So you don’t want to fix it?
The law. It’s the function of Congress to create law. Which they could in this case. Absent that the courts have to rule on conflicts within laws.
That’s a non-sequitur to anything I’ve said. I’ve explained why it failed and what is likely to occur.
You’ve explained a straw man.
(emphasis mine.)
See, these statements appear to be incompatible. And none of them address what is being discussed in this thread: The very real harm and dangers to living, breathing, real people, mostly women, who are daily risking their lives due to a SCOTUS who ruled on Roe without making any provision for the harm that now comes to those who gets pregnant in a state that doesn’t guarantee their right to safe abortion care, or the right to control their own bodies.
At what point do you think abortions should be viable?…and PLEASE leave at the many, many times it isn’t viable.
The fact that they are right wing ideologies who have a history of not caring, and were put there precisely because they don’t care about the law.
They didn’t overturn RvW because of law, they did it as part of the Right’s longstanding crusade agaisnt women.
I’m not sure if you’re asking when a fetus is viable or when abortions should be legal but both are a legal matter. IMO I think it will be judged on how human life is defined. All of that was discussed in RvW but “privacy” was how it was argued and ruled on.
You know, the SCOTUS had 50 years to craft an alternative ruling that would address this so-called “privacy” concern, yet they completely ignored it in issuing the Dobbs decision. Why was that, I wonder?
They sure don’t seem to give a shit about all these people dealing with problematic pregnancies now or in the future, when they might/could/maybe get around to judging “on how human life is defined.”
It does make one wonder what the true goal of the ruling was. Or it should.
Why would they revisit a ruling on their own? That’s not their function. It was brought to them as a challenge.
“Human life” or even personhood is a side issue at most, unless you want to argue that people have the right to forcibly steal other people’s blood and organs to sustain themselves. It’s only when abortion comes up that suddenly, defining a fetus as a “human life” means the other, actual person involved has no rights. Almost as if that was the actual point…
Oh, well, that’s ok, then.
Of course, one of their choices was to leave Roe alone. As legal precedent would have required, and what all of them pledged to follow during their confirmation hearings. But I guess the lying is ok, too.
Please address the question that is actually being asked in this thread: What is the point of abolishing abortion?
Human life takes on great importance in law.
But apparently not women’s human lives who happen to get pregnant.
At what point in pregnancy do you think it matters?
Unless the human life in question is a woman, then her dying is considered a good thing.
This isn’t about "human life, it’s about persecuting women. And I do note that you have been carefully avoiding even acknowledging the distinction between “human life” and “person”. You know, the difference between legally being meat with no rights, and a person who does have rights.
There are 2 sides to the issue. One is Pro-Abortion and one is Pro-Life.
What don’t you understand about the 2 sides of the issue? Neither of them are going to exist legally as an absolutism.
You have never, not once, acknowledged that living women are putting their lives at risk to get pregnant in places that no longer have options for abortions they must have. Do they have any rights? You’ve completely ignored this question.
ETA: And I take exception to your characterizations. One side is Pro-Forced-Birth, and the other is Pro-Choice.
No. One is pro-choice, the other anti-choice and anti-woman. Using terms created by the anti-woman side to define the argument is disingenuous. And neither actually fit the side the are attributed to.
I explained the legal aspect of RvW and I’ve done it without taking sides. The legal question you should ask yourself is what defines human life and is there a way to establish this when ruling on abortions on a national level.
Apparently not. If that is the question, then it has been answered.