Ben Domenech: Why does US persist as extreme abortion regime as rest of world wakes up to moral reality?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
For the past half-century, the United States of America has dominated a category no one would ever want to own. We have, as a nation, one of the most radical abortion regimes in the world.
It might surprise you to know this. You certainly won't hear it from anyone on any other network.
But that supposedly extreme Mississippi law headed for the Supreme Court, which would block most abortions after 15 weeks, would be right at home in Europe - when all those nations the left wants to emulate in other areas of policy like France and Sweden ban abortion. In fact, all the countries you see on your ban elective abortion at 12 weeks.
None of them have what America effectively has in many states - abortion up to the point of birth. For that, you have to look to our moral equals, nations like China or North Korea.
Why is it that America has persisted in this extreme regime even as the rest of the world woke up to the moral reality of what abortion does to families and societies? It's a complicated story, but also very simple, really: many of us have been willing to look the other way, and a vast industry of powerful forces in our country have worked very hard to make sure that we do.
Understand, there is no more important single issue today to the left than the issue of abortion. It is an item of faith they are wedded to stronger than any religious conviction. If you've ever been taken aback by the vitriol, violence, and false accusations leveled against any who challenge abortion, you'll know what I'm talking about -- the kind that makes a young woman spit on an elderly priest. It's safer to attempt sacrilege in a cathedral than an abortion rally.
To criticize the abortion regime is to place yourself at odds not just with the most powerful activist groups and donors, it is to take on the woke corporatists and Hollywood and our corrupt media and big tech and… well, just about everybody with power in America today.
Since the moment Roe v. Wade short-circuited the legal conversation about abortion, the pro-abortion left has worked to gaslight the country into believing things that just aren't true. They pretended they wanted abortions to be rare, they claimed they didn't profit from them, they denied they sold organs, they refused to acknowledge the science of what we know about the development of unborn babies - utterly unknown to the authors of Roe - and they ignored the terrible and tragic impact on America's poorest and most vulnerable families, and on the black community in particular - more black babies are aborted than born in New York City every year. That's fine with them.
They also did everything they could to build up men like Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, because the abortion agenda is always more important.
Why do you think Joe Biden flipped on the Hyde Amendment and taxpayer-funded abortions after an entire career of saying he believed the opposite? Every Sunday, his head bowed in his church? He knows who runs the left. He wanted to be president, and he was willing to make a deal to do it.
And in every aspect of this effort, the pro-abortion left has had the strong advocacy of a media that has displayed more corruption on this topic than perhaps any other. If you watch ABC, NBC, or CBS today, pro-life women simply do not exist.
The media's coverage of this issue is indistinguishable from Planned Parenthood press releases, and the journalists who cover it are universally not just pro-choice but obviously pro-abortion.
But now, at long last, something is happening. The energy in the pro-life movement is like nothing I've seen before. Abortion is no longer accepted as an unobjectionable good. The "shout your abortion" movement, where women are encouraged by the abortion lobby to boast about killing their children, comes across as desperate and sad. Decades of ultrasound pictures on refrigerators and women brave enough to talk about miscarriage and loss have a way of changing minds. When Iceland says they've "eradicated" Down syndrome, all good people cringe, because we know what that really means.
Man with Down Syndrome at a hearing: It begins with I am a man. See me as a human being, not a birth defect, not a syndrome. I don't need to be eradicated. I don't need to be cured.
And when naive leftists regularly suggest that if pro-lifers like children so much, maybe we should force the dads to pay child support for unborn babies, our response is: Your terms are acceptable.
There is today renewed hope among those who believe every unborn baby has a right to life that the Supreme Court may at long last reopen this question for us to decide, as citizens and states, instead of leaving the deepest moral question of life and death to nine people in robes.
Tonight I'm going to be talking to a number of heroic pro-life women who brought us to this moment. Their determined work in law and politics and culture is absolutely the reason we are at a point so many of us despaired and thought impossible. They have taken on the Goliath of the abortion industry and all its vile works with a fearless dedication to be a voice for the voiceless.
