I suffered through the whole video hoping to hear rounds of "Hey hey! Ho ho! Our corrupt political system of bribery in the form of campaign 'donations' and kickbacks through "foundations", where lobbyists force divisive issues that most people don't really care about like abortion to the fore while things that actually matter like access to decent free education / healthcare continue to be handily ignored to further enrich the already-richest handful of oligarchs and elites on the planet... has got to go!" but once again, I left empty-handed. Hope these people had a good time shouting into the void, though.
I'll spend the next week memorizing your memorable chant, No Use For a Name.
Upon hearing my perfect recall, my wife will look at me with a silly grin on her face, then break out with a steady stream of uncontrollable laughter. 🤣
Of course, it will irritate her when I march out of our living room and into the garage where I store my stash of Yuengling Traditional Lager in a second hand fridge.
Oh crap! Now she's putting pillows and blankets on the couch 😠
I found myself instinctively disagreeing with whoever was on screen. It was a whirlwind, I was ready to abort fetuses and baptize them in the span of 2 minutes.
In the end they will take away all of our bodily rights...including saying no to experimental jabs. Neither party is for the citizens any more. Our only "right" will be the right to live under their iron will. They only serve the multinationals. Time to call it the treason that it actually is.
The D's have shown themselves to be full of bull by their selective "my body my choice." They love this controversy because it keeps us focused on identity politics and avoids the real issues that plague ALL of us.
Making RvW a big deal puts the focus back on this IdPol and not the problems of inequity, overarching police state, digital surveillance, loss of any real freedom, etc.. Let's call out the D's on their hypocrisy. How about we support life in AND outside the womb - and promote birth control and sex ed so women don't get pregnant in the first place? How about a family friendly economic system? How about affordable housing to have extended families to allow working parents to have other relatives at home to mind the kids? Time for the Nuclear Family to die and bring back the extended family (by blood and choice). Both "sides" could actually work together for this - and then we can still keep abortion legal for safety reasons, but fewer would need to make this choice in the first place.
The D's have shown themselves to be full of bull by their selective "my body my choice."
----------
They've been transparently obvious about this for decades. Biden and Harris say "my body my choice" but have been locking people up for ingesting the "wrong" drug for decades. (As long as you aren't the son of a famous politician, that is.)
Indeed - I've been sounding off about it at least since the mid-90s, but I have that odd habit of being several decades ahead of the curve...it's only now that masses are beginning to awake. Of course, those of us who were watching saw it decades ago.
Abso-frigging-lutely right, spot on. Let's protect the unborn but don't expect that means feeding the 1 in 5 kids who go to bed hungry every day in America for the past 50 years.
It is absolutely impossible to be "pro-life" without being concerned for those 1 in 5 kids. This is why "pro-life" is a cop out to divert from the real issues and keep us at one anothers' throats, rather than the actual folks who are driving all the policies - whether left or right. We really need to wake up and see what is going on. Instead of blaming one another, let's look to the very "experts" who are telling us how to fix the mess that they themselves made....think about it ;) Focus on love and lack of hate of others...the powers that be want us to have a scapegoat of one thing or another. Deny them that and focus on love!!! We will win!
No, just kill them by ruining the whole system with a phony culture war and COVID attack. It's a culling where they made the vaccine as they mutated some bat virus to be specifically voracious toward human lung tissue.
What a silly false equivalence with vaccines and related mandates. a) they arent experimental and b) you are totally free to not get one.
Problem is the folks refusing to get one for "insert irrational reason here" refuse do deal with the consequences of their freedom to not get vaccinated.
Agree with you on your second part, but unfortunately most of the anti-choice crowd aren't really doing it to "protect life". Its all about controlling women.
"with vaccines and related mandates. a) they arent experimental and b) you are totally free to not get one. Problem is the folks refusing to get one for "insert irrational reason here" refuse do deal with the consequences of their freedom to not get vaccinated."
Really got a lot of incorrect assumptions & factual errors mate.
Mandates by definition eliminate choice. Free to do as you're told or lose freedoms is not the equivalent for freedom.
The mRNA jabs are experimental and no political claims will change that. All jabs being given are still the EUA formulation because those have full liability waivers.
Natural immunity is NOT an irrational reason it is a scientifically sound principle recognized by immunological medicine until politicians 2020 when wanted to do mandates.
Oh thanks for the heads up I never would have guessed with such lame trolling technique it passes for ignorance. They should spend some time at 4chan and up their game!
I'm vehemently disagreeing with your solistiptic nonsense free of charge. Like Lloyd Blankfein and Savonarola, I'm doing god's work---strictly pro bono.
Yawn. More anti-vaxxer pseudo-scientific claptrap nonsense. Code words to watch for - "natural immunity". Immediate red flag. Also - "experimental". Another red flag.
You can whine all day about mandates, no one is throwing you in jail for not complying with getting a scientifically effective way of preventing death by various entities that has been proven to be safe and extremely effective.
If the vaccines aren't experimental, why did the the FDA ask a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s vaccine. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public? That doesn't give you pause? (Don't get me wrong, I got vaxxed—but I'm not naive enough not to recognize there are risks.)
You're overlooking one thing. If the Pro-Life side is correct, the US government sanctions the murder of as many of its own citizens every day as jihadists killed on 9/11. That's not a distraction. That's tantamount to genocide, and far outweighs the economic concerns you prefer.
Except that the 'Pro-life side' I get to see and hear about every day isn't concerned about events tantamount to genocide unless it's in a womb. I'm sorry to say (without any snark/sarcasm at all) that makes your talking point sound absolutely ridiculous. It's why most of the country doesn't take any of it seriously.
It's not a lie, we must live in different universes if you believe the 'pro-life' side to be marginally more than 'anti-abortion' and that anywhere near 40% of the US population considers it a principled, legitimate position. We can quibble on the 40%, but the idea that I'm telling a lie....lol
They really do not understand that the same "pro-life" politicians have no problem at all killing those already born, I'm afraid. This is why I am insisting on really being pro-life - which sadly, sometimes requires a safe and legal abortion, but also tries to avoid such a choice as much as possible.
I know an awful lot of dyed in the wool Republican conservatives that are staunchly anti-abortion and still cheer on bombing poor brown and black people across the globe... for FREEDOM.
To be utterly fair, both "sides" have been fed lies and deception regarding Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Panama, Colombia, Kuwait, COVID, "anti vaxxers", "gun nuts" you name it.
If it were not true, the movement would imo would be much more broadly convincing. As it is, this simply isn't the case. If I sound unkind about it it's probably because I'm at least sympathetic (formerly outspoken supporter) to a cause that is truly pro-life, but not its half-ass articulation by anti-abortionists. This is frustrating, once upon a time intensely so back when I gave more of a shit about everything.
I dunno, as bittervet as my previous comment comes off for where I'm at now, I've found not giving as much of a shit is remarkably healthy. Maybe zen is the word I'm looking for rather than the colloquial reference to nihilism. I really can't tell for sure which one applies for me, but I'm certain I don't have the wisdom chops to lean on zen so it's gonna have to be primarily not giving a shit. Maybe I'll return to it someday.
Why must it be all or nothing? We do that too often as a nation. Basically, your argument is, "we may as well keep killing babies (ignore abortion) because some people support the death penalty and killing people overseas." You are discussing a philosophical point of view without engaging in any real world application. It should be taken seriously because it is serious, not because some unrelated issue (also serious) you tie in with some pithy slogan from your opponent seems logically at odds. One issue at a time. If you do that, you might find more in common with those you oppose than you think. For example, I don't believe we can bomb other nations into democracy and we should keep out of other nation's civil wars. However, I know there is a point at which that mass of cells in the womb becomes someone (I can visit them in the premie ward in a hospital). There must be enough common ground in there on both issues, taken separately, to get beyond sloganeering back and forth over other shit.
Sorry for the double reply, the word I should have included the first time was 'discredit'. There's a reason most people laugh at Alex Jones, even when he might be on to something completely factual. A good part of the reason so many people are blasé about abortion is directly due to total failure of the opposition to look credible.
I don't know how you jumped all the way to "we may as well keep killing babies (ignore abortion)", I'm discussing a grotesque hypocrisy that does tremendous damage to the legitimate portion of the movement, leading to most people not taking it seriously. This despite the truth of your statement regarding common ground. Your conclusions here about my position are way out in left field.
Let's say you're right and the only mass killings the Pro-Life movement are concerned about are those in utero. Does that excuse the thousands of State-sponsored daily killings?
Seth, you are a laser like an individual that thinks vertically. You probably can solve individual problems well. You need to look horizontally at the system (society)
The identity of the citizenry of the US is in question. Being a citizen of the US has never been trademarked with a set of moral and ethical values. An Individual Identity in society is based on moral and ethical values, and the trust we generate. The individual's character based on values is under attack by CRT, who have no belief in values. Your medical identity is under attack; driver's license, Voter Identity, citizenship identity, employment identity are all under attack. Elites fuel the flames through the military, industrial, and media complex. They use COVID 19, Illegal immigration (migration), mail-in voting ballots to create chaos. Why are 70% of these migrants male?
All these identity issues will be resolved with a global ID which the elites want to introduce. Bill Gates is seeding the money in India through Aadhaar. 1.4 billion Indians are using Aadhaar. Your global ID will be the mark of the beast and will control what you buy and sell, what you can own, what you earn, where you work, what you buy.
Jane Goodall said the population of the Earth should be 500M. The worldwide plan is to depopulate the Earth quickly. Your children or children's children will not have babies. Abortion is going to be a dead issue. New humans will come from genetically modified sperm and eggs. Humans will have neural implants, becoming part of the internet of bodies. Humans can be stopped and turned off if their thinking is not correct.
So you see, abortion only takes your mind off the ball. What's happening makes abortion trivial. A much more monstrous and hellish world is coming, making the subject of abortion laughable. Pick and choose your battles; I would not waste energy on this.
Check out this course; it's free from Dr. Hanson of Stanford U, posted on Hilldale college's site; it's called "American Citizenship, and it's Decline."
Giving the "Conservatives" this allows them to jab with impunity.
Also, it lets them blame this on "those rotten Republicans... and Manchin, in case any of you in the audience were thinking you were conservative Democrats.
Such a scam. First it's illegal wiretapping and surveillance on a candidate THEN a sitting president.
Then it became a bioweapons attack that Bill Gate and pals had just conducted simulations for in 2019, (project 201,) -while working on both a virus and a vaccine at the same time and offshore, for a decade.
Then, it's rioting all over the place, standing down the National Guard and trying to bait a NYC alpha dick into using military force.
Then it's "insurrectionists" that were allowed into the beloved "Halls of Legislation" (tm) for maximally televised war propaganda -for war at HOME after a scammed election overflowing with mail-in fraud.
Welcome to The COVID War.
It's for real, but everyone around you is under a spell. You're that guy who refused to salute for Hitler in that old photo.
I hope I don't get dysentery when I go off to the camps.
Do you mean stop larping like actually take a principled position worthy of 'pro-life' label, or do you mean stop as in stfu and go home? There are plenty of states where their actions haven't the slightest bit of traction, one can look there for the latter. Is there something I should be crediting the anti-abortion crowd for besides making real pro-life activists look like confused hypocrites?
Lots of disingenuous language being mouthed out there. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. They're rulings. And are vulnerable to overturning. The GOP has known that, counted on it, and planned accordingly. They've always been good at the Long Game. Better than the Dems, at any rate. Meanwhile, since 1973, the Donkey Party had 8 years of opportunity to ram through and rubber stamp a federal law that would protect a woman's right to chose. 4 years under Carter, and 2 each for Clinton and Obama. But no one was willing to commit political suicide over a party platform issue that wouldn't enrich them or the Party later. There is no Big Abortion to write donor checks or provide speaking fees. No book deals. No Revolving Door to a new job. No Board seats.
The Donkeys have been stringing women along for decades, promising to protect Roe. But since it was a citizen's desire, a largely female citizen's desire, and not a corporate male one with lots of benefits behind it, they didn't do what was needed to be done to ensure that. They didn't fight tooth and nail for the Scalia seat. They didn't take RGB aside and tell her what her delusions of immortality was risking. They didn't pass a law when they could.
