Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Clearly, in this context, I'm referring to a human life, to misconstrue me any other way is just a decision on your part to be disingenuous.

 

Or at least they think they intellectually know, same with pro-life folks. When they are actually facing circumstances and not just imagining it, they will then know.

 

Good.

 

It's not a misconstrue. To me a clump of cells isn't a human life. To me human life has traits like sentience. And I know the next rebuttal. "What about people in a coma? They aren't sentient". No, they aren't currently sentient, but they did have sentience before with a build up of memories, desires, wishes etc and if the successfully get out of said coma, they retain their basic sentient desires to keep living and avoid pain.

To me your argument requires some religion or magical powers beyond the tangible like a "soul" existing in those clump of cells.

 

Can’t they next just make it illegal to sue for anything abortion related?

 

Yes on legal matters, judges perform them. If the legal matter involves medical science, the individuals responsible for legal judgements, judges, consult medical experts.

Is there something wrong with this system you want to change? If so by all means I'm not committed to that system. Do you want a seperate "medical court" where the judges are specific subject matter experts in that specific field but aren't experts in legal jurisprudence?

 

What does prior sentience have to do with anything? .... if a fetus "successfully" keeps developing it acquires sentience as well..

Congratulations for you for developing your own personal belief that "sentience" is the bench mark for legal protection from being killed.

I don't know that many other people share that.

 

No, I haven't called for any changes. I don't know who or what you're arguing with exactly.

 

Because the embryo never had a desire or will to live in the first place. As a sentient person, my future plans, will to live etc aren't magically erased when I go to sleep. Prior sentience for a coma is very important lol. Because you know before they were in a coma they were expressing basic sentiment tesirs like wanting to avoid pain or wanting to continue living.

A embryo has yet to express those desires because an embyo is not physically capable of having those complex thoughts that a living human or car or dog would. You would have to convince me that before they were this clump of cells, they existed in some other non-corporeal form in another dimension like a "soul".

 

In fact, I don't have to convince you of anything.

I don't have any particular interest in your argument on how/when human life should/should not be defended.

 

I honestly don't know what you are arguing. You are claiming that a male judge ruled on roe therefore the judge is using his medical knowledge but then you acknowledge they hear testimony from the actual medical experts. But apparently that wasn't sufficient enough so I'm just making the assumption that you'd rather have some sort of seperate court for each subject that has subject matter experts as judges and just eliminate the concept of expert testimony.

 

That's fair. I don't know why you are wasting your time doing exactly that though?

 

No, a line doesn't have to draw a line, but the assumption is that most Americans would not agree with a 9th month abortion.

Where the line is drawn varies from state to state. Usually it is connected to viability of life outside of the mother, and sometimes it is drawn based on other factors as dictated by science and medicine.

The idea that everyone that is pro-choice has to agree on a definitive line is non-sense.

 

Someone made the argument "Old white men" shouldn't be deciding things regarding abortion - a common refrain - then someone mentioned they liked the "Roe standard" - then I pointed out Roe vs. Wade was decided by old white men.

 

I didn't say everyone must agree. I said everyone has to come to a conclusion.

Of course a line must be drawn.

You just pointed out every state has drawn a line.

Everyone has to determine for themselves where that line is and as a collective that is codified in everyone's state legislatures now that Roe has been reversed.

 

Well I mean if you are arguing about bad faith, then let's call it here, bad faith....


Obviously when someone says that they mean "old white men creating restrictions for women". I don't think women have issues with old white man eliminating restrictions for women. You know this right? So that means it's a bad faith argument from you.

 

Well we know the line definitely isn't 6 weeks and some states are doing that. I don't think state jurisdiction has any bearing on the concept of sentience. As a singular nation, there should be one shared upon legal definition for sentience.

It's like wanting individual states to determine the morality of slavery.

 

Not everyone agrees that "sentience" is the standard, clearly.

That's merely your opinion.

 

No, Roe very much does regulate women's bodily autonomy or gives state legislatures the right to regulate women's bodily autonomy and was decided by old white men.

If Roe simply left it up to women and their doctors, it would simply be up to women and their doctors.

 

Does it lessen or increase restrictions relative before the judgement?

Is the "regulation" meant to protect women or restrict them relative to before the judgement?