Much of the discussion around abortion is about the law. But there's another law I want you to consider as you listen, and that is the law written on your hearts.
Back in 1933, long before Roe, Whittaker Chambers was working as a Soviet agent when his wife found out she was pregnant. Despite the initial joy, they both knew that as Communist agents, such things were not possible. His wife went to see a doctor to make arrangements. When she came back, she was quiet, noncommittal - and it slowly dawned on Chambers that she wanted to keep the child. He asked her. As he writes in his autobiography, Witness:
"My wife came over to me, took my hands and burst into tears. "Dear heart," she said in a pleading voice, "we couldn't do that awful thing to a little baby, not to a little baby, dear heart."
"A wild joy swept me. Reason, the agony of my family, the Communist Party and its theories, the wars and revolutions of the 20th century, crumbled at the touch of the child."
What we are discussing tonight is the most fundamental question for us: whether the preborn lives that take root here in America are unique persons, with the right to draw breath and blossom, or whether they are non-persons, "lives unworthy of life", "human weeds" as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger called them, whose destruction is a public good.
The Mishnah tells us that to destroy a life is to destroy a world - the world as it would have been with that life in it. Look to the law written on your heart. You know this to be true.
This article is adapted from Ben Domenech's opening monologue on the October 8, 2021 edition of "Fox News Primetime"
Ben Domenech joined Fox News Media as a contributor in February, 2021. In this role, Mr. Domenech provides political commentary across all FOX News Media platforms and will host a weekly podcast for FOX News Audio.
I just hear this a few hours ago. It is the most persuasive pro-life argument I've ever heard.
Thus I submit it - to be read.
ANOTHER seed for which you have failed to vet the information.
Your seed is a lie Vic.
So where is your proof?
Just stating it doesn't make it so.
Seems that Europe doesn't agree with you; and look at all of those conditions and requirements just to get one! So much for the left's call for abortion on demand all the way up to birth in this country.
You are welcome to prove that statement is a lie.
Well gee Ronin, YOU posted the proof.
From YOUR link:
Even YOU should be able to recognize that PROVES that neither country has a BAN after 12 weeks.
Oh and BTFW, there are a shit load of states in the US that do NOT have abortion 'on request' and who make women jump through multiple hoops to get an abortion even in the first trimester.
In short, the vast majority of countries in Europe have more liberal abortion laws than many states in the US and unlike the US, those laws are nation wide rather than piecemeal so ALL of the women in those counties are treated equally.
I just did.
H/T to Ronin
You produced one country and you showed that under certain circumstances abortions are allowed in France after 12 weeks.
I call that an EPIC FAIL!
France and Sweden are two different countries Vic.
Ban:
I call that an EPIC FAIL!
I have no idea why you are singling out France or comparing France to sweden. Ben Domenech pointed to 27 countries that limit most abortions to 12 weeks.
We are still waiting for you to back up your claim that it is "a lie."
Seems you didn't read your own damn posts- notice you only listed two.
What the fuck do you call these restriction after twelve and eighteen weeks- if not jumping through hoops? [deleted] The left in this country would shit bricks if any state even attempted to propose these laws.
Maybe read the full damn sentences before you post anything!
You must be reading a different seed than this one Vic. Here's what THIS seed says about it:
So Ben singled out France AND Sweden and LIED about their laws.
Secondly, I didn't compare France and Sweden, I cited their laws as enumerated by on Ronin's link.
Thirdly, Ben didn't say a fucking thing about 27 countries, he said 'Europe'. There are 50 countries in 'Europe'. There are 27 countries in the EU and there are 27 countries cited in Ronin's link.
And finally, Ben didn't point 'to 27 countries that limit most abortions to 12 weeks', he said they were BANNED elective abortions. THAT is a lie.
Oh and BTW, don't even try to claim that 'on request' is the same as 'elective'. It isn't.