Despite all the hand wringing over precedent, The Supremes are going to hand abortion off to the states next year. It really is "all over but the shouting". What happens next will be anyone's guess. But considering that the Democrats can't even accurately define what a "woman" is these days, and have embraced the misogynistic and homophobic Gender Identity Ideology, I am not optimistic...
Indeed, but life feeds on death....we need to understand what is life and what is death to understand how to make the balance in the favor of life ;) <3
I feel like I got a handle on the difference between "life" and "death." Hint: you're either breathing or you're not. You post this garbled piffle and then accuse others of trolling?
That is your very narrow view, and most absolutes are incorrect. You are a mortal human being, inhibited by what you can see, feel, hear, and learn. You are also limited by time because of death.
Right now, you have to pick your battles. Abortion clouds issues about the destruction of citizenship in this country. Democracy is fragile and can only exist if there is trust in society. You need a healthy middle class with values that develop trust and represent the United States. Someone making a poor life choice is right now a small battle. It should be legislated or voted on in a referendum, not constantly be bickered over. We need laws that direct and guide us, not confuse the people.
I think you should take your opinion and tell your congressman you want a referendum. You must agree on what is voted on. I do not think my church's hospitals should perform abortion, because they do not accept abortion. People wanting abortions could have them elsewhere. The country could debate abortion for hundreds of years; Margret Sanger started the conversation 100 years ago. Israel had risen and fallen many times, suffering over the worship of other gods, and the diversity concept of letting other religions enter society. IN ORDER TO DO GOD'S WILL, YOU NEED A WISE, STRONG GOVERNMENT. At this time in our lives, our government is not wise, untrustable, and corrupt. You can not make strong laws with a weak government.
I would advise taking this free course. It will help you see how countries die.
Jane Goodall said the population of the Earth should be 500M people. Depopulation of the Earth will happen by the technocrats. You will not be able to buy or sell anything without the mark of the beast. Abortion is just a bump in the road. In the next several years your identity will change and your children's children will not have children. You will have a global ID this is the mark of the beast.
Why are we here? It's not to report what you see. it is to see what you see. You are here to love and serve God.
This servant of YHVH still respects your devotion to Odin and Thor....Odin and Thor are our teachers, although man has the ability to go beyond even Odin and Thor ;) Seek the truth and love and Odin and Thor will truly be yours! :)
Two similar observations as meaningful as your question: People who are pregnant occasionally murder other people. And some people who are not pregnant regretfully murder people who are pregnant.
All of which only reinforces the fact that whether or not one has been pregnant has no bearing on whether or not one can have an opinion on the subject of murder.
How can one be potentially human? The sperm will not become a human on its own any more than a carbon atom will. But a human fetus, by the most basic facts of biology, is a human. It is the very beginning of a human life cycle.
Nice strawman argument. My comment was about the Democratic Party stringing women along with all talk and no action for decades. You have no idea what my personal thoughts are on abortion itself.
I said no such thing anywhere in my comment there. Either you have poor reading comprehension or you're simply trolling. Neither of which particularly interests me. Have a nice day~
Very well put. I agree that you've both identified a common theme in national politics - the disconnect between rewards of legislating particular things and the constituents you supposedly serve - and the "TERF" insanity of the last few years. Like the Palestinians, the Donkeys never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Personally I believe the removal of abortion from the realm of the courts will lead to an even greater sorting between blue and red states. That will have good and bad parts, hmmm, maybe more bad than good actually.
Imo they aren't worried about political suicide, Democrats were/are maintaining a wedge issue in the balance for blue-no-matter-who leverage. It 's a long game for them as well, just like for 'R's. It's kind of humorous to me to imagine most 'R' politicians/voters actually wanting abortion banned. That's just a carrot for an orphaned group with nowhere else to go.
If it were possible to take all the politics and religion out of the Pro Choice vs Right to Life debate, we could get down to reason and science and law. We know it is against the law to murder human beings. That leads to the question of when a fetus is a human being. It also leads to the question of what is the line between life and dearh. Modern medicine does not determine death by lack of heartbeat. Death is declared by lack of brain waves. Clinically, brain waves cannot be detected in a fetus until the third trimester of pregnancy. Considering that no abortions are allowed by Roe v Wade in the third trimester, it looks like the Court served us well the first time.
You cannot take either politics or religion out of the abortion debate, because they are central facts of the discussion. The real, essential question is; when does life begin. There are a host of discrete, biological functions that a person can place the start of life at, from conception to cutting the umbilical thread, the first heartbeat to brain function. There isn't a set of rules to determine what the answer should be. It's all opinion.
Science does not, nor can not, provide moral answers. But, for many people, religion does. Whether you like it or not. And how do we determine what is the governmental response? Politics.
Unfortunately, politics determines too much of our destiny, especially in a two party system. Politics explains why political parties always drag out abortion and gun control before election time. It grabs emotional and religious voters and it distracts everyone from vital issues.
RoeVWade is what led to the current idiocy. Having abortion decided by judicial fiat left the issue hanging over politics for decades, and kept the culture war hot.
Sue, basic biology teaches us that from conception the child is a unique living human being (unique genetically, living because growing, human because it shares human rather than some other animal, nature, being because it self-evidently exists.) Roe had/has no basis in the Constitution and was/is therefore illegitimate. The twentieth-century should have taught us how odious any legal structure that can declare a whole class of vulnerable human beings not to have a legal right to life is. {Perhaps your brain waves argument could serve as an argument about personhood, but that is a different and more philosophically difficult problem.)
Nah, I'll take your word for it. I'm not the one attempting to make a case thus I have none I need to defend. But in good charity I'll admit my own parameters are not terribly solid, at least compared to the confidence level that's been on display in this thread. That's as far as I'll be baited into that briar patch on this day.
A malignant tumor is not a human being (whose development from the union of sperm and egg on is well known to embryology), rather malignant tumors are random human cells that proliferate erratically.
it still arguably meets all your requirements for 'living human being': "(unique genetically, living because growing, human because it shares human rather than some other animal, nature, being because it self-evidently exists)".
You will need to revise your parameters to be convincing for some people, maybe by including this spem/egg business or perhaps even future potential. Either way it's going to take more.
You're wasting your time. There is a desperate, desperate need among abortion supporters to be able to dismiss all arguments against them as "religious", and their brains simply don't process evidence that that's illegitimate.
Your inability to give a biological argument demonstrates that you are arguing about personhood (when philosophically/religiously the human being in the womb deserves the right to life) and not the scientific fact that the conceptus is a unique, living, human being. It isn't after all dead.
Religion and philosophy will always take us to different places. Courts cannot deal with either one. Personhood is something courts can and must deal with in a civilized society.
Courts apply the law to particular cases; they do not negotiate the overlap among philosophy, religion, and civil law. That is the job of the legislative branch (when it so chooses). Both your understanding of biology and your understanding of our form of government are faulty.
The argument about consciousness, and viability has been going on for over 100 years. I had to debate this in1973 in high school; It's the same old stuff over and over. It's the right of the woman; it's the right of the baby. You want to create a law based on the natural to follow an imposed moral code or seek pleasure to reduce pain.
The United States never came up with a set of morals. Being American is a trademark. Why is it considered immoral to let Chinese immigrants adopt dogs from the SPCA to cook and feed themselves? We need a standard. The woke would allow abortion because they do not believe in moral standards and abortion keeps women oppressed, and an unwanted child is a burden on the state.
Kant's moral imperative would question the validity of cheating on a test. If one cheats and others don't, cheating should be illegal. If all cheat, then it is not individually wrong, but it destroys the system's trust or the meritocracy of the system. So cheating is wrong. Suppose one has an abortion of a viable human being. Are you killing Joseph Stalin, or Albert Einstein? You are most likely killing a child that would otherwise be unloved and thus unsuccessful in society. One of the reasons crime went down was linked to abortion. So abortion is justified. Abortion can be adjudicated in a Universal moral system.
HAVING AN ABORTION IS AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. I do not think it is the right choice because it is hedonistic, self-serving, and an abomination to God. You are trampling on the rights of Jewish people, African Americans, and others who do not believe the same as you. God will judge those on judgment day Abortion is between God and the sinner; we can't save the world.
"an abomination to God" Given the exercise you've gone through with Kant, I'm curious what persuasion of God informs you of what is an abomination and through which medium you receive it.
Collective consciousness is from Durkheim's definition, trust. It is a mass mind, a group mind formed by a combination of attitudes. Collective consciousness according to Jung is deeper and more spiritual. Durkheim does not believe in God , Jung does. Jung believes collective consciousness is more primal to man. It baked into his being. It comes from the subconscious not based on past experiences but from memories of the whole of humanity. We carry memories of our ancestors in the subconscious. Here is one example of spiritual collective consciousness (1)
When I wrote abomination, I arbitrarily chose the word. Occult practices are also called an abomination in Scripture, as is child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:9–12; 20:18; 2 Chronicles 28:3). I do not know why I used abomination. It came from the collective consciousness.
"It came from the collective consciousness." mmm good answer. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I admit that choice of word smelled of biblical scripture, which contrasted with the Kant workout made me really curious about what informs you (religious denomination, philosophy, whatever) to arrive at your internal position regarding abortion.
Can you name a time in human history when one group of people debated the personhood of another and it not turn out that the former was committing an atrocity against the latter?
IIRC, they had generally left the womb before personhood was debated.
Tell me, what is the culture of the unborn? Where do they live? What language do they speak? What religion do they uphold? What's their history? Can you tell me about their arts, their letters, and their sciences?
Or is your comment just another cheap talking point you read somewhere else?
The SLED test: SIZE -- does size determine your humanity? A 2 yr old isn't less valuable than a 20 yo. because they are smaller. An unborn child isn't less valuable than a one month old baby. LEVEL - A 6 mo old is less developed than a 35 yo but that doesn't make them less valuable. Your development doesn't determine your worth. A person with intellectual challenges after a horrific accident isn't less valuable than they were before the accident. ENVIRONMENT: Living in China or Cuba vs the US, or CA vs FL, or in the body of the mother as a pre-born child or outside the mother's body after birth, doesn't make one less valuable than another. Environment doesn't change the value of the human. Degree of DEPENDENCY: The degree of one's dependency doesn't change one's value or legal rights. The newborn is as dependent as the unborn child, an elderly person can be as dependent as the newborn or unborn. Dependency doesn't diminish their rights or their humanity. All human rights should extend to the womb.
What is the language of a 1 month old baby? What will your language be if you get ALS and can't speak, much less swallow as your disease progresses? Or if you were the one in that horrific accident? What is their history, you ask? Their history is the development of a beating heart, sex, eye color and even the cells to develop their reproductive organs. Are you suggesting that the 6 month old child has arts, letters and sciences? The relevance of your question is, well, very odd. You either apply humanity to all humans pre-born and post-birth, or you don't. But Seth R is correct, that is how genocide and slavery and every other human atrocity becomes acceptable. Today there will be almost 2400 abortions. It's the #1 cause of death in the US -- well above and beyond any other.
"Words" or "worlds"? As a woman who believes in ALL humanity (just not murder) I wouldn't ever say that about other women. Uneducated? Yes. Misguided? Yes. It's not a binary choice, unless we're talking about life and death.
I'm sure the Cro-Magnon "people" held animated discussions amongst themselves--"debates"--that questioned the "personhood" of the Neanderthals after first encountering them in what is now Europe, but in typical epicurean European fashion they opted to start fucking the Neanderthals rather than exterminating them.
However---and yes there's a nice little "however" to this one---however, the latest research and findings from the fossil record by scientists studying the mystery of the demise of the Neanderthals posits that continued in-breeding amongst the small, scattered pockets of Neanderthals weakened them to the point where eventually they became genetically "unfit" in evolutionary terms, and thus unable to compete with the stronger, genetically more diverse Homo Sapiens.
So, it stands to reason that if the Neanderthals had been more aggressive in seeking out inter-species sex with their Homo Sapiens cousins rather than their fellow Neanderthal siblings, they might have had a chance at continued survival. The corollary behavior to more sex with Homo Sapiens would have been, of course, mandatory forced abortions of fetuses conceived by two Neanderthal parents---to further strengthen and not contaminate the Homo Sapiens gene pool present in the Neanderthals. An ironic instance where abortion---mandatory abortion no less---might have SAVED a species.
