BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS

[lfromnj]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

You misunderstand the nature of the abortion issue.

If this decision is overturned, suddenly, millions of people will no longer have a reason to vote R. They could start voting for their own economic interests, finally. This might finally give us the voting power to end the seemingly unstoppable wealth inequality spiral.

You do realize that Republicans still have to pass laws to actually ban abortion and after that still stay in power to keep said bans?

[Person Man]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

You misunderstand the nature of the abortion issue.

If this decision is overturned, suddenly, millions of people will no longer have a reason to vote R. They could start voting for their own economic interests, finally. This might finally give us the voting power to end the seemingly unstoppable wealth inequality spiral.

You do realize that Republicans still have to pass laws to actually ban abortion and after that still stay in power to keep said bans?

People get kind of lazy after people start to listen to them and if they are getting what they want then they actually have to defend the status quo.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

The illogical assumption that many pro-force advocates make is assuming that just because a fetus can have a life means it will automatically be a pleasant one. That life is inherently good and worth experiencing. In my opinion, sometimes it's better for someone not to live. And don't put those words in other pro-choice advocates mouths, please. This is my jaded perspective and mine alone.

And my mom has had miscarriages and an abortion at various times in her life, so my feelings, by Kingpoleon's judgement, ought to be valid.

[Kingpoleon]

You're putting words in my mouth again. I'll happily discuss this with you once you've decided to climb down off your cross and engage with me in a levelheaded manner.

The difference between a fetus at 1 week and 20 weeks is development, or between a 20 week old fetus and a baby. If we decide that development is a good measurement of human value, then abortion and infanticide are lesser crimes than killing a toddler, which is a lesser crime than killing a teen, which is a lesser crime than killing an adult. At no point in development are you nonexistent. This isn’t controversial in bioethics - probably the majority of bioethicists think we should consider legalizing infanticide and making the murder of toddlers a lesser crime. Peter Singer, the most prominent bioethicist, is a moderate bioethicist in this regards - he thinks we should only be allowed to kill fetuses after 20 weeks & newborns if they have a disability like Down’s Syndrome.

[John Dule]

You're putting words in my mouth again. I'll happily discuss this with you once you've decided to climb down off your cross and engage with me in a levelheaded manner.

The difference between a fetus at 1 week and 20 weeks is development, or between a 20 week old fetus and a baby. If we decide that development is a good measurement of human value, then abortion and infanticide are lesser crimes than killing a toddler, which is a lesser crime than killing a teen, which is a lesser crime than killing an adult. At no point in development are you nonexistent. This isn’t controversial in bioethics - probably the majority of bioethicists think we should consider legalizing infanticide and making the murder of toddlers a lesser crime. Peter Singer, the most prominent bioethicist, is a moderate bioethicist in this regards - he thinks we should only be allowed to kill fetuses after 20 weeks & newborns if they have a disability like Down’s Syndrome.

You're still focusing on development as if it is the only relevant determining factor in the abortion debate. I didn't even bring it up. Yes, it's a part of the pro-choice argument, but there are many other factors to consider. I agree that if "development" was the sole determinant in this debate, your logic would follow-- but that is not the case.

It's worth noting here that the pro-life argument is itself based on development. You argue that life begins at conception-- why? Sperm cells are alive. So are eggs. Why is a zygote fundamentally different from these two things? Clearly, the debate here is not about whether a fetus is alive (it is literally composed of living cells); rather, the question is about when the fetus becomes human. You say that this happens at conception, which is just as much of an arbitrary delineation as 20 weeks, 40 weeks, or birth.

In short, you are the only person here who is making an argument based on development. Again, you need to actually listen to what other people are saying instead of basing your responses on random assumptions and strawmen.

[Kingpoleon]

You're still focusing on development as if it is the only relevant determining factor in the abortion debate. I didn't even bring it up. Yes, it's a part of the pro-choice argument, but there are many other factors to consider. I agree that if "development" was the sole determinant in this debate, your logic would follow-- but that is not the case.

