The issue here is not abortion. The issue is the US Constitution. It states nothing about about abortion. The flimsy excuses offered in the Roe v Wade decision do not stand up to scrutiny and just about every legal scholar for the past 50 years has pointed this out, including many a liberal. The Supreme Court is doing their job here by pointing out that this is a legislative issue and must be decided by legislators and their constituents, not by courts. This is very important, as the globalists and socialists have used some of the precedent established by the absurd Roe decision to cram through all sorts of nefarious expanses of federal power, which were clearly never to be given to them. Witness the recent "creation" of a wing of the nefarious DHS to combat "misinformation". So the biggest liars in the country will now tell you what to believe is true. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Our federal government has very clearly outlined areas of responsibility under our Constitution and has no business telling everyone how to live their lives. The citizens of Florida are very different from the citizens of Washington State. This decision would start to turn back the lunacy.
The hypocrisy doesn’t run both ways on abortion. You’re missing the fact that those who are against abortion truly see a fetus as a baby and a life that no one has the right to terminate. I think they have a good point, or at least a respectable view that you should take into account.
"I believe prohibitions against drugs can be theoretically justified. Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children."
i mean, this is kind of how we feel about abortion
Some years ago my friend got a phone call from a sister he had never met. 30 years previously their, at the time, unwed teen parents had put her up for adoption. If conceived 30 years later she would not have been allowed to live.
Abortion is either OK or not, if not it blackens the soul of those directly involved and the society that sanctions it.
A grave mistake is to fall into the 'we cannot successfully outlaw it' fallacy. It may be unrealistic to outlaw abortion but we can attempt to structure laws and society so that it is very clear that abortion is a grave last resort and the parents who make the sacrifice required to allow their child to live are doing a good thing worthy of support and encouragement,
The argument is about whether SCOTUS gets to make up the laws of the land, not abortion. But I'm glad that argument is elevated.
Abortion is the eugenicist's wet dream. Vacuum and flush out the unborn babies of the poor, dirty, unwashed...especially minorities. One study had African-American abortions making up 36% of all abortions (vs. 13% of the general population). The great ethnic cleansers of all time were strongly pro-abortion (Margaret Sanger, Nazis, communists). Democrats take their cues from these heroes of the Left once again...but I'm surprised to see it here.
There is nothing hypocritical about conservative objections to a forced, harmful and useless vaccine and the desire to protect an unborn CHILD (as Dementia Joe Biden accidently said).
Most of us know people who gave birth to very premature babies who survived and thrived; while those same babies can be vacuumed out of the womb and flushed according to "it's a woman's choice" false principles.
It is no more a woman's choice than infanticide. The argument Alex is making follows the same gaslighting feints we've heard from the Left for decades - that it's a woman's body, a "fetus", and just a mass of clay inside that needs extracted. I'm sorry, I disagree with these premises.
Anyone who's seen images of an unborn child - images not available 50 years ago - understand that the science of the pro-life conservatives wins again (as with masks, vaccines, lockdowns). That is a child, not a "fetus", and the child should have the right to live.
In the case of abortion, it is not "my body, my choice." In the case of abortion, there are TWO BODIES. The pro-abortion crowd intentionally ignores this inconvenient truth.
The fact that it would be legal for me as a bystander to use physical force to protect a mother and her 1 minute old child, but it is legal for that same mother to kill that same child 1 minute before birth and I as a feeling human being am supposed to shrug and say oh-well, just another "private murder" is insanity and the stuff of horror movies insidiously masked as a medical procedure.
My 14yr old got 2 jabs. Never got the booster. Her summer camp won’t allow her to attend unless she gets the booster. The same people screaming my body my choice. I will never forgot the hypocrisy and I will NEVER financially support an organization that bought into authoritarianism. Organizations still enforcing boosters on healthy kids should be held accountable.
Pretty good analysis. I mostly agree. Here's where I think it gets hard though with abortion. You say, "But they fail the second. They [fetuses] cannot survive in the real world, not without a level of police power incompatible with a democratic state." Well, neither can a 1-day-old baby survive in the world without a mother's (or nurse's) assistance -- and we deem that assistance a legally enforceable duty. (Your phrase "police power incompatible with a democratic state" is not an argument; it's just another way of stating your conclusion.) So is it the distinction between the baby's being outside or inside the body that determines the duty? Sounds a bit strange, to have the duty attach when the person no longer is attached, but let's go with it for the moment . . . until we see that isn't a clear boundary either, because all our polling data indicates our democratic society is perfectly fine with abortion restrictions applicable to the late third trimester. So what is the boundary that makes practical sense?
The answer, I think, is that we don't know -- a logical/theoretical/philosophical argument isn't going to get us to a compelling, undeniable, immutable conclusion.
Which means the topic is a good candidate for a democratic lawmaking process, rather than being resolved by reading a right (which in its application will have to have a high degree of specificity) into the Constitution.
Except when your choice brutally, horrifically, and painfully murders an innocent child, or releases them to be live organ donors for profit in the process of murdering them. There simply is no justification for this.
