[brigandish]

> > This ruling does not prohibit anything

> Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does.

No, it doesn't, Missouri's laws have prohibited abortion.

> If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true.

Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated, thus making this statement and the rest of what you wrote, incorrect.

> A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.

Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim, neither is the opposition to Roe v Wade from certain religious groups. It's also not characteristic of free society, governments put in place plenty of silly laws "on a whim" in free societies.

[gobrewers14]

> Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated

You're implying:

something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it

What I said was:

government has bounded something -> it can be scientifically or logically demonstrated

> Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim

You're appealing to the populace. How long or who believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true or whether anyone should care about it. People thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too. Also, something cannot be "sacred" universally, only conditionally.

[brigandish]

> > Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated

> You're implying:

> something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it

How have you managed to change round such a simple sentence and state it means the opposite? I'm astounded.

1. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated.

2. Something is scientifically demonstrated.

3. Hence, government is *not* bound by it.

> What I said was:

> government has bounded something -> it can be scientifically or logically demonstrated

You wrote no such thing as the words "bound" and "can" are not to be found in your statement in any form. What you actually wrote was:

> If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true.

Aside from your clearly not understanding what a necessary nor a sufficient condition is, this statement is not true. I shall do some reordering of my own to shine light on this:

We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true… for the government to implement this policy.

That's your implication and it's not based in reality.

I could go round in circles like this forever, much like the constellation of Gemini around the Earth but it would be as much use as reading my horoscope.

> > Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim

> You're appealing to the populace. How long or who believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true or whether anyone should care about it.

I didn't claim that the length of time it has been around has any relation to its truth, I corrected your use of the word "whims" to mischaracterise those you clearly oppose.

> whim | wɪm | > noun > 1 a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained:

There's nothing sudden about Christian opposition to abortion.

> People thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too.

It's Earth. I feel like making that pedantic point because I hope that making you more careful with your writing might lead you to read more carefully too.

> Also, something cannot be "sacred" universally, only conditionally.

What on Earth are you babbling about?