It's worth noting here that the pro-life argument is itself based on development. You argue that life begins at conception-- why? Sperm cells are alive. So are eggs. Why is a zygote fundamentally different from these two things? Clearly, the debate here is not about whether a fetus is alive (it is literally composed of living cells); rather, the question is about when the fetus becomes human. You say that this happens at conception, which is just as much of an arbitrary delineation as 20 weeks, 40 weeks, or birth.

In short, you are the only person here who is making an argument based on development. Again, you need to actually listen to what other people are saying instead of basing your responses on random assumptions and strawmen.

It’s not my opinion that conception is the beginning of life - it is a fact.

“The moment of fertilization is the beginning of a new human life.” Fundamentals of Embryology

“No one can seriously deny that, at the moment of conception, a new human life begins.” - Statement to the Press by Planned Parenthood

“When we fail to admit that a new human life begins at fertilization, and that abortion is ending the life of the unborn in a way that birth control does not, we damage our cause and become exactly what our opponents accuse us of being: People who fundamentally view human life as invaluable, who view the unborn as not fully a living, human person. We must admit that, in their full humanity and personhood, the unborn must be murdered. ... I murdered my child.” - Naomi Wolf, the most cited feminist author

“It's a nasty, dirty, yucky thing and I always come home angry... I've become very good at it. I've become one hell of an abortionist. But it's not something I tell my kids about... Have you ever seen one? ... I don't care what anyone say, it is not a tonsillectomy, not just any old medical procedure. It's terminating a human life.” - David Zbaraz, DC’s most experienced abortionist

“Women are not stupid... women have always known that the baby was a living human. Did you think it was dead? Did you think it was a cow?” - Faye Wattleton, President of Planned Parenthood

“I can not seriously deny that a new human life begins at conception and call myself a rational man.” - Peter Singer, the most cited bioethicist today

“No one likes to see a dead fetus, or to kill it by snapping its neck.” - Vilma Valdez, Executive Director of Miami Planned Parenthood

To assert that a new human life has not begun at conception is insane - it is the equivalent of asserting the Sun goes around the Earth.

http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/babytia20wk.jpg

[John Dule]

It’s not my opinion that conception is the beginning of life - it is a fact.

To assert that a new human life has not begun at conception is insane - it is the equivalent of asserting the Sun goes around the Earth.

It is interesting to me that Christians are so adamant about conception being the moment that human life begins. Scientifically speaking, the moment of fertilization is when the zygote becomes genetically identical to the fetus (and the person) it will eventually grow into. Choosing this as the moment of "ensoulment" is ironically rather materialistic; indeed, theologians of the past chose other moments (such as when a baby takes its first breath) as the moment when human life begins.

In any case, there remains no consensus on when personhood actually begins, and if I wanted to make an appeal to ethos I could very easily conjure up a similar list of quotations.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

[lfromnj]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

What?
How does that have to be with being a Libertarian?

Dule has expressed disdain for Roe before but thats due to separate judicial beliefs. He still is very pro choice.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

States rights is not a libertarian position at all. Almost all values are unverbalizable and I can't see why any principled libertarian would be okay with a government making a tyrannical decision just because it exists below the federal level.

[John Dule]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

I'm torn. I do believe that Roe was poorly decided (as lfromnj noted), and I understand that whatever threshold the law establishes for "personhood" will be fundamentally arbitrary on some level (not unlike the age of consent). However, Blairite is also right in noting that libertarians should not endorse any government taking away people's rights, whether that is a federal, state, or local government. In fact, smaller governments are often more prone to wild reactionary conservatism than the federal government, so in some ways I trust them less to preserve people's rights.

That said, I am ok with certain states passing certain abortion restrictions-- but the idea that a zygote is equivalent to a living person is fundamentally insane and any attempt to legislate to that effect should be resisted. I personally think the cutoff for abortion should come when the fetus becomes viable, but unlike certain people, I understand that there is no exact moment when a fetus becomes a person. Personhood isn't something that happens in a split second. It is a gradient scale, and while either end of that gradient is clearly defined, there is no naturally occurring delineation in between that we can use as a basis for legislation.

