It is really annoying how prior to every election, abortion and gun control are dragged out to distract the population from their real problems……inflation, food shortages, homelessness, lack of access to health care, open borders, over 108,000 dead from fentanyl poisoning, funding another regime change war, and 30 trillion dollars of debt.
Annoying, but conservatives are actively infringing on women's inherent, inalienable right to control their lives that includes ending a pregnancy at will and the state has no interest in infringing on that inalienable, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
This infringement is not a distraction, it is an imminent threat of conservative power, they do not believe in rights as they reject the liberal concept of "inherent rights" by definition. Conservatives are THE enemy, they will infringe on any unenumerated right that they don't agree with, women's rights, voting rights are just the start.
Well... no. Eliminating Roe-v-wade will not change anything and will not materially impact a woman's access and right to get an abortion. States will likely not change their existing laws.
Nonsense. Some states have ALREADY changed their laws, pending a change on the Supreme Court. Reports are that 26 states will pass restrictive laws if given the chance.
Well, yes. These unenumerated rights are inherent and not up to SCOTUS repeal nor a vote. Conservatives are the enemy as they do not recognize unenumerated rights, inherent rights, nor accept the Ninth Amendment for what it was intended.
It's constitutional law if the Supreme Court of the United States holds that it's constitutional law. My old friend Bobby Knight used to engage in a lot of the activity you mention in your second sentence, but he's a rabid conservative---but then again guys like Ted Valentine weren't exactly preoccupied with the democratic process either.
A women's right to control her life that includes ending a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness is inherent, it is not granted by government nor the polity. The SCOTUS has no authority to infringe on any unenumerated, inherent right, they are to protect them.
Conservatives are the enemy as they do not accept the very concept of rights.
The reason you might be so concerned is that returning to the decision as to whether killing a baby should be permitted by statute is simply being returned to the States where elected representatives who are there to reflect the will of the people will decide the issue. Do you fear the will of the People? That the People might not think the killing of a child is justified due to irresponsible behavior which creates inconvenience? There is no "right" to abortion enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. The Democratic process was circumvented through Roe. The tenets held in that decision are preposterous. You know it. everyone knows it.
"The reason you might be so concerned is that returning to the decision as to whether killing a baby should be permitted by statute is simply being returned to the States where elected representatives who are there to reflect the will of the people will decide the issue"
Until the fetus develops mind, it is not a baby and therefore babies are not killed. This is NOT a right up for approval by the tyranny of the majority, it is an inherent right that the SCOTUS is obligated to protect.
Until the baby develops a "mind"? Using such a vague criteria is not only unscientific but is an argument of convenience. Which is what abortion is, a brutal, barbaric tool of convenience to avoid accountability for irresponsible behavior.
gee, that is funny. I thought the constitution specified that rights unenumerated were left up to the states or the individual, unless explicitly codified by federal legislation.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
with the Ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Unenumerated rights are inherent, not granted, which indicates that the government, at any level, has no power to infringe on rights, government is to protect them:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,"
So, despite the hypocrisy of the founders in their allowing slavery, rights simply exist and are not up for a vote nor approval of the SCOTUS.
No, that is the basis of liberalism and the basis of the founding of this nation:
" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
That "endowed by their Creator" statement indicates that inherent rights simply exist and are the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment as James Madison wrote it.
You seem incapable of elementary comprehension. Assume that your supposed right to abort a fetus (something not at all viewed as a right at the time of Independence- abortion was outlawed through Europe and the Western World) was an “inalienable right” (but as I said it was not) that does not make it something the Constitution will guarantee. The Declaration was not the Constitution. And supposing abortion was such a right it is definitional that the Constitution did not affect such right. The “people” possessed it. You know, democracy. So the states would decide.
You have a limited understanding of history or the context of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These details matter!
The Constitution was created to centralize the U.S. government because the independent states were not paying their fair share under the Confederation. This was a requirement in order to pay the debt owed to the British empire after the revolutionary war. This was specifically called out in the Peace Treaty of Paris Article 4, "It is agreed that Creditors on either Side shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full Value in Sterling Money of all bona fide Debts heretofore contracted." This same thing is called out in the Constitution in Article VI, "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." To stop paying the debt would have violated our Peace Treaty with England and caused another war. George Washington knew this. He stated it in his correspondence with John Jay here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0199
The Declaration of Independence on the other hand, was simply a tort claim giving a reason why natural law dictates those who wanted to leave the crown should be allowed to. It basically says, humans should be able, using their own free will, determine their own political status. It is mostly taken from a much older document called the "Law of Nations" Please note, The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 8.
As I stated above, the Constitution was required to avoid a war. The definition of the word "Constitutor" in Black's Law Dictionary is, "One who, by a simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt". Its real purpose is to outline the structure and operation of the U.S. Government. This structure included mechanisms for ensuring the international obligations of the U.S. were adhered to. The Bill of Rights was added to get it ratified. However, the Bill of Rights was never the primary purpose of the document. This is why they were all added as AMMENDMENTS...
Last thing I'll say on the Constitution, the Preamble is very misleading. Read it carefully. It is not what you think it is. You as a citizen are not a part of "The People." The People, and their posterity are essentially the those who stepped up and created the United States for the Unites States of America (straight out of the preamble). Notice these are two different entities. Citizens are something totally different. From Black's Law 6th Edition, Citizen, "One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights." Notice inalienable rights are not mentioned here. Civil rights are granted. Inalienable rights are natural rights. However, we can use our free will to contract these away. Whether we know it or not. Ignorance is the ultimate enemy here.
In order to enjoy inalienable rights, a human must come out of the system and have the proper political status. It takes free will and a massive amount of responsibility to do this. Most humans simply don't have it in them. They'd rather let a government take care of the day to day international political obligations and be left alone as much as is allowed. Citizens are subjects, nothing more.
It took years of study to start to realize what's been going on from the beginning of this entire system being put in place. It took a lot of time and effort. Unfortunately, most people don't take the time to first READ anything. Second, they don't have the intelligence/critical thinking ability to really understand it.
Jeff, I've seen you state many times that Conservatives are the enemy. Conservatives have been conditioned to think Liberals are the enemy. The media does this to people. May I suggest taking a step up to a higher vantage point in an attempt to see the big picture. Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic in the book. With the attitude you are showing, I'd say your are playing right into the hands of those who rule over the citizenry.
"Conservatives" and others argue that they extend those same rights to the unborn human life. Anyone who takes a closer look at embryology will realize that it's not just a religious view but also based on modern science. A fundamental disagreement on when human life begins. No need to repeat the/your reductionist view that human life only begins at a certain stage of brain development. The other side will simply disagree and that's that, no matter how many times it gets repeated.
Until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind, it is an object, just like any other thing with no capacity for mind, consciousness, and so the woman, a being, is the only consideration. Only beings have rights, objects do not and the state cannot use an object as an excuse to infringe on women's rights.
Conservatives are the enemy. They reject the concept of inherent rights by definition.
In Ohio, yes. Killing an unborn fetus in the course of a crime is a felony. It is put in statute in it’s own specific category, I believe, outside of 1st degree murder, manslaughter, etc. Cincinnati had the first successful prosecution for this crime in the country, a few years ago, for a vehicular homicide involving a stolen vehicle.
Those laws assume that the woman wants the fetus to come to term. If the woman wants to end the pregnancy it is her decision that is not constrained by those laws. If they cover her will, then they are an infringement on her rights.
You do realize that these laws are all recent and obviously enacted by antiabortion zealots? Fetuses have not been considered actual separate persons, they don't inherit, they aren't counted in the census, it's only this recent antiabortion lunacy that these laws exist.
Does it matter? The fundamental question is the whether the state has, or ought to have, power over the bodies of those under its jurisdiction. If the answer is yes, we can easily extend the principle to revert to slavery.
That depends on what you mean by "conservatives". Some conservatives certainly seem to want to conserve certain sets of rights. In general, words like "conservative", "liberal", and so on have become nearly meaningless and I try to avoid them. With regard to abortion, contraception, and other questions about the political status of people's bodies, it is clear that a fundamental distinction between opinions and ideologies regards the powers of the state. If the state is given the power to override the will of individuals in regard to their bodies, then forbidding abortion, contraception, and other personal activities of persons with regard to their bodies, up to the point of reintroducing slavery is possible. Recognizing the rights of individuals over their persons (their physical bodies) obviously prohibits that extension of state power. The introduction of moral or aesthetic opinions in the matter, or speculations about the neurological status of fetuses, is not relevant until this primary issue is settled.
"Recognizing the rights of individuals over their persons (their physical bodies) obviously prohibits that extension of state power."
The fact is that it is that conservatives reject the concept of inherent right that promotes state authority over everything that is NOT enumerated in the constitution, which was NOT the intent of the founders:
OK, ignoring the fact that the founders were hypocrites in that they claimed rights for themselves while they denied them to black people, women, Indians, their claim and statements about rights were liberal and thus made right inherent, regardless of their hypocrisy. the SCOTUS then has no authority to negate rights, as they did with their affirmation of slavery in its day and now with regards to women's rights.
SCOTUS' function is to ensure that rights are not infringed by law, period. In the case of women's inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right to abortion, the issue is when does the fetus become a being and so has the right to life, which is when its brain develops the capacity for sentiency. That is what differentiates being from object and is the standard used for brain dead people, who are allowed to be killed by their survivors by removing all life support from them. As brain dead people are no more, nonsentient fetuses are human but are not yet beings. This is fact. Not opinion, nor ideology, nor aesthetic, nor speculation.
"That depends on what you mean by "conservatives". Some conservatives certainly seem to want to conserve certain sets of rights. In general, words like "conservative", "liberal", and so on have become nearly meaningless and I try to avoid them."
Americans have twisted these meanings for their own purposes, I ignore that. Conservatives are as seen in the SCOTUS, they reject the very concept of rights as they ignore the Ninth Amendment that protects UNENUMERATED rights because they reject that there are such rights. Conservatives are illiberal by definition.
What precisely are these "same rights" that conservatives and others "extend" to the already "born." Seems to me that the right-wingers amongst us are perpetually busying themselves absconding with our rights.
“Can you do something about morning after pills and birth control, because I think it’s destroying the fabric of our society, giving women incentives to be promiscuous,” Ms Windsor asked the governor.
And y'all argue that it's not about controlling women's sexuality. Y'all will have us running around in burkas before long and I'm betting you will push to restore a husband's right to beat and rape his wife not long after. Or you will legalize abandoning a wife and kids in favor of drugs, alcohol, or another woman (oops, y'all are already doing that! My bad.). I mean, men should never have to pay or take responsibility for impregnating a woman. Not ever! Skip-to-the-loo, my darlin'.
Can't let women have any agency. They might “destroy the fabric of our society.” As if only men are capable. As if only men are moral. As if only men are wise.
“If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube”
Mistakes happen.
Many, if not a majority, of women who have abortions are in their 20s, already have children they are trying to support, have a job they are trying to hold on to, many are single moms, most do use birth control. Nothings 100%. Mistakes happen. You ought to wait until society offers a living wage, affordable high quality childcare and elder care, affordable housing and makes child support enforcement a top priority before making such glib remarks. And even then…
I was conflicted over abortion rights years ago. But I’ve come to better understand, as 70% of US citizens have, the issues I outlined above along with the many issues affecting teenage girls and boys, teen pregnancy, womens health, and this imperfect complicated world. I do not have the right to judge. I also firmly believe that before there is sentient mind formed it is largely an issue of soul, or religion, which has no place in our government.
Finally the number of abortions has decreased dramatically since Roe, as the proportion of women dying due to unsafe abortions.
“If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube”
You do realize that that bit of lefty hyperbole is racing towards extinction? Or are you one of those transphobes I've been reading about on the interwebs?
"No need to repeat the/your reductionist view that human life only begins at a certain stage of brain development. The other side will simply disagree and that's that, no matter how many times it gets repeated."
The criteria of mind as the differentiation between being and object is already used in law with respect to brain dead individuals. They can be killed by their survivors who are under no such constraints as conservatives want to inflict on women with regards to their mindless fetus. Mind matters, reductionism indicates the only valid criteria and that is that mind must exist.
That's a false comparison. A fetus is not brain dead, it's a developing human being. If you let it live it will have a fully developed brain and a mind. If it ends up with a damaged brain then the legal reasoning you bring forward here begins. Anyway, you can repeat that line of argument all you want, it doesn't resolve the fundamental disagreement, period.
You just referred to a fetus as an "it." And while we're busy making the reduction sauce: "all" fetuses, if "allowed" to live---if your argument is that the fetus is alive, the phrase "allowed to live" is illogical, or at the very least marks you as perhaps momentarily confused, or perhaps the victim of a transient malfunctioning of the anterior cingulate cortex.
And all fetuses "will have a fully developed brain and a mind?" Measure twice and cut once.
"Mind" is the differentiation between object and being. A brain dead person has no mind as a nonsentient fetus has no mind. The law recognizes the difference between being and object.
Anyway, you can repeat that line of argument all you want, it doesn't change the objective fact that mind differentiates a being from an object, period.
That objective scientific hard line that you insinuate with such certainty simply doesn't exist. Never mind the fact that basis your definition current laws in states like CA indeed allow the murder of sentient human beings, a fact you've never acknowledged. Moving on...
Good to see someone else making this point. I can't fathom how anyone can think a brainless mass of tissue is a actual person. Well, come to think of it, they're rather brainless masses of tissue.
I'm sitting here thinking how much better the world would be if your parents vacuumed you out of mom's womb. Come to think of it I bet every time your daddio looked at you he thought, "Why the fuck didn't I just buy that pack of condoms?"
