Abortion

[iambiguous]

From the NYT:

'Gov. Gavin Newsom of California on Wednesday vowed to protect the right to abortion in the state he leads and issued an impassioned “wake-up call” to the Democratic Party about what he described as a coordinated Republican-led effort to erode more rights that many Americans have for decades assumed were settled, such as the right to interracial marriage.

'“Don’t think for a second this is where it’s going to stop,” he said, speaking outside of a Planned Parenthood building in Los Angeles, flanked by women wearing pink shirts. “Pay attention, America. They’re coming for you next.”

'Mr. Newsom said that when a member of his staff first alerted him to the Politico report on a leaked draft opinion that indicated the Supreme Court had privately voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, the governor believed it was satire: “I said, ‘Is this The Onion? Is this true?”

'Within hours, Mr. Newsom and top state lawmakers had proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution specifically enshrining the right to abortion. Lawmakers plan to put the issue in front of California voters — who overwhelmingly support Roe v. Wade — in November.'

Here's the thing I'm still fuzzy about...

Suppose Trumpworld succeeds in capturing both the House and the Senate in November. And suppose further that Trump [or someone like him] is elected to the White House in 2024.

Can the Congress then pass legislation that literally makes all abortions illegal? Legislation the president then signs and enforces. Law that is then backed by the Supremes?

The Blue States may react to Alito by passing State legislation protecting [and even expanding] abortion rights. But, two or three years from now, can that all be voided by the Congress and the White House?

Same with rights afforded homosexuals and others noted by Newsome?

How far can -- will -- the fulminating fanatic right-wing objectivists take their authoritarian Christian dogmas here in America?

[commonsense]

Who is this Roe V. Wade person I keep hearing about why are they talking about striking him/her down?

Aka Roe versus Wade, it was a court case that resulted in a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court that made abortions legal in all the States.

Google it or search in Wikipedia if curious about it.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's the thing I'm still fuzzy about...

Can the Congress then pass legislation that literally makes all abortions illegal? Legislation the president then signs and enforces. Law that is then backed by the Supremes?

That's not what they've done. It's not even what anybody has tried to do.

All the Supreme Court has said is that R v. W. was not a federal issue, one over which the federal government had rightful say. They haven't said that they are planning to ban abortion, or that the individual states will do so. They've just said, essentially, that provision of abortions is a matter that has to be decided at the state level.

The Blue States may react to Alito by passing State legislation protecting [and even expanding] abortion rights.

They can. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision speaks about that.

But, two or three years from now, can that all be voided by the Congress and the White House?

No, since it would no longer be a federal matter to decide either way. The Supreme Court is an independent judiciary.

Same with rights afforded homosexuals and others noted by Newsome?

The SC ruling doesn't even address that. It makes no mention of sexual practices, or even of the abortion issue itself. It just says that R V W was decided by the wrong level of government. The individual states have to decide, because it's a federal system. That's all. But so far as the SC is concerned, the states, once they have the power back, can make any decision about that that they want.

Newsome is attempting to gin up fear by associating the decision to send R v. W back to the state level with decisions about issues it has zero to do with at all. There's no talk of homosexuals, none of Segregation returning, and no connection between the issues. There isn't even talk of banning abortions. He's hoping he can get everybody to panic, and pull in people who care about other issues.

All R v. W did was to theoretically make it possible for the federal government to mandate abortion law nationwide. Now, it cannot. Now, the states have the right to decide for themselves what law is appropriate for their people.

[Walker]

Why are abortion-aged men and women irresponsible, unaccountable, and reckless?

Lack of maturity, lack of forethought and perhaps most importantly lack of restraint.

I would add to this, and this is perhaps most significant, lack of respect for life and death.

Proposals to boost maturity, forethought, restraint, and respect for life and death?

Veggy asserts that suppressing sex acts can’t be done, and when it’s tried the effects are damaging.

Is this true? There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of societal pressure to suppress sex acts. Quite the opposite in fact … and the consequences of that are evident.

Propaganda affected tobacco sales. It could also affect abortion sales.

[commonsense]

This isn't an issue of ethics or morality.

Viewing this systematically it is about efficiency.

America, the U.S. wants more domestic births, more people born within the system because it is more efficient. It wants to grow or sustain the population through domestic birth because those born domestically, as opposed to immigrants entering the system, grow up in the system with the languages and procedures applied; they won't require intensive, additional and costly conversion or domestication.

