Roe v. Wade is gone.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It's one thing to personally find abortion morally questionable, it's another thing to enforce a ban on abortion.

Right; the two arguments are occurring at different levels. I agree with most pro-life arguments, and yet the right to choose supercedes them all. If, for example, there was a pregnancy complication and either the mother or the child could be saved but not both, and a decision had to be made. It doesn't matter whether someone wants their wife to be saved, or if she wants the child to be saved. Both are making a choice in that moment, and presumably both want to be able to discuss that choice between themselves and not have a third-party involved.

Unless a person explicitly says they rather let the state decide for them, everyone is committed to a pro-choice stance by default.

[Jehanne]

It's one thing to personally find abortion morally questionable, it's another thing to enforce a ban on abortion.

Right; the two arguments are occurring at different levels. I agree with most pro-life arguments, and yet the right to choose supercedes them all. If, for example, there was a pregnancy complication and either the mother or the child could be saved but not both, and a decision had to be made. It doesn't matter whether someone wants their wife to be saved, or if she wants the child to be saved. Both are making a choice in that moment, and presumably both want to be able to discuss that choice between themselves and not have a third-party involved.

Unless a person explicitly says they rather let the state decide for them, everyone is committed to a pro-choice stance by default.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

[The Grand Nudger]

The court realized that, and said fuck you and your choices, because The God of Cathol and a dead witchfinder think it's icky. That's been the running theme of this session. Clerics with antimajoritarian views legislating from the bench because they believe that they have the right to rule even when no one wants them to.

[Belacqua]

Biden has announced he will nominate an anti-abortion activist for a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...e-yarmuth/

[Jehanne]

Biden has announced he will nominate an anti-abortion activist for a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...e-yarmuth/

And, in last year's news, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won Super Bowl LV.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like Clockwork

Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction. It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ate-lines/

[John 6IX Breezy]

An acorn is not an oak tree.

Same organism—at different stages of it's development.

Pro-life arguments have a definite advantage on this front. And I would be surprised if you've ever convinced someone that a fetus isn't a developing human by saying acorns aren't oak trees.

That's why it's necessary to understand that pro-choice positions aren't dependent on such facts. The famous example is that of someone being connected to a sick person as a kind of living dialysis machine. There's no doubt here that the sick person is a fully grown human being. The question is whether it's right to keep the healthy person tied up to the sick person if they ever wanted to leave.

[Jehanne]

An acorn is not an oak tree.

Same organism—at different stages of it's development.

Pro-life arguments have a definite advantage on this front. And I would be surprised if you've ever convinced someone that a fetus isn't a developing human by saying acorns aren't oak trees.

That's why it's necessary to understand that pro-choice positions aren't dependent on such facts. The famous example is that of someone being connected to a sick person as a kind of living dialysis machine. There's no doubt here that the sick person is a fully grown human being. The question is whether it's right to keep the healthy person tied up to the sick person if they ever wanted to leave.

Sorry, I don't believe a zygote to be a human being just because it is composed of human DNA. It's like saying that my sperm are little human beings.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Merely having human DNA is not enough to be human

[Angrboda]

An acorn is not an oak tree.

Same organism—at different stages of it's development.

Pro-life arguments have a definite advantage on this front. And I would be surprised if you've ever convinced someone that a fetus isn't a developing human by saying acorns aren't oak trees.

That's why it's necessary to understand that pro-choice positions aren't dependent on such facts. The famous example is that of someone being connected to a sick person as a kind of living dialysis machine. There's no doubt here that the sick person is a fully grown human being. The question is whether it's right to keep the healthy person tied up to the sick person if they ever wanted to leave.

They have the potential to become something. Arguing that simply because something has a potential to become something that they should be treated as the completed thing is no less devoid of facts.

Here's a thought experiment. I'm potentially a dead person. Does that mean I should be immune to laws which only apply to living persons?

This is a breakdown of logic typical of conservatives. Their brains have trouble thinking in terms other than black & white. They are incapable of tolerating ambiguity or nuance. So rather than face the fact that things aren't black & white, they insist that anyone who thinks there are shades of gray is simply wrong. And they'll do anything, no matter how corrupt or unfair, to see that everybody else has to live in their impoverished world.

That's as big a blindspot for the facts as any. It's a detachment from reality. And one that America is going to have to live with because 5 SCOTUS judges can't differentiate their prejudices from the law.