It's not the Christian Republic of America, so why is it those who are religious can hold the bodies of secular women and of other religions hostage?

@BlueVeins The good news is that you don’t need to. You just need to let a woman decide and not have the state mandate birth.

@BlueVeins but, if the requirement is for a woman to take a pregnancy to term, should we also begin throwing absentee fathers in jail?

@Human1000 well that's not really gonna be a viable option if the gov't wants to ban abortion, is it?

@JoeyFoxx I dunno, go ask someone who lives in christian fairyland & see what they think.

@BlueVeins Interestingly enough, considering past exchanges, except for your last paragraph I agree with you (with one caveat).
It is difficult to discuss the subject without acrimony. Indeed, whenever you see a debate on television, they always bring in a "its a woman's body, she can do what she wants" advocate paired with a "it is murder at any time" opponent.
The plurality views of the public, however, tend to be more like it's acceptable in first trimester and abhorrent unless necessary in the third with a lot of disagreement about the middle trimester. The Mississippi statute restricts it after 16 weeks so it isn't extreme.
The problem with [i]Rowe[/i] and [i]Casey[/i] is that they have no real constitutional foundation as several of the justices have pointed out during oral argument. They were from the "penumbra" era of supreme court jurisprudence (sorry i don't have time to get into this). Their tripartite breakdown isn't so bad viewed as [i]legislation[/i] rather than [i]adjudication[/i].
The passionate advocates of abortion muddy the waters by suggesting that if the cases are overturned, there will be no access to abortion anywhere except back alleys. This is not true. Restrictions, if any, will be left to [i]elected[/i] state legislatures. New York has what is basically an abortion on demand at any time statute and many other states (of course, California) have very permissive statutes . Of course over time attitudes may change and they may retrench but that is democracy.
There is no need to respond to your antireligious screed which goes well beyond the issue. I would concede that many Christians (and other religious people) oppose abortion because they believe life from conception is sacred. And many laws are based on moral views of conduct. But as pointed out above, most have a more nuanced view politically.
My [i]caveat [/i] on "I still support Roe V. Wade because the consequences of eliminating it are too bloody and horrible." has been partly expressed already. How many states would outright prohibit abortion? Do you instead refer to the "revolution" a Democratic senator has threatened or Portland style "mostly peaceful" demonstrations and burnings? An outright reversal will certainly be protested and may save a few Democrat house seats in the 2024 Congressional tsunami but I don't see the result you do.
My own prediction (whatever it may be worth) is that Roberts will find a way to save some kind of "right" based on pre-viability of the fetus and, because of the now long-standing precedent of[i] Roe[/i] a majority will be convinced. If the Mississippi statute had been set at 20 weeks, I think it would be almost a sure thing of being upheld.
Respectfully submitted.

@BlueVeins you could look to the science and use the point pain can be felt.

@LamontCranston True. Any lawyer, no matter what point of view will admit it's the weakest legal contrivance. There is absolutely no legal foundation on which It's built

@BlueVeins that’s not really my point

@dale74 Science doesn't have an answer to that. We don't even fully understand how consciousness works, so it's not yet possible to precisely determine when a conscious experience develops. We're only really capable of inferring it in the case of most animal species and even humans. I agree that we should kinda try to get as close as possible to thaht point though, through speculation.

@JoeyFoxx well what is your point then

@JoeyFoxx I think it's kinda fucking weird for you to ask questions based on beliefs that i don't actually hold.

@BlueVeins it’s a logical question that ties back to your proposal and has nothing to do with Christianity.

If society forces a future mother to carry a pregnancy to term, shouldn’t we also force the father to remain engaged?

[@JoeyFox] If society decided that a fetus was a person, that would mean that killing it is murder. This wouldn't have any impact on whether or not [i]either[/i] genetic parent should have to be engaged, since leaving =/= murder (or any particular crime, really), but society nonetheless forced uninvolved parents to stay engaged barring adoption through child support. This system is defensible since it reduces child poverty, primarily at the expense of people who risked creating it in the first place.

@LamontCranston Nope. The other five Federalist Society hacks will vote to overturn [i]Roe[/i], and abortion will immediately be illegal in half the US. Roberts’ wishes are irrelevant.