Abortion

[Immanuel Can]

... even when it does become their problem, which would happen if court decisions involving the state law legalizing abortion are appealed,

It won't, actually.

If jurisdiction is limited to the states, then the state court is the highest court that can arbitrate that issue.

The Supreme Court has washed its hands of it now.

[iambiguous]

Michelle Goldberg in the NYT:

'In his draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito blamed that 1973 abortion decision for sparking “a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century.” He quoted Justice Antonin Scalia: “Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of justices to this court in particular, ever since.”

So, what does the controversy swirl around? The law? The Constitution? But how do conflicts here not swirl around politics? And how do political conflagrations not swirl [finally] around conflicting moral agendas.

Today many on the left insist that the Supremes are attempting to impose their own political prejudices on the nation. But then back in the 60s and 70s that is precisely what those on the right insisted the Supremes were doing as well.

And, in my view, both sides are absolutely right.

After all, where in the U.S. Constitution does it specifically note that abortions are either constitutional or unconstitutional. And even in regard to an issue like owning guns the wording is hopelessly ambivalent.

And it's not like there is an actual extant God around to settle it. Or a scientific proof. Or a philosophical argument that at least provides us with the most rational manner in which guide legislators in the act of passing laws.

Nope. It's all about your own personal opinion. Which I then root in dasein.

And at least most here are able to settle down into a moral and political conviction itself. At least they are not "fractured and fragmented" about it all as "I" am.

[Walker]

... even when it does become their problem, which would happen if court decisions involving the state law legalizing abortion are appealed,

It won't, actually.

If jurisdiction is limited to the states, then the state court is the highest court that can arbitrate that issue.

The Supreme Court has washed its hands of it now.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

If a state passes a law declaring open killing season on an ethnic group or a particular racial classification of humans, or humans still in the womb, it ain't gonna fly, not even if the highest court in that state says it's a good law.

[Immanuel Can]

If a state passes a law declaring open killing season on an ethnic group or a particular racial classification of humans, or humans still in the womb, it ain't gonna fly, not even if the highest court in that state says it's a good law.

That's the problem: the killing of humans in the womb is not being classified as "killing" at all...not by many of the state courts, and not by the Supreme Court itself. Rather, it's been treated as if it's a "woman's health" issue, which means it stays at the state level permanently.

Don't look to the SC to rescue us here: they won't. By NOT declaring abortion to be the killing of a human being, they've permanently washed their hands of the whole matter. Defined as they have defined it, it remains outside their jurisdiction forever, and is a state concern.

Is that cowardly of them? Yes. Is it immoral? Certainly. But can you miss what they are doing here? They're lateralling the ball to the state. And after this, they won't take it back, unless they get a Leftist majority on the Supreme Court again, in which case they may -- and reinstate abortion as a national practice.

So you won't win here. I wish you could. You can't.

But there's this: the individual states may decide to do the right thing, even if the SC can't bring itself to do it. That's a partial win, anyway.

[promethean75]

"That way you can tell women what to do with their own bodies to your hypocritical little kristoturd hearts' content."

Hold it right there, miss. If the porn production was a legitimate business - as you suggest - then the woman would be paid for her work, in which case she would be deciding and choosing to perform the tasks of the job willingly and under no duress, by voluntarily entering into the contract with the owner/producer.

[iambiguous]

Michelle Goldberg in the NYT:

'Very soon, if the Supreme Court really discards Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision partly upholding it, we will have two wildly different abortion regimes in this country. About half of states are expected to mostly prohibit abortion; according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 11 states there won’t even be exemptions for rape and incest. A bill moving through the Louisiana Legislature would allow prosecutors to charge those having abortions with homicide.

Now, for those who are opposed to abortion, let's imagine that two to three years from now Republicans take control of both the Congress and the White House here in America. They pass laws that prohibit all abortions. No exceptions.

A woman that you know has an abortion. What will you do? Will you turn her in? Will she be deemed by you to be a murderer? If convicted in a trial and found guilty, should she be sent to prison...to death row?

