Mexico supreme court decriminalizes abortion across country
theguardian.com
Mexico’s supreme court has decriminalized abortion across the country, two years after ruling that abortion was not a crime in one northern state.
That earlier ruling had set off a grinding process of decriminalizing abortion state by state. Last week, the central state of Aguascalientes became the 12th state to decriminalize the procedure. Judges in states that still criminalize abortion will have to take account of the top court’s ruling.
The supreme court wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that it had decided that “the legal system that criminalized abortion in the Federal Penal Code is unconstitutional, [because] it violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.”
Pretty crazy. Mexico has traditionally been VERY catholic. The fact that it has become more progressive than the US on women's rights really speaks volumes about how terrible the US has become.
I suspect a LOT of abortions happening down in the west texas town of el paso.
In some ways it might be about sending a clear signal that they arent interested in following the political or cultural leadership of the US.
Fuck. You mean trump actually made [North] America great again?
Mexico is finally gonna pay for the wall. The wall to keep fleeing Americans out of Mexico.
How many Ds in those chess? We may never know...
Now we just need a wall on Kentucky's border with Tennessee.
Nonono, in SPITE of! 😆
They also legalized same sex marriage a while ago. Yes they are religious but they are not "bible belt fundamentalists".. there is also universal healthcare. Did you know several American doctors go study there and just come back to pass the exams? Mexico had it's problems but it's not as bad as they make it seem here. Most immigrants that come here are at the bottom of the barrel of the economical scale.
It seems even the pope is more progressive than American right now.
Legitimately wild for the Pope to point blank call the US regressive.
Not out of hypocrisy (though, yeah - solidarity with survivors and the colonised) - but because he was actually really justified in what he said to reach that.
Wild. Absolutely wild. The US is so comically bad faith a society even the pope can eloquate why it's awful.
Because like 40% of our people are literally insane and living in a different reality
It boggles my minds that in the USA the catholics are considered the reasonable christians.
The pope doesn’t do shit agains his organisations centuries long paedophilia problem.
Not even the US is that bad.
You don't have to literally be a pedophile to be truly truly terrible, there's lots of ways to be that.
That is to say, that does not excuse anyone. "At least we didn't fuck children" is not a defense or an excuse. The deeper right wing in the US still utter scum that needs to be shown the door and then have a fence built after them (and make them pay for it!) to make sure they don't come back. Independent of whether the vatican state tried to cover up the church's massive and systemic pedophilia.
The sbc has a vastly worse pedophilia problem, has for decades, but they can cover it up well because they drive the girls to suicide because nobody would ever believe a good man like their daddy touched them there.
Mexico’s constitution always allowed for abortions in cases of rape or danger to the mother or fetus.
Well, most Americans are progressive on the issues, including abortion, but due to absurd things like the Electoral College, and the way our power is distributed through states and the way in which rural areas have much more influence than they should, conservatives are given way too much power in relation to their numbers.
But without that, the majority would be tyrants!
But... But democracy. And the land of the free! Say it ain't so...
Oh please, if we didn't have the electoral college the south wouldn't be able to serve as the moral compass of the country and couldn't guide us away from such evils as slavery and racism.
Catholics might be against abortion, but they are no where near as vocal as some other Christian sects in the US.
Also the Catholic church believed abortions were fine until ~5 months for a long time.
That's absolutely not true, it was just viewed as a sexual sin before. The catholic church has been against abortion since the 1500s, arguably you could even say it goes back to the early 600s when they tried to find ways to distance themselves from pagans. It wasn't until the late 1960s when public opinion changed about it being a sin against taking life, then I believe in the 70s the Pope made a public statement, which made it canonical.
As a random side note, St. Thomas of Aquinas take on fetal status was kind of interesting. He viewed a fetus as having 3 states or "souls"; a vegetative soul, an animal soul, and finally a rational soul once the body was completely developed.
" In 1591 the new Pope Gregory XIV reversed the decision, declaring abortion to only be homicide if it took place after ensoulment, which he determined took place 166 days into a pregnancy, or well over halfway through the second trimester. This decision lasted for 278 years until Pope Pius IX reversed the decision yet again in 1869 and made abortion after conception a sin that automatically excommunicated those involved in its procurement from the Catholic Church."
166 days would be over 5 months.