Except that’s not true as it would return the choice to voters and their elected reps where it always should have been.
You’re funny, leftists are the ones trying to mandate useless and dangerous jabs for kids to make themselves “feel” safer. All available evidence is the left only believes in bodily autonomy when it comes to killing babies.
You’re indoctrination is evident. Bodily autonomy shouldn’t justify ripping a living, feeling human being apart limb by limb anymore than the right to life shouldn’t give a male rapist’s sperm more rights to reproduction in a woman’s body than she has herself.
You'd make much more sense if voting were treated as a right that government was constrained from abridging. On the contrary, however, the conservative court has pretty much gone out of its way to to encourage states to prevent the will of the people from being known.
Jeff, you sound like a dude who lives in his mom’s basement without any willing partners anyway. We get it, you don’t like conservatives (and only one other human seems to like you, regardless of political affiliation).
Good luck in life, you are clearly going to need it. Once you find one real life friend, hold on tight, it might be the only one you ever get.
Ah, Jeffey, you can’t seem to help yourself. “I’m rubber, you’re glue, and all that”. Nowhere can you demonstrate than an abortion was ever a right. It has been unlawful for centuries. It’s not a right no matter how much you stomp your feet, shout, pout, and claim it as such. Here is a clue: all “rights” are what the people say are rights. Nothing inherent about it - well, maybe “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but what those are in fact is something the people debate and decide. It is not left to childish folks who demand to be correct.
Beings have mind, objects do not. Beings have rights, objects have none and no need of them. Women are beings, nonsentient fetuses are objects as they have no capacity for mind. Therefore, women have the inherent, inalienable right to abort a nonsentient fetus at will and the state has no interest in infringing on that inalienable, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
In your mind, "unenumerated rights" are infinite. Are there any limits to what you consider a right? Do I have a right to steal your food because I have a right to food? How about a right to force you to labor in building a home for me because I have a right to housing? Please, tell me more about your "unenumerated rights" list.
"Do I have a right to steal your food because I have a right to food..."
No. No one has the right to infringe on another's rights. Rights are the corollary to the obligations of moral beings and as moral beings are obligated to not harm others, rights only extend to the point that they negatively affect others. All beings, nonhuman and human, have the same claim to rights because we consider ourselves moral.
All rights exist, they are inherent. The Ninth Amendment protects them as James Madison intended. You can consider it a right to do anything that does not harm another, period. They all exist and are limited by the rights of others.
"In your mind, "unenumerated rights" are infinite."
Not infinite, but they exist, such as the right of self defense, the right to abortion, the right for gay people to be treated equally under the law, the right to listen to the music that you like, the right to read books that you want to read, etc. Yes, there are a lot of unenumerated rights.
Jeff, stay out of it. Women will win this fight without male input. Too many of your kind are fighting for abortion rights because you don’t want commitment and you don’t want to pay child support.
I’ve seen it with friends and family far too many times. We’re not damsels in distress who need saving by a knight-errant.
That's kinda unfair. This is something I feel passionately about and I'm gay so no child support issues. You should understand this isn't only about abortion, this is the religious freaks trying to impose their vile religion on everyone else and as a gay man, it's very much something to care about. Alito's opinion is chock full of religious crap that should worry anyone who values the separation of church and state, including most religious folks who might have beliefs that differ from these vile pieces of shit who keep trying to turn the country into a theocracy. This is way too important to be alienating folks on your side.
Don’t paint all gay men with the same brush. Your opinion is not shared by those that are conservative, refuse to attend gay pride parades, and may even be found at church. Your fear seems to be that by alienating the progressive left they in turn will not support your cause.
I immigrated from Europe, where in some places abortions are still illegal. It may surprise you to know that abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, a mature country with highly educated people. There are circumstances in which females can end a pregnancy without facing any legal consequences. Those include abortion being performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and following mandatory counselling carried out at least three days before the procedure to terminate the pregnancy.
No one would be complaining about conservative positions if they weren't trying to coerce those opinions on other people. You want to strip women of agency and prevent them from making their own choices. You sure do caterwaul to hell and back when it's your own choices being infringed. Case in point - masking mandates. Don't tread on me, indeed. Hypocrite.
This isn't just about abortion. It's not even just about sex-related issues. Look at Alito's language and you see it can cover pretty much anything they want to do, and the elimination of pretty much anything they don't like.
LOL! No way Teresa, this is my fight too. I've been fighting for inherent, unenumerated rights for decades, those rights that conservatives argue don't exist, which is the vast majority of rights that we currently believe that we have, such as the right to marry the person of our choice, to listen to music that we like, to read books that we want to, to stay out all night, to not report our activities to authorities, etc. Name it and it's at risk from conservatives.
Conservatives don't believe that women have any rights whatsoever for their petty, pathetic religious reasons and that makes it my fight too.
Easy for a man to say. How about looking at it from the murdered child's viewpoint? Abortion is infanticide. Follow the science. There are no ethical or moral arguments which can support such a brutal and barbaric act.
Abortion is not murder. 95% are performed by week 15, well before the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind. The rest are performed to save the life of the woman, they are not elective, unless of course conservatives deny women the chance to end their pregnancy earlier. Conservatives are not good people.
Conception is when biological life begins. Arbitrarily choosing a point afterwards, based upon extremely vague criteria, constitutes an OPINION. Intervening to end that life in the vast majority of cases is homicide. With malice aforethought, ending a life is murder.
This is not idealogical, it is logically and scientifically consistent.
Your attempt to make this about ideology is noted but it doesn't change the facts about the biologic nature of life or the definition of murder.
First, no, life existed before conception, the egg and sperm are alive. Second, as no consciousness exists in cells, it doesn't exist in a fertilized egg and so until the fetus' brain develops enough to support consciousness, it is no more than a collection of nonsentient cells with no legal standing.
You're very welcome! We need to scope the argument to the conservative infringement of unenumerated women's rights. That is but the tip of the conservative threat ice berg.
LOL! Conservatives have been infringing on inherent, inalienable rights, including opposing all attempts at protecting them, such as in their opposition to protecting equal rights of black people, making them property, since the country's founding.
like throwing red meat into a pit of dogs abused as pups. Guns and abortion used to be off limits, politically impossible to seize, but anymore there is no limit how far the power hungry polarizers will go to let the dogs out.
But hey, they will keep doing it as long as the drooling masses keep falling for it in all their Pavlovian glory.
Conservatives are actively restricting inherent and unalienable rights, such as in voter suppression and this attack on women's rights. However, "gun control" laws are aimed at only forcing accountability and removing certain types, not ending the right to own a gun to defend oneself.
Beings have mind, objects do not. Beings have rights, objects have none and no need of them. Women are beings, nonsentient fetuses are objects as they have no capacity for mind. Therefore, women have the inherent, inalienable right to abort a nonsentient fetus at will and the state has no interest in infringing on that inalienable, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
LOL! You're a conservative clown, only citizens can vote and the border is under control of the US. However, conservatives' foreign policy built on our paranoia about communism and the "War on Drugs" has made South and Central America far worse than had liberalism been applied to make those societies more equitable. But, no, conservatives supported right-wing regimes that butchered tens of thousands and enabled criminal gangs and cartels.
She says to the comment board crowd that then fills the rest of the board with a fight over abortion and choice. LOL!
The press knows what it is doing. Clicks for dollars, plus, as long as we are fighting over these highly divisive planks, no one is paying attention to the government grift that is slowly consuming our nation. It's an absolutely brilliant ploy by the elites. The only fly in the ointment is that eventually, they will hollow out the country so significantly, that it will all crash to the ground, taking them with it.
But, until then, not only do they get free entertainment watching us tear ourselves apart, they make that all-important extra pocket change so they can afford that extra jet or yacht.
"no one is paying attention to the government grift"
I think that the big donors are, they pay for pro-wealthy policies and get them. The difference between the parties is that there are some progressive Democrats, there are none in the GOP. However, those progressives are drowned out by the neo-liberals, the New Democrats, IMO.
LOL! Typical conservative, reject that minorities have the same claim to rights that you do because you view them as less than white, treat them as animals and then not get that it was your values that created this mess, slavery, Jim Crow, rejection of the Civil Rights Act, etc. You conservatives are the enemy, always have been.
FWIW, your opinions would have far more credibility if you backed off prefacing and concluding every post with “conservatives are the enemy.” And fact check, the longest filibuster was held by the Democrats in oppositions to the Civil Rights Act. I think the enemy is ignorance on the part of both sides.
How many folks shouting “My body, my choice!” and “My body, my rights!” about vaccinations are anti-abortion? And FFS, equating a vaccination with pregnancy?
What species are you? So you really believe a heartbeat is what determines whether someone is alive? Do you realize how common you just made resurrection? That could mean that heart donors have been buried alive and the recipients are zombies. News Flash: We're discussing humans so what's relevant is how death is determined for that species. "Brain death" is a specific condition with a very well defined way to determine whether someone is or isn't brain dead. NO ONE has ever come back from brain death whereas a LOT of folks lived on after their hearts have stopped for all kinds of reasons. Who you are is determined by your brain. If we could transplant brains, if your brain got put in someone else's body, which one would you say is you? If your body died with the other persons brain in it, would you claim you were dead?
Perhaps you're one of those sick fucks who think a brain dead person should be kept on life support? That's one of those really warped ideas that religion gets people to believe. If someone's brain is gone, they're GONE, period, there simply isn't a rational excuse to deny this.
So, this brain activity criteria does not occur until the fetus sees the light of day? A newborn’s activity the first four weeks of life is sleeping 90% of the time , in the fetal position, as if it was still in the womb...only difference in activity really is receiving nutrition orally rather than through the umbilical cord.
Wow, you're not very good at parsing sentences, you think I'm pushing for post-partum abortions? Sometimes I think it should be legal to the age of 80 or 90. The fetal heartbeat criteria is BS, there isn't really a heart yet, just some oscillating circuits.
No, just pointing out the flaw in your argument regarding fetal brain activity...when does that begin? By your argument, fetus don’t have cerebral activity and that is incorrect. Is their a switch the OB turns on when the baby is born? Oh, maybe that’s why they spank them? I agree that the early heart beat is very primary and just the beginnings of a heart, but the same holds true of the fetal brain development.
I'm pro-choice, ardently pro-second amendment, and I am for choice in getting/not getting vaccinated.
My question would be, how many folks shouting "My body, my choice!" are also shouting, "My individual right to own a firearm must be protected at all costs!"
My guess is not very many, which is based in factual evidence.
Wow. A fellow pro-choice, pro 2A citizen, vaccine choice. It's a rare combo. Thought my husband and I were alone on this. Nice to know there are still some intelligent, logically consistent Americans out there. Thank you!
I think we are being legislated to death and I'm sick of being infantilized. It's like everyone believes in individual sovereignty excepting their pet cause — a cause they are sure will bring about the ideal society. The wave we are going through now reminds of nothing so much as the eugenicist movement in the early 20th century. Progressives were convinced that controlling reproduction would bring about an ideal, ordered society of superior genetic strains. Woke ideology is just another form of this utopia seeking. So is the whole pro-life plank. We will have a moral society and if not, we are not above coercing it through the courts or the congress.
“Can you do something about morning after pills and birth control, because I think it’s destroying the fabric of our society, giving women incentives to be promiscuous,” Ms Windsor asked the governor.
I am sick to death of idealists, utopians, grifters, control freaks, moral scolds, pro-lifers, puritans, etc. Unless I am causing actual, physical harm to your body or your property, leave me the f' alone!!
So the subject of the mandate is irrelevant? Sorry, it's disingenuous at best to ignore the consequences of a given mandate. Vaccines are mandatory for kids to go to school, why haven't y'all been up in arms about that all this time?
If we assume most pro-choice folks favor a principle of individual bodily autonomy or bodily sovereignty (which are slightly different, but related principles), then it would be logically consistent for them to also oppose vaccine and mask mandates. They would be just as opposed to the state forcing them to carry a fetus to term as they would be opposed to the government forcing them to receive injections (or other medical procedures).
On the other hand, if pro-life folks favor the principle of submission to a higher sovereign (whether that be a church, god, government, or another person), then they would generally favor submission to rules/laws that limit bodily autonomy/sovereignty and allows the government to mandate that every fetus (which they define as a person) to be carried to term. For the same reason, to be logically consistent, these pro-life folks should then also favor the right of the government to impose vax and mask mandates to control a pandemic.
Of course, both positions depend on how the fetus is defined, whether it is part of the woman’s body or whether it is defined as a separate autonomous person.
So, I cannot give you a specific answer to your question (if that is what you actually wanted), but I think it is obvious that many pro-choice advocates illogically favor vax and mask mandates, and that many pro-lifers illogically oppose vax and mask mandates.
Of course, people rarely behave in strict accordance with clear, articulated, logical principles. We are complicated. What worries me about this issue is that it is the most potentially divisive issue we face. My personal opinion is that, in the current hyper-divisive climate, our government will not settle it in a way that is universally acceptable enough to keep the Union together. It is plausible that states may actually try to secede over it, no matter which way the Supreme Court rules.
That said, because we live in a federal system, it is possible that allowing states to have different laws on the issue is a satisfactory solution that will preserve the Union. In that case—and I think that’s where we’re likely headed—a lot of Floridians may have to move (or travel) to California if they want an abortion (which obviously won’t be easy for the poor). It will certainly get interesting (i.e. disruptive) if half of the people in the U.S. decide to move to a state that aligns with their beliefs about abortion. And it will also make the real estate industry happy (and richer).
