legal precedent establishing the personhood of the unborn, there is no legal precedent denying their personhood.
Roe and all subsequent cases were about access to abortion, and not about abortion itself. The new generation of challenges to roe will revolve around what abortion is actually killing rather than the very narrow view of "access" to a thing.
Of course, I encourage you, and all pro choicers to continue to believe that the status quo will never change. That will make the shock value of roe being overturned all the more satisfying. Legal wheels are turning and have been turning for some time now. Ignoring and denying the reality won't change it.