From at least 1500s on it was never "fine" it has always been a sexual sin, that can lead to excommunication from the church. How that works in practice is extremely regional. Even prior to the 1500s it was still an excommunicable offense in most areas, there just isn't documented policy that I know of.
I also love how whatever quote that is from is using the word "trimester" in relation to something from 1591 when the US Supreme Court coined the term centuries later.
They use trimester to make it meaningful to modern readers, not to imply the rule used that language originally. Like if you were to say "a cubit, or about a foot and a half."
did you fall in love with a Mexican girl?
Meanwhile in America red state boarder towns (boarder to blue or another country.) are making laws to stop every women traveling towards an abortion state.
https://abc13.com/texas-abortion-law-highways-new-battleground-in-care-what-is-the/13740276/
That's right, straight up Handmaid's Tale shit!
"Under his eye."
God, I'm so glad I moved out of a shithole state before things went completely off the rails.
At some point, I'm sure people will get tired of constant butthole inspections in these states and will go back to being chill and telling their lazy-ass politicians to focus on stuff that actually matters, instead of whatever distraction this is.
Would love if the federal govt just removes roads and highway funding to states that allow or do not stop this from occurring. The federal interstate program should be just that.
How would they even know?
Did y'all know that Mexico also has a form of universal healthcare. Pretty soon the flow of illegal immigrants might start going the other way.
Lot of folks hop the border for a bit for the far cheaper dental care down there.
I've heard of a lot of people doing this. Pretty bad when driving to an entire other country for dental care is cheaper.
Pretty sure Palin admitted to her family hopping the border for cheaper healthcare in Canada.
I'm picturing her going to Russia for cheaper healthcare. She did claim she could see Russia from her house.
That was Tina Fey. Palin said that you can see Russia from part of Alaska which is true since there are a couple islands that are like 10 miles away from some Russian islands. Saying that that gives you some sort of foreign policy experience is idiotic though.
I do remember something about that.
Driving? Hell I had a coworker who would fly there from Alaska to get dental work done and even with his week long hotel stay while he recuperated still saved thousands of dollars
I've done this with my wife. It saved us thousands of dollars. And the place was very clean and professional.
I've heard horror stories, ironically all from dentists in the US, about dentists in Mexico. But I hear a lot more stories like yours about how it was great, and they managed to save a ton of money.
I'm sure there are scammers, but my wife did a lot of research before we went. The dentist we went to in TJ actually got her degree in San Bernardino, CA like 40 mins from where we live. If you do your due diligence the process can go pretty smoothly, and yes, save a ton of cash.
There is already a good amount of medical tourism to Mexico from the US.
Like how Utahans were buying insulin from Mexico because it was something like 1/100 the price.
Given how the population of Utah votes that makes them hypocritical
Hah, boomers being hypocritical? They don't even know the meaning of the word!
An insult with a few different layers, well done.
I need burn cream by proxy from that comment. Well done.
That said, the entire mexican public health service system is absolute shit, so much so that the president acknowleged it as recently a last year.
Acknowledging it is the first step to improving it. We have Republicans who have the gall to claim that we have the best healthcare in the world.
Completely agree. The fact they're restructuring and allocating funds at least seems to suggest that they're taking it seriously, and even if it's baby steps, it's something
Actually... No
The facilities could use some work, yeah, red tape and waiting times are terrible, for sure, medicines availability, thanks for this president have been inconsistent as of late, yes
But.. thanks to the perks offered in the job, many of the best doctors and surgeons treat there, the ones that treat also in the expensive hospital are treating in the IMSS (name of the service), so yeah, great surgeons for free if you are willing to go through the long bureaucratic process.
I've indeed heard frequently that the best practitioners are found in the IMSS, although in my own experience, whether you have a good experience with the medical professionals and procedures is basically a coin toss, unless you have connections and are able to ask for someone in particular, or personally know one of the practitioners.
Ah.
So white ladies are going to start fleeing across the border to get abortions that they can't get in the States.
Conservatives really ARE trying to bring us back to the 1950s, aren't they?
Let them bring back the 1950s tax rate first
I mean, that's kind of their whole shtick lol
In Europe we are back to the 1920s, so the great depression and another world war are still to come. You should be glad they are trying to bring you only as back as 1950s 🤣🤣🤣
How is Europe back to 1920s?
Nationalism and far right movements are on the surge everywhere (except in Spain where the memory of dictatorship is still relatively fresh, just a generation ago).