" no abortions are allowed by Roe v Wade in the third trimester" I once believed this but got schooled on it a few years ago. I think this ruling only speaks to what restrictions may not be put in place. Some states have no laws restricting the time in which an abortion may be performed. Some states have absolutely no restrictions at all.
I am going to tell you the truth. I was not consciously aware that I was in this body until I was 9 months old. Before this point, the root of my conscious was elsewhere. I'm about to reveal my knowledge, that I have known since the time I became conscious in this body....it is a story the planet needs to hear in order to hear. Love and Life! My greatest sense is that before quickening is "bringing on a period." after that, one should only abort for reasons of health and life and death. The question of abortion only became a thing as it is now since we came to understand how the spermatazoa fertilizes the egg. Before this time, quickening was considered the time of "conception."
Correct - it won't (remove tongue from cheek), because it's a matter of emotion and values, not logic. Hence the religion part.
While I'm at it, there's a pro-choice resolution of the dilemma: when does a fetus become part of society, rather than the woman who bears it? One logical cutoff is when it can be viable out side the womb - that is, when society can relieve her of the burden. That's essentially what the law says now; but it could be a moving target, as the technology to support premies improves.
There's a reason the argument is so intense, besides the insistence that religion be imposed on a majority that doesn't believe in it: without abortion as a fallback, women aren't, in physical reality, equal. That means the dispute is existential from their point of view - as well as for the men who care about them.
"That's essentially what the law says now" does it though? Or does it (judicial ruling) say this is the only period during which a law can say something restrictive about it?
Sorry, I was sloppy. Should be "what the law is based on now." - rounded off, of course. I'm supposing that they picked the 3rd trimester because that's when the fetus is approaching viability.
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I really don't know for sure and the last time I tried to look it up was in response to a meme from a family member showing a full term pregnant woman with the caption that she could legally have an abortion in my state. If I remember correctly, it seemed it was indeed completely legal and under no restrictions related to viability nor anything else. (Setting aside completely the unofficial restriction of actually finding a doctor who would perform it.) It varies from state to state, but there are no federal legal restrictions and state restrictions are only allowed after viability? I'm too lazy to dig through that again right now, but that's my recollection.
I think you have it about right, depending on the state, of course. I was talking about the logic behind it; not a lawyer, don't know the legal details.
I hope the people get paid for being there. Otherwise, it's just sad. Lonely people seeking purpose for their lives. Their uniforms are cliches, their chants anachronisms. The wave at a football game. It's performance, I know, but it's a lousy performance. If they are indeed getting paid, their backers are not getting their money's worth. It doesn't inspire or anger me. It depresses me.
I respectfully disagree. Although I don't have a strong view on abortion, I can see genuine concern among some of the demonstrators on both sides. (Plus a few clowns.) And what's wrong with seeking purpose by caring about an issue?
The economy, racial tensions, protection of private property, China trade and defense issues, and migrants to this country are bigger issues than someone's poor life choice and getting pregnant. The right to choose abortion has sucked the air out of many political issues that should have been addressed in the past.
when roe is overturned, the next bit of legislation in repressive states will be to prosecute anyone who helps a woman go out of state to obtain one as being complicit in murder of a fetus (or whatever term they end up using for it). Early stages of theocracy, which we have had in the country before; it didn't work out well then, won't work out well now.
We've always had elements of theocracy. They ebb and flow. It doesn't seem to be something that works in progression toward any sort final totality. And it seems to "work out well" enough.
My (modest) proposal is that while they have it limited by time, we react by implementing a surge in pre-emptive abortions. Treat it like a maintenance plan. Make it a normalized step in sexuality for anyone at risk of an unwanted pregnancy. That forces them to ban them upon inception, and it becomes winnable religious issue on their own terms.
Nothing but faith in some miracle would ever convince someone they should trust them at all, let alone as a better choice than some Republican. All are trash and it's about time we flushed the old toilet.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts they'll be rounding people up at traffic checkpoints and demanding to see vaccine cards, and jabbing people that weren't found to be compliant.
There's a good argument that we should be especially lenient in the case of minors. We've generally taken the position that teen pregnancy is bad in and of itself (reasonable people can disagree about that).
Historically we've drawn all sorts of lines regarding majority/minority age limits, e.g.voting, conscription, sex (watching v. doing v. filming v. seeing depicted), drinking, marriage, firearms, criminal law, etc. We even let minors be bound by contract in some instances.
A teenager who gets pregnant needs the support of society, so maybe we fine tune the criminal law for them. Maybe require notification rather than consent?
Like abortion and easy access to birth control, stigmatizing teen pregnancy was part of the eugenics drive to control population growth in the lower classes. The late teens and early twenties the most fertile years for a woman. But no time for that, go out and empower yourself, worker bee! Small wonder the population is shrinking in industrialized nations where women are encouraged to wait until their late 20s or 30s to start having a family. Teen pregnancy is a bad thing because media says it's a bad thing, and it will continue to be bad until it isn't. Just like RvW.
I'd state it this way: women today are provided strong cultural, economic and political incentives to postpone having children as long as possible. Increasingly the incentives provided, intentionally or not, are to not have children at all.
The last couple of years, I've been reading a lot of 19th century lit. One remarkable thing is how young everyone is. Families, careers, heroic deeds all done by people who we barely consider adults now.
It's not just increased life expectancy. Education has extended along with increaded complexity. The workforce is more precarious.We moved away from multi-generation households. Etc.
Yes, for middle and upper classes, there are job market opportunities that women are choosing and balancing. But working class women have always worked and having a child before, say, finishing high school, is burdensome and can lead to cycles of poverty. (Long ago I taught at a school for women who had dropped out of high school to have children. Most of them wished they hadn't.)
>> Education has extended along with increaded complexity.
While this may be true for a handful of workers in fields such as medicine and engineering, it is not the case for most people. I would argue that high school graduates a century ago are more or less on par with the average university graduate today. If you don't believe me go and take a look at some of the high school exams floating around the internet from the earliest 20th century. Public schools have watered down the curriculum and extended adolescence well into adulthood.
>> . But working class women have always worked and having a child before, say, finishing high school, is burdensome and can lead to cycles of poverty.
While this is no doubt true, the phony act of the rich and well off pretending to fight for a supposed right so that the wrong people don't have children is still revolting. If you haven't already, take a look at who gets all of the abortions. If you aren't aware, go read up on who founded planned parenthood and what the stated goal was.
I agree about education being watered down, and it's a trend we would do well to reverse. (Check out Freddie DeBoer on education.) The whole schooling and credentialing thing is mainly a sorting mechanism. (I'd like to see apprenticeships make a comeback. That wouldn't solve everything, but it might help.)
And yeah, I know the eugenics past of PP. It was all the rage back in the day and was considered a benevolent thing. I think there's a whole lot less of that going now. (the Nazis put it into stark relief). The incentives to put off children are mostly economic (which is a related issue) rather than evil design to cull certain people races.
theocracy looms. And is a subject too seldom touched by the media, the pols. There is of course freedom of religion in the USA. OK. But what about freedom FROM religion. That is increasingly absent. An atheist on either side in a case before the Supremes as now constituted would be a second class citizen, despite all probable denials. Solution? Not easy. Perhaps as society becomes less religious, religion or lack of same will become more positively noticed. Meanwhile, an awful lot of harm can result from mythology- biased judges.
Why do you assume an atheist is more objective than a religeous person? There are zealots on both sides, as evidenced by phrases like, "mythology-biased judges." Atheism is its own mythology - angry opposition to a thing is, in itself, another thing of equal influence. I've been preached at with more vigor by atheists than religeous people. Most I know on either side, however, are quite capable of objective consideration of facts with regard to law. They may have strong opinions about the impact of some laws, but can follow the text and intent well enough and be objective within the secular framework. I am in no way religeous, but have never found my country "oppressive" because of it. I don't whither and recoil because the words, "In God We Trust" appear on currency. I get the general gist of the sentiment and have never had a problem spending it. When someone says, "Mother Nature," I don't feel like I'm being assaulted by pagan theology or consider it some great inhibitor of freedom. I get the idea and sentiment without personal affront. The law is the law and, I think, justices get it right most of the time in the time they make the decision. But, I don't think every aspect and detail of their decisions are meant for all time and eternity. The Constitution only evolves when amended, precedent evolves with time.
Look up "Dominionist." Not that I think it's an immediate possibility. Still, Muslim fundamentalists are named after the Christian ones. And the Catholic Church has a long history of trying to dictate law, which they're still trying to do.
What a delusional take. Atheists have strong preferential treatment in the Western world today, but of course, pretending not to is key to expanding that power.
Preferential treatment for what? Seating in the booths nearest the restrooms at Applebees? Wal-Mart issues exclusive "front-of-the-line" passes for atheists only?
We also have the problem of having state-sanctioned religions - which was the case in the former USSR. Not all Catholics recognize the Pope of Rome, for instance. But if the State states that All Catholics must recognize the Pope, they are interfering into the affairs of the Church, against the rightful separation of church and state.
Off topic I know, but why did you change your mind on capital punishment? I've wavered back and forth, but my current take is that death is more humane than life in solitary confinement.
I recently (within the past 2 weeks) had a small shift in thinking on this. The wife and I were watching Mayor of Kingstown and there was an execution scene. I mentioned that I understood the emotions of the families on both sides, including the family of the man being executed, but had no real sympathy for the man himself. My wife said, "what about sympathy for the people we make kill him." We watched the rest of the scene and I pondered the impact on the guards, the warden, the medical techs, the coroner and those involved in the process but not present (like the judge and governor). I had honestly never considered the impact beyond the criminal and the victim and their families. I have no problem smoking the definitive bad guys, but I am more than ambivalent about morally implicating innocents in the process of carrying out my view of justice. Now I'm not so sure about my lifelong take on the issue more broadly.
I would encourage you to watch some of the documentaries about life in supermax whether or not it changes your mind. There are fates worse than death, and life in supermax is one of them. These facilities are violating the 8th amendment and should be shut down.
My thinking on it has evolved, also. All punishments, from the death penalty on down to the paying of a parking ticket, are an aspect of society. The fine print, so to speak, on the social contract. The death penalty obviously doesn't stop a crime after the fact. It might prevent a crime going forward, but only if timely, and even that is a stretch. But it allows a society to say "this is not us, nor is of the world, in our view."
And coming to that conclusion, I can see the use and need for it. Ugly as it is. That said, it needs greater transparency, greater political involvement.
The death penalty has never been about deterring crime. It's a friendly reminder, from the state to you that, legally speaking, you-know-who has a monopoly on violence.
The death penalty has never been about deterring crime. It's a friendly reminder, from the state to you that, legally speaking, you-know-who has a monopoly on violence.
Yes the death penalty is probably not a deterrent. But it is still perhaps a fitting punishment for repeat offenders who are not deterred and cannot be rehabilitated.
After many decades of reflection, I remain against capital punishment in all cases except for one: high treason against one's nation and/or homo sapiens itself, while holding a position of influence.
One point I’ve not heard in this debate is what happens with abortion if it is made illegal again? Will it just cease to exist? Hardly. It will revert back to dirty back alley botch jobs for the poor and quiet safe abortions for those with the means to procure them. Abortions will still take place.
Even if they had the votes to do it I doubt the supreme court would outlaw abortions all at once. It will be done slowly bit by bit to allow the population time to adjust. But I doubt there is enough political will in this country to outlaw abortions under all circumstances.
It won't stop there. Why would anyone believe it will stop there, when the republicans themselves and their far-right foot soldiers talk openly about their ultimate goal?
Yes, basically. That’s how it was before Roe. It gave the mob another lucrative black market business that exploited those who couldn’t afford to skirt the law through privileged connections. Same ol’ shit.
Beautifully stated. How about comprehensive sex ed? How about free contraception? Both of these would reduce incidences of abortion so much. But, can't have women enjoying themselves and getting away with it like men do. Can we?
