Re: framing the abortion debate

Marriage is not an enumerated right which is why it's not necessarily covered by due process clause (according to Roberts, Scalia et al in Obergefell, and Thomas lately in Dobbs concurrence).

But equal protection clause applies in Loving because of strict scrutiny, basically race as the basis for a marriage ban isn't justified and the history of abuses of race as the basis for differential legislation is such the government has to prove it's essential to use it , or it gets caught into the equal protection guillottine.

Marriage has long been held a constitutional protected fundamental liberty in the common law, despite it not being enumerated in the Constitution. The enumerated rights are in the first five amendments. The equal protection clause is not an enumerated right, but mechanism to insure oneÂ’s fundamental rights are not abridged by the states.

Where marriage had been previously determined to be a fundamental right, gay marriage, contraceptives nor sodomy were deemed fundamental rights except under the penumbra theory. And whether Obergefell established a different test under the eq clause is up for debate.

Interracial marriage could suffer the same losses if this court reexamines their constitutional basis. Thomas just acted in his own best interest by leaving it out of his opinion. Hardly a surprise that he thinks he lives by a different set of rules,

Maga/tea party -> American talibans !

If life begins at conception you're just aborting a less developed baby. I assume things are working in the fetus at conception, why shouldn't someone see it as alive at that point?

Would you have a problem with disconnecting someone from life support with 0 brain activity after let’s say 20-30 years living in that vegetable state ?
About 50 years ?
No brain exist at conception ….

I’m worried you don’t know what either of those words mean

Yes, he should have said zygote.

But it's still definitely alive, and the DNA is definitely human so... Hard to argue that it's not human life.

But I agree with Montreal regarding the lack of a brain being important.

Sperm is alive by the same metric. It is not human life.

No, sperm (or egg) alone doesn't have the full component of human DNA and cannot develop any further.

You said it’s “alive” and the “dna is human”, therefore it is a human life. Sperm is also alive and the dna is human. So it seems yoir conclusion is flawed.

Ok, you can change that to "has a full component of human DNA".

I'm for abortion rights, but I think it does not help the cause to say that the thing aborted is not a human life, because it puts the cause on the wrong side of both science and common sense.

Yes.

Sorry the zygote*, I was posting ignorantly. I think my argument still stands though. If that's when development starts and it's alive at that point I don't know why you couldn't see it that way.

The egg hasn't been fertilized.

I think once a person has begun and has a life that you don't kill them.

So what is life for you ?
It’s only about a heart beating ?
If the brain isn’t needed to be considered alive , why not say a heart in a bottle with a heart maintain alive with electric current isn’t a human being ?
Isnt there particular part of a body u considered a necessity to say it’s a human being alive ?

Define a person ?
Does a person need a brain to be define as such ?
Here Is a dilemma for you …..is/are Siamese twins considered one or 2 person ?
It’s only 1 body ?

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

The heavy word Is actually person, not life.

It is actually a life (a living being) and that's not controversial, but we discuss on when it becomes a person which has legal and moral implications.

I disagree about other freedom examples because if you think that's a person deserving legal rights, then you want to act to protect it.

So an equivalence would be animal and plant right activists

Well if I think someone might be a person at conception (how can you know otherwise, if you're not an omniscient master of knowledge) then I should put my point across when people's lives might be at stake.

In your example it's possible that at some point in the future something is discovered that could revive that person, hypothetically. Also, I don't know enough to say that person isn't functioning somehow and "alive" like anybody else.

A heart is a heart I think once you take it out of someone it's not considered a human being and that is sort of evident. No, I guess, to your last question, if the person is still alive.

Well someone has begun, so I think that it's fair to consider a fertilized egg a person. I suppose a person might need a brain since someone might just die without one, but every developed person does have a brain, if you see what I'm saying. Conjoined twins are two persons because they're two individuals.

Exactly and at conception none of those exist at all yet …..

Ah, ok. You missed what I was saying. I guess it wasn't obvious. I don't think you could say the zygote isn't a person yet because the brain hasn't developed, life has begun.

I’m talking about an embryo after conception !
Takes 4 weeks to have a heart and 6 weeks for brain to start development.
So the way you agree previously about human without a heart or brain is “obviously” not a living human anymore , I wonder why you think differently with life at conception where none of those exist before many weeks after the fact .

Taking your example about a zygote , mind as well take a full functional body but brain dead , replace the brain with a plastic brain with AI chip inside and you would consider it a living human being ?
A heart still beating right ?
Yup technology ca do many thing like u previously hint at ….

Because at that point that's just what it's like.

And the brain replacement question, I mean, I guess maybe, I mean hypothetically maybe you could put the brain back in and the person would regain consciousness? Maybe once you remove someone's brain they die? I don't know.