wat0n wrote:No, the USA isn't behind Europe in any of those regards. It definitely has the resources to provide access to abortion, even charities do.
You have the money to feed a homeless person for a month.
If not, then you understand how the USA can have the resources to be a developed country but since it does not allocate its resources intelligently, it is a de facto developing country in this regard.
Let me see, so when you say someone else makes an argument from ignorance you're personally attacking him or her?
If you politely point out when the other person is using a fallacy, that is not a personal attack.
When you dismiss someone else’s argument as whining, that is a personal attack.
All of them, really. No, fetuses would not have more rights than born people if they were recognized as persons and abortion banned:
Please present a quote that shows that born kids would have the right to demand blood and tissue from their parents.
And no, you did not provide this before. You provided a link but no quote.
No, you can't really say bodily autonomy trumps parental obligations
I never made that claim.
nor you can say you can endanger and harm someone else and then use bodily autonomy as a defense.
Nor that one.
No, bodily autonomy isn't absolute and can and is restricted to preserve life and even public health, subject to proportionality in the restriction.
At this point, I have told you kore than once that I never made this claim and even clarified it for you several times.
To continue to believe I made this claim at this point would require your to openly ignore explicit replies to this exact accusation.
No, whether a fetus is a person or not is not irrelevant to abortion, that much should be clear by now and the SCOTUS itself states so explicitly.
It is in many developed countries, as I previously showed.
Certainly there were other factors, neither I nor the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade claimed so. For starters, abortion bans were popular among many voters when those laws were passed
Please provide a survey of voters from 1880 showing a majority of registered voters were in support of making abortion illegal.
and the AMA had campaigned for banning them based on the Hippocratic Oath (and not on Christianity or gender roles,
Please quote the exact AMA policy paper that explicitly states the exact reasons for opposing abortion in 1880.
even more so since the stance of Christian denominations - the Church included - was that abortion was okay before quickening while the Hippocratic Oath condemns abortion at any stage),
Please quote the medical science showing that abortions are condemned by the Hippocratic Oath, Take specific care to provide quotes from medical associations that are from jurisdictions that allow abortion and yet still use the Hippocratic oath and that clarify the apparent contradiction.
if anything the SCOTUS does go through the AMA's historical positions regarding abortion in Roe v Wade, although the SCOTUS does not state the AMA's stance of abortion was ever used as an argument used by the legislatures to ban abortion.
Even if the AMA stance is irrelevant, you still brought it up as an argument. Please provide the evidence required.
Yet, proponents of abortion themselves would argue before the Supreme Court that abortion had been banned in the 19th century only due to an interest in protecting the mother's health, and would point out that at no point there had been other concerns such as punishing unmarried women (the Texas law itself did not draw a distinction) or preserving fetal life and would argue those abortion bans were thus unconstitutional since their stated motivation had ceased to be valid by 1950 in litigation on this matter. That is, while abortion bans were popular and there were interest groups pushing for them, ultimately legislatures settled on a different line of reasoning.
Please note that 1950 was after 1880, and so this is not relevant to why abortion was banned in the first place.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely using religious arguments would have been somehow unpopular or even unconstitutional as a reason to ban abortion in the second half of the 19th century. As @Drlee mentioned, several states refer to God in the preamble to their Constitutions even today. So why would the legislatures in 1860, 1870 or 1880 shy away from using that type of argument to justify banning abortion? A religious justification for some piece of legislation would not by itself amount to a First Amendment violation either.
So care to provide evidence that we should somehow assume the legislative record lies?
This is a strawman, since I never discussed religious arguments at all.