It's not being made illegal. It gets sent back to the states where it should've stayed in the first place. The federal government wasn't supposed to have such outsized power over the states rights. Same with same sex marriage, the states citizens voted yea or nay on it. It was a mixed bag, some states voted for, some voted against. That wasn't good enough for the federal government and activists, who are always complaining about government in our bedrooms, invites them in again. I've been in a committed relationship for 35 years. No government can tell me who I can and can't love. Just another overreach by the federal government.
Lets face it, if men got pregnant I wouldn't be posting on this topic. Abortion would be free, legal, and socially acceptable.
Over to you George:
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
If a man gets a woman pregnant and she wants to abort it the man has no say. But if that same man wants the women to abort it he still has no say. All things being equal.Shouldn't the guy have a say about paying support or not. But, all things are not equal.
Huh? But he is taking on the burden and responsibility of supporting that child whether he wants to or not. If she wants that child she should be prepared to support it especially if he doesn't want it. Why the double standard? If a woman has the choice to decide life or death. Why shouldn't the man have the choice to support or not? Give me a reasonable answer for why I'm wrong, besides her body her choice.
Roe v Wade is a failure of the legislative branch. Relying on SC to mandate protections will inevitably - in a republic -lead to alienated communities. Which is exactly what the culture wars are about. The balance is not abortion rights, but state and local rights to apply standards in such a way they don't fundamental restrict the individual. There’s been a context shift since R v W- interstate transportation is a fraction of the cost it was 50 years ago and pharmaceutical abortion is easily overnighted. What’s more important: maintaining a union of states with different traditions and a collective welfare or the sovereign right of the individual uber alles? There’s a balance. We’re doing a shitty job of finding it.
deja vu all over again and it will turn out the same way all over again with a lot of pain and death and ill treatment for pregnant women on the say until once more new generations find that the real world is far different than their fantasies, neither black nor white but complicated and difficult with scores of competing goods that are not easily reconcilable but that demand a difficult middle way. Maturity only occurs when you can no longer fool yourself. Welcome to the sibling society.
This is just opening the door and setting precedent for forced medical procedures like vaccines.
So convenient that the Democrats can blame Machin and the Republicans, and whatever else. Democrats and Republicans alike find ZERO value in actual lives.
Remember reading a concept of abortion rights that helps define the issue as explicit protection of the right of body autonomy. Unfortunately, I do not know the source, but here is information from my notes:
Body autonomy is protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and Roe v. Wade (1973).
An example of protecting body autonomy would be if only your bone marrow could save a life. The state cannot compel you to donate.
Even after you die, unless specified by you or your legal representative, organs cannot be harvested.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a zygote, fetus or life must also be offered voluntarily.
Supporting the right of body autonomy is being pro-choice.
Might losing autonomy over women's bodies begin a slippery slope to everyone losing body autonomy generally?
Griswold is indeed the primary culprit to a half-baked theory of individual autonomy. You will note that this autonomy has never been extended to what recreational substances you may choose to put into your body. Lose it generally? Hell, you can't lose what you don't already have.
The other problem with all of this goes back to the idea that our liberty interests are limited (to the reach of due process). Thus, in core liberty interests you might get strict scrutiny applied or if it falls outside of that you get rational-basis (which means you sorta have an interest but the interest of the state is given far more weight). The Connecticut law invalidated in Griswold never should have been legitimate under any state constitution because the general police power was never intended to support a police state (as seems to be the prevalent thinking these days).
I’m with Ron Paul-100% pro life, but it should be a state decision-there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify enshrining abortion as a Constitutional right. Let California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Alabama do as they please.
Control over what's done to your own body is a natural right, not something a State can overrule. How a conservative court somehow thinks this would be up to the states shows how well the Christian right has been successful in putting zealots on the court.
Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. “Elect Democrats to protect Abortion Rights”
For the past 8 presidential elections, 5 of which were won outright by Democrats (who also carried the popular vote in 7), we were told that the primary reason to hold our collective noses and vote for Democrats was to preserve the Supreme Court and save Roe v. Wade.
For 25 of those 29 years, Joe Biden was either chair/ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Vice-President or President.
The Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. -- Jeffrey St. Clair Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid - CounterPunch.org
In the 48 years since Roe was decided, the Democrats have had ample opportunity to codify the right to an abortion. In that time, they’ve controlled the Senate for 29 years, the House for 29 years and the presidency for 21 years. Instead, many Dems sought to restrict abortion rights, especially for poor women, largely by enacting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds for abortions. The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1977, only four years after Roe. One of its most enthusiastic co-sponsors: Joe Biden.
In order to grasp just how much culpability the Democrats deserve for the steady erosion of reproductive rights, perhaps it will be instructive to revisit Al Gore’s reactionary positions on “choice.” As a “New Democrat” Congressman in the 80s, Gore spoke reverentially of the “fetus’s right to life.” He was a relentless supporter of the Hyde Amendment, banning federal funding for abortions for poor women. In one early version of the Hyde Amendment there was language allowing for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. “Born Again Christian” Gore voted against that.
I think rather Democrats have deliberately and carefully maintained in question the status of this issue so that they have a reason to vote for them. Think of the pressure now for blue-no-matter-who.
This is a curious statement. Since Roe, the republicans have traditionally fielded suspicions that they as a party had grudgingly (and strategically) accepted the Supreme Court decision, for the time being at any rate. Thus the republican "effort" to overturn the law was both a perpetual carrot to be dangled in front of the christian far-right, as well as serving as a cudgel to wield against the democrats to signal to the christian far-right that the republican party was earning the group's continued support at the polls, not to mention their financial largesse come campaign time. You didn't hear the word "codify" until Dobbs showed up.
Whatever the decision reached by the justices this week, the republican fight to overturn Roe is just their first salvo in their fight to illegalize, even criminalize, a woman's right to abortion.
"...This after-Roe genda that Kavanagh and Barrett previewed is no secret among movement conservatives. As Dan McLaughlin, a senior writer at National Review Online, ominously warned in that magazine’s recent issue devoted to abortion, "Nobody ever said that protecting unborn life would be easy or that major cultural debates could be settled without strife . . . . Ending Roe would be, as Churchill once said, neither the end nor the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.”
"And, should the Republican trifecta of 2016 recur – control of the House, Senate, and White House – how long can it be before there is a carve-out to the filibuster to pass a law declaring the fetus to be a person entitled to federal civil rights protection? With Republicans moving steadily to control the states’ apparatus for vote counting, that scenario is easy to imagine."
Make no mistake about it, any republican corner-of-the-mouth dissembling aside, the clear republican endgame is to overturn Roe and completely do away with all abortion rights throughout the states, and "codify" it into law through Congress. Talk about "cancel" culture.
With this accomplished, it will be the democrats' serve in the political battle over abortion rights.
"it will be the democrats' serve" mmm, that was nicely stated, but it seems like they've had more than one chance to smoke the game point and just sat on their hands. It's my opinion that both republican and democratic leadership are wringing every drop they can out of the do-or-die abortion issue. I detailed my prediction on what happens if r-v-w is dismantled in another comment, basically its going back to the states where people will decide they dont want to ban all abortions, like every other developed country in the world. Even the majority of republicans don't support a full ban and it would take more culture war koolaid than we're encountered yet to get them to vote for that. I think.
The Democrat party has become primarily the party of educated radical upset females steeped in grievance programing and their needy, insecure and clutching girly-men. But the abortion rights position has nothing really to do with the low-income cohort of the population that deserves 100% of the consideration... it is just a social wedge issue to justify political rage and division.
Personally I support abortion up to the point that science tells us there is life viable outside the womb. The religious take too much of a moral absolutist position on abortion... God clearly gave humans the capacity to make life-choices based on a larger set of moral consideration than all life needing to be protected at conception. The absurdity of that position is only a bit less than is the position of the left that there should be no limits on abortion up to (and maybe even exceeding) birth.
This video serves as a timely reminder that no matter your beliefs or politics, chanting things makes you insufferable.
I suffered through the whole video hoping to hear rounds of "Hey hey! Ho ho! Our corrupt political system of bribery in the form of campaign 'donations' and kickbacks through "foundations", where lobbyists force divisive issues that most people don't really care about like abortion to the fore while things that actually matter like access to decent free education / healthcare continue to be handily ignored to further enrich the already-richest handful of oligarchs and elites on the planet... has got to go!" but once again, I left empty-handed. Hope these people had a good time shouting into the void, though.
I'll spend the next week memorizing your memorable chant, No Use For a Name.
Upon hearing my perfect recall, my wife will look at me with a silly grin on her face, then break out with a steady stream of uncontrollable laughter. 🤣
Of course, it will irritate her when I march out of our living room and into the garage where I store my stash of Yuengling Traditional Lager in a second hand fridge.
Oh crap! Now she's putting pillows and blankets on the couch 😠
Let's go Brandon!
Could not have stated my view as succinctly, Colin. Thank you.
"What do we want?"
"Less chanting!!!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now!"
here here.
Well said!
"What do we want?"
"Instant gratification!"
"When do we want it?"
"NOW!"
thanks. I *almost* clicked the link to watch but I knew it would be a cringefest.
I found myself instinctively disagreeing with whoever was on screen. It was a whirlwind, I was ready to abort fetuses and baptize them in the span of 2 minutes.
So the woman can abort but the child goes to heaven!
Checkmate, God.
They just need better chants.
100% agree...including the U S A, U S A chants at any/all international competitions
In the end they will take away all of our bodily rights...including saying no to experimental jabs. Neither party is for the citizens any more. Our only "right" will be the right to live under their iron will. They only serve the multinationals. Time to call it the treason that it actually is.
The D's have shown themselves to be full of bull by their selective "my body my choice." They love this controversy because it keeps us focused on identity politics and avoids the real issues that plague ALL of us.
Making RvW a big deal puts the focus back on this IdPol and not the problems of inequity, overarching police state, digital surveillance, loss of any real freedom, etc.. Let's call out the D's on their hypocrisy. How about we support life in AND outside the womb - and promote birth control and sex ed so women don't get pregnant in the first place? How about a family friendly economic system? How about affordable housing to have extended families to allow working parents to have other relatives at home to mind the kids? Time for the Nuclear Family to die and bring back the extended family (by blood and choice). Both "sides" could actually work together for this - and then we can still keep abortion legal for safety reasons, but fewer would need to make this choice in the first place.
The D's have shown themselves to be full of bull by their selective "my body my choice."
----------
They've been transparently obvious about this for decades. Biden and Harris say "my body my choice" but have been locking people up for ingesting the "wrong" drug for decades. (As long as you aren't the son of a famous politician, that is.)
Indeed - I've been sounding off about it at least since the mid-90s, but I have that odd habit of being several decades ahead of the curve...it's only now that masses are beginning to awake. Of course, those of us who were watching saw it decades ago.
Abso-frigging-lutely right, spot on. Let's protect the unborn but don't expect that means feeding the 1 in 5 kids who go to bed hungry every day in America for the past 50 years.
It is absolutely impossible to be "pro-life" without being concerned for those 1 in 5 kids. This is why "pro-life" is a cop out to divert from the real issues and keep us at one anothers' throats, rather than the actual folks who are driving all the policies - whether left or right. We really need to wake up and see what is going on. Instead of blaming one another, let's look to the very "experts" who are telling us how to fix the mess that they themselves made....think about it ;) Focus on love and lack of hate of others...the powers that be want us to have a scapegoat of one thing or another. Deny them that and focus on love!!! We will win!
Bullshit.
I C U!
No, just kill them by ruining the whole system with a phony culture war and COVID attack. It's a culling where they made the vaccine as they mutated some bat virus to be specifically voracious toward human lung tissue.
It's a waking nightmare.
and our precious bodily fluids
What a silly false equivalence with vaccines and related mandates. a) they arent experimental and b) you are totally free to not get one.
Problem is the folks refusing to get one for "insert irrational reason here" refuse do deal with the consequences of their freedom to not get vaccinated.
Agree with you on your second part, but unfortunately most of the anti-choice crowd aren't really doing it to "protect life". Its all about controlling women.
"with vaccines and related mandates. a) they arent experimental and b) you are totally free to not get one. Problem is the folks refusing to get one for "insert irrational reason here" refuse do deal with the consequences of their freedom to not get vaccinated."
