Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:21:51 PM

Yes, far better to reduce the bodily autonomy of half the population to less than that of a corpse. (Glossing over your very transparent appeal to emotion and the fact that a fetus at 20 weeks does not have a brain which is capable of consciousness, feeling, thought, or pain.)

A patient under anesthesia doesn't feel pain either. Does it make it a tragedy if their brain were poked with a stick for the sake of ceasing life? I don't have to use any emotion when talking about abortion, the practice is barbaric when dealing with a developed fetus. Abortion zygotes aren't much of a tragedy but maybe in retrospect folks will look back and realize abortion isn't as liberating as they once thought it was. I'm hoping it will go out of style and revert back to "safe, legal, and rare."

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:21:51 PM

So I'm sure you'll agree it is equally wrong of the Supreme Court to over rule local governments on other contentious issues like gun control? And that this ruling just yesterday was therefore obviously wrong?

There is a right to keep guns in the U.S. I don't see a right for abortion anywhere in the constitution.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:21:51 PM

Right, because this was definitely only about overturning a bad law. That's why many Republicans are now coming out and calling for nationwide bans.

They can call for whatever they want. Republicans are celebrating but this will set them back in midterms a bit. Let them celebrate, who cares? Abortion is and will be a state issue. Abortion in the U.S. is not banned. I don't think it should be either. If Californians want to abort 9 month old fetuses, I suppose that's within the purview of their electorate. Either way, bad law is bad law. Hard to find any legitimate constitutional scholar that can find abortion within the text of the constitution.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 07:21:51 PM

And you see no issue with a biased and religiously driven Supreme Court overturning decades of precedent because of individual political leanings?

Seems to me the legal analysis of any document, by a prudent person (few of those folks left in the court system these days) would be from a textualist interpretation. That way, as Justice Scalia once said (I quote him loosely), you don't need to wake up one day and look to the sky to determine if the death penalty is constitutional or not. Clarence Thomas is doing a better job at sticking to the text of the constitution despite what his religions beliefs might be.

And of course, Western foundational values are religious in nature, Judeo Christian values are long withstanding. So to your point, there could be a religious bent to all of this. But not under the name of God, under Judeo Christian values.