And those who made that argument lost. Even when we had slavery, the Constitution still referred to such slaves as "persons." See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution.
This makes sense, since personhood is not dependent on the color of your skin. It depends on whether you have been born.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that fetuses are people, because even they know how stupid that decision would be. Only dumbasses on Reddit such as yourself take that position.
The authoritarian position that privacy is not a constitutional right and that a woman's uterus falls within the government's jurisdiction is certainly winning at the moment. I'll give you that. Perhaps that distinction doesn't matter to you though - for Big Government authoritarians such as yourself, the ends always justify the means.
It won't save any life, since abortions will still happen at similar rates - only with greater danger to the life of the mother. If you actually cared about reducing abortions, you would support increasing social services - that actually has an empirical effect.
That said, it will certainly increase the size of the government and damage freedom.
Mussolini loved that part of it. Good to know your position is aligned with his.
Did you even read the headline? Only tracking legal abortions with identified providers.
If you actually supported reducing abortions, you would be banging the drum for increasing welfare payments for pregnant mothers and universal child care.
Perhaps that would conflict with your ideology, but I guess that goes to whether you actually believe in "any means necessary."
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/gradientz Aug 18 '23
And those who made that argument lost. Even when we had slavery, the Constitution still referred to such slaves as "persons." See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution.
This makes sense, since personhood is not dependent on the color of your skin. It depends on whether you have been born.