First off, people aren't being that indirect about it. They're actively worried that Casey (not Roe) will be overturned, leading to the pervasive surveillance and incarceration of pregnant women.
But of course, you don't need to make abortion a crime to reduce it:
But of course, you don't need to make abortion a crime to reduce it:
https://twitter.com/xan_desanctis/status/1308785434642845700
You can be powerfully anti-abortion in your faith while not believing that making it a crime is the best way to address the problem.
Indeed, stuff like ready access to contraception, prenatal care, and financial support for parents of young children is likely MORE effective.
Indeed, stuff like ready access to contraception, prenatal care, and financial support for parents of young children is likely MORE effective.
The question isn't about whether we should adopt policies to reduce abortion--such policies are broadly popular in even the most progressive circles.
The question is whether we should punish women who seek abortions, and doctors who provide them.
The question is whether we should punish women who seek abortions, and doctors who provide them.
I think that, as a matter of policy, we shouldn't, because the obvious consequence of granting full personhood to the unborn is that it will justify a lot of government intervention.
Any woman drinking a glass of wine could be recklessly endangering another.
Any woman drinking a glass of wine could be recklessly endangering another.
And on top of that, even with all the added surveillance, the stops by police, and the monitoring by doctors, we still can't be sure criminalization will reduce abortion.
So, in a sense, this isn't a debate between pro-life and pro-choice. It is a debate about whether we can best deter abortions through carrots or sticks.
There is nothing godless about choosing carrots.
There is nothing godless about choosing carrots.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
