(08-10-2022, 09:39 AM)SeldomRite Wrote:

(08-10-2022, 09:34 AM)mikesez Wrote: I do think the law needs to be pretty nuanced when it comes to abortion.  Considering that in most states, girls 17 and under can't always legally consent to sex, so in most cases such acts are legally prosecutable as rape, the law should give more leeway for girls 17 and under to get early abortions if desired.  The default position should be that they are victims, either of force or manipulation.  I get that that's not a perfectly consistent philosophy or ethic of life, but these are very very messy issues.

Even so, I would prosecute this girl in Nebraska.  She had 20 weeks to seek a legal abortion and she would have known she was pregnant for most of that time.

One of the problems with that line of thinking is the unequal protection under the law. Women of means can just go somewhere that abortion is completely legal, right up to birth, while a child like the one in question doesn't have means and is instead forced to incubate a foreign entity against their will due to where they live.

We have to totally reject the idea that the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment must be equality of outcome regardless of economic resources.  

I have no problem with you arguing that I should be sympathetic to poor people, and I have no problem with you arguing that policy makers should consider their needs and resources and desires.  I do have a problem with you saying that a law is bad because it hurts poor people more than rich people.  This is true of almost every law.  If a law isn't specifically targeting rich people, it inevitably hurts poor people more because they aren't as able to hire good lawyers, among other reasons.  If we held that laws with disparate economic impacts can not be valid, we would quickly have no laws at all.

---