It’s also morally wrong to condemn an unwanted child to a life of abuse and misery. It doesn’t matter if it’s with biological parents/relatives or as an adoptee or foster child. The religious right attempts to occupy a moral high ground here but it can’t. “All life is precious” as long as your tax dollars aren’t being used to help provide a better life.
I've asked similar in past discussions. Never got an answer which I found to be rooted in logic. There exists criteria to distinguish living and non living things. Those criteria are established, tested, and universally adopted. There also exists a hierarchy of classification of living things which is also an established "gold standard". Lastly, organizational parameters are established for organisms which distinguishes between elements of cells, cells, ....all the way up to a biosphere.
At some point the developing embryo meets every determined classification of a human. I'm afraid it meets those parameters much sooner than would make people comfortable.
Believe the answer was established under the Covid movement of vaccinations to trust science. If the baby is moving on their own or assisted through the mothers body it’s deemed science. And we should trust it.
She 100% saw the ruling as creating division and descent. She thought the states were moving in the right direction and should have been permitted to continue to do so. So I don’t disagree that she thought it was too quick (because she thought states were naturally moving that way)
But she also saw the decision it’s self as creating dissent/resentment.
If isn't a human being, why not? Why is there any sort of aversion to it? Who cares if a woman gets one or not if the entity in question isn't a life that is entitled to rights?
This is another one I've never understood. "I abhor abortion, but support a woman's right to one." If it isn't murder, or it is not the termination of something that is entitled to rights, why exactly do you abhor it?
Good question and I don't have a good answer for you. I think the decision is 100% up to the woman whether to abort or not but part of me thinks the man should be excused from financial support if the woman chooses to have the kid over his objections. I know that is probably not workable and would open a can of worms full of unintended consequences.