[GALeftist]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

I'm torn. I do believe that Roe was poorly decided (as lfromnj noted), and I understand that whatever threshold the law establishes for "personhood" will be fundamentally arbitrary on some level (not unlike the age of consent). However, Blairite is also right in noting that libertarians should not endorse any government taking away people's rights, whether that is a federal, state, or local government. In fact, smaller governments are often more prone to wild reactionary conservatism than the federal government, so in some ways I trust them less to preserve people's rights.

That said, I am ok with certain states passing certain abortion restrictions-- but the idea that a zygote is equivalent to a living person is fundamentally insane and any attempt to legislate to that effect should be resisted. I personally think the cutoff for abortion should come when the fetus becomes viable, but unlike certain people, I understand that there is no exact moment when a fetus becomes a person. Personhood isn't something that happens in a split second. It is a gradient scale, and while either end of that gradient is clearly defined, there is no naturally occurring delineation in between that we can use as a basis for legislation.

Worth noting here that, unless I'm mistaken, abortions after the fetus is viable are quite rare, and in circumstances when someone's life isn't at risk they're almost unheard of. More frequently doctors will simply induce birth in a woman who does not wish to be pregnant anymore at that stage.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

I'm torn. I do believe that Roe was poorly decided (as lfromnj noted), and I understand that whatever threshold the law establishes for "personhood" will be fundamentally arbitrary on some level (not unlike the age of consent). However, Blairite is also right in noting that libertarians should not endorse any government taking away people's rights, whether that is a federal, state, or local government. In fact, smaller governments are often more prone to wild reactionary conservatism than the federal government, so in some ways I trust them less to preserve people's rights.

That said, I am ok with certain states passing certain abortion restrictions-- but the idea that a zygote is equivalent to a living person is fundamentally insane and any attempt to legislate to that effect should be resisted. I personally think the cutoff for abortion should come when the fetus becomes viable, but unlike certain people, I understand that there is no exact moment when a fetus becomes a person. Personhood isn't something that happens in a split second. It is a gradient scale, and while either end of that gradient is clearly defined, there is no naturally occurring delineation in between that we can use as a basis for legislation.

My opinion is states shouldnt have the right to ban abortions without the basic exceptions and also not have a the right to pass the type of laws Virginia tried to pass in 2019 either. I think both of those would violate the constitution.

Other than that I think states should have the constitutional power to do what they want

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

States rights is not a libertarian position at all. Almost all values are unverbalizable and I can't see why any principled libertarian would be okay with a government making a tyrannical decision just because it exists below the federal level.

Isnt American libertarianism basically the types that take the interpretation of : if something isn't explicitly written in the constitution , than the federal government should have no power to make laws or regulations about it.

[lfromnj]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

I'm torn. I do believe that Roe was poorly decided (as lfromnj noted), and I understand that whatever threshold the law establishes for "personhood" will be fundamentally arbitrary on some level (not unlike the age of consent). However, Blairite is also right in noting that libertarians should not endorse any government taking away people's rights, whether that is a federal, state, or local government. In fact, smaller governments are often more prone to wild reactionary conservatism than the federal government, so in some ways I trust them less to preserve people's rights.

That said, I am ok with certain states passing certain abortion restrictions-- but the idea that a zygote is equivalent to a living person is fundamentally insane and any attempt to legislate to that effect should be resisted. I personally think the cutoff for abortion should come when the fetus becomes viable, but unlike certain people, I understand that there is no exact moment when a fetus becomes a person. Personhood isn't something that happens in a split second. It is a gradient scale, and while either end of that gradient is clearly defined, there is no naturally occurring delineation in between that we can use as a basis for legislation.