I was a teenager and something of a hippy-type when I heard on the car radio that abortion had been declared legal. My immediate thought was that this was not progress. Through so many decades, through having 3 children in mostly tough times, and having 9 grandchildren, my beliefs have never wavered. They never will.
When all is said and done, I don't understand why an action, murder, is acceptable to a certain portion of our population. Especially to that portion of our population that is by definition, unable to defend itself.
As a gay man, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight. However, the Roe v Wade decision is not about abortion. It is about states rights. The abortion issue can be settled by returning the issue to the states. Those states that want abortion can have it. Those that do not, then they don’t have to have it. If you live in a state that does not allow abortion and you believe that is wrong, then take to the democratic process and elect people that will give you the results you want.
If all of these people raging against the Supremes for the hypothetical decision are so upset, then get together and start an effort to encode the availability of abortion into the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment. Or an easier path, elect the Senators and Representatives that will vote for a law enshrining abortion as the law of the land.
But what they would rather do, since it is the path of least resistance, is to lean on a Constitutionally questionable judicial precedent (not a law), and then hold each Supreme Justice Nominee hostage to answering the question “is Roe v Wade settled law?”.
The mRNA drugs are a whole other issue. But bringing the force of the State to make people take a drug that they did not want to take OR that they might have legitimate questions about is not compatible with a free democracy. People (should) have the choice as to what to put into their bodies. If the vaccines were so effective, and a person took the “jab”, then why would they care about others who did or did not make the same choice.
They two are separate issues. I used the “My body, my choice” argument since it was fun to watch the faces of people on the other side get all contorted as they tried to explain it away. But, in reality, the issues are different. And BTW, I did take the “jab”. I am over 65 and have some conditions that pre-disposed me to COVID. So I made a bargain with the Devil, and took the jab. But I know what I did and why I did it. Forcing people to do that is wrong.
Your downward slide continues. The choice of what … killing a child.
And with the vaccines I don’t care what they do elsewhere. I never said don’t mandate everywhere. If you’re stupid enough to keep electing fascists then have at it. Let them control you. Just not in my county or city. They can still have the freedom to get abortions where ever they want. And they ignore the technology since 1972 with the myriad of abortifacient drugs.
It is not something that runs both ways.
You are hell bent on continually to chink your armor which yet again makes me still anti-vaccine based on many others and what I’ve seen personally but your arguments…. not so much.
Yes. Because preventing the murder of a child is the same as forcing someone to take a drug. These two issues are only superficially similar.
The issue here is not abortion. The issue is the US Constitution. It states nothing about about abortion. The flimsy excuses offered in the Roe v Wade decision do not stand up to scrutiny and just about every legal scholar for the past 50 years has pointed this out, including many a liberal. The Supreme Court is doing their job here by pointing out that this is a legislative issue and must be decided by legislators and their constituents, not by courts. This is very important, as the globalists and socialists have used some of the precedent established by the absurd Roe decision to cram through all sorts of nefarious expanses of federal power, which were clearly never to be given to them. Witness the recent "creation" of a wing of the nefarious DHS to combat "misinformation". So the biggest liars in the country will now tell you what to believe is true. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Our federal government has very clearly outlined areas of responsibility under our Constitution and has no business telling everyone how to live their lives. The citizens of Florida are very different from the citizens of Washington State. This decision would start to turn back the lunacy.
The hypocrisy doesn’t run both ways on abortion. You’re missing the fact that those who are against abortion truly see a fetus as a baby and a life that no one has the right to terminate. I think they have a good point, or at least a respectable view that you should take into account.
"I believe prohibitions against drugs can be theoretically justified. Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children."
i mean, this is kind of how we feel about abortion
There’s another life at stake for abortion Alex. Someone else’s life, someone with unique DNA from the mother.
That is the difference. A just society must endeavor to protect that life.
Arguments for abortion are weak and abhorrent when viewed through that lens.
Some years ago my friend got a phone call from a sister he had never met. 30 years previously their, at the time, unwed teen parents had put her up for adoption. If conceived 30 years later she would not have been allowed to live.
Abortion is either OK or not, if not it blackens the soul of those directly involved and the society that sanctions it.
A grave mistake is to fall into the 'we cannot successfully outlaw it' fallacy. It may be unrealistic to outlaw abortion but we can attempt to structure laws and society so that it is very clear that abortion is a grave last resort and the parents who make the sacrifice required to allow their child to live are doing a good thing worthy of support and encouragement,
The argument is about whether SCOTUS gets to make up the laws of the land, not abortion. But I'm glad that argument is elevated.
Abortion is the eugenicist's wet dream. Vacuum and flush out the unborn babies of the poor, dirty, unwashed...especially minorities. One study had African-American abortions making up 36% of all abortions (vs. 13% of the general population). The great ethnic cleansers of all time were strongly pro-abortion (Margaret Sanger, Nazis, communists). Democrats take their cues from these heroes of the Left once again...but I'm surprised to see it here.
There is nothing hypocritical about conservative objections to a forced, harmful and useless vaccine and the desire to protect an unborn CHILD (as Dementia Joe Biden accidently said).
