11 Comments

The classic example of winning the battle and losing the war. Good luck rebuilding the GOP. Seriously.

Expand full comment

BOTH the Roe v. Wade and Dobbs decisions were wrong. The 14th amendment states, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life,..." This is the Constitution. This IS the law of the land, and should have been since 1973, and, of course, it was from 1869 until 1973. You are also wrong in your premise for this article.

Expand full comment

Now the all important question: at what stage of development is the unborn considered a person for the purposes of the law? My assumption is that only those born are considered persons in this respect.

Expand full comment

Conception, of course. Never, after 9 months gestation, has ANY woman given birth to a Buick, or anything other than a human being. And we now know, after scientific advancement, that even after 6 weeks gestation, there is evident a beating heart. If "the law" doesn't respect the personhood of the baby in the womb, we are doomed to die as a nation. Oh, and all one has to do is look around, and see the consequences of these Godless decisions by our leaders, for they are quite apparent.

Expand full comment

Considering I've seen what a blastocyst looks like: no, from conception is not a person.

There's typically 40 weeks between conception and birth: legal rights are going to be fluid in there, assumedly - because it's different stages of development.

So then: what is the law about when a person is considered a person? And consider that one is a citizen at birth: assumedly not prior...

Expand full comment

I just want to interject here that you guys make my point.

I can see that there’s a case for abortion bans at conception, but the majority clearly does not want that. If Republicans follow that course, they’ll be beating their heads against the wall.

I tend to agree that life begins sometime between conception and birth. It’s impossible for us to know exactly when but the fact that a fertilized egg splits after conception to form identical twins makes me think that an egg at conception probably doesn’t yet contain the soul of the baby. Likewise, it’s clear that a baby is a living human long before birth.

There really is no consensus on when to start legally protecting unborn babies so the best thing is to leave it to the states. It’s traditionally a state issue anyway.

Republicans make make some additional state gains, but they may also lose voters if they keep pushing. That’s my point here.

Anyway, kudos to you guys for an intelligent and civil discussion.

Expand full comment

My personal line is viability (the point where it's a 50/50 chance of survival if birth occurred at that time), which is ~24 weeks or so - with the usual exceptions for rape/incest/health. I figure that as technology advances that will become an earlier point in fetal development.

If it's going to be a State issue to decide, then one thing I'd like to see is that these be put to ballot measures sent directly to the people to decide, instead of their elected representatives.

Add'l info: the ~24 week viability mark is in areas/societies with access to advanced medical care/technology. Without that access the viability mark is 32 weeks.

Expand full comment

Excellent logic.

Expand full comment

This is evidence that all lawyers are hypocritical, but I think she has a strong case even without fetal personhood.

Expand full comment

Agreed

Expand full comment