This is not true.
All of that is settled when human life is defined.
To who’s satisfaction-yours?
Is this a some woman somewhere had an abotion at 8.5 months because she didn’t want to look fat in some outfit or other?
Yes, it’s true; the fetus is life-threatening, doomed to die or already dead. The Right just likes the idea of killing women in agony or forcing them to carry corpses to term.
As for “human life” that’s irrelevant; a brain dead body is human and we dismantle them for parts. What matters is personhood - which even newborns likely don’t have yet.
Bingo check your cards.
I’ve never stated an opinion on the matter. I’ve simple pointed out the legal issue of why RvW failed.
RvW failed because trump stacked the scotus with a bunch of radical idealogs.
It varies state by state which is the latitude the SC gave in their decision. The idea of trimesters was discussed in RvW.
When most of your links point to one side of a debate, you have most definitely picked that side.
Again, if you watched the news shows when RvW failed there were liberal lawyers acknowledging that the original premise was weak and destined to fail.
This. RvW was overturned because the Supreme Court was stuffed with right-wing ideologues and sexual predators who care nothing for the law.
And it’s utterly beside the point. You’re tilting at windmills that allow you to sidestep the very real consequences to real human beings whose bodies are occupied by potential human beings who may or may not reach viability, which even you seem to be saying should be at the election of those real human beings up to the point of some undetermined point of viability.
You completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of abortions are done far in advance of viability, currently accepted to be around 23 weeks. So for the sake of “saving” a very few fetuses that exceed the 23-week threshold, fuck all those women?
Then you should be able to cite that.
What’s amazing is that I’ve had this exact conversation with pro-life people and it’s the same response. I must be pro-abortion because I explained why RvW failed and why it will it will come up before the SC again where they will be forced to establish a legal definition of human life.
It’s not gong to be at conception and it’s not going to be 5 minutes before labor pains.
I am mystified. If we eliminate the 10,000 or so times after conception it isn’t going to be, could you possibly mention that time at which it will be?
They aren’t likely to care, since it’s about hurting women not “human life” or the law. They’ll pick whichever option they think will be best at hurting women.
Viability is a legal goal post that changes over time with medical advances.
Funny; it didn’t change under Roe v. Wade. Maybe that was better law than you recognize it to be.
ETA: So even if the Supreme Court establishes, as you put it, “a legal definition of human life,” isn’t that subject to change as the viability “legal goal post” changes? And if so, then wasn’t Roe already sufficient to the task? It worked great for 50 years. You seem to want to ‘fix’ what wasn’t broken. And you really don’t have a good reason why.
You have nothing to base your opinion that the SC is not likely to care.
I do believe the real question is…care about what?
I explained why the law was struck down and I explained that lawyers who the supported the law understood why it failed.
That’s different than me wanting to fix it.