If a court ruling "proceeds logically from precedent" it doesn't absolve it from being ridiculous. In science, we rely on logic and factual data; logical reasoning alone can lead to many absurdities that are not scientifically valid.
McDevitt mentioned slippery slope - it is well established that our bodies are constantly producing stem cells to replace tissues that suffer "wear and tear" - for example, the line of the stomach and intestines, the lining of the lungs. It's completely reasonable that science in the near future will be able to reprogram these stem cells to be zygotes and develop into embryos. This decision would then mean all of the stem cells in your body are now an "unborn life" and should be protected as such. Will a small judge panel then decide you can't drink acidic Coca Cola which damages the lining of your gut? Will the Alabama legislature step in to pass legislation protecting that right?
Rights should be protected from the whims of judges and legislatures, not subject to the whims of the electorate.
The potential of “unborn life contained in the fertilized egg” is just that. This logical slippery slope could result in the venial transgression of masturbation becoming a mortal sin (murder) as we walk back this logic. Will date of conception supersede date of birth? Unborn is yet unborn. So many questions…
There will be some interesting Probate Court cases over this issue. On the death of the Settlers, who will be assigned to pay for the continued care for the children. Interesting. Will they inherit? People have willed their estates to their pets.
Others commenters may stick to the script of the side they have chosen. I choose to “side” with the balanced eye and ear your essay expresses for me--someone further down the road the road we both travel. Someone hoping but not expecting to enjoy great-grandchildren. And taking it all in with gratitude not that my list of widows to pray for grows, but that I’m still here willing and able and privileged by the Fount of All Blessings to pray for them.
The fact that the Supreme Court determined as it did in Dobbs is the ultimate abandonment of the separation of church and state. It adopted Christian beliefs into a scientific question. For good or bad, the fastest growing religious belief in the US is "none" and church attendance is at an all time low. There is a large plurality of people who disagree with the decision on a religious basis. Legislators are imposing their view of what majority religion states on the rest of us. I guess we get what we vote fore and they're not "Conservative." Speaking of death Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. is spinning in his grave, but I digress.
If a court ruling "proceeds logically from precedent" it doesn't absolve it from being ridiculous. In science, we rely on logic and factual data; logical reasoning alone can lead to many absurdities that are not scientifically valid.
McDevitt mentioned slippery slope - it is well established that our bodies are constantly producing stem cells to replace tissues that suffer "wear and tear" - for example, the line of the stomach and intestines, the lining of the lungs. It's completely reasonable that science in the near future will be able to reprogram these stem cells to be zygotes and develop into embryos. This decision would then mean all of the stem cells in your body are now an "unborn life" and should be protected as such. Will a small judge panel then decide you can't drink acidic Coca Cola which damages the lining of your gut? Will the Alabama legislature step in to pass legislation protecting that right?
Rights should be protected from the whims of judges and legislatures, not subject to the whims of the electorate.
The potential of “unborn life contained in the fertilized egg” is just that. This logical slippery slope could result in the venial transgression of masturbation becoming a mortal sin (murder) as we walk back this logic. Will date of conception supersede date of birth? Unborn is yet unborn. So many questions…
Happy to know that I can disagree with you civilly about Alabama jurisprudence and still be honored to be 1 in 2987.
Baloo & Bagheera. Fine names. My grandfather read to us kids in the 50's.
There will be some interesting Probate Court cases over this issue. On the death of the Settlers, who will be assigned to pay for the continued care for the children. Interesting. Will they inherit? People have willed their estates to their pets.
Bryan, good word today. Thanks for putting pen to paper, or fingers to the keyboard. You might find this illuminating.
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Death-Preparing-Thomas-Kempis/dp/1505128064
Others commenters may stick to the script of the side they have chosen. I choose to “side” with the balanced eye and ear your essay expresses for me--someone further down the road the road we both travel. Someone hoping but not expecting to enjoy great-grandchildren. And taking it all in with gratitude not that my list of widows to pray for grows, but that I’m still here willing and able and privileged by the Fount of All Blessings to pray for them.
The fact that the Supreme Court determined as it did in Dobbs is the ultimate abandonment of the separation of church and state. It adopted Christian beliefs into a scientific question. For good or bad, the fastest growing religious belief in the US is "none" and church attendance is at an all time low. There is a large plurality of people who disagree with the decision on a religious basis. Legislators are imposing their view of what majority religion states on the rest of us. I guess we get what we vote fore and they're not "Conservative." Speaking of death Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. is spinning in his grave, but I digress.