There is the individual unenumerated right to use recreational drugs. The "war on drugs" is a failure as was prohibition for the very reason that humans like to het "high" and government has only the function of mitigating harm, which prohibition does not do. Prohibition is the cause of organized crime, but conservatives don't give a shit about that only forcing people to act as they see as god's will demands.
Not even remotely equivalent. There are huge differences between the two conceptually:
- While the woman is always a being, she has rights, the fetus is not until its brain develops the capacity for mind, her decision either involves only herself, as the fetus is a mere object, or herself and the fetus, it has developed the capacity for mind and has rights.
- A person who is contagious threatens others around him or her with illness and vaccines reduce the risk. Vaccines are currently mandated under certain circumstances, such as for school kids, nurses and travelers to certain countries. No one has the right to infect others, so vaccination mandates are a case by case issue due to the differences in health risk. Regarding Covid-19, the pandemic was handled very poorly from the beginning and as we have safe and effective vaccines a mandate is not necessary.
Yes. Covid-19 never rose to a threat level of the Black Death in which 33% to 50% of the infected dies, so there was not the need for emergency measures. Understand that we have vaccine mandates already, kids for school, nurses, travelers, so the bodily autonomy argument has been worked out. Stupid antivaxxers can take their risks with getting sick.
However, as a nonsentient fetus is an object, it has no legal standing and so the woman has the inherent, unenumerated right to end a pregnancy with no state interference as the state has no authority to infringe on her right on an object's behalf.
You write: "...a nonsentient fetus is an object...."
So you can determine sentience? If you can do that in a court of law and in a medical laboratory, you will have completely solved the abortion issue, not to mention a vast array of philosophical, religious, and neuroscience mysteries. Please explain your methodology.
THIS is the issue. Liberalism posits that rights are inherent and not up for a vote or approval. In the case of abortion, everyone has the innate, inherent right to control their lives, make their own decisions that is constrained only be they effects on others. Women, by their biological fact that they support the developing embryo/fetus, have that right complicated by the fetus, is it a being, its brain supports mind, consciousness, sentience, etc, or is it an object, its brain cannot support mind, consciousness, sentience, etc.
I suggest you read the study you cite? The word "sentience" doesn't even appear in the article. The focus of the article is whether a fetus experiences pain. Contrary to your statement that fetuses are not sentient, the article states: "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age...."
So, in layman's terms, these scientists determined that fetuses do experience pain--hence are likely "conscious"--during at least the last trimester. So, let's say you're a liberal M.D. performing an abortion during the third trimester, do you administer anesthesia to the conscious fetus?
No, that absolutely won't solve the abortion issue because most of those pushing for abolishing abortion believe life begins at inception, nothing about sentience, it's all about a soul to most of them, I doubt you could find many of them could define the word sentience.
There are all kinds of laws dealing with criteria that have a basic 'is it or isn't it' dilemma, like who's an adult. There are 2 of these issues here, is it a life, and is it sentient. There are simply no answers to these questions, the antiabortion assholes just declare life starts at birth, the only justification they can have for that is because it's something god can decide, so it's a purely religious justification and has no business being the justification for laws in this secular country.
As for sentience, anyone who thinks a brainless mass of tissue is sentient isn't sentient and is more likely a brainless mass of tissue. Somewhere along the timeline to 9 months, it becomes sentient enough to live as a human being. When that occurs isn't answerable, but the brain better be pretty well on it's way before it's declared to be so. Yes, brains keep developing until at least our 20's, but some criteria could ne determined that most reasonable adults could agree.
If it's a separate life, then it is, by definition, a parasite and no one should be forced to harbor a parasite.
Their religious view is THE problem here. Conservatives do not believe that women have any rights, they are the cause of our fall from grace and are therefore to be subservient to men. They are no more than adult children who must be forced to behave in accordance with god's will as decided by men. They are to suffer the consequences of having sex and that is to bear the child that is the result.
“Somewhere along the timeline to 9 months, [the fetus] becomes sentient enough to live as a human being.”
In an effort to make the pro-choice case, you just stated and agreed with the entire pro-life argument.
BTW, the answer to whether a fetus is or is not sentient is not a simplistic binary yes or no. Is a fetus sentient one day after conception? Is a fetus sentient 8 months after conception? I don’t claim to have the definitive answer, but I understand how reasonable people could come to different conclusions.
Thank goodness she didn't say something stupid like all of those problems reinforce the need for competent government instead of the demented train wreck of an administration that's running our American Titanic these days. That would have just hurt Joe's feelings.
Luckily those wacky, yet humane & caring, liberals up in Canada are realizing that abortion shouldn't have to stop with fetuses.
According to this piece Canada will pay to euthanize folk who are "too poor to live with dignity."
You see, sometimes adults need a good aborting too. I think that this is what they really mean when they talk about "equity."
Although isn't it neat how the aims of the eugenics movement, removing weak genes & sterilizing the poor & "undesirable," have been packaged in such a way that the target audience of the eugenics gene pool cleaners just does it to themselves? This must be what they call progress.
Just to be clear, if you can't feed your kid you should abort it and if you can't feed yourself you should also abort yourself.
Oh Hell, just go on and abort yourself. That way you would leave zero carbon footprint, believe zero disinformation, never storm the Capitol, never vote for Trump, never buy a MAGA hat, never point out the real reasons for the Ukraine/Russia cage match, never quibble with a transexual about their mental state, never stop your kid from transitioning, never oppose adults sexualizing your toddlers...my god, the list is endless as are the benefits. Look at your self-aborting as an early Christmas present for liberals everywhere.
But if you get whiny and uppity and needy and pissed about the $40 billion the US just sent to Ukraine, thinking the money would be better spent helping Americans, here's Nancy the Pelosi invoking the Gospel of Matthew to explain that aid.
You might be thinking right about now, "My God, do these people have no shame?" Let me save you further mental anxiety: No they do not have any shame. None at all. Not even an atom's worth.
Finally, here's what happens when young impressionable teens mistakenly head down the Trans highway.
Of course none of this indicates, in any way, that modern day liberalism has taken a very nasty turn into a very dark place. Not at all. Remember, they are the ones who care.
What Katy Porter is saying is "get rid of useless eaters". What Canada is endorsing is "get rid of useless eaters." What Pelosi is saying is "I am a hypocrite who will quote Jesus whenever it serves me. "
I love how if a Republican quotes scripture they are reviled as “right wing Christian nut jobs”.... Pelosi references the words of Jesus to express her compassion.....🤦♀️😂🤦♀️😂
Maybe actual Christians need to work more missiles and proxy wars into their sermons. That "blessed are the peacemakers" jazz just tends to make Raytheon & Lockheed Martin nervous.
And just for good measure they might mention the 11th & 12th Commandments: Thou shalt refuse no vaccines & Thou shalt never question a Democrat.
” What Canada is endorsing is "get rid of useless eaters." ”
It’s really not. You should really look into this stuff before you actually form on opinion. Glancing at tweets is a bad way to perceive reality, and a bad way of forming opinions.
You're quite averse to honesty, that's quite apparent in this BS post. FFS, it's a simple fact that cost of living will be a factor in whether someone can afford a child and what the consequences would be for her and the rest of her family.
Calling assisted suicide 'euthanasia' is not just grossly dishonest, it's despicable and typical of those who want to force their disgusting religious beliefs on everyone else. You clearly either have no idea what's going on or you're intentionally mischaracterizing it to push your nonsense. Or maybe you simply have reading comprehension issues. Canada has universal, free health care, assisted suicide is a medical procedure and is therefor free for everyone. What's actually going on in the two cases is far more complex and utterly divorced from what you're trying to claim.
And the article linked to about the trans kid is mainly a quoted story told by someone without a shred of evidence any of it is true. The fact that you're citing it makes me think it's all BS as most similar stories have proven to be.
You're spewing nothing but vile, hateful BS that you try to justify with grossly dishonest BS and then resort to insults because you got nothing else.
“According to this piece Canada will pay to euthanize folk who are "too poor to live with dignity."
Stay off Twitter, it’s bad for your brain, especially if you’re not going to take time to actually look into these issues. The algos are just trying to get you riled up.
“ It would create a two-track system for determining a person's eligibility. One track for people who are terminally ill, and one track for people who are not.
Patients in both tracks must prove they are facing "intolerable" suffering.
The bill would explicitly exclude eligibility for individuals suffering solely from mental illness.”
Ideology has taken over our society. We have forgotten to judge policy on actual outcomes. People keep trying socialism and communism because the ideology sounds appealing, but the reality is death and suffering.
The bodily autonomy crowd, which mostly abandoned their ideology for Covid, denies the humanity of a fetus. I get that viability is firmly grounded in bodily autonomy, but the reality in the outcome is the legalization of ripping a living, feeling, human apart limb by limb, or burning it alive in saline. That’s cruel.
Likewise, the pro choice argument is firmly grounded in the right to life. However, in practice at the extremes, it gives a male rapist’s sperm more rights to the reproductive function of his victim than she has over her own reproduction. “Love them both” from the pro-life crowd often fails to acknowledge that legal or not, woman will find a way to abort unwanted babies, often with tragic results. Where is the focus on less human suffering, for both?
I wish we could skip the ideological screaming and find a way to compromise on a policy that acknowledges both the humanity of the baby, and the rights to bodily autonomy of the mother, considering the world as it actually is.
Like many voters, I will vote for the less extreme position. I’d like an elective ban around 8 weeks, but could tolerate anything from 6-12 weeks. I will not vote that women give up entirely meaningful rights over their reproductive organs at puberty. I will not vote to legalize ripping humans apart limb by limb. People who don’t see humanity in a 4 month old human tend not to see it in 4 year olds and 14 year olds. People who demand the outlawing of plan B tend not to see nuance or understand conception is a process that isn’t instant after sex.
Where ever one stands on this issue, consider if your policies will accomplish what they set out to accomplish, or if they are motivated by ideology. Western Europe has sane policies. They protected their kids relatively better than we did for Covid. When rights come into conflict setting policies based on actual outcomes, not ideological wishful thinking, tends to be more positive for society as a whole.
And evolving more accurate science should be an aide with Pro Choice…. Impregnation can be detected 48 hours after fertilization. I stand on the sidelines of this most of the time…I gave birth to my last child at 26 weeks 32 years ago. Her birth weight dictated life saving measures, she lived for five days. Today, most babies born at 26 weeks survive. It was a sobering moment to accept that people would choose to terminate a pregnancy that far along, but it’s their choice. I don’t agree, but it’s their choice.
You call the baby you lost a “child”. But argue they should have the right to kill that “child” if they so choose, for any reason whatsoever, at any point before birth?
Not really, I vehemently disagree with their decision. I named my child and had a service. I question the parenting skills or commitment of anyone who would decide to arbitrarily end a pregnancy absent of health risks that far along… that poor judgment speaks volumes to me. I don’t agree with their choice, but it is their choice, is my point.
Why is it “their choice”? What’s the difference, aside from 4 inches of birth canal, between a 26 week old fetus and a 26 week old preemie? Or do you think parents can just kill their kids? What’s the line?
There is no difference, that’s my point. Unless there is life threatening risk involved, I think aborting at 26 weeks is horrific judgement. I’ll leave it at that.
I wish they would get medical professionals in this conversation but that means a HUGE amount of foresight, intelligence, and common sense. Doctors have experiences we can never imagine.
No, they are just people, like everyone else. I’m surrounded by them in life - my neighborhood, club, kids private school. Just people with a variety of opinions and variable skill and insight like every other profession. Some are pro-life, some pro-choice, and they hold the same variety of beliefs and opinions as the rest of the population.
If the leaker was on the right we would already know their name and they would have been taken down by a SWAT team. Let’s prosecute the criminals threatening Supreme Court justices, a MUCH more serious offense then wandering around the Capitol taking pictures. We cannot go on as a country with so much unequal justice. The center will not hold.
Oh right. Where were the SWAT teams on Jan 6? And “Wandering around and taking pictures?” What I watched live all day long was a huge mob armed with clubs, poles, gas sprays and fists chanting death to Pence and others, breaking down the doors to the House Chamber and breaking into Congressional offices. Please.
Anyone involved in violence or destruction should be charged and tried, just like all the violent BLM and antifa should be charged and tried. There were a number, the majority of citizens peacefully wandering around taking pictures. The FBI incitement must be thoroughly investigated as well. Oh please yourself
Well I agree with your first sentence. It’s hard to say that people who passed through our Capitol’s broken down doors, shattered glass and such, amidst obvious chaos were just walking around taking pictures. Last time I did that (wandered around taking pictures) I had to wait in line, for over an hour so and was happy to do so. It’s a beautiful building with so much our history! Nonetheless, those wandering souls you mention are not the ones being charged with serious crimes. But like I or anyone else would have had to do if I/they pushed through and entered the Capitol illegally, they should have to pay a fine, or suffer whatever the consequences are.
I don't understand why anyone is pretending not to know that the document Politico received could only have come from Alito's office. They got a hard-copy with a circulation stamp. No recipient was indicated, so it had not been circulated to one of the other offices.
The "party of science" refuses to engage in meaningful debate on the morality of abortion. The emotional tyrants they encourage to riot petty children throwing tantrums over pronouns. No one takes them seriously. Wokies, your fifteen minutes are up. It's time the adults take the streets back and restore some logic to the world.
The MSM takes the wokies very seriously. And too many folks in what should be a solid center majority worry about what the NYT and WaPo think as well. i.e., we have become a Tyranny of the Minority.
Well, it would probably be a conversation about where personal bodily autonomy ends and the right to life of another to use our bodies for their life outweighs personal bodily autonomy. It would probably involve a discussion about how long it takes to assert bodily autonomy. It would hopefully acknowledge the humanity of young humans, and the ability of humans to feel pain at least by the time they are 4 month old fetuses.
