Boges

Moral positions on this vary greatly however.

So another value judgement. Is preventing implantation murder? Some "contraception" allows the embryo to form but prevents implantation into the placental wall.

The point I'm making is there is no way to debate abortion without applying your own morality to it. And there's no consensus on where life begins. So allowing states to dictate these things puts a moral judgement on it.

Well if Life begins at conception then preventing implantation of an embryo is just as much murder as killing a viable baby in the womb. Correct?

So back to the restriction of contraception rabbit hole.

Again, you're making the value judgement that a fetus is a child. What of an Embryo?

What of the rights of the mother?

And some states will force a rape victim to have the spawn of her rapist.

The second amendment doesn't specify concealment. This is how pointy headed we can get with this. Nor did it conceive of a firearm that could be concealed.

You're also not American. We're just Canadians having theoretical debate. We live in a country where it's a personal decision.

Like carrying a concealed handgun?

Many disagree with that. It's funny, it's almost like personal choice is the best option here.

OK, I wouldn't allow states to ban abortion. Which many are doing. It's a personal medical decision.

It leaves the opening for it though. Again, back to my point that using the constitution as a sacrosanct document is silly.

Well in the Texas law, 6-weeks seems too short to allow for the mother to have due diligence. Which was a problem. And then access is also an issue. If you are unable to get an abortion for weeks because access is so restricted, then it allows the fetus more time to develop. These are all personal decision. What upsets so many is they're moral judgements made by someone else. The old Rape an Incest thing comes back up. What about pregnancies where contraception fail? This is a completely grey issue but both sizes are only happy if it's black or white.

What about Gay Marriage? that's a more recent/controversial precedent that uses the same justification. You're telling me that, now the Right to Privacy argument has been made null and void, that lawyers aren't going to try to push it to the next logical conclusion. And there are varying levels of contraception. There are Condoms or the Pill. But there's also Plan B and IUDs. If someone believed that life begins at conception, then killing a fertilized embryo is murder. Why else is Stem Cell research so controversial in some places.

I think it's fair. I would even entertain 12 weeks or when test can be done to determine if the fetus has any catastrophic genetic issues.

I never said that. But, as you highlighted, the point at which life begins is very subjective. So if there's no overarching federal precedent. Any Waffehouse State can most certainly look to overturn the effects of Griswold because the pretence that the precedent was built upon was just struck down. It's the type of silliness you get when your entire legal system is based on a document written in 18th Century.

Another ruling: Planned Parenthood v Casey stated that Life begins once the life is viable outside the womb.

Then why would Justice Thomas take the time make it clear that the same rationale could be used to challenge other laws? He cited Griswold vs Connecticut. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/579/griswold-v-connecticut#:~:text=In Griswold v.,advise anyone about their use. In overturning Roe v Wade, you declare that the same pretence that made the right to an abortion a constitutional right, The Right to Privacy, is now null and void. So many other cases can now be thrown out.

So you're fine with abortion for Rape and Incest? OR failed Contraception? Some of these states will look to ban Contraception that allow fertilization but prevent pregnancy.

Well considering Conservatives make up Max 40% of Canadians. That's a healthy majority of Canadians.

That's your extremely biased opinion. Many, including the courts, think she organized a group of truckers and other similarly inclined people to blockade a city indefinitely and refused to leave when asked by law enforcement.

That person is charged with a crime relating to these groups. We could also compare it to a person charged with Fraud, not being able to own a business for a period of time.

OK, go the semantics route. Associating with other "Freedom Convoyers" directly relates to the crime she's charged for. It's like telling a person charged with pedophilia not to be close to any place children congregate or use the internet.