Ben LIED about the ban after 12 weeks Vic. Just admit it and move on.
Did you also notice that those are the two cited in the fucking seed Ronin?
Wow, that is a utterly uninformed statement.
There are many states that have MUCH harsher 'hoops'.
Unnecessary yet mandatory INVASIVE ultrasounds.
Mandated 24 hour waiting periods.
Mandated 'information' pamphlets or oral 'counseling', much of which is scientifically inaccurate.
Mandating two separate trips to the clinic.
Mandating that a second physician be present after a certain point in gestation.
Oh and that doesn't even take into account the lack of availability in much of the US.
Ok, I was sucked in by the title, somehow thinking this would go in a different direction.
I was wrong, again.
Even Muslim countries approve of and permit abortions.
Admittedly "advanced" Iranians admit to an average of 70, 000 plus annual abortions "to save the life of the mother".
Even Afghanistan under the former government had similar rules and "looked the other way".
Now the Taliban recourse for an abortion due to rape or incest which is permissible by law
is to stone the mother and take care of two issues at once.
Gotta love what passes for morality and religion.
You can turn that right around and say that to destroy a young girl or woman' s life is to destroy her world -
the one that might have been, had she not been poor or foolish or raped by strangers or a family member.
Nah, I am not the Taliban. I expect better protections for the citizens of a Republic
which claims to separate church & state issues.
Also keep in mind the the Mishna is a collection of oral Torah tradition that is approximately
2200 years old and the basis of the first part of the Talmud.
Also remember that Jewish law doesn't believe there is a soul in the body until there is the first breath.
None of this is meant to be taken literally.
Is talking about those alive and walking the earth.
Is the argument a strictly religious one?
Most of the arguments I've heard against abortions have a religious basis or component to them.
What other argument against abortion is there?
I have yet to hear one. At least a rational one.
I disagree. To me the argument is on moral grounds.
"Moral grounds" is subjective and is just an appeal to emotion. Some may base their morality on their religious beliefs too. Nothing rational there.
The obvious one calls it murder. But there are others that argue on the basis of placing limits on when abortion can take place. Remember when the Court told us there would be limits. Today progressives want abortion allowed right up to the moment of birth.
Except it's not. Abortion is not the same as murder and is not legally defined as such. Calling it murder is an emotional response. So that rationale fails!
And there are limits in place. So what's the problem?
Partisan based BS! Even if that were true, it's unlikely to happen.
Yes it is.
Just like you feel women have a right to control their own bodies is moral -
they feel in the same way that the right to life of the unborn is equally moral.
That's one reason this debate isn't going away.
To you maybe. Others strongly disagree.
And there are limits in place. So what's the problem?
Those random limits are being rejected.
Partisan based BS! Even if that were true, it's unlikely to happen.
We are seeing everyday what happens when people don't resond to radical proclamations.
When people don't have a right to control their own bodies ...isn't that called slavery?
Are you actually suggesting one (women specifically?) do not have a right to their own body, with respect to personal autonomy and liberties?
Key word there is "feel" Vic. Feelings do not make for a rational or logical argument.
Sure, because people are irrational and go by feelings over a rational based argument.
Bingo! Based on Vic's "Logic" (I use the term very loosely), people can be forced to donate blood or organs to save another's "life," because individuals do not have the right to control their own bodies and "life" seems paramount, morally speaking.
Not to me, to legal fact. Disagree all you want. You would still be wrong!
What random limits? The one's states like Texas and Mississippi are trying to impose? Such limits should be rejected, as they are blatantly unconstitutional.
That makes no sense and doesn't actually address my statement.
Honestly, I think it means that only women's bodies are to be forced because as far as I know it's only women's bodies that have been legislated in this manner.
Imagine thinking that. The argument for legal abortion is moral.
The amazing thing about this whole debate is that the pro-abortion argument is indelibly moral in nature, but it's proponents are too ignorant tot understand that, and then, even more amazingly, criticize pro life people for making a moral argument.
