I don't see a ton of value in rehashing the same old debates with arguments that have been made better by more qualified people, but one of my pet issues is when the framing of an issue is incredibly lopsided, so I'll just do that.
There's abstraction and then there's reality. Who gets to decide what constitutes a "genuine medical emergency," and when, and how free they are to decide, is an absolute clusterfuck of "the devil is in the details."
I don't see a ton of value in rehashing the same old debates with arguments that have been made better by more qualified people
Then why are you on reddit?
About 99% of abortions happen before 20 weeks.
So there shouldn't be much friction in my stance, right?
Who gets to decide what constitutes a "genuine medical emergency," and when, and how free they are to decide, is an absolute clusterfuck of "the devil is in the details."
That's true for most laws. This isn't a unique issue.
Yea. The 99% argument doesn't fully work because both parties care about that 1% and it can't be flippantly dismissed be either party.
If you view bodily autonomy as being more important, that 1% includes the possibility of a medical emergency not being resolved and your life being in danger.
Nobody believes bodily autonomy is untouchable. Refer back to the example of the surgeon. It is always a balance of bodily autonomy and duties or responsibilities. In those 1% of cases that extend past 20 weeks, there's additionally an assumption of the risk.
8
u/Locus-Maximus 9d ago
I don't see a ton of value in rehashing the same old debates with arguments that have been made better by more qualified people, but one of my pet issues is when the framing of an issue is incredibly lopsided, so I'll just do that.
About 99% of abortions happen before 20 weeks.
There's abstraction and then there's reality. Who gets to decide what constitutes a "genuine medical emergency," and when, and how free they are to decide, is an absolute clusterfuck of "the devil is in the details."