SCOTUS overturn of Roe presumably left it up to the States to decide. So South Carolina's legislature went to work and revised it's laws to restrict abortions to 6 weeks.

But SC's Supreme Court knocked it down in a 3-2 decision saying the law violates right to privacy provisions in the state constitution.

28127.pdf (sccourts.org)

While the right to 'privacy' is a protected right under the SC constitution ;the right to an abortion is NOT . They are not one in the same.

So they are reading nonsense into the meaning of the word privacy that only exists in their political preference.. It is the same nonsense in the 'Griswald ' decision .
"specific guarantees ....have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance"

Word salad gobbledygook.

The state reached its conclusion by saying abortion is a right implied by the privacy protection. They have no proof of that contention.

The unborn is being treated as in the overturned Dred Scott decision as property with no legal constitutional protections of life . The dissent argued that abortion is the destruction of human life and not subject to privacy provisions. Judge Taney said slaves were property and not human life.

In granting a right to kill a baby under the pretext of privacy the SC court is making the same fundamental mistake SCOTUS made when it made the overturned 'Roe' decision the law of the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

SCOTUS overturn of Roe presumably left it up to the States to decide. So South Carolina's legislature went to work and revised it's laws to restrict abortions to 6 weeks.

But SC's Supreme Court knocked it down in a 3-2 decision saying the law violates right to privacy provisions in the state constitution.

---

Abortion as murder is a religious position, not a scientific one. Federal and State government rulings forbidding abortion violate the First Amendment.

At conception, there absolutely is NO human life. At birth, there absolutely IS human life.

The beginning of human life lies somewhere in between. "Quickening" was the accepted compromise for 2,000 years as to the beginning of human life.

In 1865, Pope Pius IX unilaterally declared human life begins at conception - he did not have the slightest bit of scientific evidence for the declaration. That declaration has become the original and primary reason for the anti-abortion position.

Did you ever wonder why states forbid abortion only after X# of weeks have passed? Think about that.

Quote:

---

Abortion as murder is a religious position, not a scientific one.

---

I would tend to agree with that so long as it's understood that the concept of murder being unethical and immoral is strictly a religious view. Science cannot tell us anything about right and wrong, and without an objective moral standard from God, there is no real reason to consider murder to be anything more than pragmatically inconvenient.

Quote:

---

Federal and State government rulings forbidding abortion violate the First Amendment.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

At conception, there absolutely is NO human life. At birth, there absolutely IS human life.

---

What's the science behind that?

This is the point at which the pro-abortion position becomes strange. There is an open admission that somewhere before birth (The beginning of human life lies somewhere in between.) the fetus becomes a "human life". In that case, abortion after that point would be murder wouldn't it? But note the fog that will be put out here. Where is that point? Who knows? What standard is being used? Who knows? It's just so much wind.

And then there is this.

Quote:

---

Pussycat Dolls singer shares abortion experiences, warns, 'You will regret it your whole life. I was completely enchained and bonded to the devil,' the singer said.

---

The video is well worth listening to.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pussyc...ret-whole-life

Quote:

---

Federal and State government rulings forbidding abortion violate the First Amendment.


Huh?

---

I get that argument as strange as it sounds. Justice Stevens argued about 4 times in cases that abortion law has no secular roots and are instead rooted in religious views. That he argued makes anti-abortion laws an imposition of religious views which violates the establishment clause.

One could also use the same logic to conclude that murder laws are founded in the religious belief of life and personhood. Which brings us to your first point ....

Quote:

---

I would tend to agree with that so long as it's understood that the concept of murder being unethical and immoral is strictly a religious view. Science cannot tell us anything about right and wrong, and without an objective moral standard from God, there is no real reason to consider murder to be anything more than pragmatically inconvenient.

---

Basically the argument that a law is based on a religious root could be made about almost all laws in western civilization . That is why on the Supreme Court building ,Moses and the 10 commandments are so prominently displayed .
The court has conveniently dodged the central question about life . They did not base Roe on 1st amendment grounds and used instead the even more bogus argument that it was a 14th amendment due process issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I get that argument as strange as it sounds. Justice Stevens argued about 4 times in cases that abortion law has no secular roots and are instead rooted in religious views. That he argued makes anti-abortion laws an imposition of religious views which violates the establishment clause.

One could also use the same logic to conclude that murder laws are founded in the religious belief of life and personhood. Which brings us to your first point ....

---

I disagree with your second sentence. Before murder was prohibited by a religious sanction, it was already prohibited by the obvious danger it presented to a society. Law codes far before the 10 Commandments dealt with murder. Yes, personhood was necessary for murder, but that would have been recognized, again, far prior to religion condemning murder.

Quote:

---

Basically the argument that a law is based on a religious root could be made about almost all laws in western civilization

---

That's debatable but, in any case, that does not make the law true or binding by itself.

