Conception Citizenship explained

So you're not saying that it's not a life, but that it's not a citizen until it's born? Interesting, and somewhat valid. Theoretically only citizens are really protected by law.
However, crimes against non-citizens, even illegal immigrants, tend to be prosecuted. But it is an interesting take on the matter.

It looks like you've been drinking the kool-aid of the leftist controlled media's narrative about the recent SCOTUS decision in the Dobbs case. Trust me on this Slobama, if you want the truth on this issue, you're going to have to find it out for yourself. The media and your democrat leaders will do nothing but lie to you about it.

Well today’s my lucky day I guess, it sounds like you might be a person who is in possession of the truth of this issue and could steer a brainwashed MSM-guzzling liberal like me in the right direction.

Can you recommend some homework?

Any honest, thoughtful conservatives who can provide a balanced and unbiased introduction into contemporary pro-life thought?

Real America's voice the only TV I have watched in months now

Please read the opinion / ruling as it was written by SCOTUS. This is not brain surgery Slobama.

In the spirit of cooperation and helping you learn that the media are corrupt liars, I'll even give you a leg up:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

As for finding "honest, thoughtful conservatives", I am probably not the best source to find one of those (assuming they even exist) since I am not a conservative. Hell, maybe I'm even deluding myself thinking I am honest and thoughtful??? 🤣

Ah yes, this SCOTUS opinion that copiously cited 18th-century mens’ journals, while throwing modern feminist writings in the trash heap not to mention 50 years of its own precedent.

This opinion argues only that states *can* ban abortion. What it doesn’t say: *should* states ban abortion? And under what circumstances? What other laws should be passed to complement a “pro-life” agenda, if any?

From my review of post-Dobbs think pieces, there are indeed thoughtful conservative writers out there who suggest a moderate approach to the issue, with reasonable humanitarian exceptions (rape, incest, underage), as well as an enhanced welfare state ***that will help mothers choose life regardless of whether abortion is banned in their state or not*** — but their views have little purchase inside the Republican Party as it actually exists.

The result? Fire-and-brimstone moralism coupled with disdain for giving out government handouts of any kind means red state legislatures are simply banning abortion and calling it a day.

Red states have thereby made themselves into extreme outliers in the rich world. Total abortion bans, with no exceptions other than life-of-the-mother — coupled with no paid family leave, no free maternal healthcare, and no early childhood education.

This is a lot more similar to what women have to face in Egypt or Mauritania than anywhere in the free world. The fact that we’re an overall rich country will help blunt some of the misery, but Jesus. While most of the world continues to liberalize, we’re joining a handful of not-very-great countries that have backslid on women’s rights since 1990.

Only time will tell whether women stand for it!

"Ah yes, this SCOTUS opinion that copiously cited 18th-century mens’ journals, while throwing modern feminist writings in the trash heap not to mention 50 years of its own precedent."

I gotta admit, after reading that first sentence, I'm not particularly motivated to read any further. We went from me claiming you have been duped by a lying media, and you seeking "honest, thoughtful conservatives who can provide a balanced and unbiased introduction into contemporary pro-life thought?", to straight up SCOTUS bashing. (with some opinion about the current and future happenings re; abortion in general)

Okay, so you pretty much don't believe in the legitimacy of the SCOTUS when it hands down a ruling with which you disagree... am I right? OR, perhaps you were more inclined to find them legitimate when they ruled against the Trump era 'stay in Mexico' policy that Biden wanted tossed out? (just asking, since I don't pretend to know your position on the latter topic)

"This opinion argues only that states *can* ban abortion. What it doesn’t say: *should* states ban abortion? And under what circumstances? What other laws should be passed to complement a “pro-life” agenda, if any?"

Why would they weigh in on any of those subjects, when the ruling clearly says this is a states' rights issue? You seem pretty sharp, so I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that, or perhaps just chose to ignore it.

You make many strong points in the rest of your post. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, just that they're good points. Maybe the real discussion should be whether the concept of states' rights should be applied as consistently and broadly as a court that swings as far to the right as this one does, seems to want? That's a pretty broad subject, but if there were some way to legitimately address that, then it might be easier to set up the framework for a federal level law on abortion rights. Problem being the Constitution itself, which clearly states that any powers not specifically defined within it, are for the states. Obviously that's gone out the window as far as being strictly followed, so perhaps there are ways for abortion rights to find their way back to a federal level.