Hrm, I would say you're overstating things, at least in comparison to the very real issues mentioned here that pertain to the US.
Don't get me wrong, the evolution of politics in countries such as France, Germany, Poland and so on is more than just worrying, it's downright alarming.
But even in places where the right wing has managed to achieve political power, they have not managed to effect much regressive political change yet. That is to say, the US situation shows what will happen in the EU if this slide continues. And sure, it could be worse if "parties" (I dread to call people who want to abolish the current democracy a political party, tbh) like the AfD attain power, but again that hasn't happened yet, unlike some clearly xenophobic and active nazi-sympathizers in the US, or people like Santis or MTG.
Both are shit, but compared to the deeper red states in the US and the truly crazy places, most countries in Europe are a massive improvement, even with all their own problems.
At least in Czechia we do no have (or about to have) a psychopath president. So we should be okay for the next 3 years at least.
It's a nice change after 20 years of misery. I still haven't gotten used to it.
I think that depends on your definition on Nationalism and far right movements. I personally wouldnt say we are back in the 1920s, but I guess we all have different opinions
Wow, Mexican women have more rights than American women. Plus they also have universal healthcare.
Unfortunately that healthcare is shitty and way over capacity. But still, at least we have something we can improve, instead of just nothing at all.
Can you describe that? I feel like everyone says that about Canada, Europe, etc. But when I try to nail down what they are afraid of, they are like, "if I need a knee surgery I want it NOW! That could take months in Canada!"
Is it like that, or are there like actual life threatening problems being unaddressed?
Some of the most recent examples: recently there has been a critical shortage of psychiatric medicines. Lots of people didn't have access to their antidepressants, antipsychotics, and lots of other medicines you can't skip without disastrous effects. While I don't use public health care, I still had trouble finding some of my prescriptions. The equipment and buildings are in disrepair, because of lack of funding and corruption. This year there was a scandal because a girl died crushed by a elevator in a clinic. Then they found lots of corruption with the company that installed the elevators. Some weird things have happened, for example, a woman went for abdominal pain and when she woke up, the doctors had amputated both of her legs. Also, it's common that women deliver their babies outside the hospital because it is over capacity. Etc, etc...
i can confirm the medicine shortage, not just in psychatric recently, but in other pharma fields, along the years.
our Latin American brothers and sisters in Spain were doing their best to send medicines to their families in LATAM. you could also see people asking on Twitter for medicines. iirc it was commented on the news too.
here in Spain we also have public healthcare, and we all people pay for those medicines so individuals don't have to assume all the cost on their own. pandemic has shown our healthcare system is not as good, public and clean as our corrupt politicians tend to say, but still, we think public healthcare is the way to go.
in Spain abortion is legal since many years, but a year ago or so, in a region of Spain, a extreme right-wing party wanted to create a regional law to make women asking for abortion feel guilty.
medicians would be obligated to ask women "before aborting, would you want to listen to your baby's heartbeat, or that we take a 4D radiography of them?".
the women could refuse, but the medicians would be obligated to ask. this extreme right-wing party tried to push this regional law proposal in an attempt to push antiabortion agenda bypassing the national abortion law.
this right-wing party wanted to make women feel guilty of their abort decision, as if many many women hadn't had enough guilt, doubt and sadness when asking for abortion bc they aren't in the position of having a baby (see our emancipation, salary and unemployment rates), or they weren't even in a position of conceiving in first place (rape, mental suffering, codependency, drug abuse, etc.). this political party wanted to take advantage on these women's situation of vulnerability. that's horrible.
(also in that region, big part of medicians and population overall were known of being right-wing and sexist. that's how this right-wing party got power to propose this law).
fortunately, it seems we have progressed, to the point many medicians were the most angry at this, and them, along with feminists (many are both), and citizens in general didn't allow this law to happen in this region of Spain.
but sorry for digressing, the main point is that many people in Spain are very happy for Mexico. we wish you the best. we hope our LATAM siblings get the progress and independence they wish and deserve. we are on it too here. let's do this 💪
Jesus
Your complaints are valid, but I'm going to counterpoint US healthcare for those that reads this and is "Ah hah!"
The US is getting hit by the same med shortage, I'm not as strongly linked but I know a couple friends being bounced from one anti-depressant to another because one after another went short.