Really got a lot of incorrect assumptions & factual errors mate.
Mandates by definition eliminate choice. Free to do as you're told or lose freedoms is not the equivalent for freedom.
The mRNA jabs are experimental and no political claims will change that. All jabs being given are still the EUA formulation because those have full liability waivers.
Natural immunity is NOT an irrational reason it is a scientifically sound principle recognized by immunological medicine until politicians 2020 when wanted to do mandates.
Moose and Aunt Martha are paid trolls....just ignore them.
Oh thanks for the heads up I never would have guessed with such lame trolling technique it passes for ignorance. They should spend some time at 4chan and up their game!
What makes you think I don't spend my time at 4chan? And why would I or anyone think that you don't?
yawn
Outis = tool in French. Which is appropriate given your ad-hominem.
I'm vehemently disagreeing with your solistiptic nonsense free of charge. Like Lloyd Blankfein and Savonarola, I'm doing god's work---strictly pro bono.
Yawn. More anti-vaxxer pseudo-scientific claptrap nonsense. Code words to watch for - "natural immunity". Immediate red flag. Also - "experimental". Another red flag.
You can whine all day about mandates, no one is throwing you in jail for not complying with getting a scientifically effective way of preventing death by various entities that has been proven to be safe and extremely effective.
free so far...oo
If the vaccines aren't experimental, why did the the FDA ask a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s vaccine. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public? That doesn't give you pause? (Don't get me wrong, I got vaxxed—but I'm not naive enough not to recognize there are risks.)
You're overlooking one thing. If the Pro-Life side is correct, the US government sanctions the murder of as many of its own citizens every day as jihadists killed on 9/11. That's not a distraction. That's tantamount to genocide, and far outweighs the economic concerns you prefer.
Except that the 'Pro-life side' I get to see and hear about every day isn't concerned about events tantamount to genocide unless it's in a womb. I'm sorry to say (without any snark/sarcasm at all) that makes your talking point sound absolutely ridiculous. It's why most of the country doesn't take any of it seriously.
That's a lie, and you know it's a lie, and that's why we can't take YOU seriously.
It's not a lie, we must live in different universes if you believe the 'pro-life' side to be marginally more than 'anti-abortion' and that anywhere near 40% of the US population considers it a principled, legitimate position. We can quibble on the 40%, but the idea that I'm telling a lie....lol
They really do not understand that the same "pro-life" politicians have no problem at all killing those already born, I'm afraid. This is why I am insisting on really being pro-life - which sadly, sometimes requires a safe and legal abortion, but also tries to avoid such a choice as much as possible.
Again, why "sadly?" More maudlin milk-and-water philosophy that spotlights your emotions at the expense of any rational assessment.
I think I wouldn't be so outspoken about it if it was just the politicians.
I know an awful lot of dyed in the wool Republican conservatives that are staunchly anti-abortion and still cheer on bombing poor brown and black people across the globe... for FREEDOM.
To be utterly fair, both "sides" have been fed lies and deception regarding Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Panama, Colombia, Kuwait, COVID, "anti vaxxers", "gun nuts" you name it.
Blecch
No, there's no more truthful and exacting example of the right's hypocrisy, bad faith, and mendacity than this. No doubt whatsoever...
Not true, and very unkind.
If it were not true, the movement would imo would be much more broadly convincing. As it is, this simply isn't the case. If I sound unkind about it it's probably because I'm at least sympathetic (formerly outspoken supporter) to a cause that is truly pro-life, but not its half-ass articulation by anti-abortionists. This is frustrating, once upon a time intensely so back when I gave more of a shit about everything.
You can get it back. I did.
I dunno, as bittervet as my previous comment comes off for where I'm at now, I've found not giving as much of a shit is remarkably healthy. Maybe zen is the word I'm looking for rather than the colloquial reference to nihilism. I really can't tell for sure which one applies for me, but I'm certain I don't have the wisdom chops to lean on zen so it's gonna have to be primarily not giving a shit. Maybe I'll return to it someday.
Why must it be all or nothing? We do that too often as a nation. Basically, your argument is, "we may as well keep killing babies (ignore abortion) because some people support the death penalty and killing people overseas." You are discussing a philosophical point of view without engaging in any real world application. It should be taken seriously because it is serious, not because some unrelated issue (also serious) you tie in with some pithy slogan from your opponent seems logically at odds. One issue at a time. If you do that, you might find more in common with those you oppose than you think. For example, I don't believe we can bomb other nations into democracy and we should keep out of other nation's civil wars. However, I know there is a point at which that mass of cells in the womb becomes someone (I can visit them in the premie ward in a hospital). There must be enough common ground in there on both issues, taken separately, to get beyond sloganeering back and forth over other shit.
Sorry for the double reply, the word I should have included the first time was 'discredit'. There's a reason most people laugh at Alex Jones, even when he might be on to something completely factual. A good part of the reason so many people are blasé about abortion is directly due to total failure of the opposition to look credible.
I don't know how you jumped all the way to "we may as well keep killing babies (ignore abortion)", I'm discussing a grotesque hypocrisy that does tremendous damage to the legitimate portion of the movement, leading to most people not taking it seriously. This despite the truth of your statement regarding common ground. Your conclusions here about my position are way out in left field.
LOL Bombs for Jesus.
Let's say you're right and the only mass killings the Pro-Life movement are concerned about are those in utero. Does that excuse the thousands of State-sponsored daily killings?
Seth, you are a laser like an individual that thinks vertically. You probably can solve individual problems well. You need to look horizontally at the system (society)
The identity of the citizenry of the US is in question. Being a citizen of the US has never been trademarked with a set of moral and ethical values. An Individual Identity in society is based on moral and ethical values, and the trust we generate. The individual's character based on values is under attack by CRT, who have no belief in values. Your medical identity is under attack; driver's license, Voter Identity, citizenship identity, employment identity are all under attack. Elites fuel the flames through the military, industrial, and media complex. They use COVID 19, Illegal immigration (migration), mail-in voting ballots to create chaos. Why are 70% of these migrants male?
All these identity issues will be resolved with a global ID which the elites want to introduce. Bill Gates is seeding the money in India through Aadhaar. 1.4 billion Indians are using Aadhaar. Your global ID will be the mark of the beast and will control what you buy and sell, what you can own, what you earn, where you work, what you buy.
Jane Goodall said the population of the Earth should be 500M. The worldwide plan is to depopulate the Earth quickly. Your children or children's children will not have babies. Abortion is going to be a dead issue. New humans will come from genetically modified sperm and eggs. Humans will have neural implants, becoming part of the internet of bodies. Humans can be stopped and turned off if their thinking is not correct.
So you see, abortion only takes your mind off the ball. What's happening makes abortion trivial. A much more monstrous and hellish world is coming, making the subject of abortion laughable. Pick and choose your battles; I would not waste energy on this.
Check out this course; it's free from Dr. Hanson of Stanford U, posted on Hilldale college's site; it's called "American Citizenship, and it's Decline."
https://online.hillsdale.edu/?utm_campaign=Online%20Courses&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=91750519&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--i9ggH82DZGz4wkEYpEwtmrhrWwGyTi4tx-1YOFvPFD7CCe-0VhNt1AL433gDTO_41G-J3HVkgT1IdwdpBN3DoQWYhWQ&utm_content=91750519&utm_source=hs_email#course-offerings
To be more specific: it's mostly a racial genocide considering that the vast majority of unborn being scraped are black and latino.
Giving the "Conservatives" this allows them to jab with impunity.
Also, it lets them blame this on "those rotten Republicans... and Manchin, in case any of you in the audience were thinking you were conservative Democrats.
Such a scam. First it's illegal wiretapping and surveillance on a candidate THEN a sitting president.
Then it became a bioweapons attack that Bill Gate and pals had just conducted simulations for in 2019, (project 201,) -while working on both a virus and a vaccine at the same time and offshore, for a decade.
Then, it's rioting all over the place, standing down the National Guard and trying to bait a NYC alpha dick into using military force.
Then it's "insurrectionists" that were allowed into the beloved "Halls of Legislation" (tm) for maximally televised war propaganda -for war at HOME after a scammed election overflowing with mail-in fraud.
Welcome to The COVID War.
It's for real, but everyone around you is under a spell. You're that guy who refused to salute for Hitler in that old photo.
I hope I don't get dysentery when I go off to the camps.
The 'D's lol - yeah they suck, but most of the country can see right through the 'anti-abortion' 'R's attempting to LARP as 'pro-life'.
Ask yourself what happens if they stop LARPing.
Do you mean stop larping like actually take a principled position worthy of 'pro-life' label, or do you mean stop as in stfu and go home? There are plenty of states where their actions haven't the slightest bit of traction, one can look there for the latter. Is there something I should be crediting the anti-abortion crowd for besides making real pro-life activists look like confused hypocrites?
Stop LARPing and begin to act on their beliefs in the way, say, BLM does.
This too has already been at least dabbled with and one can see how effective it wasn't.
Times change.
Lots of disingenuous language being mouthed out there. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. They're rulings. And are vulnerable to overturning. The GOP has known that, counted on it, and planned accordingly. They've always been good at the Long Game. Better than the Dems, at any rate. Meanwhile, since 1973, the Donkey Party had 8 years of opportunity to ram through and rubber stamp a federal law that would protect a woman's right to chose. 4 years under Carter, and 2 each for Clinton and Obama. But no one was willing to commit political suicide over a party platform issue that wouldn't enrich them or the Party later. There is no Big Abortion to write donor checks or provide speaking fees. No book deals. No Revolving Door to a new job. No Board seats.
The Donkeys have been stringing women along for decades, promising to protect Roe. But since it was a citizen's desire, a largely female citizen's desire, and not a corporate male one with lots of benefits behind it, they didn't do what was needed to be done to ensure that. They didn't fight tooth and nail for the Scalia seat. They didn't take RGB aside and tell her what her delusions of immortality was risking. They didn't pass a law when they could.
Despite all the hand wringing over precedent, The Supremes are going to hand abortion off to the states next year. It really is "all over but the shouting". What happens next will be anyone's guess. But considering that the Democrats can't even accurately define what a "woman" is these days, and have embraced the misogynistic and homophobic Gender Identity Ideology, I am not optimistic...
Free fact: 6 of the 7 justices who voted for Roe were Republicans. Half of the Ds on the court at the time voted against it.
No one has a right to choose murder.
It is ALL about life.
Indeed, but life feeds on death....we need to understand what is life and what is death to understand how to make the balance in the favor of life ;) <3
I feel like I got a handle on the difference between "life" and "death." Hint: you're either breathing or you're not. You post this garbled piffle and then accuse others of trolling?
That is your very narrow view, and most absolutes are incorrect. You are a mortal human being, inhibited by what you can see, feel, hear, and learn. You are also limited by time because of death.
Right now, you have to pick your battles. Abortion clouds issues about the destruction of citizenship in this country. Democracy is fragile and can only exist if there is trust in society. You need a healthy middle class with values that develop trust and represent the United States. Someone making a poor life choice is right now a small battle. It should be legislated or voted on in a referendum, not constantly be bickered over. We need laws that direct and guide us, not confuse the people.
I think you should take your opinion and tell your congressman you want a referendum. You must agree on what is voted on. I do not think my church's hospitals should perform abortion, because they do not accept abortion. People wanting abortions could have them elsewhere. The country could debate abortion for hundreds of years; Margret Sanger started the conversation 100 years ago. Israel had risen and fallen many times, suffering over the worship of other gods, and the diversity concept of letting other religions enter society. IN ORDER TO DO GOD'S WILL, YOU NEED A WISE, STRONG GOVERNMENT. At this time in our lives, our government is not wise, untrustable, and corrupt. You can not make strong laws with a weak government.
I would advise taking this free course. It will help you see how countries die.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/#course-offerings
WISDOM IMPARTS STRENGTH
STRENGTH DEFENDS DEMOCRACY
NROL34 Odin comrade of Valient Thorr
USA229
God's will? Which God?
Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones.
Nice Rush reference.
Jane Goodall said the population of the Earth should be 500M people. Depopulation of the Earth will happen by the technocrats. You will not be able to buy or sell anything without the mark of the beast. Abortion is just a bump in the road. In the next several years your identity will change and your children's children will not have children. You will have a global ID this is the mark of the beast.