It is more efficient to have individuals born into, matured and conditioned within the system than it is to convert immigrants entering from outside the system.

Less abortion likely means more births. More domestic births. Which means increased efficiency.

The system is not ethical or moral. It is systematic.

It is not a system issue. It is not an efficiency issue. Domestic births and America’s natural citizen population are collaterals.

It is an issue of the rights of an unborn baby v. the rights of an adult woman. The right to life of the unborn child conflicts with the right to autonomy of the pregnant woman.

The unborn child is a potential human and as such is a living being, a future human with potential rights. The woman, on the other hand, is an actual human being with actual rights.

It makes sense that actual rights should have precedence over potential rights, however it is my belief that abortion kills and, in most instances, does so without justification.

Moreover, it is my belief that I should not impose my beliefs on anyone else. No one should impose their beliefs on others.

[Walker]

...

The counter to that view, is that the foetus is not yet a person, therefore is not entitled to the inherent rights of an individual.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why are abortion-aged men and women irresponsible, unaccountable, and reckless?

Lack of maturity, lack of forethought and perhaps most importantly lack of restraint.

I would add to this, and this is perhaps most significant, lack of respect for life and death.

And here's a revelation for you. 'Virtuous, restraining' kristian women in 'godly kristian' marriages also have unwanted pregnancies which they have aborted.
Perhaps you could make better use of your time by writing up placards and picketing IVF clinics, which flush millions of viable but unwanted embryos every year. Of course you won't, because the kristian anti-choice stance has nothing to do with empathy for embryos, and everything to do with the hatred of women.

[Walker]

Biology, species, at least this one, should be at the point in which such issues subside. Else humans are no better than rodents mindlessly breeding in the sewers.

I've not investigated how sewer rats do it, but I have noticed from nature films that many critter species go through a lot of display and showing off, while the actual act is quite brief. Quite often the showing off involves a big fight. Obviously the critters are doing what they must do, which is propagate the genes that are most fit for survival within any particular environment ... although if queried and if they could formulate that concept, the males elevated-T would likely elicit only a snarl when caught in the throes of mating season.

What are conditions for survival in human neighborhoods deprived of exits by the effects of human societal organizations that exceed the naturally formed limitations of 150 individuals living in peace and harmony within the group, ironing out beefs in ways that get desired results?

Exactly what you perceive, which is, abortion being a problem.

[daniel j lavender]

Obviously the critters are doing what they must do...

There really is no "must".

Organisms do not have to reproduce. They are simply biologically inclined to do so. Not the same as must.

It just so happens the societal system, as mentioned earlier, acts to stimulate mindless sexuality and in turn reproduction. This is largely to keep the gears of profitable consumerism turning and revenue flowing.

[Walker]

Obviously the critters are doing what they must do...

There really is no "must".
The large number of abortions are evidence to the contrary. To say otherwise is to confuse fantasy of what could be, with the reality of what is. The logic is irrefutable. Whatever is has to be, thus whatever made whatever is possible, also had to have been.

Organisms do not have to reproduce. They are simply biologically inclined to do so. Not the same as must.
Whatever does reproduce, had to reproduce. The logic is irrefutable.

It just so happens the societal system, as mentioned earlier, acts to stimulate mindless sexuality and in turn reproduction. This is largely to keep the gears of profitable consumerism turning and revenue flowing.
Referencing your previous observation, just because sex sells, doesn't mean that sex has to sell. If sex is intentionally used to sell, post-buying exit polls should only be used as indicators to determine the actual cause, because folks lie all the time, 'specially about sex.

Thus the mission, should one find the need to accept it, is to root out why it is that folks must have abortions. If not having abortions is the primary mission, change the Must. That's what Musk did with Twitter. Musk changed the Must.

[Walker]

All the Supreme Court has said is that R v. W. was not a federal issue, one over which the federal government had rightful say. They haven't said that they are planning to ban abortion, or that the individual states will do so. They've just said, essentially, that provision of abortions is a matter that has to be decided at the state level.

Because abortion opponents say that abortion kills a human life, and because states don’t have the right to legalize murder, then to say that states have the right to legalize abortion is an objective inconsistency. Another objective inconsistency is charging the crime of double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed.