My opinion is states shouldnt have the right to ban abortions without the basic exceptions and also not have a the right to pass the type of laws Virginia tried to pass in 2019 either. I think both of those would violate the constitution.

Other than that I think states should have the constitutional power to do what they want

Why would it be unconstitutional for a state to ban rape abortions if they can ban abortions in general.

FWIW I do the see the argument for why moderate pro lifers can take that position with an exception due to the fact that consenting to have sex can be seen as consenting to the risk of pregnancy but rape violates that said original consent.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

States rights is not a libertarian position at all. Almost all values are unverbalizable and I can't see why any principled libertarian would be okay with a government making a tyrannical decision just because it exists below the federal level.

Isnt American libertarianism basically the types that take the interpretation of : if something isn't explicitly written in the constitution , than the federal government should have no power to make laws or regulations about it.

That would be a very reductionist way of interpreting their motivations.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

States rights is not a libertarian position at all. Almost all values are unverbalizable and I can't see why any principled libertarian would be okay with a government making a tyrannical decision just because it exists below the federal level.

Isnt American libertarianism basically the types that take the interpretation of : if something isn't explicitly written in the constitution , than the federal government should have no power to make laws or regulations about it.

That would be a very reductionist way of interpreting their motivations.

That was basically how I believe  Ron Paul described it and he was basically the face of American libertarianism for decades

[Geoffrey Howe]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

States rights is not a libertarian position at all. Almost all values are unverbalizable and I can't see why any principled libertarian would be okay with a government making a tyrannical decision just because it exists below the federal level.

Isnt American libertarianism basically the types that take the interpretation of : if something isn't explicitly written in the constitution , than the federal government should have no power to make laws or regulations about it.

Article 1, §1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”

Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[R.P. McM]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

By the same logic, shouldn't a libertarian support a state's right to abrogate the First Amendment? No, obviously, almost all of us, of any ideological disposition, hold certain principles above federalism. 

[Kingpoleon]

It is interesting to me that Christians are so adamant about conception being the moment that human life begins. Scientifically speaking, the moment of fertilization is when the zygote becomes genetically identical to the fetus (and the person) it will eventually grow into. Choosing this as the moment of "ensoulment" is ironically rather materialistic; indeed, theologians of the past chose other moments (such as when a baby takes its first breath) as the moment when human life begins.

In any case, there remains no consensus on when personhood actually begins, and if I wanted to make an appeal to ethos I could very easily conjure up a similar list of quotations.

You are mistaking me for a Cartesian dualist - I don’t speak of ensoulment as such.

Yes, from the eleventh century until the late nineteenth century the Catholic Church and scientists were unaware that life began at conception - they thought that, until the baby began to move, it was inert, without life. The science proved them wrong, and as such the Pope changed the position of the church. I am, fortunately, not bound to pretend Aristotle was right on this count. However, the very earliest document of the Church, the Didache, written in the year 50, explicitly considers abortion murder. In Tom Holland’s book Dominion, he details the practical effects of the early church’s unanimous prohibition on murdering the unborn from its very earliest days. If you want to go toe to toe on Christian history, I’m quite happy to do so; it’s not very fair to you. In my church, this has been the view from its earliest days.

“Now I am told that in the British colonies, they consider a black man’s word nothing to a white man’s. What villainy is this? Do you not know that all of you are brothers and sisters, each equal to the other? Yet some of you plead: ‘He has not the brain of a white man.’ How you can say these things I do not know. It is not true! If it were true, it is not by the measure of the a man’s head that he ought to be valued; it is for this reason many villains among you have done unto the foetus, destroyed in their mother’s womb by poison, what you have. It is for this reason that some of you will go on still, slaughtering babes and toddling children besides. It is for this reason you sell your fellow men, the very image of God, for thirty pieces of silver.” - St. John Wesley

“There is no consensus on when personhood begins!!!!” is not an argument. It is clearly a lack of one. Obviously, most rights (such as driving, guns, drinking, etc.) develop over time. The right to life is not one that does so - if it were, it would be better to kill a child who murdered someone and worse to kill an adult who murdered someone.

