Supreme Court Votes to overturn Roe v Wade Draft Shows.

..." cope "...

but my stance is a lot more complicated then the political exigencies of the moment

If you really believe this and you want the GOP to lose in 2022, wouldn't you support repealing Roe V Wade to help the dems.

I do, in fact.

I take it your pro-life but what about the life of the mother argument that most lifers make an exception for, you argued that arbitrary delineations is why the viability argument is flawed but so is the health of the mother argument because one can argue that with every pregnancy a woman’s health is at risk, do you mean to tell me that the government should interfere and decide a point where that risk is worth it?

If you don’t like that argument then what about the miscarriage argument? You mean to tell me that if a woman that planned on carrying her child to term and ends up miscarrying the law should do a murder investigation on? Does that sound like an ethical thing to do to a woman after she just lost her child? These are the questions that need answers if we’re ever going to go the route of making abortion illegal because looking at it through one lens alone isn’t practical/sustainable from a legislation perspective.

--> @Lemming

I 'imagine many Pro Choice, don't view a fetus as a human life, or sacred.

and that's the MASSIVE RED HERRING that keeps this issue in the purely emotional arena

There is no life there there is potential life there it is not a citizen, it is not born, it is not a human being yet.

most women believe it should be their choice whether or not to allow a tumor to grow inside them

which aren't accurate and serve the purposes of red herrings. If the focus is on the prospective pregnant female's right, then the zygote/embryo/fetus's status as a human being, tumor, or citizen would still remain subordinate to said right.

A woman dresses scantily, goes out partying, and she gets raped. Isn’t it partially her fault if she gets pregnant?

She most likely knew the risks.

And statistically it’s inevitable.

Regardless of the means, she got pregnant knowing the chances.  

No--not even remotely.

And how is one to calculate these risks?

Here, let me try an argument using your rationale: I go outside without a Kevlar vest despite the chances I may randomly be stricken by a stray bullet. So when I play basketball at my local park, should I be met with an unfortunate wound from a stray bullet--possibly fatal--it was in part my fault because I either neglected my Kevlar vest, or went outside in the first place. The culpability of the gun's wielder is by default mitigated in part due to my culpability as described before. 

Statistics aren't psychic readings.

It is incumbent upon any interaction that the parties involved are willful participants, however consent manifests. Manner of dress and venue are irrelevant.

The culpability of the gun's wielder is by default mitigated in part due to my culpability as described before.

Well, until the Supreme Court rules that women don't have the right to vote since they were made from Adam's rib.

I debated with someone for over 20 pages one time. Analyzed hours of video footage. Turns out I was right. Any objective individual could see I was right. But it didn’t change that gentleman’s mind one bit because of Orange Man Bad.

Let’s see about that.

They don’t need to be quantified to know they exist. 

“…by default mitigated…“ is paradoxical. By default the situation has both parties culpable of what occurred in the end. 

They don’t have to be.

The woman wilfully participated in the risk taking.

The courts always work when they rule in your favor and are broken when they don't.

"The Senate will vote to protect Roe V Wade."

The legal opinion of any judge sitting on the supreme court carries no more weight than my legal opinion.

"The Senate will vote to protect Roe V Wade." Sooo the Supreme Court serves no purpose as the Senate can just vote to override any ruling the Supreme Court makes based not on the law but feelings. I see no point in the taxpayer funding the judicial branch of govt any longer. The Senate is both the legislative and Judicial branch of govt. The Supreme court no longer has any legal standing it is just the opinions of 9 people that can be overridden at anytime by the Senate.  The legal opinion of any judge sitting on the supreme court carries no more weight than my legal opinion. The Supreme Court no longer  decides what laws are Constitutional, the Senate does. Again what purpose does the Supreme court serve if their rulings can be overridden by the Senate? I'll wait for your legal opinion,  it carries the same weight as a Supreme Court justice.

The legislative branch does not have the power to literally protect Roe V Wade as in the ruling made by the supreme court. What they do have the power to do is enact legislation that encapsulates the ideas behind Roe v Wade (access to abortion) into law. And that should be perfectly fine as the supreme court has simply ruled that the right to abortion is not one guaranteed by the constitution. This does not bar such rights being enacted at either the federal or state level.

Not to mention the fact that you would have to force any doctor anywhere to perform that abortion