Note the instant mobilization of protesters on the Supreme Court steps after the information leak that violated the Secular Sanctuary. Obviously, this is evidence of a coordinated effort. These folks are like firemen, ready to spring into action and start shouting threats when the alarm is sounded. Or else, they were tipped off.

The alarm is, the right of the states to legalize state-sanctioned killing that is not punishment.

If those SCOTUS people take the issue off the federal plate by overturning the federal jurisdiction over abortion, then individual states that legalize state-sanctioned killing that is not punishment, will put the issue right back on the federal plate.

The focus will shift from an issue concerning mother’s heath rights, to an issue concerning state-sanctioned, legalized killing.

The Abortion advocates obviously don’t want that, because once the fetus is legally defined as a human life with the rights afforded to a human life, then it’s game over for abortionists.

Implications?

Niche states will cater to abortions in order to get supporting tax dollars, and for the client dollars from folks flying in from non-abortion states. It will be a revenue boom for dying, rust belt states like New England … the textiles, furniture making and cobbling were exported. Now those states can grow pot, and import abortions once they're unavailable elsewhere, nearby.

Growing and selling pot is also federally illegal, while legal in many states.

[Immanuel Can]

Because abortion opponents say that abortion kills a human life, and because states don’t have the right to legalize murder, then to say that states have the right to legalize abortion is an objective inconsistency.

You're not wrong.

But here, we're only talking about what the law allows, not what is moral. They're obviously not identical things...there can be immoral laws, and the laws favouring abortion are immoral.

Another objective inconsistency is charging the crime of double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed.

The entire package of our laws are nonsensical on this.

For example, why should a man be forced to pay child support for a child, if (as abortionists claim) it's "part of a woman's body," and (as the law says) it is her choice that the child exists at all? Of why should it be that two people got together and consensually created a child, but the man is supposed to have no opinion about what they created together?

The fact is that abortionists don't care about logic. They just want to justify their wickedness, or at least create enough incoherence in the law that they can get away with murder as often as they want. They know they're killing a human being -- in fact, that's the very thing they WANT. They want to stop a genuine human being from coming into the world, so that they do not have to love or care for it. That's their whole point!

So they know they're being evil, and they know they're committing murder. And all their nonsense to the contrary doesn't hold any water. How they can look their own children in the face, and then say, "I killed one of those," is beyond me.

If those SCOTUS people take the issue off the federal plate by overturning the federal jurisdiction over abortion, then individual states that legalize state-sanctioned killing that is not punishment, will put the issue right back on the federal plate.

No, it doesn't ever go back to the federal level. Legally, it remains at the state level. What SCOTUS has ruled is that the R v. W decision was not rightfully under federal jurisdiction in the first place. They've just put it back where they believe it belongs.

Personally, I would argue that this changes little. The states that favour abortion, like Californication, will continue and even expand the procedure, in defiance of morality. The more reasonable "flyover states" will have some that reduce access. But I doubt any jurisdiction will do anything like banning abortion. So the Leftist whining is nonsense.

I wish they would ban it, though. It would be the right and moral thing to do. And deep down, we all know that.

[daniel j lavender]

The large number of abortions are evidence to the contrary.

The large number of abortions is evidence of lack of restraint, lack of forethought and lack of responsible interaction.

Whatever does reproduce, had to reproduce.

Whatever reproduced, reproduced.

There is no "must" or "had to" about it.

There are inclinations, organisms for whatever reason may feel compelled to, but there is no real imperative.

Edit: The fact there are abortions is evidence organisms do not "have to" reproduce.

[daniel j lavender]

Whatever is has to be, thus whatever made whatever is possible, also had to have been.

Not necessarily.

Certain things are because certain things happened. However those certain things did not necessarily "have to" happen that way.

This isn't just wind blowing leaves around, or A mechanically leading to B.

There is the element of thought, of decision making present. With some of us, anyway.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The large number of abortions are evidence to the contrary.

The large number of abortions is evidence of lack of restraint, lack of forethought and lack of responsible interaction.

Whatever does reproduce, had to reproduce.

Whatever reproduced, reproduced.

There is no "must" or "had to" about it.

There are inclinations, organisms for whatever reason may feel compelled to, but there is no real imperative.

Edit: The fact there are abortions is evidence organisms do not "have to" reproduce.

Go back to bell-ringing you kristofuckwit. Get back when there is any chance of you actually needing an abortion.