Alabama Dem grills GOP colleague on abortion bill: 'Do you know what it's like to be raped?'

MSG Stan Hutchison -
Is that the standard you want to apply... established law. Leave it alone

Scott v Sandford (The Dred Scott decision) was once established law, and held that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories

Plessy v Ferguson asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment.

I for one am damn glad that people did not leave established law alone in those two cases.

1SG (Join to see) - Not a slippery slope at all.

"an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" Source - Merriam Webster Dictionary.

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Source - Oxford English Dictionary

There are only two absolutely definable and detectable moments in time during pregnancy, inception and birth. All else is on a spectrum. Where in the spectrum does the embryo not contain all that is necessary to develop into a functioning human. It is not a matter of whether an embryo is living or not. It is.

So if we are going to use a stage of development as determining when human life should be protected, when? and why? Detectable heartbeat, fetal viability, complete expulsion from the birth canal, self-awareness, the ability to speak, the ability to provide for self, sexual maturity.

Maj John Bell - More or less making the same arguments I was making above. The "settled law" argument is a pretty weak one. One really good recent example is that it was "settled law", tested many times, what a marriage was defined as and whose job it was to define it. Yet, we had numerous states redefine what they would issue marriage licenses for and eventually that wound up in the Supreme Court and the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned. In that case, "settled law" was 2500 years or so of Western Civilization. The Dred Scott decision you mention is also an excellent example. Really we could cite a multitude of these but I think we all know.
But OMG, Roe v Wade is unassailable in precedent. No it isn't. And frankly the reasoning for that decision is fundamentally flawed. So if the Pro-Choice crowd were serious about this - and I think they are - they would have codified Roe some kind of way in federal law. But they didn't, because of politics. Now I notice that sitting Senator (!) Kamala Harris , who is in a position to introduce such a bill at any time she wishes to says she would sign such a bill if she's elected President. The chutzpah runs strong on this issue.
But realpolitik is a thing too. What plays super awesome in Berkeley or Newark doesn't play so well in Des Moines, Concord, or Charleston. This reality crushes any semblance of political courage.

1SG (Join to see) - One of Matt Dillhunty's premises is that one's religion is typically the deciding factor in one's stance on abortion. If so, how do you you explain anti-abortion atheists. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics notes that 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion" as do 12% of atheists and agnostics.

While I am not an atheist, I believe the separation of church and state protects me in the practice of my faith. It is my opinion that I automatically lose any debate on the use of the police powers of the state, if I must use scripture or religious doctrine or dogma to support my position.

I am perfectly capable of a cogent argument against abortion, totally free of any religious assertion.

https://www.secularprolife.org/

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/