Neither have you

Yes, I know. Which absolves you of ever having any responsibility to find truth, or take any kind of stand around what is or isn’t true.

Maybe. Doesn’t matter. If someone had to have a part of their liver removed because they chose to drink too much, we wouldn’t tell them it was illegal to do so because it was their own damned fault. You know why?

Not in a way the mother does. Not in any way that should prioritize it over the mother’s bodily autonomy, no.

It’s unreasonable to prioritize a potential life over an existing one. And before you trot out another semantic argument, when I say “life” I mean the actual, living experience of life, not the ethereal, philosophical concept that animates matter. The mother has that. The child doesn’t.

The child was created as a part of her, not the other way around.

I’m saying it because no woman should be forced to give birth if she chooses not to.

I never set a goalpost anywhere. You did. Human or person, you’re arguing semantics. The point stands either way. It doesn’t matter. The mother gets to decide whether or not to give birth. Period.

Until that baby is born, everything that happens is a matter of the mother’s health and bodily autonomy. Once it’s born, it is its own person.

Not relevant. As long as it’s in the woman’s body, she gets to make the decisions. End of story.

So, in your view, when is an unborn baby a “human”? Just curious, since you seem so certain about your position.

It is certainly the case that people, unhappy with a (new) status quo, will seek power and leverage wherever they can find it... and in the US one of the only places you can find that outside of government…

Fair point that this was flippant... RvW and Casey certainly recognized that both mothers and unborn babies had rights that needed to be weighed carefully.

I think the better point is that my argument is about making sure we build strong foundations to defend basic human rights and autonomy. I’m all for it done well.…

Federal laws codifying the right on a national level would have been a separate foundation and a new argument to be had.

Substantive.

It was never inevitable. It was avoidable. Codify it, reinforce with better legal reasoning, educate people, repair our broken electoral framework that favors the minority party, eliminate or modernize the electoral college.

Basic human and bodily rights shouldn’t be up to a vote.

The court could have easily redefined the justification because those other arguments have been made. Can’t test an argument you choose to ignore. Both the majority in Casey and the dissent in this case acknowledged that the due process argument was less than ideal but that other justifications existed and should have…

It’s also important to note (in an effort to address the blame portion of your argument) that we’ve always known that the position of Supreme Court Justice was political... and we’ve certainly known that Roe V Wade was built on a very shaky legal argument (as even our liberal idols have pointed out)... and that for…

Given the context of the conversation, pretty clear what I was alluding to there. The original justification may have been shaky but that doesn’t mean a justification elsewhere didn’t exist.

I didn’t ignore it but sure.