Zonkerbl wrote:nate33 wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:A few minor quibbles: Having a "soul" is a religious idea and not permitted in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. You could argue a fetus is sentient, but, again, impossible to say when that occurs, it's not a well defined legal term. Certainly the fetus is not sentient when the heartbeat is first detectable, by the way. You could argue that babies are not sentient until well after they're born, when they gain object permanence (for example).
I should say the SCOTUS *shouldn't* use religion in deciding whether to infringe on women's rights. There's nothing stopping them of course. I think if they do, then we can credibly claim the SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy and should be packed. That's the only remedy.
I'm saying that SCOTUS should allow for a framework whereby states could use religion (or philosophy, or ethics, or whatever you want to call it) to draw the line between 6-8 weeks at a minimum, and 22 weeks at a maximum.
Yeah whatever they do, they're definitely not going to do *that.* Actually I imagine this is the argument that the pro-choice folks will use against letting states decide.
You don't think religious morality informs our policies at the state level?