Hi Franky , You could well be right . This thing could go on for years , as long as the US , & it’s puppets in Europe keep sending weapons to Ukraine….. At the end of the day the only winners , will be the American MIC , & the bankers who fund them……. It’s a a fecking evil, & sad world that we live in today.

I agree with you Irish. The only scientific deduction one can make is that life begins proximate to conception……..specifically when the new DNA is created.

But, I could argue that rights do not necessarily occur with the creation of life, but at birth, or at viability.
The beginning of rights is for society to decide.
(If you say rights begin with creation of life, then you have a problem with damage or death of fetus caused by the mother. Should a later born child, if it had rights at creation, be able to sue for damage to that life e.g. deformities caused by drugs like thalidomide.)
Abortion will always involve a balancing of rights not only of the mother (and possibly the father) AND the unborn baby.

Hi CFS …. Logical moral values. Do they still exsist in the world we live in today ?

The leaked Alito abortion memo came with almost 100 pages of accompanying material. Justice Alito deserves his writings to be read.

On page 15 he writes:
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

Yes, not even implicitly.

This has nothing to do with whether one’s policy preferences are “pro-life” or “pro-choice” or some mix of the two. This has everything to do with how our constitutional system is supposed to work. The Constitution’s list of rights and protections is explicit. Even if it is not exhaustive, it contains no grant of broad authority for justices to create whatever new, so-called “rights” their own sensibilities demand. In addition to rights expressly listed in the Constitution, the only other ones that are inviolable are those (quoting prior Supreme Court cases) “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the [very] concept of ordered liberty.”

And yes, those strictures are meaningful, rather than open to broad interpretation. There are legitimate methods of historical and legal inquiry to determine which “rights” are both deeply rooted and obviously implicit.
Later Justice Alito writes:
Roe was so poorly reasoned that subsequent “pro-choice” Supreme Court decisions have jettisoned all of it — both its reasoning and its practical applications. All that remains is a shell around the idea that abortion is a right. But even in reaffirming that right, Casey created an entirely new justification for it. Later court rulings further modified (and in many cases abandoned) Casey’s arguments, too.

In sum, not even those who say abortion is a constitutional right can settle among themselves why it is such a right or what provisions of the Constitution actually protect it. That’s because, as written, it manifestly does not.

I have probably butchered a precis of Ailto’s 100 pages, but hopefully given main points.