And if she was raped and impregnated, no difference? After all, the unborn human life developing in her womb is no less innocent. She should also be incarcerated along with the man who raped her? And even given a stiffer sentence because at least the rapist didn't take her life.

[Immanuel Can]

A woman that you know has an abortion. What will you do?

Me? I have no jurisdiction. It's not my call to make.

So I will pity her. And I will be sad for her murdered child. But that will not confuse me as to the moral turpitude of her actions.

What will decide her status will be the state in which she lives, apparently.

And if she was raped and impregnated, no difference?

This sort of case is always brought up to excuse away the elective abortions. It's not brought up out of concern for rape victims.

However, if you will stipulate to the evilness of the 99% of abortions that are elective, and agree to the banning of those, I will discuss with you the 1% that are therapeutic or as a result of rape. Fair enough?

If you will not stipulate to the evilness of voluntary murder of a child, then you have no moral high ground to stand on, and you don't deserve to contend for anything, or to be taken seriously as a pleader for those rare cases. Your intentions would clearly, then, be to justify wickedness, not to care for the vulnerable.

[daniel j lavender]

If one spots chocolate and yet continues to deny oneself the experience of that delicious, creamy milk chocolate, it's because one must.

One must because one has learned that for oneself, renouncing chocolate has greater benefits than eating that delicious, yummy, "to-die-for" chocolate treat.

Not because one must, but because one wants to, because one wishes to do so for whatever supposed benefit. Or not.

It is choice. It is volition. It is not an issue of imperative.

[daniel j lavender]

Religious fuckturds don't give a rat's arse about embryos, just as woke fuckturds don't give a rat's arse about people. They are all frauds following religious dogma. Two sides of the same puritanical coin. Why don't they just try being honest for once in their pathetic, shallow little lives? Say what they REALLY think? Now that would be interesting. Enough of the boring, generic, predictable bullshit.
Don't be shy Mr. Lavender. Free yourself. Just say how much you hate women. How powerless you feel around them. How unattractive and awkward. It's only the internet. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not against free speech.

I'm not addressing the issue of abortion here as much as I am the issue of senseless, carnal animality and the complications arising from it.

Nor am I singling out any particular gender.

You seem to view this as some sort of attack. Likely because you are fond of mindless molestation, of cheap, carnal gratification or because others have used you for such.

As previously stated, if the real, root issues were addressed most abortions could be avoided.

[Walker]

You seem to view this as some sort of attack. Likely because you are fond of mindless molestation, of cheap, carnal gratification or because others have used you for such.

So, you're saying she doesn't choose her view? Why yes, that is what you're saying.

Why must you say that?

[daniel j lavender]

You seem to view this as some sort of attack. Likely because you are fond of mindless molestation, of cheap, carnal gratification or because others have used you for such.

So, you're saying she doesn't choose her view? Why yes, that is what you're saying.

Why must you say that?

Individuals still have choices in their reactions to influential factors and events.

I mustn't. I chose to.

[Walker]

You seem to view this as some sort of attack. Likely because you are fond of mindless molestation, of cheap, carnal gratification or because others have used you for such.

So, you're saying she doesn't choose her view? Why yes, that is what you're saying.

Why must you say that?

Individuals still have choices in their reactions to influential factors and events.

I mustn't. I chose to.

Why?

[daniel j lavender]

Why?

Because I am a conscious being that appraises situations and reacts or responds at my discretion.

[Walker]

Why?

Because I am a conscious being that appraises situations and reacts or responds at my discretion.

The speculative causes you listed for her view are specific. Why did you choose those specific, speculative causes?

With the question thus rephrased, to repeat that it's because of your discretion to do so, would again be a non-answer.

[daniel j lavender]

The speculative causes you listed for her view are specific. Why did you choose those specific, speculative causes?

With the question thus rephrased, to repeat that it's because of your discretion to do so, would again be a non-answer.

Because I assessed the previous statements and decided to. I could have chosen others as well.

Just because you dislike or disagree with a response doesn't make it a non-answer.