Why are we here? It's not to report what you see. it is to see what you see. You are here to love and serve God.
This servant of YHVH still respects your devotion to Odin and Thor....Odin and Thor are our teachers, although man has the ability to go beyond even Odin and Thor ;) Seek the truth and love and Odin and Thor will truly be yours! :)
Ever been pregnant, Seth?
Does getting pregnant give me the right to murder people?
Well abortion isn't about murdering people, so no.
Two similar observations as meaningful as your question: People who are pregnant occasionally murder other people. And some people who are not pregnant regretfully murder people who are pregnant.
All of which only reinforces the fact that whether or not one has been pregnant has no bearing on whether or not one can have an opinion on the subject of murder.
Every sperm is sacred!
Every human is sacred.
Yeah but you're arguing over potential humans, not actual humans. Aka. Sperm.
How can one be potentially human? The sperm will not become a human on its own any more than a carbon atom will. But a human fetus, by the most basic facts of biology, is a human. It is the very beginning of a human life cycle.
Nice strawman argument. My comment was about the Democratic Party stringing women along with all talk and no action for decades. You have no idea what my personal thoughts are on abortion itself.
Fair enough. When you say you support a woman's right to choose, to what choice were you referring?
𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐆𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐃
I said no such thing anywhere in my comment there. Either you have poor reading comprehension or you're simply trolling. Neither of which particularly interests me. Have a nice day~
Got you mixed up with another poster. My apologies.
Very well put. I agree that you've both identified a common theme in national politics - the disconnect between rewards of legislating particular things and the constituents you supposedly serve - and the "TERF" insanity of the last few years. Like the Palestinians, the Donkeys never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Personally I believe the removal of abortion from the realm of the courts will lead to an even greater sorting between blue and red states. That will have good and bad parts, hmmm, maybe more bad than good actually.
Imo they aren't worried about political suicide, Democrats were/are maintaining a wedge issue in the balance for blue-no-matter-who leverage. It 's a long game for them as well, just like for 'R's. It's kind of humorous to me to imagine most 'R' politicians/voters actually wanting abortion banned. That's just a carrot for an orphaned group with nowhere else to go.
Sorry, It's not a DONKEY it's a JACKASS or mule. They are JACKASSes. You are far too kind.
Incorrigible cynicism and deadly accurate.
Easy to figure. Blue states will have lax abortion laws and red states will have more stringent rules. In accordance with THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
If it were possible to take all the politics and religion out of the Pro Choice vs Right to Life debate, we could get down to reason and science and law. We know it is against the law to murder human beings. That leads to the question of when a fetus is a human being. It also leads to the question of what is the line between life and dearh. Modern medicine does not determine death by lack of heartbeat. Death is declared by lack of brain waves. Clinically, brain waves cannot be detected in a fetus until the third trimester of pregnancy. Considering that no abortions are allowed by Roe v Wade in the third trimester, it looks like the Court served us well the first time.
You cannot take either politics or religion out of the abortion debate, because they are central facts of the discussion. The real, essential question is; when does life begin. There are a host of discrete, biological functions that a person can place the start of life at, from conception to cutting the umbilical thread, the first heartbeat to brain function. There isn't a set of rules to determine what the answer should be. It's all opinion.
Science does not, nor can not, provide moral answers. But, for many people, religion does. Whether you like it or not. And how do we determine what is the governmental response? Politics.
Unfortunately, politics determines too much of our destiny, especially in a two party system. Politics explains why political parties always drag out abortion and gun control before election time. It grabs emotional and religious voters and it distracts everyone from vital issues.
The answer is to force the issue. Make your politicians stop kicking the can, and put down a vote.
That is what Roe v Wade was supposed to do.
RoeVWade is what led to the current idiocy. Having abortion decided by judicial fiat left the issue hanging over politics for decades, and kept the culture war hot.
No, Roe was decided by unelected judges who cannot legitimately make their decisions up out of whole clothe.
Roe v Wade is not good law - but our politicians doing their job would be good law.
Everything that passes for politics today will be unmasked as religion tomorrow.....Kierkegaard
𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐆𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐃
Sue, basic biology teaches us that from conception the child is a unique living human being (unique genetically, living because growing, human because it shares human rather than some other animal, nature, being because it self-evidently exists.) Roe had/has no basis in the Constitution and was/is therefore illegitimate. The twentieth-century should have taught us how odious any legal structure that can declare a whole class of vulnerable human beings not to have a legal right to life is. {Perhaps your brain waves argument could serve as an argument about personhood, but that is a different and more philosophically difficult problem.)
A malignant tumor could potentially be considered a unique living human being if that's the measure.
Conflating certain groups of people with diseases is very popular with mass murderers.
I'll take your word for it. Defining weak parameters then going full red herring when they don't hold up doesn't advance the cause.
Feel free to check the record, but why don't you tell us your parameters for determining what a human being is?
Nah, I'll take your word for it. I'm not the one attempting to make a case thus I have none I need to defend. But in good charity I'll admit my own parameters are not terribly solid, at least compared to the confidence level that's been on display in this thread. That's as far as I'll be baited into that briar patch on this day.
A malignant tumor is not a human being (whose development from the union of sperm and egg on is well known to embryology), rather malignant tumors are random human cells that proliferate erratically.
it still arguably meets all your requirements for 'living human being': "(unique genetically, living because growing, human because it shares human rather than some other animal, nature, being because it self-evidently exists)".
You will need to revise your parameters to be convincing for some people, maybe by including this spem/egg business or perhaps even future potential. Either way it's going to take more.
Some people do not consider living inside a uterus to be the same as living outside a uterus.
“Some people” meaning at least several billion Earth occupants who are not Christians, who, of course, don’t matter to the evangelically predisposed.
My observations were biological and not religious.
Then educate me. What biology text describes a fertilized egg as a “unique living human being” at conception?
You're wasting your time. There is a desperate, desperate need among abortion supporters to be able to dismiss all arguments against them as "religious", and their brains simply don't process evidence that that's illegitimate.
A simple DNA test should suffice.
While it is clearly not the same, it doesn't obviate the attribution of life to the conceptus. Why should it?
This is where philosophy, and religion and law meet. I do not have all the answers, but this is why we have courts.
Your inability to give a biological argument demonstrates that you are arguing about personhood (when philosophically/religiously the human being in the womb deserves the right to life) and not the scientific fact that the conceptus is a unique, living, human being. It isn't after all dead.
Religion and philosophy will always take us to different places. Courts cannot deal with either one. Personhood is something courts can and must deal with in a civilized society.
Courts apply the law to particular cases; they do not negotiate the overlap among philosophy, religion, and civil law. That is the job of the legislative branch (when it so chooses). Both your understanding of biology and your understanding of our form of government are faulty.
The argument about consciousness, and viability has been going on for over 100 years. I had to debate this in1973 in high school; It's the same old stuff over and over. It's the right of the woman; it's the right of the baby. You want to create a law based on the natural to follow an imposed moral code or seek pleasure to reduce pain.
The United States never came up with a set of morals. Being American is a trademark. Why is it considered immoral to let Chinese immigrants adopt dogs from the SPCA to cook and feed themselves? We need a standard. The woke would allow abortion because they do not believe in moral standards and abortion keeps women oppressed, and an unwanted child is a burden on the state.
Kant's moral imperative would question the validity of cheating on a test. If one cheats and others don't, cheating should be illegal. If all cheat, then it is not individually wrong, but it destroys the system's trust or the meritocracy of the system. So cheating is wrong. Suppose one has an abortion of a viable human being. Are you killing Joseph Stalin, or Albert Einstein? You are most likely killing a child that would otherwise be unloved and thus unsuccessful in society. One of the reasons crime went down was linked to abortion. So abortion is justified. Abortion can be adjudicated in a Universal moral system.
HAVING AN ABORTION IS AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. I do not think it is the right choice because it is hedonistic, self-serving, and an abomination to God. You are trampling on the rights of Jewish people, African Americans, and others who do not believe the same as you. God will judge those on judgment day Abortion is between God and the sinner; we can't save the world.
"an abomination to God" Given the exercise you've gone through with Kant, I'm curious what persuasion of God informs you of what is an abomination and through which medium you receive it.
Collective consciousness is from Durkheim's definition, trust. It is a mass mind, a group mind formed by a combination of attitudes. Collective consciousness according to Jung is deeper and more spiritual. Durkheim does not believe in God , Jung does. Jung believes collective consciousness is more primal to man. It baked into his being. It comes from the subconscious not based on past experiences but from memories of the whole of humanity. We carry memories of our ancestors in the subconscious. Here is one example of spiritual collective consciousness (1)
When I wrote abomination, I arbitrarily chose the word. Occult practices are also called an abomination in Scripture, as is child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:9–12; 20:18; 2 Chronicles 28:3). I do not know why I used abomination. It came from the collective consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1hxwuD1rU
"It came from the collective consciousness." mmm good answer. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I admit that choice of word smelled of biblical scripture, which contrasted with the Kant workout made me really curious about what informs you (religious denomination, philosophy, whatever) to arrive at your internal position regarding abortion.
Can you name a time in human history when one group of people debated the personhood of another and it not turn out that the former was committing an atrocity against the latter?
IIRC, they had generally left the womb before personhood was debated.
Tell me, what is the culture of the unborn? Where do they live? What language do they speak? What religion do they uphold? What's their history? Can you tell me about their arts, their letters, and their sciences?
Or is your comment just another cheap talking point you read somewhere else?
The SLED test: SIZE -- does size determine your humanity? A 2 yr old isn't less valuable than a 20 yo. because they are smaller. An unborn child isn't less valuable than a one month old baby. LEVEL - A 6 mo old is less developed than a 35 yo but that doesn't make them less valuable. Your development doesn't determine your worth. A person with intellectual challenges after a horrific accident isn't less valuable than they were before the accident. ENVIRONMENT: Living in China or Cuba vs the US, or CA vs FL, or in the body of the mother as a pre-born child or outside the mother's body after birth, doesn't make one less valuable than another. Environment doesn't change the value of the human. Degree of DEPENDENCY: The degree of one's dependency doesn't change one's value or legal rights. The newborn is as dependent as the unborn child, an elderly person can be as dependent as the newborn or unborn. Dependency doesn't diminish their rights or their humanity. All human rights should extend to the womb.
What is the language of a 1 month old baby? What will your language be if you get ALS and can't speak, much less swallow as your disease progresses? Or if you were the one in that horrific accident? What is their history, you ask? Their history is the development of a beating heart, sex, eye color and even the cells to develop their reproductive organs. Are you suggesting that the 6 month old child has arts, letters and sciences? The relevance of your question is, well, very odd. You either apply humanity to all humans pre-born and post-birth, or you don't. But Seth R is correct, that is how genocide and slavery and every other human atrocity becomes acceptable. Today there will be almost 2400 abortions. It's the #1 cause of death in the US -- well above and beyond any other.
All these worlds to spell what you really mean: fuck women.
You couldn't possibly look any smaller right now.
What’s the matter? Too on the nose?
𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐆𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐃
OK?
"Words" or "worlds"? As a woman who believes in ALL humanity (just not murder) I wouldn't ever say that about other women. Uneducated? Yes. Misguided? Yes. It's not a binary choice, unless we're talking about life and death.
Haha. Words is what I meant. Goddamn typos.
Stop masturbating, else we convict you of pre-meditated murder.
“Every sperm is sacred...”
You can do better than this.
You arbitrary line for what is considered a potential human allows me to arbitrarily define it as well.
Excellent!
I'm sure the Cro-Magnon "people" held animated discussions amongst themselves--"debates"--that questioned the "personhood" of the Neanderthals after first encountering them in what is now Europe, but in typical epicurean European fashion they opted to start fucking the Neanderthals rather than exterminating them.
However---and yes there's a nice little "however" to this one---however, the latest research and findings from the fossil record by scientists studying the mystery of the demise of the Neanderthals posits that continued in-breeding amongst the small, scattered pockets of Neanderthals weakened them to the point where eventually they became genetically "unfit" in evolutionary terms, and thus unable to compete with the stronger, genetically more diverse Homo Sapiens.
