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

Christian Scientists would ban all of these medical procedures, no?

Should we let Christian Scientists write the rules for themselves and everybody else to follow? BTW there is no doubting the sincerity of their beliefs, even though most do not agree with them.

This lands me with the point. Most people do not see abortion as a black or white issue.. Most people have a very nuanced opinion on abortion.

 

Government should not make laws based on morality. It should strive to be utilitarian while still preserving individual rights. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

 

Killing people hurts them.

Indeed. The most central right being the right to life. That should definitely be preserved.

 

Are you hurt if you don't feel it?

When does somebody become a person?

 

Yes. If someone kills you in your sleep, or while you are under anesthesia, or drunk, or high, or in a coma, or while suffering from a neurological disorder that prevents you from feeling pain, you are still hurt. Being deprived of life is a hurt.

At conception.

 

I guess we view hurt differently, but that is okay.

That is unfortunate because it is a long way to go from there to actually being a person. And I'm pretty against abortion.

 

This is the back and forth we will never get past. It's a philosophical difference that's hard for people to overcome.

Out of curiosity are you against IVF? I apologize in advance if you've answered this before.

 

everybody hurts.

Spoiler

 

As currently practiced, yes. I have no problem with fertilizing and attempting to implant one egg at a time. The current practice of fertilizing more eggs than you use, and then culling when too many implant is barbaric.

 

for clarity, a fertilized egg is called an embryo.

IVF does not typically result in multiple implantations, although it may on occasion. in fact, the reason for "transferring" more than a single embryo is precisely because implantation is difficult.

multiple implications are the exception, not the rule.

 

I'm glad you support IVF, but I do find it interesting that you believe life begins at conception, thus your stance on abortion, but are okay with IVF. Maybe your belief is more based on situation rather than actually caring about life at itself? I say this is since I don't know your stance on rape, incest, mother's life type of situations. Again, where life begins is truly a philosophical question that we can argue back and forth about, but if your stance is that it begins at conception, then that's what you believe.

 

Disregard. I saw your answer after I posted.

 

I am aware, but the sentence works better as constructed, because I don't have to switch nouns in the middle.

For clarity, implications are unstated consequences of the stated propositions.

Why would I be against creating the life outside the womb and then inserting it?

 

Can't be surprised this happened and will likely happen more. Natural consequence of banning abortions.

 

Well, yea, providing abortions is against the law in Texas.

I know Democrats are extremely interested in making sure we prosecute all criminals to the fullest extent of the law so they should be happy to see this.

 

Natural consequence of banning murder is that people will commit illegal murders. Oh well, better scrap the entire system of law and punishment boys, it turns out making something illegal doesn't completely stop people from doing it.