But our for profit system is literally shuttering hospitals across the country. What you'll get is private investment firms that buy up hospitals, bleed them for capital until the hospital is unable to run and it closes. Kansas right now is one of the worst states for hospitals in rural places where they're closing up left and right. One of my hospitals I traveled to that I was shocked didn't close was because a doctor committed suicide and had evidence on his phone that he molested patients while they were under sedation. This brought JACO and every other hospital regulatory commission on this hospital where it was found the hospital was bought up by one private capital firm after another, their debt dumped on the hospital and sold off. Literally the commissions coming in is all that saved the hospital because the current firm is now being forced to modernize the hospital and get it back to standards.
And in the case of the abortions being criminalized, states that have it criminalized are now having OBGYN doctors leaving the state than have to be put into a struggle against their ethics and the draconian law, leaving birthing centers closed up in hospitals and leaving it to the ERs that are already over capacity from being the only safety net left to those that can't afford insurance and all the hospital closures pushing more to those individual places.
And yet still, it's at least there. And it's being improved time over time. Mexico today is leaps and bounds ahead of Mexico 20 years ago. I know, I've lived here for 20 years. People here at least care
In Canada, yes stuff like joint surgeries can take a little longer to queue... But I have never actually known anyone to die on a waitlist and the turn around for things like cancer is pretty short.
The trade off is stuff like there was a friend's Dad that needed an emergency medical transfer from a smaller rural hospital. They did it by helicopter ambulance and he spent just shy of three months in hospital in intensive care. He didn't have any additional medical insurance but his family never needed pay for anything. Furthermore the hospital contracted with a hotel near by so his family could stay in a nice place walking distance to the hospital for around 20 bucks a night.
We as a country have a very small population, about the population of the state of California spread over more land mass than the entirety of the US and then some. There are challenges with that and the fact our dollar is weaker so it's overall less lucrative, but the turn around regarding knee surgeries make a lot of sense once you realize that. Changing our system to a pay-per-play would not necessarily alleviate the wait times.
The land of the free.
Freedom isn't free, it costs folks like you and me...
Buck O five
Now we're gonna pay for the wall to keep us in!
That's quite the Uno reverse they pulled. Makes sense they'd be great at Uno.
Reverse psychology!
The technical term is 'Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart'.
if only they still controlled texas
As a Mexican, no thank you, its yours now.
California returning to Mexico would be a good thing for the US
California generates about 15% of the United States GDP. If it was its own country it'd have about the 6th highest GDP in the world.
So no, it returning to Mexico would in fact not be a good thing for the U.S.
Probably one of those people who buys the social media BS claiming California is a "liberal hellscape".
That notion is hilarious to me as a Texan that used to travel up and down the west coast regularly for work. I've been to many areas of California that are just as red as any rural areas in Texas. It's exactly the same as every other state(I've been to 48 of the 50 at least several times each state). Rural areas tend to be skewed red, urban tends to be skewed blue. I guess the simplicity of that is hard to see if all the online content you consume is propaganda..
are hawaii and alaska the 2/50 you haven’t visited?
Its either that or its Maine and Utah.
What kind of silly notion is that?
That would take a lot of federal tax dollars away from states you probably like.
We'd rather take Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho make a demented little western federation of sorts. Also Idaho and Arizona are being taken for resource rights.
Idaho is right next to Utah. You wouldn't want to be there when the Great Salt Lake dries up in a few years.
tfw Mexico becomes more desirable than the USA in the future
Some states in Mexico than some states in the USA quite possibly.
Fuck I should've learned Spanish
Lo siento pinch
See, I don't know if I should be saying thank you or fuck you right now
I’m an ass so I’ll take any sort of Comms right now :)
I should have taken my Spanish class more seriously, too.
That always was a great example of the education system was failing in the U.S. So many people I know spending 1-3 years of school having to take a foreign language, yet most of them didn't learn the language to a degree that was usable anywhere. We never took it seriously and no one made us. If a person tries to learn a language over the course of school year and has 20+ others in that class also trying to learn the same language, it should have been easy to learn. We had people to practice with.
Good for Mexico, that's awesome! Too bad the U.S. is such a fucking backwards excuse of a country.
What is the best way to leave The United States?
You can't, trump walled you in.
Generally, physically.
Spiritually is okay as a stopgap solution, say while completely stoned out of your mind, but physically and permanently is what I would advise to actually improve your standard of living. Depending on your language skills and which languages you already know, good possible destinations include:
If in dire straits you could also go to the UK. Especially Scotland is a really beautiful place, but keep in mind as a country UK is quite, well, fucked. It's still a good destination, but if you're moving, might as well do better.