So, it stands to reason that if the Neanderthals had been more aggressive in seeking out inter-species sex with their Homo Sapiens cousins rather than their fellow Neanderthal siblings, they might have had a chance at continued survival. The corollary behavior to more sex with Homo Sapiens would have been, of course, mandatory forced abortions of fetuses conceived by two Neanderthal parents---to further strengthen and not contaminate the Homo Sapiens gene pool present in the Neanderthals. An ironic instance where abortion---mandatory abortion no less---might have SAVED a species.
Watch out you don't dislocate your shoulder reaching that far.
Dysphemism and auxesis, Seth, dysphemism and auxesis....
" no abortions are allowed by Roe v Wade in the third trimester" I once believed this but got schooled on it a few years ago. I think this ruling only speaks to what restrictions may not be put in place. Some states have no laws restricting the time in which an abortion may be performed. Some states have absolutely no restrictions at all.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state
Correct, just ask the evil Govs Newsome, Cuomo and Northram.
A human fetus “lives” in a woman’s body. Are you saying a fetus is dead?
No, I am not.
I am going to tell you the truth. I was not consciously aware that I was in this body until I was 9 months old. Before this point, the root of my conscious was elsewhere. I'm about to reveal my knowledge, that I have known since the time I became conscious in this body....it is a story the planet needs to hear in order to hear. Love and Life! My greatest sense is that before quickening is "bringing on a period." after that, one should only abort for reasons of health and life and death. The question of abortion only became a thing as it is now since we came to understand how the spermatazoa fertilizes the egg. Before this time, quickening was considered the time of "conception."
You sound like an 18th-century quaker midwife.
Wait a minute...you're using logical science base reasoning to figure this out. That will never work...(tongue firmly in cheek)....
Correct - it won't (remove tongue from cheek), because it's a matter of emotion and values, not logic. Hence the religion part.
While I'm at it, there's a pro-choice resolution of the dilemma: when does a fetus become part of society, rather than the woman who bears it? One logical cutoff is when it can be viable out side the womb - that is, when society can relieve her of the burden. That's essentially what the law says now; but it could be a moving target, as the technology to support premies improves.
There's a reason the argument is so intense, besides the insistence that religion be imposed on a majority that doesn't believe in it: without abortion as a fallback, women aren't, in physical reality, equal. That means the dispute is existential from their point of view - as well as for the men who care about them.
Thank you for that last paragraph. Good stuff.
"That's essentially what the law says now" does it though? Or does it (judicial ruling) say this is the only period during which a law can say something restrictive about it?
Sorry, I was sloppy. Should be "what the law is based on now." - rounded off, of course. I'm supposing that they picked the 3rd trimester because that's when the fetus is approaching viability.
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I really don't know for sure and the last time I tried to look it up was in response to a meme from a family member showing a full term pregnant woman with the caption that she could legally have an abortion in my state. If I remember correctly, it seemed it was indeed completely legal and under no restrictions related to viability nor anything else. (Setting aside completely the unofficial restriction of actually finding a doctor who would perform it.) It varies from state to state, but there are no federal legal restrictions and state restrictions are only allowed after viability? I'm too lazy to dig through that again right now, but that's my recollection.
I think you have it about right, depending on the state, of course. I was talking about the logic behind it; not a lawyer, don't know the legal details.
😂
I hope the people get paid for being there. Otherwise, it's just sad. Lonely people seeking purpose for their lives. Their uniforms are cliches, their chants anachronisms. The wave at a football game. It's performance, I know, but it's a lousy performance. If they are indeed getting paid, their backers are not getting their money's worth. It doesn't inspire or anger me. It depresses me.
I respectfully disagree. Although I don't have a strong view on abortion, I can see genuine concern among some of the demonstrators on both sides. (Plus a few clowns.) And what's wrong with seeking purpose by caring about an issue?
The economy, racial tensions, protection of private property, China trade and defense issues, and migrants to this country are bigger issues than someone's poor life choice and getting pregnant. The right to choose abortion has sucked the air out of many political issues that should have been addressed in the past.
when roe is overturned, the next bit of legislation in repressive states will be to prosecute anyone who helps a woman go out of state to obtain one as being complicit in murder of a fetus (or whatever term they end up using for it). Early stages of theocracy, which we have had in the country before; it didn't work out well then, won't work out well now.
Nice fantasizing. Settle down
We've always had elements of theocracy. They ebb and flow. It doesn't seem to be something that works in progression toward any sort final totality. And it seems to "work out well" enough.
My (modest) proposal is that while they have it limited by time, we react by implementing a surge in pre-emptive abortions. Treat it like a maintenance plan. Make it a normalized step in sexuality for anyone at risk of an unwanted pregnancy. That forces them to ban them upon inception, and it becomes winnable religious issue on their own terms.
But you are right about that cross-state criminality thing. That will throw the Court into something like fugitive slave jurisprudence.
Where does a medicinal, i.e., "abortion pill" fit into this argument?
Fits right in. Make them cheap and available.
Agreed. How about one for men?
Good too.
I mean, look at Democrats, amiright?
Nothing but faith in some miracle would ever convince someone they should trust them at all, let alone as a better choice than some Republican. All are trash and it's about time we flushed the old toilet.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts they'll be rounding people up at traffic checkpoints and demanding to see vaccine cards, and jabbing people that weren't found to be compliant.
You mean a girl i.e. minor without parental permission. Or do you think that's OK.
There's a good argument that we should be especially lenient in the case of minors. We've generally taken the position that teen pregnancy is bad in and of itself (reasonable people can disagree about that).
Historically we've drawn all sorts of lines regarding majority/minority age limits, e.g.voting, conscription, sex (watching v. doing v. filming v. seeing depicted), drinking, marriage, firearms, criminal law, etc. We even let minors be bound by contract in some instances.
A teenager who gets pregnant needs the support of society, so maybe we fine tune the criminal law for them. Maybe require notification rather than consent?
Personally, I think empowering statutory rapists and predators is a bad thing, but maybe that's just me.
So allowing their victims to escape bearing their (the rapist's) offspring is "empowering rapists"? That's a whole new meaning of "empowering."
From what I understand, you don't rape young girls because you're concerned they might get pregnant.
Understand this: Men who have sex with underage girls (statutory rape) don't want their babies.
Then how exactly does discouraging those underage girls seeking to abort children by those unions empower the men to do it in the first place?
Like abortion and easy access to birth control, stigmatizing teen pregnancy was part of the eugenics drive to control population growth in the lower classes. The late teens and early twenties the most fertile years for a woman. But no time for that, go out and empower yourself, worker bee! Small wonder the population is shrinking in industrialized nations where women are encouraged to wait until their late 20s or 30s to start having a family. Teen pregnancy is a bad thing because media says it's a bad thing, and it will continue to be bad until it isn't. Just like RvW.
I'd state it this way: women today are provided strong cultural, economic and political incentives to postpone having children as long as possible. Increasingly the incentives provided, intentionally or not, are to not have children at all.
The last couple of years, I've been reading a lot of 19th century lit. One remarkable thing is how young everyone is. Families, careers, heroic deeds all done by people who we barely consider adults now.
It's not just increased life expectancy. Education has extended along with increaded complexity. The workforce is more precarious.We moved away from multi-generation households. Etc.
Yes, for middle and upper classes, there are job market opportunities that women are choosing and balancing. But working class women have always worked and having a child before, say, finishing high school, is burdensome and can lead to cycles of poverty. (Long ago I taught at a school for women who had dropped out of high school to have children. Most of them wished they hadn't.)
>> Education has extended along with increaded complexity.
While this may be true for a handful of workers in fields such as medicine and engineering, it is not the case for most people. I would argue that high school graduates a century ago are more or less on par with the average university graduate today. If you don't believe me go and take a look at some of the high school exams floating around the internet from the earliest 20th century. Public schools have watered down the curriculum and extended adolescence well into adulthood.
>> . But working class women have always worked and having a child before, say, finishing high school, is burdensome and can lead to cycles of poverty.
While this is no doubt true, the phony act of the rich and well off pretending to fight for a supposed right so that the wrong people don't have children is still revolting. If you haven't already, take a look at who gets all of the abortions. If you aren't aware, go read up on who founded planned parenthood and what the stated goal was.
I agree about education being watered down, and it's a trend we would do well to reverse. (Check out Freddie DeBoer on education.) The whole schooling and credentialing thing is mainly a sorting mechanism. (I'd like to see apprenticeships make a comeback. That wouldn't solve everything, but it might help.)
And yeah, I know the eugenics past of PP. It was all the rage back in the day and was considered a benevolent thing. I think there's a whole lot less of that going now. (the Nazis put it into stark relief). The incentives to put off children are mostly economic (which is a related issue) rather than evil design to cull certain people races.
No I didn't say that. That was you stuffing a strawman and feeling sorry for yourself.
theocracy looms. And is a subject too seldom touched by the media, the pols. There is of course freedom of religion in the USA. OK. But what about freedom FROM religion. That is increasingly absent. An atheist on either side in a case before the Supremes as now constituted would be a second class citizen, despite all probable denials. Solution? Not easy. Perhaps as society becomes less religious, religion or lack of same will become more positively noticed. Meanwhile, an awful lot of harm can result from mythology- biased judges.
Why do you assume an atheist is more objective than a religeous person? There are zealots on both sides, as evidenced by phrases like, "mythology-biased judges." Atheism is its own mythology - angry opposition to a thing is, in itself, another thing of equal influence. I've been preached at with more vigor by atheists than religeous people. Most I know on either side, however, are quite capable of objective consideration of facts with regard to law. They may have strong opinions about the impact of some laws, but can follow the text and intent well enough and be objective within the secular framework. I am in no way religeous, but have never found my country "oppressive" because of it. I don't whither and recoil because the words, "In God We Trust" appear on currency. I get the general gist of the sentiment and have never had a problem spending it. When someone says, "Mother Nature," I don't feel like I'm being assaulted by pagan theology or consider it some great inhibitor of freedom. I get the idea and sentiment without personal affront. The law is the law and, I think, justices get it right most of the time in the time they make the decision. But, I don't think every aspect and detail of their decisions are meant for all time and eternity. The Constitution only evolves when amended, precedent evolves with time.
You are a hilarious!! A Theocracy??!! Really??!! Very funny!!
Look up "Dominionist." Not that I think it's an immediate possibility. Still, Muslim fundamentalists are named after the Christian ones. And the Catholic Church has a long history of trying to dictate law, which they're still trying to do.
This is a culture that promotes transgender rights. A culture that is hinting at normalizing Pedophilia. We are light years from any kind of theocracy
What a delusional take. Atheists have strong preferential treatment in the Western world today, but of course, pretending not to is key to expanding that power.
lol - What preferential treatment? I must be missing out.
Yep, right there on my tax form, 20% rebate for not believing in Zeus.
Preferential treatment for what? Seating in the booths nearest the restrooms at Applebees? Wal-Mart issues exclusive "front-of-the-line" passes for atheists only?
Each person has freedom of speech, freedom to vote. Does being religious take either of those away?
Generally, it inspires many to take those rights away from others.
That's true of any organization that wields power and influence.
By force, whenever possible. Otherwise, it's coercion and shame.
You are a loon
Ya kinda missed out on the whole history thing didnt ya?
Or everyone else is.
Freedom of speech and freedom to vote. You see this plainly in the more theocratic societies.
It should not matter one way or another. Sadly, we have forgotten this.
We also have the problem of having state-sanctioned religions - which was the case in the former USSR. Not all Catholics recognize the Pope of Rome, for instance. But if the State states that All Catholics must recognize the Pope, they are interfering into the affairs of the Church, against the rightful separation of church and state.
Off topic I know, but why did you change your mind on capital punishment? I've wavered back and forth, but my current take is that death is more humane than life in solitary confinement.