It might even cause some to question these ridiculous ideological positions, and for once focus on actual outcomes that acknowledge the world as it actually is, and the consequences of various policies as they actually are.
But moronic ideologies tend to drive many in our society to stupid, harmful, cruel, and inhumane positions because people no longer seem to care about actual outcomes. Just look at Brandon - absolutely everything that has happened was 100% predictable, and yet 40% of the country supports him because they have been told mean tweets are worse than starving babies and suffering poor people, and they are simply too self-centered and simple minded to consider they were the ones who didn’t see this coming so maybe they are wrong. Instead they scream louder and avoid introspection at all costs. Sad.
Would you want to advertise the fact that you want to leagilize killing a child just because one finds out the pregnancy produced a girl, rather than your wanted boy? Usually the misogyny label would be used in that case.
SCOTUS is faithfully executing what it was created to do. It is protecting the Elite caste from the masses by keeping the masses fighting amongst themselves.
Roe has survived for 50 years on a legal house of cards. Now that a conservative SCOTUS finally has the balls to follow the Constitution - they're protecting the 'Elite'? Looks to me like they are doing their jobs.
Right, Civics is dead in American education. Many Americans have no idea how our constitutional representative republic works. I heard one moron screaming that the Supreme Court elected to overturn Roe V Wade and that they will elect to nullify gay marriage, etc. the list goes on. When you have a citizenry this dumbed down only bad things can happen.
The fighting is due to the cognitive dissonance of a large part of the "pro choice" faction. Refusing to acknowledge that abortion is a form of homicide, or at least a surgery with consequences more severe than having a boil lanced, activists bamboozle the average twit to believe that overturning R v. W will be an end to legal abortion on demand. It's pretty clear that only so-called red sates will prohibit or severely restrict access and blue states will either keep their present policies or liberalize them, making it legal to abort a fetus well into pregnancy, and even this is uncertain.
That the SC "was created" to do what you claim is preposterous unless you take the position that all states do this--enable an elite to lord it over the peasantry through some sort of con game. If the truth is that our laws are concocted by rich autocrats bent on exploiting their positions for all they're worth, at least our republic gives us the illusion of electing representatives to vote in our interests.
We ain't seen nuttin yet! Every media arm has been cranking up the hate in the population for a lot of years. That's where the big bucks are. The actions and propaganda of the west over the Ukraine exceeded the trans and even Covid-19 and the theft of money from Russia will put the last nails in the coffin of the US dollar. The coming recession/depression will be at a level not seen since the thirties. Hello, most people haven't even seen a real bear market. Everyone knows that the US cannot and will not pay back it's debts. Well, other countries, especially in the global south with their client oligarchies may choose to feed their people rather than the western banksters. They've been sending us stuff, especially China and we've basically been paying for it by issuing IOUs in various forms. That's coming to an end as the more and more clever financial engineering is too. 40B for the Ukraine, actually for amerikan business and ZIP for the amerikan people and it's right in their face how much their ruling classes care for them. Hang on to your hat's, it's gonna be a tough ride!
You guys realize of course that 99.9999 percent of the population doesn't give a s*** and is not protesting about anything. We're just sitting around drinking beers and giving our opinions about it but not marching in the street or attacking anyone. The obsessive navel-gazing of a tiny class of people it's not interesting nor is it news.
The same number of people who read Florida’s “ Don’t Say Gay “ law.... because it doesn’t come close to saying that. Media doing what is does best...gaslight.
Virtually all of the anti-abortion arguments hinge on the idea that a fetus is an actual separate human being, going so far as to claim abortion is murder. If this was the case, why doesn't the census count them? Why aren't murderers of pregnant woman charged with 2 counts of homicide? Some laws of recent origin might apply but they've almost never been used and these laws are aimed at abortion, which makes them sorta fruit of the poisoned tree.
There simply is no objective answer to this question. I would bet that at least 99% of those asserting life starts at conception do so for religious reasons, almost all of them involving having a soul which is a RELIGIOUS concept, a matter of faith without the slightest evidence supporting it as a real thing. There are plenty of objective reasons to say it's a ludicrous proposition, e.g., there is no BRAIN FFS! If it's a separate human being, it's brain dead and can be taken off life support. This should be a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue, the same for all the LBGQT arguments, there are no non-religious serious objections to adults deciding who they care to love just as there is no justification for calling a fetus a separate human being. Alito's opinion is rife with religious crap, it's pervaded with that nonsense and as such, it's really bad law and violates the constitution.
Thank you! Well put. Separation of church and state is crumbling before our eyes. I see that as a major threat to this country, not so called wokism. And thank you for bringing up the LBGTQ issue as well. 70 percent of Americans support choice. These are serious, life altering issues that are now being decided by a minority.
Just years and years of listening to their yammering and their justifications always involve something about god, his children, souls, etc and how I've heard very very few secularists who are anti-abortion. Sometimes it might not be obvious but it's there. Just declaring life begins at inception can only come from someone with faith, like I said, there is no answer to this question without having something with the authority to define it that way. It's utterly inconsistent with almost every other way such things are considered, like brain death as I mentioned or the census, or inheriting rules,, or even hotel occupancy, etc.
Many people think Roe v. Wade was badly reasoned. RBG was one.
I can welcome it being overturned without wanting abortion, within limits, to be outlawed. Not every bad thing must be illegal. Often, making some bad thing illegal leads to other bad things. In such cases the law should stay out of it as much as possible.
I agree, and this applies to a lot of things. Making drugs legal can be supported ideologically, but the outcome is human suffering. Outlawing guns might prevent some gun violence, it it opens the door for tyranny.
Outlawing abortion all together is firmly rooted in right to life, but overlooks that some women will find a way to end a deeply unwanted pregnancy, often with tragic results if illegal, and this has always been the case. Likewise, viability is firmly rooted in bodily autonomy, but ignores the cruelty of ripping a living, feeling human being apart limb by limb, or burning them alive in saline. That’s cruel.
Western Europe has sane policies mostly outlawing elective abortion at 10 or 12 weeks. I am angry that judges have set this policy in this country, driving inhumane extremes on both sides for fundraising.
I believe that had this been left to voters from the start, most places would today have elective bans that are around 10-12 weeks, and the outliers would be 6 or 20 weeks. Instead, after years of the extremes screaming, in appeals to their base, I fear we will end up with a period of cruel ideological extremes that outlaw plan B and IUDs in some states, while allowing healthy fully viable babies to have their brains sucked out in the birth canal in partial birth abortions in others. Sad.
Well, you're right in thinking it was economic. At the beginning of Prohibition, there were about 400 distilleries in the US. At the end, there were four - those that had secured government licenses to produce legal alcohol. They belonged to the same families that had funded the Women's Christian Temperance League (the Carnegie/Mellon family) and the Anti-Saloon League (the Rockefellers). When Prohibition was ended, another member of the Carnegie-Mellon tribe, Harry Anslinger, was the head of the narcotics bureau and he led the charge to illegalize marijuana, which competed with alcohol. (He was also a genuine racist who literally hounded Billie Holiday to her death.) Though we learned from Prohibition that banning recreational inebriants did more harm than good, it has become too much of a money-maker to have a drug war and now it seems the same logic no longer works to de-schedule cannabis.
You are one of the few people arguing about abortion who actually seem to consider the putative experiences of a fetus, that is, its "capacity to suffer" if I may misquote Peter Singer on the similar question of the treatment of food animals. This sort of view leads immediately to questions of animal welfare and animal rights, which I don't think most people want to take seriously since they prefer to feel free to imprison, torture, kill, and eat animals of any degree to nervous organization. In fact the question is often held to be ludicrous. Working back from that widespread conviction, I conclude that capacity for suffering is not of interest in the case of fetuses either except for some uses in propaganda, just as it is only sporadically considered in the case of animals or, indeed, large categories of human beings. The issue does not seem to be about fetuses (or embryos or zygotes of gametes -- wherever one wants to draw the line -- but about the political and social status of their hosts, that is, those of a certain sex (and race and class, etc.) That being the case I am pretty sure how the debate is going to come out. In fact, it has been said that those who have been pushing the abortion issue may be like the dog that caught the bus, unless we're really going to revert to feudalism and slavery as some predict.
It is really annoying how prior to every election, abortion and gun control are dragged out to distract the population from their real problems……inflation, food shortages, homelessness, lack of access to health care, open borders, over 108,000 dead from fentanyl poisoning, funding another regime change war, and 30 trillion dollars of debt.
Annoying, but conservatives are actively infringing on women's inherent, inalienable right to control their lives that includes ending a pregnancy at will and the state has no interest in infringing on that inalienable, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
This infringement is not a distraction, it is an imminent threat of conservative power, they do not believe in rights as they reject the liberal concept of "inherent rights" by definition. Conservatives are THE enemy, they will infringe on any unenumerated right that they don't agree with, women's rights, voting rights are just the start.
Well... no. Eliminating Roe-v-wade will not change anything and will not materially impact a woman's access and right to get an abortion. States will likely not change their existing laws.
Nonsense. Some states have ALREADY changed their laws, pending a change on the Supreme Court. Reports are that 26 states will pass restrictive laws if given the chance.
Well, yes. These unenumerated rights are inherent and not up to SCOTUS repeal nor a vote. Conservatives are the enemy as they do not recognize unenumerated rights, inherent rights, nor accept the Ninth Amendment for what it was intended.
Roe v Wade was never constitutional law. Liberals are the enemy trying to circumvent the democratic process with political rulings from the bench.
It's constitutional law if the Supreme Court of the United States holds that it's constitutional law. My old friend Bobby Knight used to engage in a lot of the activity you mention in your second sentence, but he's a rabid conservative---but then again guys like Ted Valentine weren't exactly preoccupied with the democratic process either.
Frank you are a clueless conservative.
A women's right to control her life that includes ending a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness is inherent, it is not granted by government nor the polity. The SCOTUS has no authority to infringe on any unenumerated, inherent right, they are to protect them.
Conservatives are the enemy as they do not accept the very concept of rights.
Jeff you are a clueless liberal with a weird baby-killing obsession.
Here, chew on this for a while...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
"the capacity for consciousness" ....should we just eliminate everyone with Alzheimer's?
The reason you might be so concerned is that returning to the decision as to whether killing a baby should be permitted by statute is simply being returned to the States where elected representatives who are there to reflect the will of the people will decide the issue. Do you fear the will of the People? That the People might not think the killing of a child is justified due to irresponsible behavior which creates inconvenience? There is no "right" to abortion enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. The Democratic process was circumvented through Roe. The tenets held in that decision are preposterous. You know it. everyone knows it.
A fetus becomes a baby when it develops the capacity for consciousness, so aborting the fetus before that involves only an object.
Hat tip One After 909…great name!
"The reason you might be so concerned is that returning to the decision as to whether killing a baby should be permitted by statute is simply being returned to the States where elected representatives who are there to reflect the will of the people will decide the issue"
Until the fetus develops mind, it is not a baby and therefore babies are not killed. This is NOT a right up for approval by the tyranny of the majority, it is an inherent right that the SCOTUS is obligated to protect.
Until the baby develops a "mind"? Using such a vague criteria is not only unscientific but is an argument of convenience. Which is what abortion is, a brutal, barbaric tool of convenience to avoid accountability for irresponsible behavior.
gee, that is funny. I thought the constitution specified that rights unenumerated were left up to the states or the individual, unless explicitly codified by federal legislation.
You're conflating the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
with the Ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Unenumerated rights are inherent, not granted, which indicates that the government, at any level, has no power to infringe on rights, government is to protect them:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,"
So, despite the hypocrisy of the founders in their allowing slavery, rights simply exist and are not up for a vote nor approval of the SCOTUS.
Jeffey - “inherent rights” are by your own definition not constitutional. Sorry that democracy and the will of the people are so confusing.
No, that is the basis of liberalism and the basis of the founding of this nation:
" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
That "endowed by their Creator" statement indicates that inherent rights simply exist and are the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment as James Madison wrote it.
You seem incapable of elementary comprehension. Assume that your supposed right to abort a fetus (something not at all viewed as a right at the time of Independence- abortion was outlawed through Europe and the Western World) was an “inalienable right” (but as I said it was not) that does not make it something the Constitution will guarantee. The Declaration was not the Constitution. And supposing abortion was such a right it is definitional that the Constitution did not affect such right. The “people” possessed it. You know, democracy. So the states would decide.
This is not hard. But you seem confused.
You have a limited understanding of history or the context of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These details matter!
The Constitution was created to centralize the U.S. government because the independent states were not paying their fair share under the Confederation. This was a requirement in order to pay the debt owed to the British empire after the revolutionary war. This was specifically called out in the Peace Treaty of Paris Article 4, "It is agreed that Creditors on either Side shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full Value in Sterling Money of all bona fide Debts heretofore contracted." This same thing is called out in the Constitution in Article VI, "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." To stop paying the debt would have violated our Peace Treaty with England and caused another war. George Washington knew this. He stated it in his correspondence with John Jay here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0199
The Declaration of Independence on the other hand, was simply a tort claim giving a reason why natural law dictates those who wanted to leave the crown should be allowed to. It basically says, humans should be able, using their own free will, determine their own political status. It is mostly taken from a much older document called the "Law of Nations" Please note, The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 8.
As I stated above, the Constitution was required to avoid a war. The definition of the word "Constitutor" in Black's Law Dictionary is, "One who, by a simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt". Its real purpose is to outline the structure and operation of the U.S. Government. This structure included mechanisms for ensuring the international obligations of the U.S. were adhered to. The Bill of Rights was added to get it ratified. However, the Bill of Rights was never the primary purpose of the document. This is why they were all added as AMMENDMENTS...