I would take Sweden out of that, that country is a sinking ship right now. Go to Norway or Finland instead.
It's amazing how many times online and on TV I hear people phrase things just like this.
No one is just calling "X", X.
Xitter.
This is great, considering in Chinese Xi sounds like shi
Precisely correct. Not sure Elmo really thought it through.
I've been interpreting it like "the artist formerly known as Prince"
It's like when Prince became "the artist formerly known as Prince"...
"The artist formerly known as Twitter"
In that case it's because he chose an unpronounceable symbol as his name. X is just stupid.
Just call it twitter. Lonnie doesn't respect name changes for Trans people. Don't respect his company's name change.
It'd be fun to keep a tracker of how many conservatives clutch their pearls with this decision and then go vacation in Mexico on the beach. Remember, your taxes being used for abortions is evil, but willingly spending your money in Mexico and paying for abortions there is a-okay!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The supreme court wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that it had decided that “the legal system that criminalized abortion in the Federal Penal Code is unconstitutional, [because] it violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.”
The court’s sweeping decision on Wednesday comes amid a trend in Latin America of loosening restrictions on abortion, even as access has been limited in parts of the United States.
GIRE, a reproductive rights organization based in Mexico City, said the court decided that the portion of the federal penal code that criminalized abortion no longer has any effect.
Across Latin America, countries have made moves to lift abortion restrictions in recent years, often referred to as a “green wave”.
After decades of work by feminist activists across the region, the wave picked up speed in Argentina, which in 2020 legalized the procedure.
Many organizers worry, however, that the lifting of restrictions may not translate to expanded access in highly conservative and religious countries.
The original article contains 346 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Mexico to reap millions on US abortion tourists.
You ladies ever been to Mexico?
"you boys like MexICOO?! Whooooooo!"
Does burn out donut, in cop car
All the ignorant [American] ass wipes that bemoan and slander Mexico: They're more progressive than the USA. I know that scares the republican snowflakes. I'm glad women's rights matter more in some areas. It should have always been about all human rights, but I'll stop being nieve now.
When God closes a door, he opens a window.
Seems like big government overreach. Next thing you know they’ll be forcing everybody to have an abortion. That’s probably why so many people are fleeing that country to come here where we have the freedom to let states decide.
This is a parody account, I take it? Poe's Law strikes again.
Why would a state - any state - have anything to do with letting a woman control her body?
Because bodily autonomy is a complete farce? Society can force conscious action and everyone cheers and thinks it's grand (because it is), but saying that you can't take certain actions is abominable merely because it has a slightly different psychological effect.
Controlling people's actions is literally a core function of society. Taxation, or even contracts are all vastly more extreme violations of bodily autonomy than a state simply prohibiting a conscious choice.
Not sure about the anatomy (though I can agree that some of it is rather funny, when you think about it), but the ability to control your own body is, as I see it, one of the core liberties that can never be taken away from an able person. The ethics of "supporting" people with some mental disabilities is much more convoluted, I do not have a strong opinion there.
Would be curious to see how you do your tax returns if that violates your anatomy!
"Autonomy" not "anatomy", very different things.
"I'm curious to see how you do your taxes if that violates your autonomy"
Easy, as I pretty clearly laid out violating autonomy is a requirement of society. Social norms require forcing people to engage in certain actions or face punishment (either literal imprisonment or social repercussions like faced by rude people.) If this is permissible, then why is merely prohibiting certain actions to be considered an unacceptable violation of bodily autonomy? Prohibiting something is no where near as severe as forcing someone to do something.
Ultimately nobody actually cares about bodily autonomy, it is simply a post hoc attempt at justifying that people ascribe moral value based solely on how they personally feel.
(A good example of this is forced blood donation, everyone apparently thinks it's somehow reprehensible (on principle not by making medical risk arguments) even though it is only temporary harm and arguably less harmful than income tax).
That said, I do my taxes just fine, even though the state violates my bodily autonomy by forcing me to do them.
FYI, when people talk about a right to bodily autonomy they aren't saying you aren't allowed to mind-control people, they are saying you aren't allowed to coerce someone since all norms and laws are enforced by coercion rather than rendering people physically incapable of violating the norms.
Oh, my bad, apologies. Scan reading sometimes leads to mistakes like that, and that one was too funny for my brain to let go.
