How do you think fathers (in the anti abortion debate) should be punished if they consent to the mother having an abortion? This is in relation to the heartbeat law being passed in some southern states.

Today, all bets are off. The idea that every fertile woman has as much right to sex as any other, coupled with the unspoken assumption that protection was hers to guarantee since the risk was hers – not fully supported, but gaining ground among women who resent “being coddled”.

So far men who have “planted viable seed” appear to stand on the outer perimeter the debate. The core of that debate appears to center on uteri and the people who own them, full stop.

In short, the baby’s heartbeat nudges up against the real Constitutional provision involved in Roe v. Wade, the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Today’s new laws require the abortion provider detect that heartbeat; this was the core issue in 197e, i.e. to balance the overt requirement of the 4th Amendment against the government’s implicit interest in protecting life.

Since then the “Constitutional Right” to abortion has evolved well past the original tradeoff, as a direct result of “history being written by the winners.” And to bolster it, the ‘pro’ side of the abortion debate attacks the very idea of ‘life’ even meriting protection.

Which means that both sides wage moral war over a definition.