Last thing I'll say on the Constitution, the Preamble is very misleading. Read it carefully. It is not what you think it is. You as a citizen are not a part of "The People." The People, and their posterity are essentially the those who stepped up and created the United States for the Unites States of America (straight out of the preamble). Notice these are two different entities. Citizens are something totally different. From Black's Law 6th Edition, Citizen, "One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights." Notice inalienable rights are not mentioned here. Civil rights are granted. Inalienable rights are natural rights. However, we can use our free will to contract these away. Whether we know it or not. Ignorance is the ultimate enemy here.
In order to enjoy inalienable rights, a human must come out of the system and have the proper political status. It takes free will and a massive amount of responsibility to do this. Most humans simply don't have it in them. They'd rather let a government take care of the day to day international political obligations and be left alone as much as is allowed. Citizens are subjects, nothing more.
It took years of study to start to realize what's been going on from the beginning of this entire system being put in place. It took a lot of time and effort. Unfortunately, most people don't take the time to first READ anything. Second, they don't have the intelligence/critical thinking ability to really understand it.
Jeff, I've seen you state many times that Conservatives are the enemy. Conservatives have been conditioned to think Liberals are the enemy. The media does this to people. May I suggest taking a step up to a higher vantage point in an attempt to see the big picture. Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic in the book. With the attitude you are showing, I'd say your are playing right into the hands of those who rule over the citizenry.
Have a nice day!
"Conservatives" and others argue that they extend those same rights to the unborn human life. Anyone who takes a closer look at embryology will realize that it's not just a religious view but also based on modern science. A fundamental disagreement on when human life begins. No need to repeat the/your reductionist view that human life only begins at a certain stage of brain development. The other side will simply disagree and that's that, no matter how many times it gets repeated.
Until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind, it is an object, just like any other thing with no capacity for mind, consciousness, and so the woman, a being, is the only consideration. Only beings have rights, objects do not and the state cannot use an object as an excuse to infringe on women's rights.
Conservatives are the enemy. They reject the concept of inherent rights by definition.
Then why if a pregnant woman is murdered and the “object” inside her dies, is the suspect charged with double homicide?
In Ohio, yes. Killing an unborn fetus in the course of a crime is a felony. It is put in statute in it’s own specific category, I believe, outside of 1st degree murder, manslaughter, etc. Cincinnati had the first successful prosecution for this crime in the country, a few years ago, for a vehicular homicide involving a stolen vehicle.
Those laws assume that the woman wants the fetus to come to term. If the woman wants to end the pregnancy it is her decision that is not constrained by those laws. If they cover her will, then they are an infringement on her rights.
You do realize that these laws are all recent and obviously enacted by antiabortion zealots? Fetuses have not been considered actual separate persons, they don't inherit, they aren't counted in the census, it's only this recent antiabortion lunacy that these laws exist.
In all states? I think in the states that will ban abortion if given the chance.
Because it is assumed in the law that the women wants to be pregnant, the fetus is hers.
Because of her CHOICE to engage in sexual activity. That is where a woman’s CHOICE comes in.
Can you cite that specific language? And you know what “ assuming” is? “ it is assumed in the law”???? 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Does it matter? The fundamental question is the whether the state has, or ought to have, power over the bodies of those under its jurisdiction. If the answer is yes, we can easily extend the principle to revert to slavery.
Spot on! Conservatives already do not believe that they have any rights whatsoever.
That depends on what you mean by "conservatives". Some conservatives certainly seem to want to conserve certain sets of rights. In general, words like "conservative", "liberal", and so on have become nearly meaningless and I try to avoid them. With regard to abortion, contraception, and other questions about the political status of people's bodies, it is clear that a fundamental distinction between opinions and ideologies regards the powers of the state. If the state is given the power to override the will of individuals in regard to their bodies, then forbidding abortion, contraception, and other personal activities of persons with regard to their bodies, up to the point of reintroducing slavery is possible. Recognizing the rights of individuals over their persons (their physical bodies) obviously prohibits that extension of state power. The introduction of moral or aesthetic opinions in the matter, or speculations about the neurological status of fetuses, is not relevant until this primary issue is settled.
"Recognizing the rights of individuals over their persons (their physical bodies) obviously prohibits that extension of state power."
The fact is that it is that conservatives reject the concept of inherent right that promotes state authority over everything that is NOT enumerated in the constitution, which was NOT the intent of the founders:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background
OK, ignoring the fact that the founders were hypocrites in that they claimed rights for themselves while they denied them to black people, women, Indians, their claim and statements about rights were liberal and thus made right inherent, regardless of their hypocrisy. the SCOTUS then has no authority to negate rights, as they did with their affirmation of slavery in its day and now with regards to women's rights.
SCOTUS' function is to ensure that rights are not infringed by law, period. In the case of women's inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right to abortion, the issue is when does the fetus become a being and so has the right to life, which is when its brain develops the capacity for sentiency. That is what differentiates being from object and is the standard used for brain dead people, who are allowed to be killed by their survivors by removing all life support from them. As brain dead people are no more, nonsentient fetuses are human but are not yet beings. This is fact. Not opinion, nor ideology, nor aesthetic, nor speculation.
"That depends on what you mean by "conservatives". Some conservatives certainly seem to want to conserve certain sets of rights. In general, words like "conservative", "liberal", and so on have become nearly meaningless and I try to avoid them."
I mean liberal and conservative as from the French Revolution. Liberals accepted the concept of inherent rights, conservatives did not (https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html).
Americans have twisted these meanings for their own purposes, I ignore that. Conservatives are as seen in the SCOTUS, they reject the very concept of rights as they ignore the Ninth Amendment that protects UNENUMERATED rights because they reject that there are such rights. Conservatives are illiberal by definition.
What precisely are these "same rights" that conservatives and others "extend" to the already "born." Seems to me that the right-wingers amongst us are perpetually busying themselves absconding with our rights.
You still have the right to abstinence, birth control, and the "morning after" pill.
If we get a majority Republican Senate in November, they will try for (and more): https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/?sh=304be4123eda
Also, this: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control
In Texas, there is pressure to outlaw birth control: https://news.yahoo.com/texas-governor-questioned-whether-outlaw-223657382.html
“Can you do something about morning after pills and birth control, because I think it’s destroying the fabric of our society, giving women incentives to be promiscuous,” Ms Windsor asked the governor.
And y'all argue that it's not about controlling women's sexuality. Y'all will have us running around in burkas before long and I'm betting you will push to restore a husband's right to beat and rape his wife not long after. Or you will legalize abandoning a wife and kids in favor of drugs, alcohol, or another woman (oops, y'all are already doing that! My bad.). I mean, men should never have to pay or take responsibility for impregnating a woman. Not ever! Skip-to-the-loo, my darlin'.
Can't let women have any agency. They might “destroy the fabric of our society.” As if only men are capable. As if only men are moral. As if only men are wise.
Give me a break.
The GOP is illiberal to the core from the voter to the politician, they reject the very concept of rights!
“If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube”
Mistakes happen.
Many, if not a majority, of women who have abortions are in their 20s, already have children they are trying to support, have a job they are trying to hold on to, many are single moms, most do use birth control. Nothings 100%. Mistakes happen. You ought to wait until society offers a living wage, affordable high quality childcare and elder care, affordable housing and makes child support enforcement a top priority before making such glib remarks. And even then…
I was conflicted over abortion rights years ago. But I’ve come to better understand, as 70% of US citizens have, the issues I outlined above along with the many issues affecting teenage girls and boys, teen pregnancy, womens health, and this imperfect complicated world. I do not have the right to judge. I also firmly believe that before there is sentient mind formed it is largely an issue of soul, or religion, which has no place in our government.
Finally the number of abortions has decreased dramatically since Roe, as the proportion of women dying due to unsafe abortions.
“If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube”
You do realize that that bit of lefty hyperbole is racing towards extinction? Or are you one of those transphobes I've been reading about on the interwebs?
https://www.news9live.com/art-culture/society/calvin-kleins-pregnant-trans-man-ad-campaign-rouses-ire-on-social-media-170305
Can you please define/describe “sentient mind”... I really do want to understand the fine line technicalities.
No, conservatives will remove those too as they are not referenced in the constitution. Conservatives do not accept the concept of unenumerated, inherent rights by definition: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html
"No need to repeat the/your reductionist view that human life only begins at a certain stage of brain development. The other side will simply disagree and that's that, no matter how many times it gets repeated."
The criteria of mind as the differentiation between being and object is already used in law with respect to brain dead individuals. They can be killed by their survivors who are under no such constraints as conservatives want to inflict on women with regards to their mindless fetus. Mind matters, reductionism indicates the only valid criteria and that is that mind must exist.
That's a false comparison. A fetus is not brain dead, it's a developing human being. If you let it live it will have a fully developed brain and a mind. If it ends up with a damaged brain then the legal reasoning you bring forward here begins. Anyway, you can repeat that line of argument all you want, it doesn't resolve the fundamental disagreement, period.
You just referred to a fetus as an "it." And while we're busy making the reduction sauce: "all" fetuses, if "allowed" to live---if your argument is that the fetus is alive, the phrase "allowed to live" is illogical, or at the very least marks you as perhaps momentarily confused, or perhaps the victim of a transient malfunctioning of the anterior cingulate cortex.
And all fetuses "will have a fully developed brain and a mind?" Measure twice and cut once.
Your pseudo epistemological sophistry is neither impressive nor relevant.
"Mind" is the differentiation between object and being. A brain dead person has no mind as a nonsentient fetus has no mind. The law recognizes the difference between being and object.
Anyway, you can repeat that line of argument all you want, it doesn't change the objective fact that mind differentiates a being from an object, period.
That objective scientific hard line that you insinuate with such certainty simply doesn't exist. Never mind the fact that basis your definition current laws in states like CA indeed allow the murder of sentient human beings, a fact you've never acknowledged. Moving on...
Good to see someone else making this point. I can't fathom how anyone can think a brainless mass of tissue is a actual person. Well, come to think of it, they're rather brainless masses of tissue.
This is THE point that determines whether rights exist and their limit. Beings have rights, objects do not. The issue is that conservatives do not accept the concept of rights (https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html), only privilege at their discretion. Therefore, this a conservative attack on ALL unenumerated rights, bar none, because only a very few are explicitly referenced in the Bill of Rights by design: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background
I'm sitting here thinking how much better the world would be if your parents vacuumed you out of mom's womb. Come to think of it I bet every time your daddio looked at you he thought, "Why the fuck didn't I just buy that pack of condoms?"
Ah, an anencephalic! Thanks for supporting my claim.
Except that’s not true as it would return the choice to voters and their elected reps where it always should have been.
You’re funny, leftists are the ones trying to mandate useless and dangerous jabs for kids to make themselves “feel” safer. All available evidence is the left only believes in bodily autonomy when it comes to killing babies.
You’re indoctrination is evident. Bodily autonomy shouldn’t justify ripping a living, feeling human being apart limb by limb anymore than the right to life shouldn’t give a male rapist’s sperm more rights to reproduction in a woman’s body than she has herself.
You'd make much more sense if voting were treated as a right that government was constrained from abridging. On the contrary, however, the conservative court has pretty much gone out of its way to to encourage states to prevent the will of the people from being known.
"xcept that’s not true as it would return the choice to voters and their elected reps where it always should have been."
Typical conservative. Rights are NOT up for approval, they are not up to you to decide whether they exist or not because they are inherent.
Jeff, you sound like a dude who lives in his mom’s basement without any willing partners anyway. We get it, you don’t like conservatives (and only one other human seems to like you, regardless of political affiliation).
Good luck in life, you are clearly going to need it. Once you find one real life friend, hold on tight, it might be the only one you ever get.
My mom says "Hi!", she's glad that I have friends like you.
Ah, Jeffey, you can’t seem to help yourself. “I’m rubber, you’re glue, and all that”. Nowhere can you demonstrate than an abortion was ever a right. It has been unlawful for centuries. It’s not a right no matter how much you stomp your feet, shout, pout, and claim it as such. Here is a clue: all “rights” are what the people say are rights. Nothing inherent about it - well, maybe “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but what those are in fact is something the people debate and decide. It is not left to childish folks who demand to be correct.
That's not true. Abortion was legal in the US for a long time, anti-abortion laws were relatively recent.
You'd do well to perform some easy research before writing: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwif_q7LzOH3AhUGk4kEHTJUCVoQFnoECBQQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAbortion_in_the_United_States&usg=AOvVaw01E6PsIyq2KULgMfhxHmEK
Beings have mind, objects do not. Beings have rights, objects have none and no need of them. Women are beings, nonsentient fetuses are objects as they have no capacity for mind. Therefore, women have the inherent, inalienable right to abort a nonsentient fetus at will and the state has no interest in infringing on that inalienable, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
That is the nutshell.
You seem to be an in sentient nutcase. In a nutshell.
In your mind, "unenumerated rights" are infinite. Are there any limits to what you consider a right? Do I have a right to steal your food because I have a right to food? How about a right to force you to labor in building a home for me because I have a right to housing? Please, tell me more about your "unenumerated rights" list.
"Do I have a right to steal your food because I have a right to food..."
No. No one has the right to infringe on another's rights. Rights are the corollary to the obligations of moral beings and as moral beings are obligated to not harm others, rights only extend to the point that they negatively affect others. All beings, nonhuman and human, have the same claim to rights because we consider ourselves moral.
