Search results

Fitting. Abortion, if it is to be allowed at all, should only be done in emergency situations where the mother's life is immediately threatened. If you can send the mother to a clinic, it's not an emergency. Well, if Trump gets another term...nah. Kagan and Sotomayor are too far from...

The DOJ is suing Idaho specifically, but the Idaho law already has a clause allowing doctors to perform an abortion after "good faith judgement" that it's necessary to save the life of the mother. The DOJ says it should be allowed if the "woman's health is in jeopardy", a much more nebulous...

Well, he assumes that. I'm questioning if it's a valid assumption to make.

He didn't define it directly based on brain activity, though. He defined it based on thoughts. Do people have thoughts when they're unconscious? Brain activity, yes, but thoughts? I guess the real question then is if brain activity is necessarily indicative of thoughts.

This definition of life raises questions about people who are knocked unconscious from head trauma or from anesthesia, or who fall into longer term comas either from trauma or by being medically induced. They're not having "thoughts". Do they cease to be alive when they fall unconscious, and...

Life has always been a "crapshoot" at any stage of development. It's only relatively recently that we've cut down on infant and child mortality, and pushed up the average life expectancy.

My understanding is that IVF inevitably involves the creation of embryos that will be destroyed.

But unavoidable if you're intellectually consistent and you accept the presuppositions about either the definition of human life or the value of human life that allowing abortion requires.

Pure evil. May God have mercy on us for the culture of death in California.

Hey now. At least KBJ doesn't think too highly of herself, she doesn't presume to be a biologist.

Now that's REALLY going for broke on woke! She really is. Back when Justice Kennedy retired, she was favorite pick by a lot of conservative commentators, even over Kavanaugh. I think it was wise for Trump to save ACB for a later appointment. At the time she had only been on the federal appeals...

Or Larry Elder.

There's also some things he argued in his concurrence about substantive due process being the wrong way to apply the Constitution, and acknowledging that if SCOTUS changed its tune on substantive due process, that would undermine other cases that relied on the concept in their decisions. And...

But should it be a punishable offense if a hunter kills an animal and doesn't use it as food? We kill animals all the time so biology students can take a look at the insides. I dissected a frog in high school biology class. Did whoever killed that frog do something fundamentally wrong? Killing...

And I don't think it's fundamentally wrong to kill animals. We do it all the time, for food. Do we need a "good reason"? Let's say someone goes out hunting, for sport. They shoot a deer, or a duck. Is that wrong? Does it matter if they take the dead deer or duck and use its meat for food later...

To be fair, a lot of conservatives have "thanked" RBG, tongue in cheek, because there is truth to the idea that this only happened because RBG stubbornly held on to her seat and didn't retire when she had the chance for Obama to replace her. One thing people are overlooking though - in 1973...

You know, if Democrats get enough of a majority in the Senate and House to make packing the court or impeaching the justices viable options, they would have enough of a majority to just pass legislation making abortion legal nationwide. Making these blatantly destructive moves moot.

You aren't quite making sense. If it's considered a "person" at that point, it's not going to develop into a person. It's already a person. "Stopping someone from existing" is rather different than "stopping someone from coming into existence". Stopping a couple from having sex when the woman...

Yeah that's a common fallacy pro-aborts love to parrot. And you're right, it has nothing to do with arguing there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, nothing to do with defending Roe v Wade as a sound legal decision that shouldn't be overturned. So technically, it has nothing to do with...

There's no "would", as far as I'm concerned. It is a human life. Destroying it kills a human life. That is a different result, a much more evil result, than just stopping a person from "coming into existence". You and I are "cluster of cells", after all. That's not somehow mutually exclusive...