But now it makes even less sense to me with the body thing. I would never accept someone else forcing me to do (or not do) something with my own body - and i see no reason whatsoever for anyone to accept that.
There is an issue of vaccination where some enforcement is justifiable, as there is a true risk for other people in you not doing it. How does someone's decision of not having a child threatens you?
Any and all restrictions or instructions should be based on a rational argument, otherwise it is just a limitation of your freedom.
And given that the argument in favor of imposing the limitations in question lies in the area of someone else's beliefs - that becomes even more ridiculous.
On the taxes side - there i can see a strong argument for it in principle, as it allows the society as a whole to do better. You want to use infrastructure built by society - you pay. Now, there is a whole other problem of how exactly the monies collected on the basis of a rational idea are spent. Holding the people in charge accountable is truly a big issue, not for this thread though.
"How does someone not having a child threaten you"
A serial killer that only targets blondes doesn't pose any threat to me at all. I might even personally benefit from their actions. Why do I still want them to be stopped?
"I see no reason whatsoever to accept that"
But you already do. You even give vaccination as an example where it would be permitted.
You are perfectly fine with one bodily autonomy violation to save lives (vaccination), but are against another (weaker form) violation that also saves lives.
The logical resolution to this is to say that prohibiting abortion doesn't save lives (i.e the fetus has no moral value or atleast insufficient moral value to outweigh personal feelings). But this renders the bodily autonomy argument worthless, because it is now the moral status of the fetus that matters not any idea of bodily autonomy. This pretty much establishes why I think the right to bodily autonomy is not actually accepted by anyone.
"Any and all restrictions and instructions should be based on rational arguments"
There is tons of academic papers on the immorality of abortion, of course there are tons that argue in the opposite of direction. I would consider most on both sides to have somewhat rational arguments it just depends on what premises you want to accept as true. I find the premises behind permitting abortion to be bit more far-fetched, things like mind-body dualism or continuity of mind as somehow granting greater moral value to be unsupported or impractical.
Blondes are people, fetuses are not - that is my view. Moral arguments can form opinions, not legislation.It is ok for you to hate me if you choose to do so, it however does not grant you a right to stop me doing my immoral in your view thing. That is, unless my immoral thing infringes your rights, then we can talk and see what can be done.
As mentioned, I am always keen to accept a rational argument (as in vaccination, where there is science behind), so can i please politely ask you to point me in the direction of academic studies on the immorality of abortion? Never saw one, so forgive my ignorance.
"Blondes are people fetuses are not"
First you completely missed the point of that question. You initially speculated why people should care if it is not directly harming them, this is a clear and obvious example of people caring about something that doesn't directly harm them. Showing that your initial objection was unfounded.
Second you immediately abandoned the bodily autonomy argument, just like I pointed out you would.
"Unless my Immoral things is infringing on your rights"
Circle back to the serial killer. They aren't infringing on my rights, how dare I object! What right do I have to enforce my morality on them?
Obviously it is permissible to enforce morality regardless of whether or not the subject likes it. The question is simply how to determine if the morality is correct, i.e consistent and well-founded.
"Moral arguments can form opinions not legislation".
Nope, that's literally all that legislation is. A moral system is something that determines whether or not something is good or bad. If a law declares that some action should be taken or certain actions are to be prohibited it is enforcing a moral system. (That moral system may be wildly inconsistent and contradictory but it is still a moral system).
There seems to be this popular notion ( outside of moral philosophy) that morality is somehow empirically derived. Unfortunately no matter how much you watch someone die, you will never gain any information on whether that circumstance is bad or good. Empirical facts may aid in classifying actions, but they do not create the requirements for the categories themselves. For instance you have a moral system that says that actions with property X are bad, you may use empirical facts to determine that action Y has property X and you can therefore determine that action Y must be bad. Without the initial premise that actions with property X are bad, you could observe Y and any other action and have no ability to determine if they are good or bad.
"In the direction of academic studies"
Not so much studies as arguments, since moral philosophy is not really an empirical field, but rather a rational one. You can find them in many ethics journals. A notable paper is "Why Abortion is Immoral" by Don Marquis, and if you read any papers in favor of abortion or infanticide there is generally a paper rebutting it.
