how come the sorta individuals who seem so concerned with “morality and human life”, are ironically often the quickest to turn kinda “ill-tempered” around this subject
Hey, we don’t have to agree to at least know where we’re each coming from.
Mateo D
1

I’m not trying to be ill tempered, but I do find the supposed scientific logic that any living thing could be viable when removed from its natural habitat. Hence the quip about sticking your head under amniotic fluid. Any fully gestated human can be no more viable breathing under any fluid than a fish can breathing in atmosphere or a fetus can removed from its amniotic fluid. The viability argument just doesn’t pass the most basic scientific reasoning. Just so we’re clear about this, there has never been a Justice who was in a previous life a scientist, because no scientist would have made any decision without considering any one or more of the many other forms of viability to test the “viability” of the viability argument.

In other words, as soon as you look at other living organisms when deprived of their current environmental habitat, they too will lack viability. Period. Humans deprived of oxygen, plants of sunlight, fish of water will each become non-viable without exception. So if my claiming that viability is junk science makes me ill tempered then so be it. And just as well that I do indeed believe the SCOTUS to be wrong. RvW is a terrible decision; not because I disagree with it but because its legally weak.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.