Excellent point. Government has no authority to regulate 'private affairs.'
(Unfortunately government has shown willingness to use power without authority.)

Every time my doctor suggests he wants to poke 30 holes in my prostate I just laugh at his insanity. [/s]

I don't know, or care who the "proponents" of abortion are. I know for dead sure who doesn't want it banned, and that is a majority of women, for dead sure.

I'm already over whatever you mean about "projecting".

Agreed. There are, apparently, laws on the books in at least some states which completely outlaw abortions and were never changed because Roe superseded them. If Roe is overturned, those states will go back automatically to those laws unless their legislatures take some action to change them.

I agree that why matters.

and it only maters if one seeks to force their religion on others. Congratulation to the Sharia Law advocates...

Agreed. But the Constitution (and its interpretation by SCOTUS) sets the minimum standard below which states cannot go, so how the Court interprets the Constitution is extremely important.

Oh, of course, now I know where the down voting is coming from...

Welcome to "Galt's Church" everyone...

"This" is a First Amendment issue because the only basis for Government action in abortions is the life of the Zygote or fetus, and this is fully based on religion.

My point is that the continuous manipulation of the limits of government intrusion are being destroyed, by this and other legislation and SCOTUS action. CA has already considered using the same approach TX uses for "deputizing" individuals to persecute "offenders" for abortion to limit firearm rights.

Keep celebrating this "victory". Intrusions we all hate are coming, and I'll be reminding all of you how you loved it when it was your favorite, moral majority cause right that was trounced.

Lol. Nice to see some humor on a topic like this. ;)

I haven't seen a single law which outlaws abortions carte blanche. Ever. Even in the most conservative of states, they include allowances for medical necessity. To be honest, however, I think the primary difference is in whether or not the death of the unborn is due to natural or artificial causes. The "why" matters.

"Basic civil rights belong at the federal level."

Agreed. But let's remember that rights are individual. As soon as a second person becomes involved, you get into contractual arrangements. And what it really comes down to isn't necessarily the contract per se, but the enforcement of the contract which de facto falls to civil courts.

There we go!

https://newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rand...

Rand claims that a child cannot acquire rights until it is born, which means that the fetus has no rights, not even in very late stages of pregnancy. This is a link directly to The Ayn Rand Institute.

You were speaking on behalf of someone else and projecting your own feelings about the matter onto them. That's inappropriate. People should be free to speak for themselves. That's where tyrants get into trouble: they tend to want to think and act for other people. What's also inconvenient is that the number one proponent of abortion is not women, but rich, white MEN.

And just to clarify, I didn't suggest men shouldn't be part of the discussion. It takes both men and women to have babies. Both should be part of the discussion. It takes two - father AND mother - not only to create children but to raise them.

I sympathize with your sisters-in-law. I have had friends in similar positions. Sadly, if abortion becomes illegal, women in those positions may not be able to get the healthcare they need because, medically speaking, those procedures are considered abortions. I don't believe that any lay person would consider those abortions and I think 100% of the population would agree that they should be available. That's what concerns me.

So what?

So many here implicitly insist that everyone should live lifetimes of celibacy, until and unless they are ready, willing, and able to become responsible parents. Even if both parties use reliable contraception each and every time, mistakes and accidents do happen.

Doesn't every society - religious or not - have an interest in its own perpetuation? And how is this a First Amendment issue? Or a Second Amendment issue? Seems to me that it is a Zeroeth Amendment issue: the right to Life...

I have no doubt they have their eyes on Obergefell next.

Basic civil rights belong at the federal level. A person shouldn't have to calculate what rights they do and don't have when they cross state lines.

I agree. I hope they are both safe and effective.

I would argue in the case of the baker that BOTH arguments were valid: Free Speech and Personal Property. But the law which was used to persecute the Colorado Baker specifically violated the First Amendment. It's really hard to get a Supreme Court to take up a "takings" case (what is being referred to when the Government takes or uses personal property for a public reason) because most of those are resolved at a State level rather than a Federal one. A notable exception was the ruling about an Idaho couple prevented from using their land due to unreasonable interpretation of the Waters of the United States rule by the EPA.

I thought the purpose of this thread was discussion.

No one is saying otherwise. But what tends to happen is that the arguments focus on the 1% rather than on the 99% which are strictly matters of convenience.

(And for the record, I've had two sisters-in-law who have had D&C's - one for a miscarriage which almost killed her and another for failed implantation. Both are strictly anti-abortion.)

But no one makes this argument from a secular position. They say they do, but they don't. We have gone through this in well over 300 separate strings here.

There is nothing except human DNA (which an appendix has) in a zygote that has relevant uniqueness or consciousnesses. Killing a two year old dog is far sadder than killing any cell...unless there is a religious basis to the cell's soul. Miscarriages happen all the time, even without knowing it, and it isn't widely mourned as a dead child.

Yes, there are people who do not agree with you. That is a fact. However, it does not prove your opinion
that many states won't provide for rape as an exception to abortion law.
Some politicians disagree with you and some might actually vote that way, although its more likely that they
will vote the way their financial supporters wish.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh simply quoted what a religious group said. He did not say that himself.
He did agree that they had the right to say it. That is free speech. He indicated they had the right to
conduct their own affairs according to their beliefs. That is freedom of religion. Both are guaranteed
by the Constitution and one of Kavanaugh's responsibilities as as a judge is to support and defend the Constitution.
(I have no opinion about Kavanaugh other than what I have just stated.)

Again, if you are afraid that your state will limit your options to such a degree, then stop
wasting time here and start lobbying your state government.