I recently (within the past 2 weeks) had a small shift in thinking on this. The wife and I were watching Mayor of Kingstown and there was an execution scene. I mentioned that I understood the emotions of the families on both sides, including the family of the man being executed, but had no real sympathy for the man himself. My wife said, "what about sympathy for the people we make kill him." We watched the rest of the scene and I pondered the impact on the guards, the warden, the medical techs, the coroner and those involved in the process but not present (like the judge and governor). I had honestly never considered the impact beyond the criminal and the victim and their families. I have no problem smoking the definitive bad guys, but I am more than ambivalent about morally implicating innocents in the process of carrying out my view of justice. Now I'm not so sure about my lifelong take on the issue more broadly.
I would encourage you to watch some of the documentaries about life in supermax whether or not it changes your mind. There are fates worse than death, and life in supermax is one of them. These facilities are violating the 8th amendment and should be shut down.
My thinking on it has evolved, also. All punishments, from the death penalty on down to the paying of a parking ticket, are an aspect of society. The fine print, so to speak, on the social contract. The death penalty obviously doesn't stop a crime after the fact. It might prevent a crime going forward, but only if timely, and even that is a stretch. But it allows a society to say "this is not us, nor is of the world, in our view."
And coming to that conclusion, I can see the use and need for it. Ugly as it is. That said, it needs greater transparency, greater political involvement.
The death penalty has never been about deterring crime. It's a friendly reminder, from the state to you that, legally speaking, you-know-who has a monopoly on violence.
Long term solitary confinement leads to insanity. I think it's torture. Death is irreversible but so is insanity.
The death penalty has never been about deterring crime. It's a friendly reminder, from the state to you that, legally speaking, you-know-who has a monopoly on violence.
Yes the death penalty is probably not a deterrent. But it is still perhaps a fitting punishment for repeat offenders who are not deterred and cannot be rehabilitated.
After many decades of reflection, I remain against capital punishment in all cases except for one: high treason against one's nation and/or homo sapiens itself, while holding a position of influence.
One point I’ve not heard in this debate is what happens with abortion if it is made illegal again? Will it just cease to exist? Hardly. It will revert back to dirty back alley botch jobs for the poor and quiet safe abortions for those with the means to procure them. Abortions will still take place.
Even if they had the votes to do it I doubt the supreme court would outlaw abortions all at once. It will be done slowly bit by bit to allow the population time to adjust. But I doubt there is enough political will in this country to outlaw abortions under all circumstances.
The "plan" is to return things back to the States, but I don't expect it to stop there. Like rust, theocracy doesn't sleep.
It won't stop there. Why would anyone believe it will stop there, when the republicans themselves and their far-right foot soldiers talk openly about their ultimate goal?
I can imagine state borders tightening up, having to show IDs to cross state lines, fugitive pregnant women laws. Fun stuff. Yeehaw! :-)
So... it will be just like murder, theft, assault, and every other crime?
Yes, basically. That’s how it was before Roe. It gave the mob another lucrative black market business that exploited those who couldn’t afford to skirt the law through privileged connections. Same ol’ shit.
Same ol' shit.
Yeah, it's almost like making things illegal doesn't make them go away. Weird.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have laws?
I’m suggesting that when we try to solve a problem we look further than a boot.
Beautifully stated. How about comprehensive sex ed? How about free contraception? Both of these would reduce incidences of abortion so much. But, can't have women enjoying themselves and getting away with it like men do. Can we?
It's not being made illegal. It gets sent back to the states where it should've stayed in the first place. The federal government wasn't supposed to have such outsized power over the states rights. Same with same sex marriage, the states citizens voted yea or nay on it. It was a mixed bag, some states voted for, some voted against. That wasn't good enough for the federal government and activists, who are always complaining about government in our bedrooms, invites them in again. I've been in a committed relationship for 35 years. No government can tell me who I can and can't love. Just another overreach by the federal government.
Obama's not pushing through Merrick Garland when he had the chance makes much more sense to me now.
Lets face it, if men got pregnant I wouldn't be posting on this topic. Abortion would be free, legal, and socially acceptable.
Over to you George:
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
Do you have a shred of evidence for any of the claims you just made?
The moment your penis goes soft, there are a peanut butter like variety of drugs you can buy to fix the problem.
And that supports which point?
The very first one Moose made.
I'm listening. How are those two points related?
Please list out all the commonly available male contraceptives.
Take your time.
Taibbi's substack is no place for the weakest of strawmen, like this.
So weak that all you could come up with is an attempt to frame it as a logical fallacy.
Speaking of weak...
If a man gets a woman pregnant and she wants to abort it the man has no say. But if that same man wants the women to abort it he still has no say. All things being equal.Shouldn't the guy have a say about paying support or not. But, all things are not equal.
See? Now you are getting it. Her body her choice.
I'm not just getting it. Thems been my claims all along, and I'm a female.
Huh? Not complicated. He doesn't get a say because he's not taking on the burden of the pregnancy. Her body her choice.
Huh? But he is taking on the burden and responsibility of supporting that child whether he wants to or not. If she wants that child she should be prepared to support it especially if he doesn't want it. Why the double standard? If a woman has the choice to decide life or death. Why shouldn't the man have the choice to support or not? Give me a reasonable answer for why I'm wrong, besides her body her choice.
I love this riff by Carlin. Nice.
Roe v Wade is a failure of the legislative branch. Relying on SC to mandate protections will inevitably - in a republic -lead to alienated communities. Which is exactly what the culture wars are about. The balance is not abortion rights, but state and local rights to apply standards in such a way they don't fundamental restrict the individual. There’s been a context shift since R v W- interstate transportation is a fraction of the cost it was 50 years ago and pharmaceutical abortion is easily overnighted. What’s more important: maintaining a union of states with different traditions and a collective welfare or the sovereign right of the individual uber alles? There’s a balance. We’re doing a shitty job of finding it.
deja vu all over again and it will turn out the same way all over again with a lot of pain and death and ill treatment for pregnant women on the say until once more new generations find that the real world is far different than their fantasies, neither black nor white but complicated and difficult with scores of competing goods that are not easily reconcilable but that demand a difficult middle way. Maturity only occurs when you can no longer fool yourself. Welcome to the sibling society.
This is just opening the door and setting precedent for forced medical procedures like vaccines.
So convenient that the Democrats can blame Machin and the Republicans, and whatever else. Democrats and Republicans alike find ZERO value in actual lives.
Remember reading a concept of abortion rights that helps define the issue as explicit protection of the right of body autonomy. Unfortunately, I do not know the source, but here is information from my notes:
Body autonomy is protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and Roe v. Wade (1973).
An example of protecting body autonomy would be if only your bone marrow could save a life. The state cannot compel you to donate.
Even after you die, unless specified by you or your legal representative, organs cannot be harvested.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a zygote, fetus or life must also be offered voluntarily.
Supporting the right of body autonomy is being pro-choice.
Might losing autonomy over women's bodies begin a slippery slope to everyone losing body autonomy generally?
Ask all the young men that were drafted and went to Viet Nam if they had body autonomy.
Uhhh - vaccine mandates.
Griswold is indeed the primary culprit to a half-baked theory of individual autonomy. You will note that this autonomy has never been extended to what recreational substances you may choose to put into your body. Lose it generally? Hell, you can't lose what you don't already have.
The other problem with all of this goes back to the idea that our liberty interests are limited (to the reach of due process). Thus, in core liberty interests you might get strict scrutiny applied or if it falls outside of that you get rational-basis (which means you sorta have an interest but the interest of the state is given far more weight). The Connecticut law invalidated in Griswold never should have been legitimate under any state constitution because the general police power was never intended to support a police state (as seems to be the prevalent thinking these days).
I’m with Ron Paul-100% pro life, but it should be a state decision-there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify enshrining abortion as a Constitutional right. Let California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Alabama do as they please.
Control over what's done to your own body is a natural right, not something a State can overrule. How a conservative court somehow thinks this would be up to the states shows how well the Christian right has been successful in putting zealots on the court.
Ninth/tenth amendments count
Ninth and tenth amendments count too
Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. “Elect Democrats to protect Abortion Rights”
For the past 8 presidential elections, 5 of which were won outright by Democrats (who also carried the popular vote in 7), we were told that the primary reason to hold our collective noses and vote for Democrats was to preserve the Supreme Court and save Roe v. Wade.
For 25 of those 29 years, Joe Biden was either chair/ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Vice-President or President.
The Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them. -- Jeffrey St. Clair Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid - CounterPunch.org
In the 48 years since Roe was decided, the Democrats have had ample opportunity to codify the right to an abortion. In that time, they’ve controlled the Senate for 29 years, the House for 29 years and the presidency for 21 years. Instead, many Dems sought to restrict abortion rights, especially for poor women, largely by enacting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds for abortions. The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1977, only four years after Roe. One of its most enthusiastic co-sponsors: Joe Biden.
In order to grasp just how much culpability the Democrats deserve for the steady erosion of reproductive rights, perhaps it will be instructive to revisit Al Gore’s reactionary positions on “choice.” As a “New Democrat” Congressman in the 80s, Gore spoke reverentially of the “fetus’s right to life.” He was a relentless supporter of the Hyde Amendment, banning federal funding for abortions for poor women. In one early version of the Hyde Amendment there was language allowing for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. “Born Again Christian” Gore voted against that.
I think rather Democrats have deliberately and carefully maintained in question the status of this issue so that they have a reason to vote for them. Think of the pressure now for blue-no-matter-who.
This is a curious statement. Since Roe, the republicans have traditionally fielded suspicions that they as a party had grudgingly (and strategically) accepted the Supreme Court decision, for the time being at any rate. Thus the republican "effort" to overturn the law was both a perpetual carrot to be dangled in front of the christian far-right, as well as serving as a cudgel to wield against the democrats to signal to the christian far-right that the republican party was earning the group's continued support at the polls, not to mention their financial largesse come campaign time. You didn't hear the word "codify" until Dobbs showed up.
Whatever the decision reached by the justices this week, the republican fight to overturn Roe is just their first salvo in their fight to illegalize, even criminalize, a woman's right to abortion.
"...This after-Roe genda that Kavanagh and Barrett previewed is no secret among movement conservatives. As Dan McLaughlin, a senior writer at National Review Online, ominously warned in that magazine’s recent issue devoted to abortion, "Nobody ever said that protecting unborn life would be easy or that major cultural debates could be settled without strife . . . . Ending Roe would be, as Churchill once said, neither the end nor the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.”
"And, should the Republican trifecta of 2016 recur – control of the House, Senate, and White House – how long can it be before there is a carve-out to the filibuster to pass a law declaring the fetus to be a person entitled to federal civil rights protection? With Republicans moving steadily to control the states’ apparatus for vote counting, that scenario is easy to imagine."
Make no mistake about it, any republican corner-of-the-mouth dissembling aside, the clear republican endgame is to overturn Roe and completely do away with all abortion rights throughout the states, and "codify" it into law through Congress. Talk about "cancel" culture.
With this accomplished, it will be the democrats' serve in the political battle over abortion rights.
https://verdict.justia.com/2021/12/06/after-roe-the-coming-fight-to-end-all-abortions-everywhere
"it will be the democrats' serve" mmm, that was nicely stated, but it seems like they've had more than one chance to smoke the game point and just sat on their hands. It's my opinion that both republican and democratic leadership are wringing every drop they can out of the do-or-die abortion issue. I detailed my prediction on what happens if r-v-w is dismantled in another comment, basically its going back to the states where people will decide they dont want to ban all abortions, like every other developed country in the world. Even the majority of republicans don't support a full ban and it would take more culture war koolaid than we're encountered yet to get them to vote for that. I think.
Oh, I don't know.. they seem to stop at nothing to keep a ruse up these days.
I wouldn't be surprised if they milked this "controversy" for another 20 years if we make it that long.
The Democrat party has become primarily the party of educated radical upset females steeped in grievance programing and their needy, insecure and clutching girly-men. But the abortion rights position has nothing really to do with the low-income cohort of the population that deserves 100% of the consideration... it is just a social wedge issue to justify political rage and division.
Personally I support abortion up to the point that science tells us there is life viable outside the womb. The religious take too much of a moral absolutist position on abortion... God clearly gave humans the capacity to make life-choices based on a larger set of moral consideration than all life needing to be protected at conception. The absurdity of that position is only a bit less than is the position of the left that there should be no limits on abortion up to (and maybe even exceeding) birth.
I support raising the age of abortion to 85 years.