All rights exist, they are inherent. The Ninth Amendment protects them as James Madison intended. You can consider it a right to do anything that does not harm another, period. They all exist and are limited by the rights of others.
"In your mind, "unenumerated rights" are infinite."
Not infinite, but they exist, such as the right of self defense, the right to abortion, the right for gay people to be treated equally under the law, the right to listen to the music that you like, the right to read books that you want to read, etc. Yes, there are a lot of unenumerated rights.
Jeff, stay out of it. Women will win this fight without male input. Too many of your kind are fighting for abortion rights because you don’t want commitment and you don’t want to pay child support.
I’ve seen it with friends and family far too many times. We’re not damsels in distress who need saving by a knight-errant.
That's kinda unfair. This is something I feel passionately about and I'm gay so no child support issues. You should understand this isn't only about abortion, this is the religious freaks trying to impose their vile religion on everyone else and as a gay man, it's very much something to care about. Alito's opinion is chock full of religious crap that should worry anyone who values the separation of church and state, including most religious folks who might have beliefs that differ from these vile pieces of shit who keep trying to turn the country into a theocracy. This is way too important to be alienating folks on your side.
Don’t paint all gay men with the same brush. Your opinion is not shared by those that are conservative, refuse to attend gay pride parades, and may even be found at church. Your fear seems to be that by alienating the progressive left they in turn will not support your cause.
I immigrated from Europe, where in some places abortions are still illegal. It may surprise you to know that abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, a mature country with highly educated people. There are circumstances in which females can end a pregnancy without facing any legal consequences. Those include abortion being performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and following mandatory counselling carried out at least three days before the procedure to terminate the pregnancy.
Fact is, nobody is complaining.
No one would be complaining about conservative positions if they weren't trying to coerce those opinions on other people. You want to strip women of agency and prevent them from making their own choices. You sure do caterwaul to hell and back when it's your own choices being infringed. Case in point - masking mandates. Don't tread on me, indeed. Hypocrite.
Ignore her, if you consider inherent, unenumerated rights important, then this is your fight too.
This isn't just about abortion. It's not even just about sex-related issues. Look at Alito's language and you see it can cover pretty much anything they want to do, and the elimination of pretty much anything they don't like.
"Jeff, stay out of it."
LOL! No way Teresa, this is my fight too. I've been fighting for inherent, unenumerated rights for decades, those rights that conservatives argue don't exist, which is the vast majority of rights that we currently believe that we have, such as the right to marry the person of our choice, to listen to music that we like, to read books that we want to, to stay out all night, to not report our activities to authorities, etc. Name it and it's at risk from conservatives.
Conservatives don't believe that women have any rights whatsoever for their petty, pathetic religious reasons and that makes it my fight too.
Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate you.
You're very welcome! and thank you!
Easy for a man to say. How about looking at it from the murdered child's viewpoint? Abortion is infanticide. Follow the science. There are no ethical or moral arguments which can support such a brutal and barbaric act.
Abortion is not murder. 95% are performed by week 15, well before the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind. The rest are performed to save the life of the woman, they are not elective, unless of course conservatives deny women the chance to end their pregnancy earlier. Conservatives are not good people.
Conception is when biological life begins. Arbitrarily choosing a point afterwards, based upon extremely vague criteria, constitutes an OPINION. Intervening to end that life in the vast majority of cases is homicide. With malice aforethought, ending a life is murder.
This is not idealogical, it is logically and scientifically consistent.
Your attempt to make this about ideology is noted but it doesn't change the facts about the biologic nature of life or the definition of murder.
First, no, life existed before conception, the egg and sperm are alive. Second, as no consciousness exists in cells, it doesn't exist in a fertilized egg and so until the fetus' brain develops enough to support consciousness, it is no more than a collection of nonsentient cells with no legal standing.
Jeff Biss….Thank you!!
You're very welcome! We need to scope the argument to the conservative infringement of unenumerated women's rights. That is but the tip of the conservative threat ice berg.
I'm pretty sure the Progs have declared that men have no say in this issue.
Then Alito should back off! He has no authority to grant women their right to control their lives.
The conservative threat iceberg, "in a nutshell":
(1) Open the border (20,000 illegal immigrants/day)
(2) Forego energy independence
(3) Censor inconvenient narratives
(4) Ignore violent crime in the name of social justice
(5) Teach children to question themselves and their country
(6) Call parents who object to indoctrination in schools "domestic terrorists"
(7) Shame the very people you're screwing over with globalism, by calling
them "white supremacists"
(8) Weaponize the CIA, FBI and DOJ to unseat a sitting president based on a
ficticious document, and then refer to the protest on Jan. 6th as the
greatest "threat to democracy" since the Civil War
(9) Eliminate 98% of all candidates for the Supreme Court by promising
beforehand that the appointee will be a black woman
LOL! Conservatives have been infringing on inherent, inalienable rights, including opposing all attempts at protecting them, such as in their opposition to protecting equal rights of black people, making them property, since the country's founding.
Once again, do try to get caught up.
Apologies for annoying you with the trivial concept of a woman's right to control her own body. Boy named Sue? Or Bot named Sue?
Soy Boys agree with you.
Come on Bill. You're one of the middle-of-the-order boys around here. I expect heftier cuts than this.
Wait until Pierced Ear joins this thread.
like throwing red meat into a pit of dogs abused as pups. Guns and abortion used to be off limits, politically impossible to seize, but anymore there is no limit how far the power hungry polarizers will go to let the dogs out.
But hey, they will keep doing it as long as the drooling masses keep falling for it in all their Pavlovian glory.
Conservatives are actively restricting inherent and unalienable rights, such as in voter suppression and this attack on women's rights. However, "gun control" laws are aimed at only forcing accountability and removing certain types, not ending the right to own a gun to defend oneself.
LOL! I shall now refer to you as "Pretzel".
LOL! Typical conservative!
Lol, typical child with no power of rational thought!
Beings have mind, objects do not. Beings have rights, objects have none and no need of them. Women are beings, nonsentient fetuses are objects as they have no capacity for mind. Therefore, women have the inherent, inalienable right to abort a nonsentient fetus at will and the state has no interest in infringing on that inalienable, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
That is the nutshell.
"Voter suppression"= push back against voter expansion due to Covid. Try to keep up.
Meanwhile, the Dems are licking their chops at the 20,000 illegals (future Dem voters) crossing everyday---so principled of them.
Why do you guys keep saying this stuff? Obama deported more undocumented aliens than any other president, until Biden came and out-did him.
LOL! You're a conservative clown, only citizens can vote and the border is under control of the US. However, conservatives' foreign policy built on our paranoia about communism and the "War on Drugs" has made South and Central America far worse than had liberalism been applied to make those societies more equitable. But, no, conservatives supported right-wing regimes that butchered tens of thousands and enabled criminal gangs and cartels.
"....the border is under the control of the U.S."
You should submit that to Bill Maher for his intro.
Whatever.
She says to the comment board crowd that then fills the rest of the board with a fight over abortion and choice. LOL!
The press knows what it is doing. Clicks for dollars, plus, as long as we are fighting over these highly divisive planks, no one is paying attention to the government grift that is slowly consuming our nation. It's an absolutely brilliant ploy by the elites. The only fly in the ointment is that eventually, they will hollow out the country so significantly, that it will all crash to the ground, taking them with it.
But, until then, not only do they get free entertainment watching us tear ourselves apart, they make that all-important extra pocket change so they can afford that extra jet or yacht.
"no one is paying attention to the government grift"
I think that the big donors are, they pay for pro-wealthy policies and get them. The difference between the parties is that there are some progressive Democrats, there are none in the GOP. However, those progressives are drowned out by the neo-liberals, the New Democrats, IMO.
Could not have said it better or more concisely as that, Sue.
You saved me from typing a rambling comment.
Thank you 😊
This is correct but not a reason to let this particular issue go. It's pretty crucial to women's equality and freedom.
Could not say it better or more concisely, Sue.
You saved me from typing a comment.
Thank you.
Doubly annoying that the population is that easily distracted.
This is a rights issue and that is not a distraction. conservatives are illiberal by definition and therefore reject the concept of inherent rights (https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html). Most rights are unenumerated and are therefore at risk under conservative control for all the reasons Alito gives.
LOL! Typical conservative, reject that minorities have the same claim to rights that you do because you view them as less than white, treat them as animals and then not get that it was your values that created this mess, slavery, Jim Crow, rejection of the Civil Rights Act, etc. You conservatives are the enemy, always have been.
FWIW, your opinions would have far more credibility if you backed off prefacing and concluding every post with “conservatives are the enemy.” And fact check, the longest filibuster was held by the Democrats in oppositions to the Civil Rights Act. I think the enemy is ignorance on the part of both sides.
I can't stop saying that conservatives are the enemy because they are. They are illiberal by definition as they reject the very concept of rights: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html. This ongoing attack on inherent, unenumerated rights, protected by the Ninth Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background), is their attempt at destroying our open, liberal society to create a theocracy that they would control to use their religious doctrine as law. They are an existential threat.
“My body, my choice!”
“My body, my rights!”
How many people shouting these slogans were fanatically in favor of vaccine mandates (aka forced injections)?
Funny how all those screaming about their rights refuse to acknowledge their responsibilities. We cannot have one without the other.
So it’s my “responsibility” to get a vaccine? To just submit?
The right is to choose, the responsibility is to choose wisely.
For a minute there,I thought you were speaking of the right to choose to have sex resulting in pregnancy, then act responsible for your choice.
A woman has the inalienable right to end a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus becomes a being.
And you are the wise man who knows “wisely”, right? LOL.
How many folks shouting “My body, my choice!” and “My body, my rights!” about vaccinations are anti-abortion? And FFS, equating a vaccination with pregnancy?
Note to Mechtheist. The baby's body is not the mother's body. Period. It also has a heart beat. You stop a heart beat? You've stopped a life. Period.
Really? That's absurd, heartbeat is not the indication of life, it's brain activity. Surgeons stop the heart routinely, their patients are NOT dead.
No, what you’re saying is absurd. Some animal species don’t even have brains.
What species are you? So you really believe a heartbeat is what determines whether someone is alive? Do you realize how common you just made resurrection? That could mean that heart donors have been buried alive and the recipients are zombies. News Flash: We're discussing humans so what's relevant is how death is determined for that species. "Brain death" is a specific condition with a very well defined way to determine whether someone is or isn't brain dead. NO ONE has ever come back from brain death whereas a LOT of folks lived on after their hearts have stopped for all kinds of reasons. Who you are is determined by your brain. If we could transplant brains, if your brain got put in someone else's body, which one would you say is you? If your body died with the other persons brain in it, would you claim you were dead?
Perhaps you're one of those sick fucks who think a brain dead person should be kept on life support? That's one of those really warped ideas that religion gets people to believe. If someone's brain is gone, they're GONE, period, there simply isn't a rational excuse to deny this.
So, this brain activity criteria does not occur until the fetus sees the light of day? A newborn’s activity the first four weeks of life is sleeping 90% of the time , in the fetal position, as if it was still in the womb...only difference in activity really is receiving nutrition orally rather than through the umbilical cord.
Wow, you're not very good at parsing sentences, you think I'm pushing for post-partum abortions? Sometimes I think it should be legal to the age of 80 or 90. The fetal heartbeat criteria is BS, there isn't really a heart yet, just some oscillating circuits.
No, just pointing out the flaw in your argument regarding fetal brain activity...when does that begin? By your argument, fetus don’t have cerebral activity and that is incorrect. Is their a switch the OB turns on when the baby is born? Oh, maybe that’s why they spank them? I agree that the early heart beat is very primary and just the beginnings of a heart, but the same holds true of the fetal brain development.
I'm pro-choice, ardently pro-second amendment, and I am for choice in getting/not getting vaccinated.
My question would be, how many folks shouting "My body, my choice!" are also shouting, "My individual right to own a firearm must be protected at all costs!"
My guess is not very many, which is based in factual evidence.
Both "sides" are profoundly stupid.
Wow. A fellow pro-choice, pro 2A citizen, vaccine choice. It's a rare combo. Thought my husband and I were alone on this. Nice to know there are still some intelligent, logically consistent Americans out there. Thank you!
I think we are being legislated to death and I'm sick of being infantilized. It's like everyone believes in individual sovereignty excepting their pet cause — a cause they are sure will bring about the ideal society. The wave we are going through now reminds of nothing so much as the eugenicist movement in the early 20th century. Progressives were convinced that controlling reproduction would bring about an ideal, ordered society of superior genetic strains. Woke ideology is just another form of this utopia seeking. So is the whole pro-life plank. We will have a moral society and if not, we are not above coercing it through the courts or the congress.
Case in point: https://news.yahoo.com/texas-governor-questioned-whether-outlaw-223657382.html
“Can you do something about morning after pills and birth control, because I think it’s destroying the fabric of our society, giving women incentives to be promiscuous,” Ms Windsor asked the governor.
I am sick to death of idealists, utopians, grifters, control freaks, moral scolds, pro-lifers, puritans, etc. Unless I am causing actual, physical harm to your body or your property, leave me the f' alone!!
Well, I can't believe nobody is out there chanting 'my house, my choice'.
What about your house?
So the subject of the mandate is irrelevant? Sorry, it's disingenuous at best to ignore the consequences of a given mandate. Vaccines are mandatory for kids to go to school, why haven't y'all been up in arms about that all this time?
Because children don't have choice. Their parents make that choice for them.
So these parents don't care about their children?
I give up, Jack---how many?
