Tweet
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I don't like Roe v. Wade.
I support the outcome - namely, that a woman can be allowed significant leeway to choose to have an abortion.
But the logic behind the opinion is pretty fuzzy, and the opinion itself really needed to be much stronger in order to survive repeated challenges.
Right now one way to interpret the opinion, based on a literal reading, is that the moment that a fetus could survive outside the body, it's legally a "person" with all the rights that entails.
So... once science evolves to the point where a newly fertilized egg could survive in some equipment outside of the body, no woman can ever have an abortion?
Not one of SCOTUS' best opinions.
In my opinion.
I don't like Roe v. Wade.
I support the outcome - namely, that a woman can be allowed significant leeway to choose to have an abortion.
But the logic behind the opinion is pretty fuzzy, and the opinion itself really needed to be much stronger in order to survive repeated challenges.
Right now one way to interpret the opinion, based on a literal reading, is that the moment that a fetus could survive outside the body, it's legally a "person" with all the rights that entails.
So... once science evolves to the point where a newly fertilized egg could survive in some equipment outside of the body, no woman can ever have an abortion?
Not one of SCOTUS' best opinions.
In my opinion.
Comment