Quote:

---

That is why on the Supreme Court building ,Moses and the 10 commandments are so prominently displayed

---

That's simply a reflection of the Judeo-Christian background of western civ. It certainly does not prove that law is based on religion.

Quote:

---

The court has conveniently dodged the central question about life

---

No argument there.

Quote:

---

They did not base Roe on 1st amendment grounds and used stead the even more bogus argument that it was a 14th amendment due process issue

---

Whatever argument they used, abortion (anti) violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Stevens' argument was the correct one.

such challenges are making their way through state courts now . Like the SC case I referenced ,they will be appealed regardless of the state court ruling and will again be on SCOTUS docket .*

As for me ;nothing will change my mind that abortion is infanticide murder .

The dodging continues,

Quote:

---

This is the point at which the pro-abortion position becomes strange. There is an open admission (by Athos) that somewhere before birth (The beginning of human life lies somewhere in between.) the fetus becomes a "human life". In that case, abortion after that point would be murder wouldn't it? But note the fog that will be put out here. Where is that point? Who knows? What standard is being used? Who knows? It's just so much wind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As for me ;nothing will change my mind that abortion is infanticide murder .

---

Why is that? "Nothing will change my mind" is not a very intelligent mindset.

No nothing will change my mind . It is not a debating point . It is a core belief of mine that the killing of babies is murder .

And nothing could change your mind to believe that the murdering of unborn babies is actually OK? [SARC]

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...GA&oe=63C36A9A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is a core belief of mine that the killing of [unwanted] babies is murder .

---

What do you plan to do with them once they're born?

That has always struck me as such a strange question. Is the whole burden of the infant population in the U.S. is to be borne by Tom? Is he supposed to have some "plan" of what to do with several million newborns? What was the "plan" a hundred years ago? If we have no "plan", then does that justify killing unborn children by the hundreds of thousands? Would a return to the two-parent family constitute a good plan?

A mother gives birth and then decides the newborn is a burden; an inconvenience . So she dumps the newborn into a dumpster . The baby dies . She committed murder ;right ? The only difference between that and abortion is that somehow the law says an unborn baby is not a person entitled to rights .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No nothing will change my mind . It is not a debating point . It is a core belief of mine that the killing of babies is murder .

---

I asked you "why" do you believe as you do. You gave no answer other than to repeat your belief.

You are the victim of believing something that is very simple to believe without thinking. Who doesn't believe killing babies is wrong?

The thing you (and others) refuse to examine is the phrase "killing babies is murder". It is a phrase designed to excite and persuade, not to convince of the truth. It is very much like modern advertising. Sell the sizzle, not the steak. Ok, not a great example.

Some thoughts to ponder:
Is a fertilized egg a baby?
Is a zygote a baby?
Is a clump of cells a baby?
Is a month-old fetus a baby?

No sane person would argue these examples are babies. Not-yet babies, but babies-to-be in formation? Ok, I go along with that. But not actual full-fledged babies. That seems obvious to me.

More thoughts:
Is terminating (killing) a fertilized egg murder?
Is terminating (killing) a zygote murder?
Is terminating (killing)a clump of cells murder?
Is terminating (killing) a month-old fetus murder?

As strange as it seems, all the above examples are considered murder by abortion opponents. Yet, such beliefs are not from any kind of scientific or legal consensus but are wholly based on the declarations of religious entities.

That's why I asked you "why". Especially why you claim "nothing will change my mind". For a guy who typically gets deep into the weeds on political/cultural topics, indicating a fervent mind seeking truth, your closed-minded-ness on the abortion topic is not like you. Hence, my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

A mother gives birth and then decides the newborn is a burden; an inconvenience . So she dumps the newborn into a dumpster . The baby dies . She committed murder ;right ?

---

Assuming the mental conditions for murder are present, right, I agree.

Quote:

---

The only difference between that and abortion is that somehow the law says an unborn baby is not a person entitled to rights .

---

WRONG! How you leapt from one sentence to the next is bizarre. Also, in point of fact, some states DO say a fetus has some rights. Not all states, and limited.

Once an egg is implanted it is viable .That would be within a week of fertilization. At that point the intentional ending of the life unless the mother's life is threatened ;or it is determined that there is no chance of the baby surviving the process ,is killing a baby

Quote:

---

I asked you "why" do you believe as you do. You gave no answer other than to repeat your belief.

---

Nothing more to add. You have your belief based on the science you agree with and I have mine based on the science I agree with and my faith . In the end the science is still opinion based on hypothesis because the question is unanswerable by science .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

my faith . In the end the science is still opinion based on hypothesis because the question is unanswerable by science .

---

Agreed.

You base your position on faith. What faith? Are you aware of the source of that faith position?

My belief is not based on the science I agree with. It is partly based on the fact that there is no scientific consensus on the issue - a very different thing.