Judging by the length of your replies i make a conclusion that either the topic in question is rather important to you, or you just enjoy arguing. In any case - thank you, it is always a pleasure to have a meaningful debate. Cannot say that the topic in question was ever in my focus (I am getting agitated mostly about personal rights and freedoms in general, rather than this particular sub-case), but your time committed deserves a slightly more detailed response. Also, thanks for a particular paper you mentioned - I enjoyed reading it, and it only highlights the differencies in our views. So let me use the same way of responding to specific lines in your posts. "You completely miss the point of that question" - nope, you provide a specific example of a killer, I respond that killing anybody is bad. The big question is how to define this "anybody". Based on that single paper you mentioned - the only one I ever read on the subject - this is indeed a central question of the whole debate, as both sides recognise the unacceptability of killing. I draw the line at birth, you do it sometime before. Oversimplification, I know, but I have no intention to contribute to the whole debate with my humble attempts on writing a tome. All I am saying - and it seems you agree, but that is up to you really - is that there is no definitive way to establish the bulletproof concept around abortion rights, so there is no ground to impose a restriction on a woman to do as she sees right. "You abandoned the bodily autonomy argument" - how so? I did not mention it in the short reply, that is true. But I stand convinced that bodily autonomy is the inherent right of every single person living. Moreover, the vaccination case does not contradict it, if taken together with the principle of limiting one's rights by rights of others. I do not see who's rights are affected in the abortion case (with a potential exception of a father who could really want this particular baby). "Thats literally what legislation is" Moral code evolved into the legislation, that is not something to argue against. Moral norms, however, as argued by evobiologists, were initially based on natural factors that helped the population to survive and expand. Killing one of your kin is bad, sleeping with your sister or your father is bad, stealing food is bad etc. Then there were less obvious additions and then there come religions that totally screwed it all. The whole idea of a proper legislation is to remove everything arbitrary (as it violates someone's rights with no purpose) and keep the rules that are accepted by the majority and work. Abortion ban is obviously not accepted by everyone (majoriity is to be seen for any of the sides, from what I heard about US politics, the ban is in minority), and the purpose of it is unclear outside of a particular understanding of the morality. That is what I basically am trying to say: there is no universal moral system, hence there should not be a law based on someone's belief that something is moral or not. A good basis of a law is the natural right to live, but in my view it does not emerge before someone is born. The deprivation argument from prof Marquis is, as I read it, by his own definition too broad to be practical (animals, contraception, plants,...?).
You abandoned the bodily autonomy argument because you switched to the moral status of the fetus. If the bodily autonomy argument was really sufficient to permit abortion then the moral status of the fetus could not possibly matter, because bodily autonomy will always override it.
You seem to like the idea of bodily autonomy, but apparently don't consider it to be sufficiently morally relevant to actually be considered in anything but morally neutral circumstances. (This is pretty standard among most people, no matter how much they want to say they value bodily autonomy)
"There is no universal moral system, hence there should not be a law based on someone's belief that something is moral or not"
By this standard no morality could be enforced because you are acting contrary to someone else's morality. Not everyone agrees that killing is bad.
"a natural right to live.... does not emerge before someone is born".
They are alive before they are born, so what special property do they gain at birth that gives them a right to life? If it is independence, well children can't survive on their own until at least 4 years of age (closer to 10-12 in reality).
"Marquis definition is too broad... plants and animals"
That's why it's called a future-like-our's. Plants and animals are certainly deprived of futures, but they are not future humans. It's to human conscious experience that is valued, and depriving an existing entity of future human experience explains the wrongness of killing adult humans and by extension all humans with an expectation of human consciousness.
Because not letting the state choose means the federal government is telling the state what to do and that’s big government overreach
There is a world outside the US, as they say... Regardless, why would a federal government enforce the control of someone's body? There are in general 2 people involved in this, and they should be the only ones responsible for this type of decisions. Not a state, not feds.
"They should"- Very serious moral claim there.
If we are talking about 2 consenting adults - yep, this is my take on it, only these 2 are in charge, until the baby is born. Afterwards there must be some protection for the baby, so there is a role for a government. It was not always like that, but that is how, I think, it should be at this stage of society's evolution. Another moral claim, I know. )
But ... states have different partial authonomy. Again, PARTIAL. Otherwise, they arent really part of federal government in the first place.
By ur logic texas can say "well, now we wont have a president but we will have a ruling dynasty." For me even the authonomy american states actually have is too high. Like how can in a same country have different laws about BASIC human rights?
How very authoritarian of you, shrew...