Abortion

[Walker]

You're living in an alternate reality.

The USA has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

...walker, and excuse the pun, we are not literally talking about people walking around the streets with coat hangers in hand hoping for a dime.

As a good Christian and I am sure Immanuel Can would agree, there is nothing wrong with the rectum should one concern oneself with getting the other one pregnant.

The legality of sodomy depends on the state in the USA in which the deed is done.

Some states it's legal, some it's not. I'm sure you'll agree that if it's a burning need, then to be in full legal compliance in the USofA, take that need to a sympathetic state.

[Nick_A]

Men Beware.

Food for thought

How dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body?” said Kamala Harris, speaking at an EMILY’s List conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington. “How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future? How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?”

Now a late term abortion is really killing a baby since it has its own DNA and she argues is free to kill it to preserve her rights and freedoms. Now if a man gets in her way why can't she abort him as she would a baby if she doesn't get caught. She is after all only preserving her rights and freedom

Watch your back guys. It is safer to look a woman in the eyes to preserve your rights and freedoms.

[attofishpi]

You're living in an alternate reality.

The USA has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

...walker, and excuse the pun, we are not literally talking about people walking around the streets with coat hangers in hand hoping for a dime.

As a good Christian and I am sure Immanuel Can would agree, there is nothing wrong with the rectum should one concern oneself with getting the other one pregnant.

The legality of sodomy depends on the state in the USA in which the deed is done.

So let me get this right. You could put your willy up Immanuel Cans rectum if you were silly enough (as a man) to think there was the possibility you could get another Republican man pregnant? (of course resting assured that IC was non impregnated but sore)

Some states it's legal, some it's not. I'm sure you'll agree that if it's a burning need,

..states where vaseline is not available?

then to be in full legal compliance in the USofA, take that need to a sympathetic state.

...are we talking about the burning ring of fire, or the States belief that there is a burning ring of fire?

[Walker]

...walker, and excuse the pun, we are not literally talking about people walking around the streets with coat hangers in hand hoping for a dime.

As a good Christian and I am sure Immanuel Can would agree, there is nothing wrong with the rectum should one concern oneself with getting the other one pregnant.

The legality of sodomy depends on the state in the USA in which the deed is done.

So let me get this right. You could put your willy up Immanuel Cans rectum if you were silly enough (as a man) to think there was the possibility you could get another Republican man pregnant? (of course resting assured that IC was non impregnated but sore)

Some states it's legal, some it's not. I'm sure you'll agree that if it's a burning need,

..states where vaseline is not available?

then to be in full legal compliance in the USofA, take that need to a sympathetic state.

...are we talking about the burning ring of fire, or the States belief that there is a burning ring of fire?

No, you got it wrong. Other elements need to be a part of your fantasized situation to produce a man with the capacity you describe both for conception and bearing to term.

Vaseline is on the Woke Hit List, since it's a petroleum product. Brandon's policies are designed to eliminate the petroleum industry, so look for hoarders to spring into action and start stockpiling Vaseline, and in future years they could become black-market suppliers for those like mothers with babies, who need the stuff.

[iambiguous]

But my question was once the Supremes overturn Roe, can a Republican Congress and Presidency down the road -- a re-elected Trump? -- pass legislation that does make all [or almost all] abortions illegal? The states be damned?

No. This decision means that they no longer have any jurisdiction to do so. That will not happen.

Note to others:

Is this the case?

Am I misunderstanding this point from the NYT:

"The Supreme Court draft opinion signals a new era for the 50-year effort to end the constitutional right to abortion. Next goals include a national ban and, in some cases, classifying abortion as homicide."

Or this headline from Forbes:

"Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals"

That, in other words, a Republican Congress and a Republican President cannot pass into law and then enforce national legislation that bans all [or almost all] abortions?

That it's the states and only the states that count? And, if, post Roe, a blue state actually expands abortion rights and a case here makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, Alito and Thomas and the Trump justices will uphold their right to do so? This really is all about the law and the Constitution and not about moral and political prejudices rooted in dasein?

As opposed to the Christian God?

Something as vile as abortion should be not just a federal concern, but a human concern. It actually transcends all human courts -- so that no court, no matter how self-importantly "Supreme" actually can make abortion moral.

And, of course, this is all true for you "in your head" because it is wholly in sync with what is also true for you "in your head": the existence of the Christian God.

Which, I suspect, is why you avoided altogether responding to this point I raised above:

And, of course, as with the fiercely Christian majority now accounting for the majority of the Court here and now [hypocrites or not], with abortion they are wholly in sync with your own Christian dogma.

Right?

But, okay, you tell me where, in regard to abortion, you yourself draw the line here between the [Christian] Bible and the Constitution.

That's the difference between law and morality. The law only says what arrangements humans will accept (constitutionally, practically). Morality is bigger: it judges all laws. And any law promoting abortion will always be immoral, no matter how many humans decide to say otherwise, or where they adjudicate that from.

This sounds like something a theocrat might argue. Is that what you would like to see come about...a Christian theocracy in which the law of the land would be replaced by your own "private and personal" assessment of the Christian God's Commandments.

And just to be clear, if a women you loved had an abortion you would be morally obligated to turn her in, right? She would be renounced by you as a murderer...and, if convicted, sent to prison, to death row?

And would she also burn in Hell for all of eternity given your own understanding of Judgment Day?

Really, let's get down to the nitty gritty here. What would unfold in a community where you were in power and someone had an abortion. For example, what passages from the Bible would you quote in passing your own judgment?

