Bull feathers, sir. "The court" isn't qualified to make 'biological decisions', if you will. Seriously. It ISN'T. The justices' supposed 'expertise' is in the area of legal matters...what is and is not 'constitutional', etc.....and they've demonstrated their pathetic, flawed, sad inadequacies in THAT area more than once already.
As I opined before, not one biological step from conception to birth can be bypassed or there can be no birth. Therefore logic screeeeeeams that a new life does in fact begin at conception...it has to...unless maybe we take the view that the sperm and egg are not themselves 'alive' when conception happens. :squint: Conception starts the whole process in motion. W/O conception, none of the rest of the process happens.
'Might help to visualize building a new house. When can one logically say that the physical construction of said house begins? When the wall studs go up? 'Not likely...and that's effectually what you are suggesting re: when life begins.
Now, as what's-his-name on FOX always says, let's let the reader decide, 'cause you and I are n-e-v-e-r going to persuade the other to 'cross over'! :nice: :chug:
I would say a foundation is just the beginning, something that may potentialy be a house but is not yet so. In fact till the frame is a walled in and a roof on its not a house but a building project, which if abadoined will go to weeds pretty quickly. After its walled and aroof on we are talking finishing which is the same as birth.
As to whether the juustices have the epertise, doctors by and large agree with them, and they do have the expertise. A religious text has no expertise in a country where church and state are seperate. The justices do have the expertise to weigh in on moral issues devoid of religious dogama, that is how they rise in the ranks of the court system, they are the learned men and women.
All of which is irrelevant for two reasons. Either you belive in our constitution or dont. If you dont you are no different to some libs. If you do then you must respect the court even when you disagree, just as for example libs must respect the court on the second, w emay not liek the decisons but either we respect and believe in our system or we dont.
Additionaly from a practical and realistic perspective we must tolerate peole who view social issues differently, if not fiscal conservatism will always be a fringe element. I dont want to wait for national armageddon to try fix things. I have seen that in other countries, and yeah its fun to be a lord on a horse with a gun, but short of that its just plain broken miserable and unfixable.
So to the extent that abortion is already legal and happening. And to the extent that we need to change things fiscaly as a priority, do you think its possible for people such as yourself to drop this(abortion) as an election issue. Fight it in the corts, in the media, protehlatise all you want, but leave it out of elections, because this is the single largest reason that keeps conservative economics from running the show.