If we assume most pro-choice folks favor a principle of individual bodily autonomy or bodily sovereignty (which are slightly different, but related principles), then it would be logically consistent for them to also oppose vaccine and mask mandates. They would be just as opposed to the state forcing them to carry a fetus to term as they would be opposed to the government forcing them to receive injections (or other medical procedures).
On the other hand, if pro-life folks favor the principle of submission to a higher sovereign (whether that be a church, god, government, or another person), then they would generally favor submission to rules/laws that limit bodily autonomy/sovereignty and allows the government to mandate that every fetus (which they define as a person) to be carried to term. For the same reason, to be logically consistent, these pro-life folks should then also favor the right of the government to impose vax and mask mandates to control a pandemic.
Of course, both positions depend on how the fetus is defined, whether it is part of the woman’s body or whether it is defined as a separate autonomous person.
So, I cannot give you a specific answer to your question (if that is what you actually wanted), but I think it is obvious that many pro-choice advocates illogically favor vax and mask mandates, and that many pro-lifers illogically oppose vax and mask mandates.
Of course, people rarely behave in strict accordance with clear, articulated, logical principles. We are complicated. What worries me about this issue is that it is the most potentially divisive issue we face. My personal opinion is that, in the current hyper-divisive climate, our government will not settle it in a way that is universally acceptable enough to keep the Union together. It is plausible that states may actually try to secede over it, no matter which way the Supreme Court rules.
That said, because we live in a federal system, it is possible that allowing states to have different laws on the issue is a satisfactory solution that will preserve the Union. In that case—and I think that’s where we’re likely headed—a lot of Floridians may have to move (or travel) to California if they want an abortion (which obviously won’t be easy for the poor). It will certainly get interesting (i.e. disruptive) if half of the people in the U.S. decide to move to a state that aligns with their beliefs about abortion. And it will also make the real estate industry happy (and richer).
One can wish that the states would be happy. But they won't. Some states are already moving to outlaw the one thing that can keep the abortion rate down: birth control. And then there's this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/?sh=7a454c0b23ed
Not forced but intimidated
I suspect a slight majority Mr. Jack.
Of course, I am waiting for one of the pro-abortion crowd to say "my body, my choice" as they are busted for using heroin.
Would make for a colorful court hearing 🙂
There is the individual unenumerated right to use recreational drugs. The "war on drugs" is a failure as was prohibition for the very reason that humans like to het "high" and government has only the function of mitigating harm, which prohibition does not do. Prohibition is the cause of organized crime, but conservatives don't give a shit about that only forcing people to act as they see as god's will demands.
because being compelled to take a vaccine is the same as being forced to carry a baby to term.....
Not even remotely equivalent. There are huge differences between the two conceptually:
- While the woman is always a being, she has rights, the fetus is not until its brain develops the capacity for mind, her decision either involves only herself, as the fetus is a mere object, or herself and the fetus, it has developed the capacity for mind and has rights.
- A person who is contagious threatens others around him or her with illness and vaccines reduce the risk. Vaccines are currently mandated under certain circumstances, such as for school kids, nurses and travelers to certain countries. No one has the right to infect others, so vaccination mandates are a case by case issue due to the differences in health risk. Regarding Covid-19, the pandemic was handled very poorly from the beginning and as we have safe and effective vaccines a mandate is not necessary.
"How many people shouting these slogans were fanatically in favor of vaccine mandates (aka forced injections)?"
Irrelevant to the issue of a woman's inalienable right to control her own life.
So, does a woman have an inalienable right to refuse a forced injection?
Yes. Covid-19 never rose to a threat level of the Black Death in which 33% to 50% of the infected dies, so there was not the need for emergency measures. Understand that we have vaccine mandates already, kids for school, nurses, travelers, so the bodily autonomy argument has been worked out. Stupid antivaxxers can take their risks with getting sick.
However, as a nonsentient fetus is an object, it has no legal standing and so the woman has the inherent, unenumerated right to end a pregnancy with no state interference as the state has no authority to infringe on her right on an object's behalf.
You write: "...a nonsentient fetus is an object...."
So you can determine sentience? If you can do that in a court of law and in a medical laboratory, you will have completely solved the abortion issue, not to mention a vast array of philosophical, religious, and neuroscience mysteries. Please explain your methodology.
"So you can determine sentience?"
Yes. Neuroscience can determine when the brain is sufficiently developed to support mind:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
THIS is the issue. Liberalism posits that rights are inherent and not up for a vote or approval. In the case of abortion, everyone has the innate, inherent right to control their lives, make their own decisions that is constrained only be they effects on others. Women, by their biological fact that they support the developing embryo/fetus, have that right complicated by the fetus, is it a being, its brain supports mind, consciousness, sentience, etc, or is it an object, its brain cannot support mind, consciousness, sentience, etc.
I suggest you read the study you cite? The word "sentience" doesn't even appear in the article. The focus of the article is whether a fetus experiences pain. Contrary to your statement that fetuses are not sentient, the article states: "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks’ gestational age...."
So, in layman's terms, these scientists determined that fetuses do experience pain--hence are likely "conscious"--during at least the last trimester. So, let's say you're a liberal M.D. performing an abortion during the third trimester, do you administer anesthesia to the conscious fetus?
No, that absolutely won't solve the abortion issue because most of those pushing for abolishing abortion believe life begins at inception, nothing about sentience, it's all about a soul to most of them, I doubt you could find many of them could define the word sentience.
There are all kinds of laws dealing with criteria that have a basic 'is it or isn't it' dilemma, like who's an adult. There are 2 of these issues here, is it a life, and is it sentient. There are simply no answers to these questions, the antiabortion assholes just declare life starts at birth, the only justification they can have for that is because it's something god can decide, so it's a purely religious justification and has no business being the justification for laws in this secular country.
As for sentience, anyone who thinks a brainless mass of tissue is sentient isn't sentient and is more likely a brainless mass of tissue. Somewhere along the timeline to 9 months, it becomes sentient enough to live as a human being. When that occurs isn't answerable, but the brain better be pretty well on it's way before it's declared to be so. Yes, brains keep developing until at least our 20's, but some criteria could ne determined that most reasonable adults could agree.
If it's a separate life, then it is, by definition, a parasite and no one should be forced to harbor a parasite.
Their religious view is THE problem here. Conservatives do not believe that women have any rights, they are the cause of our fall from grace and are therefore to be subservient to men. They are no more than adult children who must be forced to behave in accordance with god's will as decided by men. They are to suffer the consequences of having sex and that is to bear the child that is the result.
“Somewhere along the timeline to 9 months, [the fetus] becomes sentient enough to live as a human being.”
In an effort to make the pro-choice case, you just stated and agreed with the entire pro-life argument.
BTW, the answer to whether a fetus is or is not sentient is not a simplistic binary yes or no. Is a fetus sentient one day after conception? Is a fetus sentient 8 months after conception? I don’t claim to have the definitive answer, but I understand how reasonable people could come to different conclusions.
Here is Democrat Rep. Katie Porter explaining how high inflation, higher food prices & higher gas prices "reinforce" the need for abortion. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1524589035083251712
Thank goodness she didn't say something stupid like all of those problems reinforce the need for competent government instead of the demented train wreck of an administration that's running our American Titanic these days. That would have just hurt Joe's feelings.
Luckily those wacky, yet humane & caring, liberals up in Canada are realizing that abortion shouldn't have to stop with fetuses.
According to this piece Canada will pay to euthanize folk who are "too poor to live with dignity."
https://twitter.com/backtolife_2022/status/1524668702557364225
You see, sometimes adults need a good aborting too. I think that this is what they really mean when they talk about "equity."
Although isn't it neat how the aims of the eugenics movement, removing weak genes & sterilizing the poor & "undesirable," have been packaged in such a way that the target audience of the eugenics gene pool cleaners just does it to themselves? This must be what they call progress.
Just to be clear, if you can't feed your kid you should abort it and if you can't feed yourself you should also abort yourself.
Oh Hell, just go on and abort yourself. That way you would leave zero carbon footprint, believe zero disinformation, never storm the Capitol, never vote for Trump, never buy a MAGA hat, never point out the real reasons for the Ukraine/Russia cage match, never quibble with a transexual about their mental state, never stop your kid from transitioning, never oppose adults sexualizing your toddlers...my god, the list is endless as are the benefits. Look at your self-aborting as an early Christmas present for liberals everywhere.
But if you get whiny and uppity and needy and pissed about the $40 billion the US just sent to Ukraine, thinking the money would be better spent helping Americans, here's Nancy the Pelosi invoking the Gospel of Matthew to explain that aid.
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1524193428975853568
You might be thinking right about now, "My God, do these people have no shame?" Let me save you further mental anxiety: No they do not have any shame. None at all. Not even an atom's worth.
Finally, here's what happens when young impressionable teens mistakenly head down the Trans highway.
https://pitt.substack.com/p/saga-of-sage?s=r
Of course none of this indicates, in any way, that modern day liberalism has taken a very nasty turn into a very dark place. Not at all. Remember, they are the ones who care.
What Katy Porter is saying is "get rid of useless eaters". What Canada is endorsing is "get rid of useless eaters." What Pelosi is saying is "I am a hypocrite who will quote Jesus whenever it serves me. "
I love how if a Republican quotes scripture they are reviled as “right wing Christian nut jobs”.... Pelosi references the words of Jesus to express her compassion.....🤦♀️😂🤦♀️😂
Maybe actual Christians need to work more missiles and proxy wars into their sermons. That "blessed are the peacemakers" jazz just tends to make Raytheon & Lockheed Martin nervous.
And just for good measure they might mention the 11th & 12th Commandments: Thou shalt refuse no vaccines & Thou shalt never question a Democrat.
” What Canada is endorsing is "get rid of useless eaters." ”
It’s really not. You should really look into this stuff before you actually form on opinion. Glancing at tweets is a bad way to perceive reality, and a bad way of forming opinions.
I saw this. What an evil person. But she seems to be in good company.
They've become hypocritcal morotwats.
You're quite averse to honesty, that's quite apparent in this BS post. FFS, it's a simple fact that cost of living will be a factor in whether someone can afford a child and what the consequences would be for her and the rest of her family.
Calling assisted suicide 'euthanasia' is not just grossly dishonest, it's despicable and typical of those who want to force their disgusting religious beliefs on everyone else. You clearly either have no idea what's going on or you're intentionally mischaracterizing it to push your nonsense. Or maybe you simply have reading comprehension issues. Canada has universal, free health care, assisted suicide is a medical procedure and is therefor free for everyone. What's actually going on in the two cases is far more complex and utterly divorced from what you're trying to claim.
And the article linked to about the trans kid is mainly a quoted story told by someone without a shred of evidence any of it is true. The fact that you're citing it makes me think it's all BS as most similar stories have proven to be.
You're spewing nothing but vile, hateful BS that you try to justify with grossly dishonest BS and then resort to insults because you got nothing else.
So am I to assume that you won't be self aborting any time soon?
That's a pity.
Wow, such witty repartee, and once again supporting my claims by exemplifying you got nothing but insults and BS you can’t defend.
Look, if you're worried about legal repercussions we can always call it a late stage abortion.
No stigma in that.
Don’t forget, abortion is RACIST as well, according to the left. Haha
Of course, what isn’t’ labeled RACIST today, would be a short list.
PELM Politically Expedient Lives Matter
“According to this piece Canada will pay to euthanize folk who are "too poor to live with dignity."
Stay off Twitter, it’s bad for your brain, especially if you’re not going to take time to actually look into these issues. The algos are just trying to get you riled up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51620021.amp
“ It would create a two-track system for determining a person's eligibility. One track for people who are terminally ill, and one track for people who are not.
Patients in both tracks must prove they are facing "intolerable" suffering.
The bill would explicitly exclude eligibility for individuals suffering solely from mental illness.”
Ideology has taken over our society. We have forgotten to judge policy on actual outcomes. People keep trying socialism and communism because the ideology sounds appealing, but the reality is death and suffering.
The bodily autonomy crowd, which mostly abandoned their ideology for Covid, denies the humanity of a fetus. I get that viability is firmly grounded in bodily autonomy, but the reality in the outcome is the legalization of ripping a living, feeling, human apart limb by limb, or burning it alive in saline. That’s cruel.
Likewise, the pro choice argument is firmly grounded in the right to life. However, in practice at the extremes, it gives a male rapist’s sperm more rights to the reproductive function of his victim than she has over her own reproduction. “Love them both” from the pro-life crowd often fails to acknowledge that legal or not, woman will find a way to abort unwanted babies, often with tragic results. Where is the focus on less human suffering, for both?
I wish we could skip the ideological screaming and find a way to compromise on a policy that acknowledges both the humanity of the baby, and the rights to bodily autonomy of the mother, considering the world as it actually is.
Like many voters, I will vote for the less extreme position. I’d like an elective ban around 8 weeks, but could tolerate anything from 6-12 weeks. I will not vote that women give up entirely meaningful rights over their reproductive organs at puberty. I will not vote to legalize ripping humans apart limb by limb. People who don’t see humanity in a 4 month old human tend not to see it in 4 year olds and 14 year olds. People who demand the outlawing of plan B tend not to see nuance or understand conception is a process that isn’t instant after sex.
Where ever one stands on this issue, consider if your policies will accomplish what they set out to accomplish, or if they are motivated by ideology. Western Europe has sane policies. They protected their kids relatively better than we did for Covid. When rights come into conflict setting policies based on actual outcomes, not ideological wishful thinking, tends to be more positive for society as a whole.