[Walker]

That, in other words, a Republican Congress and a Republican President cannot pass into law and then enforce national legislation that bans all [or almost all] abortions?

The Supreme Court does not need to hear a specific case to make murder illegal in all states, and the legislatures need not pass laws, to be overruled on appeal, for the Supremes (by majority vote) to make murder illegal.

However, I'm not an expert, just a thinker.

[Walker]

Really, let's get down to the nitty gritty here. What would unfold in a community where you were in power and someone had an abortion. For example, what passages from the Bible would you quote in passing your own judgment?

What would unfold would be ... federal law would be ignored in states where citizens want abortion services available.

Cannabis products are federally illegal, but legal in a lot of states. The same look-the-other-way principle would apply to abortions, even though abortions are not the same class of crime as weed.

[iambiguous]

That, in other words, a Republican Congress and a Republican President cannot pass into law and then enforce national legislation that bans all [or almost all] abortions?

The Supreme Court does not need to hear a specific case to make murder illegal in all states, and the legislatures need not pass laws, to be overruled on appeal, for the Supremes (by majority vote) to make murder illegal.

However, I'm not an expert, just a thinker.

A thinker. Okay. You have thoughts about abortion and the government. We all do here. Or we wouldn't be exchanging posts on this thread.

But my point revolves less around what you think and what I think and what others think, but what we and they are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think about abortion and the government in turn. Federal or state.

That and the role dasein plays in creating subjective value judgments here derived existentially from the life that we lived rather than from an argument that philosophers might come up with said to be deontologically applicable to all rational and virtuous men and women...universally?

And, of course, those here who skip right to the part about a God, the God, their God.

Abortion and Judgment Day.

Even if only grappled with and understood in a more or less blind "leap of faith". Or, for others, in a "wager".

[Walker]

The totalitarian solution:

Require every father pay the state of residence a big tax for every child fathered *. Make the tax a healthy percentage of the father's potential annual income, on a good year with bonuses. No amortization of the tax allowed, no write-offs. The state gets the money.

You would see abortion banned lickety split.

I've heard that The Supremes who decided and dissented Roe v Wade, were all MEN! It was five MEN who decided that women can legally abort the foetus. However, I did not fact check this. Lazy.

The opinion of those MEN is just fine when it comes to agreeing with the narrative, but disagree with the narrative and the voice of a man no longer counts.

Gee, that's just so unfair.




* Made possible by the Obamacare precedent of a citizenship tax.

[Walker]

But my point revolves less around what you think and what I think and what others think, but what we and they are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think about abortion and the government in turn. Federal or state.

That's right. Not all thoughts are equal. Some, such as what I've provided, are rooted in reality, the situation as it is, rationality, and human nature.

Others are based on ideologies that wander around saying, "what if, Biff?"

[iambiguous]

The totalitarian solution:

Require every father pay the state of residence a big tax for every child fathered *. Make the tax a healthy percentage of the father's potential annual income, on a good year with bonuses. No amortization of the tax allowed, no write-offs. The state gets the money.

You would see abortion banned lickety split.

Or how about medical science reconfiguring human biology so that men could become pregnant?

Here I'll defer to Gloria Steinem:

“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”.

[iambiguous]

But my point revolves less around what you think and what I think and what others think, but what we and they are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think about abortion and the government in turn. Federal or state.

That's right. Not all thoughts are equal. Some, such as what I've provided, are rooted in reality, the situation as it is, rationality, and human nature.

Others are based on ideologies that wander around saying, "what if, Biff?"

Right, right. As though others who think the opposite of you here aren't making exactly the same claims about their own rendition of reality.

But, just to be clear, what is the one and the only Walker reality in regard to abortion?

Let's suppose you have the power to enact and to enforce the "rules of behavior" in your community. A woman gets pregnant and has an abortion. A woman, say, you know and love. What is to be done?

[daniel j lavender]

Those fond of sexuality, of promiscuity are obviously fond of carnality. They operate on the carnal, fleshy side of things. They are oriented toward feeling more so than thinking. Thus reactionary acts such as abortion. What place do such individuals have in philosophy? In thoughtful dialogue? As stated they are feelers, not thinkers.

The sexually promiscuous are nasty, dirty animals. They seek to rub their crotches upon as many other crotches as possible. Even to the point of disease, to the point of terminating pregnancies if the circumstances so arise. It's vile. It's foul. It's nasty. It's mindless, nasty animality. Some of us wish not to partake of the inane, thoughtless, diseased nastiness. Nor do we wish to support or be around those who do.

[Sculptor]

You're living in an alternate reality.

The USA has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

I think not.
And civilised countries are happy about their laws, and not continually seeking to victimise raped women for wanting a termination

[Sculptor]

Those fond of sexuality, of promiscuity are obviously fond of carnality. They operate on the carnal, fleshy side of things. They are oriented toward feeling more so than thinking. Thus reactionary acts such as abortion. What place do such individuals have in philosophy? In thoughtful dialogue? As stated they are feelers, not thinkers.

The sexually promiscuous are nasty, dirty animals. They seek to rub their crotches upon as many other crotches as possible. Even to the point of disease, to the point of terminating pregnancies if the circumstances so arise. It's vile. It's foul. It's nasty. It's mindless, nasty animality. Some of us wish not to partake of the inane, thoughtless, diseased nastiness. Nor do we wish to support or be around those who do.

Why don't you get some sexual experience?
OR leave others to enjoy their lives as they see fit?
What other people like to do has nothing to do with you.