Here is the most prominent PC ethicist, biting the bullet: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264919?seq=1

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

By the same logic, shouldn't a libertarian support a state's right to abrogate the First Amendment? No, obviously, almost all of us, of any ideological disposition, hold certain principles above federalism. 

Nope,  cause the first amendment is clearly written in the constitution so even by Ron Paul interpretation of the constitution, the states wouldn’t have powers to limit speech

[John Dule]

Yes, from the eleventh century until the late nineteenth century the Catholic Church and scientists were unaware that life began at conception - they thought that, until the baby began to move, it was inert, without life. The science proved them wrong, and as such the Pope changed the position of the church.

At the risk of taking a cheap shot... since when has the church cared about science proving its teachings wrong? If scientific inquiry tells us that a zygote is genetically identical to a fully grown person at the moment of fertilization, why should that have any bearing on Christian dogma? Does the material nature of the zygote's genes somehow imbue it with a soul, consciousness, or self-awareness? Again, this is a radically materialistic argument for you to make. The idea that a zygote is a person just because it has certain genetic qualities, or that a fetus is human simply because its neurons have developed to a certain degree, is the type of "argument from development" that you decry-- yet you make these exact arguments yourself.

In any case, I do not think that merely having these traits makes something "human."

“There is no consensus on when personhood begins!!!!” is not an argument. It is clearly a lack of one. Obviously, most rights (such as driving, guns, drinking, etc.) develop over time. The right to life is not one that does so - if it were, it would be better to kill a child who murdered someone and worse to kill an adult who murdered someone.

Nobody seriously thinks that a child becomes an adult immediately on their eighteenth birthday. The process is gradual. Some people are mature enough to vote before they turn 18. Others are never mature enough to vote, but they do so anyway. Regardless, we've set 18 as the (rather arbitrary) barrier for voting, because the alternative would be to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, which would be time-consuming, unfair, and inefficient. Eighteen is a socially acceptable age to set this delineation at, and while it might be unfair to certain people, it is nonetheless fair in that it is equally applied.

Once you are 18, however, you are free to vote however you choose. You do not gain a greater right to vote the older you get after eighteen-- nor do you gain a greater right to life the older you get after you are born. The two situations are precisely analogous, and therefore your "logic" in the bolded portion does not follow. You are not responding to an argument that I or anyone else has ever made. The idea that one's abilities develop over time is not incompatible with setting a cutoff age above which we treat everyone the same way.

The fact that a human's consciousness is not created instantaneously (and is instead developed over time) might be offensive to your Christian sensibilities, but it is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from looking at the stages of human development. The delineation you have chosen for when a fetus becomes human (conception) is no less arbitrary than 20 weeks or 30 weeks. Our goal should be to set this arbitrary delineation at a point that does not result in widespread social harm-- for example, giving parents free license to kill their five-year-olds, or on the flip side, treating every sperm as sacred.

[Kingpoleon]

At the risk of taking a cheap shot... since when has the church cared about science proving its teachings wrong? If scientific inquiry tells us that a zygote is genetically identical to a fully grown person at the moment of fertilization, why should that have any bearing on Christian dogma? Does the material nature of the zygote's genes somehow imbue it with a soul, consciousness, or self-awareness? Again, this is a radically materialistic argument for you to make. The idea that a zygote is a person just because it has certain genetic qualities, or that a fetus is human simply because its neurons have developed to a certain degree, is the type of "argument from development" that you decry-- yet you make these exact arguments yourself.

In any case, I do not think that merely having these traits makes something "human."

I believe you are confusing the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, my church, and every church which has existed for any long period of time with the SBC. They have no process of ordination which I recognize; they continually lie about basic facts; in short, I find it difficult to consider them Christian.

It’s not about its neurons - it is about whether or not it is alive. If you would care to tell me the moment between when my brother was not human but my dead infant cousin was, J would appreciate it.