And evolving more accurate science should be an aide with Pro Choice…. Impregnation can be detected 48 hours after fertilization. I stand on the sidelines of this most of the time…I gave birth to my last child at 26 weeks 32 years ago. Her birth weight dictated life saving measures, she lived for five days. Today, most babies born at 26 weeks survive. It was a sobering moment to accept that people would choose to terminate a pregnancy that far along, but it’s their choice. I don’t agree, but it’s their choice.
You call the baby you lost a “child”. But argue they should have the right to kill that “child” if they so choose, for any reason whatsoever, at any point before birth?
Not really, I vehemently disagree with their decision. I named my child and had a service. I question the parenting skills or commitment of anyone who would decide to arbitrarily end a pregnancy absent of health risks that far along… that poor judgment speaks volumes to me. I don’t agree with their choice, but it is their choice, is my point.
Why is it “their choice”? What’s the difference, aside from 4 inches of birth canal, between a 26 week old fetus and a 26 week old preemie? Or do you think parents can just kill their kids? What’s the line?
There is no difference, that’s my point. Unless there is life threatening risk involved, I think aborting at 26 weeks is horrific judgement. I’ll leave it at that.
So do you think it should be their choice, or are you simply acknowledging it factually is in this country?
I wish they would get medical professionals in this conversation but that means a HUGE amount of foresight, intelligence, and common sense. Doctors have experiences we can never imagine.
No, they are just people, like everyone else. I’m surrounded by them in life - my neighborhood, club, kids private school. Just people with a variety of opinions and variable skill and insight like every other profession. Some are pro-life, some pro-choice, and they hold the same variety of beliefs and opinions as the rest of the population.
What i am trying to say is there maybe reasons that are clinical based why abortion at certain weeks.
If the leaker was on the right we would already know their name and they would have been taken down by a SWAT team. Let’s prosecute the criminals threatening Supreme Court justices, a MUCH more serious offense then wandering around the Capitol taking pictures. We cannot go on as a country with so much unequal justice. The center will not hold.
The leaker was likely a three letter agency, hence no suspects. But yeah, our resemblance to a third world dump are clearer every day.
Oh right. Where were the SWAT teams on Jan 6? And “Wandering around and taking pictures?” What I watched live all day long was a huge mob armed with clubs, poles, gas sprays and fists chanting death to Pence and others, breaking down the doors to the House Chamber and breaking into Congressional offices. Please.
Anyone involved in violence or destruction should be charged and tried, just like all the violent BLM and antifa should be charged and tried. There were a number, the majority of citizens peacefully wandering around taking pictures. The FBI incitement must be thoroughly investigated as well. Oh please yourself
Well I agree with your first sentence. It’s hard to say that people who passed through our Capitol’s broken down doors, shattered glass and such, amidst obvious chaos were just walking around taking pictures. Last time I did that (wandered around taking pictures) I had to wait in line, for over an hour so and was happy to do so. It’s a beautiful building with so much our history! Nonetheless, those wandering souls you mention are not the ones being charged with serious crimes. But like I or anyone else would have had to do if I/they pushed through and entered the Capitol illegally, they should have to pay a fine, or suffer whatever the consequences are.
I don't understand why anyone is pretending not to know that the document Politico received could only have come from Alito's office. They got a hard-copy with a circulation stamp. No recipient was indicated, so it had not been circulated to one of the other offices.
The "party of science" refuses to engage in meaningful debate on the morality of abortion. The emotional tyrants they encourage to riot petty children throwing tantrums over pronouns. No one takes them seriously. Wokies, your fifteen minutes are up. It's time the adults take the streets back and restore some logic to the world.
The MSM takes the wokies very seriously. And too many folks in what should be a solid center majority worry about what the NYT and WaPo think as well. i.e., we have become a Tyranny of the Minority.
70% of Americans believe abortion should be legal. What minority?
hmmm...isn't that apartheid?
What would a "meaningful debate on the morality of abortion" look like?
Well, it would probably be a conversation about where personal bodily autonomy ends and the right to life of another to use our bodies for their life outweighs personal bodily autonomy. It would probably involve a discussion about how long it takes to assert bodily autonomy. It would hopefully acknowledge the humanity of young humans, and the ability of humans to feel pain at least by the time they are 4 month old fetuses.
It might even cause some to question these ridiculous ideological positions, and for once focus on actual outcomes that acknowledge the world as it actually is, and the consequences of various policies as they actually are.
But moronic ideologies tend to drive many in our society to stupid, harmful, cruel, and inhumane positions because people no longer seem to care about actual outcomes. Just look at Brandon - absolutely everything that has happened was 100% predictable, and yet 40% of the country supports him because they have been told mean tweets are worse than starving babies and suffering poor people, and they are simply too self-centered and simple minded to consider they were the ones who didn’t see this coming so maybe they are wrong. Instead they scream louder and avoid introspection at all costs. Sad.
Would you want to advertise the fact that you want to leagilize killing a child just because one finds out the pregnancy produced a girl, rather than your wanted boy? Usually the misogyny label would be used in that case.
Not me
SCOTUS is faithfully executing what it was created to do. It is protecting the Elite caste from the masses by keeping the masses fighting amongst themselves.
Roe has survived for 50 years on a legal house of cards. Now that a conservative SCOTUS finally has the balls to follow the Constitution - they're protecting the 'Elite'? Looks to me like they are doing their jobs.
Right, Civics is dead in American education. Many Americans have no idea how our constitutional representative republic works. I heard one moron screaming that the Supreme Court elected to overturn Roe V Wade and that they will elect to nullify gay marriage, etc. the list goes on. When you have a citizenry this dumbed down only bad things can happen.
"Follow the Constitution." Good one. Funny.
The fighting is due to the cognitive dissonance of a large part of the "pro choice" faction. Refusing to acknowledge that abortion is a form of homicide, or at least a surgery with consequences more severe than having a boil lanced, activists bamboozle the average twit to believe that overturning R v. W will be an end to legal abortion on demand. It's pretty clear that only so-called red sates will prohibit or severely restrict access and blue states will either keep their present policies or liberalize them, making it legal to abort a fetus well into pregnancy, and even this is uncertain.
That the SC "was created" to do what you claim is preposterous unless you take the position that all states do this--enable an elite to lord it over the peasantry through some sort of con game. If the truth is that our laws are concocted by rich autocrats bent on exploiting their positions for all they're worth, at least our republic gives us the illusion of electing representatives to vote in our interests.
Bull gets religion.
I rest my case.
We ain't seen nuttin yet! Every media arm has been cranking up the hate in the population for a lot of years. That's where the big bucks are. The actions and propaganda of the west over the Ukraine exceeded the trans and even Covid-19 and the theft of money from Russia will put the last nails in the coffin of the US dollar. The coming recession/depression will be at a level not seen since the thirties. Hello, most people haven't even seen a real bear market. Everyone knows that the US cannot and will not pay back it's debts. Well, other countries, especially in the global south with their client oligarchies may choose to feed their people rather than the western banksters. They've been sending us stuff, especially China and we've basically been paying for it by issuing IOUs in various forms. That's coming to an end as the more and more clever financial engineering is too. 40B for the Ukraine, actually for amerikan business and ZIP for the amerikan people and it's right in their face how much their ruling classes care for them. Hang on to your hat's, it's gonna be a tough ride!
You guys realize of course that 99.9999 percent of the population doesn't give a s*** and is not protesting about anything. We're just sitting around drinking beers and giving our opinions about it but not marching in the street or attacking anyone. The obsessive navel-gazing of a tiny class of people it's not interesting nor is it news.
I think It was Betty White who said “If men got pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube.”
People do care, especially women on either side.
People are addicted to outrage. Self-important lunatics putting on a performance.
I really have to wonder how many of the protestors actually read the leaked draft of the opinion.
The same number of people who read Florida’s “ Don’t Say Gay “ law.... because it doesn’t come close to saying that. Media doing what is does best...gaslight.
Virtually all of the anti-abortion arguments hinge on the idea that a fetus is an actual separate human being, going so far as to claim abortion is murder. If this was the case, why doesn't the census count them? Why aren't murderers of pregnant woman charged with 2 counts of homicide? Some laws of recent origin might apply but they've almost never been used and these laws are aimed at abortion, which makes them sorta fruit of the poisoned tree.
There simply is no objective answer to this question. I would bet that at least 99% of those asserting life starts at conception do so for religious reasons, almost all of them involving having a soul which is a RELIGIOUS concept, a matter of faith without the slightest evidence supporting it as a real thing. There are plenty of objective reasons to say it's a ludicrous proposition, e.g., there is no BRAIN FFS! If it's a separate human being, it's brain dead and can be taken off life support. This should be a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue, the same for all the LBGQT arguments, there are no non-religious serious objections to adults deciding who they care to love just as there is no justification for calling a fetus a separate human being. Alito's opinion is rife with religious crap, it's pervaded with that nonsense and as such, it's really bad law and violates the constitution.
Thank you! Well put. Separation of church and state is crumbling before our eyes. I see that as a major threat to this country, not so called wokism. And thank you for bringing up the LBGTQ issue as well. 70 percent of Americans support choice. These are serious, life altering issues that are now being decided by a minority.
which minority?
When a pregnant woman is murdered it is often counted as a double homicide. https://www.fox9.com/news/suspect-will-face-2-counts-of-murder-for-the-killing-of-pregnant-woman-in-minneapolis
You don't have to be religious to have a sense of right and wrong, and disagree with dogma - on either "side" .
I didn't say you did but if you removed the religiously motivated anti-abortion efforts, there would be almost nothing left.
Understood, but I would be interested in any data you have to share/support that statement.
Just years and years of listening to their yammering and their justifications always involve something about god, his children, souls, etc and how I've heard very very few secularists who are anti-abortion. Sometimes it might not be obvious but it's there. Just declaring life begins at inception can only come from someone with faith, like I said, there is no answer to this question without having something with the authority to define it that way. It's utterly inconsistent with almost every other way such things are considered, like brain death as I mentioned or the census, or inheriting rules,, or even hotel occupancy, etc.
currently 38 states have laws against fetal homicide (including California):
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
How many of these laws are recent and really aimed at abortion?
Many people think Roe v. Wade was badly reasoned. RBG was one.
I can welcome it being overturned without wanting abortion, within limits, to be outlawed. Not every bad thing must be illegal. Often, making some bad thing illegal leads to other bad things. In such cases the law should stay out of it as much as possible.
I agree, and this applies to a lot of things. Making drugs legal can be supported ideologically, but the outcome is human suffering. Outlawing guns might prevent some gun violence, it it opens the door for tyranny.
Outlawing abortion all together is firmly rooted in right to life, but overlooks that some women will find a way to end a deeply unwanted pregnancy, often with tragic results if illegal, and this has always been the case. Likewise, viability is firmly rooted in bodily autonomy, but ignores the cruelty of ripping a living, feeling human being apart limb by limb, or burning them alive in saline. That’s cruel.
Western Europe has sane policies mostly outlawing elective abortion at 10 or 12 weeks. I am angry that judges have set this policy in this country, driving inhumane extremes on both sides for fundraising.
I believe that had this been left to voters from the start, most places would today have elective bans that are around 10-12 weeks, and the outliers would be 6 or 20 weeks. Instead, after years of the extremes screaming, in appeals to their base, I fear we will end up with a period of cruel ideological extremes that outlaw plan B and IUDs in some states, while allowing healthy fully viable babies to have their brains sucked out in the birth canal in partial birth abortions in others. Sad.
I have often wondered if drugs were outlawed because Prohibition had been repealed, and the Mob wanted another source of revenue.
Well, you're right in thinking it was economic. At the beginning of Prohibition, there were about 400 distilleries in the US. At the end, there were four - those that had secured government licenses to produce legal alcohol. They belonged to the same families that had funded the Women's Christian Temperance League (the Carnegie/Mellon family) and the Anti-Saloon League (the Rockefellers). When Prohibition was ended, another member of the Carnegie-Mellon tribe, Harry Anslinger, was the head of the narcotics bureau and he led the charge to illegalize marijuana, which competed with alcohol. (He was also a genuine racist who literally hounded Billie Holiday to her death.) Though we learned from Prohibition that banning recreational inebriants did more harm than good, it has become too much of a money-maker to have a drug war and now it seems the same logic no longer works to de-schedule cannabis.
Er, sorry, that's the Women's Christian Temperance Union, a little mindo-there.
I believe some forms of drug prohibition preceded alcohol prohibition by several years.
You are one of the few people arguing about abortion who actually seem to consider the putative experiences of a fetus, that is, its "capacity to suffer" if I may misquote Peter Singer on the similar question of the treatment of food animals. This sort of view leads immediately to questions of animal welfare and animal rights, which I don't think most people want to take seriously since they prefer to feel free to imprison, torture, kill, and eat animals of any degree to nervous organization. In fact the question is often held to be ludicrous. Working back from that widespread conviction, I conclude that capacity for suffering is not of interest in the case of fetuses either except for some uses in propaganda, just as it is only sporadically considered in the case of animals or, indeed, large categories of human beings. The issue does not seem to be about fetuses (or embryos or zygotes of gametes -- wherever one wants to draw the line -- but about the political and social status of their hosts, that is, those of a certain sex (and race and class, etc.) That being the case I am pretty sure how the debate is going to come out. In fact, it has been said that those who have been pushing the abortion issue may be like the dog that caught the bus, unless we're really going to revert to feudalism and slavery as some predict.
At least Senator Warren isn't wasting any opportunity to publicly pander to the fans. I fear that it will be a rough, hot summer.
Cherokee Liz is concerned that her right to identify as native American for the sake of career advancement might be next on the chopping block.
As well it should be.
You! Must! Vaccinate!
"Trans rights begin at conception!”
Hillarious!
New Title suggestion : Hypocrisy, Unleashed...............