[notch656a]

Personally I'm pro-abortion but I think it's trickier than you say. Evicting a living entity, even for people who are pretty progressive, is usually seen as a delicate subject. To me evicting an entity is a lot trickier subject than merely abandoning it, and the points against using force to evict that entity could have merit. Although we are both in agreement that you can safely abandon the life you created without any moral obligation.

Personally I see no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth. Neither wrong, but abandoning before birth requires a forceful eviction.

>The only person it is tricky for is the mother, who is the only person in the universe whos opinion matters on abortion, and we must abide by the decisions of the individual.

I mean to frame it as only involved life as the mother I think is disingenuous. Perhaps the fetus is not viable but it has to be at least considered in this equation, even if only to decide offspring has no rights to compel their parent to keep them alive.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

Ok good :-) I think my issue is the your idea of eviction, its not eviction, in the same way we don't 'evict' cancer, we 'treat' it. I think its best to leave it at 'no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth.'. Agreed. Lets not make this difficult situation harder for women who have to make very difficult decisions in life.

[notch656a]

IMO the courts did right though here revoking Roe v Wade. For such a tricky subject without enumeration of this right in the constitution, the constitutional basis for determining this would be allowing voters in the various states to decide. In some states they have decided to agree with you. In others they haven't. IMO supreme court did right here, and allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Democracy, if you will.

That is, if you play by the rules of finding nations and constitutions to be legitimate :)

[rfd4sgmk8u]

It would have been nicer to codify the rights before pulling the rug on it.