Nobody seriously thinks that a child becomes an adult immediately on their eighteenth birthday. The process is gradual. Some people are mature enough to vote before they turn 18. Others are never mature enough to vote, but they do so anyway. Regardless, we've set 18 as the (rather arbitrary) barrier for voting, because the alternative would be to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, which would be time-consuming, unfair, and inefficient. Eighteen is a socially acceptable age to set this delineation at, and while it might be unfair to certain people, it is nonetheless fair in that it is equally applied.

Once you are 18, however, you are free to vote however you choose. You do not gain a greater right to vote the older you get after eighteen-- nor do you gain a greater right to life the older you get after you are born. The two situations are precisely analogous, and therefore your "logic" in the bolded portion does not follow. You are not responding to an argument that I or anyone else has ever made. The idea that one's abilities develop over time is not incompatible with setting a cutoff age above which we treat everyone the same way.

The fact that a human's consciousness is not created instantaneously (and is instead developed over time) might be offensive to your Christian sensibilities, but it is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from looking at the stages of human development. The delineation you have chosen for when a fetus becomes human (conception) is no less arbitrary than 20 weeks or 30 weeks. Our goal should be to set this arbitrary delineation at a point that does not result in widespread social harm-- for example, giving parents free license to kill their five-year-olds, or on the flip side, treating every sperm as sacred.

This is not “offensive to my Christian sensibilities” except in the sense that murder generally is. I did not say we should treat “every sperm as sacred” - this phrase is so boorish I find it difficult to believe you thought it out in your head, typed it up, and thought “Yes, this isn’t a straw an at all.”

You’re the first PC person I’ve had this discussion with to pretend conception is arbitrary. It is, in point of fact, the only line which is not arbitrary - it is when life begins. Even the BBC, which uses purposely biased phrases, has said “The chief appeal to defining our value as beginning at conception is that it is the only point which is not arbitrary.”

You previously (and laughably) claimed that ancient theologians did not believe abortion was murder; when proven wrong, you then mocked me for... believing in my religion? You can’t have it both ways - when you thought ancient theologians were on your side, you suggested it was a heavy blow against me. When I demonstrated this was wrong and the opposite was true, you suggested that I ought not place my values into laws? This is absurd - I do not intend to pretend that your “secular values” are somehow innately superior to my values to such an extent that I would advocate for your values over mine.*

*(It should be noted that, as a self-proclaimed moral non-realist, your previously expressed judgments on my conduct as bad or unbecoming contradicts your claim to be a moral non-realist. Indeed, as a moral realist, I can reasonably claim that your positions are bad in some real sense; you lack the ability to thus far even insinuate that my values are bad in any real meaning of the word.)

[R.P. McM]

Dule , shouldn’t you as a libertarian support the individual states right to pass their own abortion laws

By the same logic, shouldn't a libertarian support a state's right to abrogate the First Amendment? No, obviously, almost all of us, of any ideological disposition, hold certain principles above federalism. 

Nope,  cause the first amendment is clearly written in the constitution so even by Ron Paul interpretation of the constitution, the states wouldn’t have powers to limit speech

Completely ahistorical. You might want to brush up on the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the point you're missing is that this isn't a discussion of the current state of the law, it's a discussion of what a libertarian should theoretically support. And if a libertarian believes that the First Amendment isn't subject to the whims of a state government, s/he is perfectly justified in believing the same applies in the case of abortion.

[Former President tack50]

snip

I somewhat agree with you even if I am pro-choice. However a follow-up question (not just to you in particular but really to anyone who believes life starts at conception in general).

If we are to believe life starts at conception, and therefore any abortion after that should be illegal, wouldn't that imply banning the "morning after pill"? (Since the morning after pill acts after fertilization)

What about an IUD? (which works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg).

Tbf I guess this really only moves the threshold from conception to implantation which is not a significant movement but I guess it shows there is some nuance.