It is possible to make Squires arguments about same sex marriage without citing religion. The state recognizes and has always recognized marriage because of the possibility of issue. The state only cares that paternity is certain so that the father will raise the child (ren) and the child will not become a burden to the state. The state does not care about who loves whom but two men or two women cannot produce a child without the assistance of a third party.
Loving v Virginia, often cited as if it supports same sex marriage, in fact does not. Loving says. “Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Skinner says “This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race—the right to have offspring. “ Our very existence and survival ....a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race
With respect to abortion - when Roe was decided, the pill was new and birth control was unreliable. Today that is not the case and the decision as to whether or not you want to have a child should be made before you engage in the act that produces it. That said, I believe as a practical matter discretionary abortion should be legal up to 12 or 15 weeks as most European counties have decided. Women have always had abortions and outlawing it will not stop it. There should also be exceptions for gross abnormality of the fetus and life (not health - too ambiguous) of the mother. Many also support exceptions for rape or incest, but those circumstances account for maybe only 1% of all abortions. Reducing the opportunity for discretionary abortions would send a message.
Who bears the cost of that message? How about mandatory reversible vasectomies? That would eliminate most abortions. Men can bear whatever costs upfront.
It is possible to make Squires arguments about same sex marriage without citing religion. The state recognizes and has always recognized marriage because of the possibility of issue. The state only cares that paternity is certain so that the father will raise the child (ren) and the child will not become a burden to the state. The state does not care about who loves whom but two men or two women cannot produce a child without the assistance of a third party.
Loving v Virginia, often cited as if it supports same sex marriage, in fact does not. Loving says. “Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Skinner says “This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race—the right to have offspring. “ Our very existence and survival ....a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race
Didn’t finish but it clearly ties the right to marry to procreation.
With respect to abortion - when Roe was decided, the pill was new and birth control was unreliable. Today that is not the case and the decision as to whether or not you want to have a child should be made before you engage in the act that produces it. That said, I believe as a practical matter discretionary abortion should be legal up to 12 or 15 weeks as most European counties have decided. Women have always had abortions and outlawing it will not stop it. There should also be exceptions for gross abnormality of the fetus and life (not health - too ambiguous) of the mother. Many also support exceptions for rape or incest, but those circumstances account for maybe only 1% of all abortions. Reducing the opportunity for discretionary abortions would send a message.
Who bears the cost of that message? How about mandatory reversible vasectomies? That would eliminate most abortions. Men can bear whatever costs upfront.