The RW Conservative Christians Push Personhood For Fertilized Egg To Make Contraception Criminal.

[TheMastersNemesis]

We must remember that this latest decision by the SC is just a first step in making contraception eventually illegal. And that can happen if a "personhood" case comes up. The the SC could very likely declare a fertilized egg a person. That is because the Catholic Church has the same stance on the subject.

And the Church goes so far as to say ALL mechanical methods, sterilization, vasectomy, and tubal ligation are forbidden under ALL circumstances. What that means is the even if a woman is told a new pregnancy will kill her the Church's stance she must then become celibate. And if she does become pregnant she MUST sacrifice her life.

Most American do not realize how extreme these people are.

Anecdotally Cory Gardner running against Udall supported making abortion a felony with no exceptions for rape or incest. He also supported banning birth control entirely. Cory Gardner is part of an element of the Christodominionist movement that supports jail for women who have an abortion.

You have to look at where these radicals plan to take us against our will.

[Archae]

1. This comes readily to mind...

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. Really Correct - My Indoctrination As A Catholic On Sexuality.

I remember my indoctrination about sexuality. I remember having ONLY the male sexual anatomy taught in biology at my Catholic high school. They NEVER did teach the female anatomy in that class.

We were also taught that it was evil to think sexual thoughts and they were forbidden. It was so screwy I eventually quit my faith. I realized I could not practice my faith and stay sane.

[jberryhill]

3. Roe v. Wade is not premised on any notion of "personhood" or "non-personhood"

It's surprising to me how many people think that distinction matters.

Roe v. Wade is premised on abortion ending a life. Simply pointing that out doesn't change the outcome. The essential point of Roe v. Wade is that the state's interest in preserving life and the woman's interest in self-determination and privacy in medical decision making, are two competing interests relative to which the balance changes as pregnancy advances.

Both sides of the argument these days seem locked into an irrelevant rhetorical digression that has nothing to do with the premise of Roe v. Wade. I wish someone could explain to me why that is.

[Hekate]

4. This is precedent. Ruth Bader Ginsberg's dissent was 48 pages long for a reason. nt