Most of us know people who gave birth to very premature babies who survived and thrived; while those same babies can be vacuumed out of the womb and flushed according to "it's a woman's choice" false principles.
It is no more a woman's choice than infanticide. The argument Alex is making follows the same gaslighting feints we've heard from the Left for decades - that it's a woman's body, a "fetus", and just a mass of clay inside that needs extracted. I'm sorry, I disagree with these premises.
Anyone who's seen images of an unborn child - images not available 50 years ago - understand that the science of the pro-life conservatives wins again (as with masks, vaccines, lockdowns). That is a child, not a "fetus", and the child should have the right to live.
In the case of abortion, it is not "my body, my choice." In the case of abortion, there are TWO BODIES. The pro-abortion crowd intentionally ignores this inconvenient truth.
The fact that it would be legal for me as a bystander to use physical force to protect a mother and her 1 minute old child, but it is legal for that same mother to kill that same child 1 minute before birth and I as a feeling human being am supposed to shrug and say oh-well, just another "private murder" is insanity and the stuff of horror movies insidiously masked as a medical procedure.
My 14yr old got 2 jabs. Never got the booster. Her summer camp won’t allow her to attend unless she gets the booster. The same people screaming my body my choice. I will never forgot the hypocrisy and I will NEVER financially support an organization that bought into authoritarianism. Organizations still enforcing boosters on healthy kids should be held accountable.
Pretty good analysis. I mostly agree. Here's where I think it gets hard though with abortion. You say, "But they fail the second. They [fetuses] cannot survive in the real world, not without a level of police power incompatible with a democratic state." Well, neither can a 1-day-old baby survive in the world without a mother's (or nurse's) assistance -- and we deem that assistance a legally enforceable duty. (Your phrase "police power incompatible with a democratic state" is not an argument; it's just another way of stating your conclusion.) So is it the distinction between the baby's being outside or inside the body that determines the duty? Sounds a bit strange, to have the duty attach when the person no longer is attached, but let's go with it for the moment . . . until we see that isn't a clear boundary either, because all our polling data indicates our democratic society is perfectly fine with abortion restrictions applicable to the late third trimester. So what is the boundary that makes practical sense?
The answer, I think, is that we don't know -- a logical/theoretical/philosophical argument isn't going to get us to a compelling, undeniable, immutable conclusion.
Which means the topic is a good candidate for a democratic lawmaking process, rather than being resolved by reading a right (which in its application will have to have a high degree of specificity) into the Constitution.
In moral questions, one must err on the side of LIFE, not life-taking.
86% of planned parenthood facilities are in minority neighborhoods
who are we trying so hard to kill off and why?
Your body, your choice...
Except when your choice brutally, horrifically, and painfully murders an innocent child, or releases them to be live organ donors for profit in the process of murdering them. There simply is no justification for this.
I was a teenager and something of a hippy-type when I heard on the car radio that abortion had been declared legal. My immediate thought was that this was not progress. Through so many decades, through having 3 children in mostly tough times, and having 9 grandchildren, my beliefs have never wavered. They never will.
When all is said and done, I don't understand why an action, murder, is acceptable to a certain portion of our population. Especially to that portion of our population that is by definition, unable to defend itself.
As a gay man, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight. However, the Roe v Wade decision is not about abortion. It is about states rights. The abortion issue can be settled by returning the issue to the states. Those states that want abortion can have it. Those that do not, then they don’t have to have it. If you live in a state that does not allow abortion and you believe that is wrong, then take to the democratic process and elect people that will give you the results you want.
If all of these people raging against the Supremes for the hypothetical decision are so upset, then get together and start an effort to encode the availability of abortion into the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment. Or an easier path, elect the Senators and Representatives that will vote for a law enshrining abortion as the law of the land.
But what they would rather do, since it is the path of least resistance, is to lean on a Constitutionally questionable judicial precedent (not a law), and then hold each Supreme Justice Nominee hostage to answering the question “is Roe v Wade settled law?”.
The mRNA drugs are a whole other issue. But bringing the force of the State to make people take a drug that they did not want to take OR that they might have legitimate questions about is not compatible with a free democracy. People (should) have the choice as to what to put into their bodies. If the vaccines were so effective, and a person took the “jab”, then why would they care about others who did or did not make the same choice.
They two are separate issues. I used the “My body, my choice” argument since it was fun to watch the faces of people on the other side get all contorted as they tried to explain it away. But, in reality, the issues are different. And BTW, I did take the “jab”. I am over 65 and have some conditions that pre-disposed me to COVID. So I made a bargain with the Devil, and took the jab. But I know what I did and why I did it. Forcing people to do that is wrong.
Your downward slide continues. The choice of what … killing a child.
And with the vaccines I don’t care what they do elsewhere. I never said don’t mandate everywhere. If you’re stupid enough to keep electing fascists then have at it. Let them control you. Just not in my county or city. They can still have the freedom to get abortions where ever they want. And they ignore the technology since 1972 with the myriad of abortifacient drugs.
It is not something that runs both ways.
You are hell bent on continually to chink your armor which yet again makes me still anti-vaccine based on many others and what I’ve seen personally but your arguments…. not so much.