One can only laugh at their inability to process get past their emotional investment in abortion and think logically.
A good point. It's as if women are second class citizens, undeserving of certain rights, according to some.
Is that what Roe said?
The argument for legal abortion is based on individual rights and autonomy.
That alone discredits your entire "argument."
It's really insane to me that everyone doesn't understand that. The pro-abortions argument is quintessentially moral in nature. But it's advocates are so close minded that the word morality causes an irrational knee jerk reaction to the concept of morality as being "bad" and then they reject it mindlessly. It's something. They make arguments rooted in morality but are so emotionally invested in believing that only their opponents make "moral" arguments that they can't wrap their minds around the concept. It's just an unthinking, pavlovian response.
In effect, yes!
That's a moral argument. Are you really not able to grasp that? It's astounds me.
Nonsense. It's now bigoted to say only women can get pregnant.
Since men now get pregnant, the term is birthing person. Ask Joe Biden.
Abortion didn't involve rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Key word there is "feel" Vic. Feelings do not make for a rational or logical argument.
Then we should stop hearing "my body, my right."
Sure, because people are irrational and go by feelings over a rational based argument.
The best definition of progressive I've ever heard.
There should never have been a Roe because there should have never been a time that women did not have rights to their own body.
If so, it is a movement by men saying they are women or women saying they are men or some such nonsense.
If men could get pregnant, it would solve the right to abortion issue once and for all.
It doesn't have to. The courts review the Constitution when the issue is about rights.
Sure, when people stop trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
Now you're reduced to juvenile taunts? I'm not surprised.
No, that's a legal one, based on the Constitution.
Men can get pregnant. Even the ACLU has gone back and edited Justice Ginsburg to avoid giving the impression only women can get pregnant.
Oh. So if 5 justices say no right to abortion exists, and Congress passes a law charging abortionists with murder, you would have no basis to object. And if an amendment were passed legalizing slavery, you'd be fine with it as well. After all, those would then be "legal rights, based on the Constitution"
There should never have been a Roe because the Court had no right to make such a decision.
As one Liberal Cheif Justice once said "Just give me five justices!"
That's an emotional arument which claims that the unborn have no rights.
Get back to me when it happens. Then we'll see.
Got anything better than "What if" scenarios?
Who did have the right to deny women control of their own bodies?
eral Cheif Justice once said "Just give me five justices!
Their whole argument is so preposterous and dishonest. Unless they are willing to claim their opinion on slavery depends on a legal decision, I have no tolerance for those who claim a legal decision is dispositive about the "objective" correctness of any other issue.
No emotion at all.
What parasite has rights?
Actually, it did! States had laws which banned or severely prohibited abortions. Such laws were challenged through due process, eventually coming before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS ruled those laws unconstitutional, which made abortion legal by default. That's how the system works!
How can you make that claim when you yourself cannot even specify what those rights are and where such rights are listed? As there is no legal establishment or acknowledgement of "unborn rights," the claim the unborn do not have rights is not emotional, but rather factual! And you have offered nothing to refute that!
Roe was based on far less. The dissenters in Roe, along with a legion of sholarly critics ever since, have feasted on it's flaws: the arbitrary trimester approach, barely any discussion of a state's obvious interest in the continuing existence of a fetus, it's invalidating the laws of 46 states at that time and the aforementioned dubios Consitutional connection.
Sure, when people stop trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
It was you who dodn't like emotional arguments, right?
Now you're reduced to juvenile taunts? I'm not surprised.
Remember the Coc.
Lol. Why should I have to? That's the whole point. If your opinion was based on objective, logical reasoning you could apply it to any fact pattern. But you can't. You only claim to rely on the legal, constitutional basis because it supports your moral position on abortion. Just be honest and say you support abortion rights because you think legal abortion is the moral outcome. Don't lie and claim your views are dictated by five justices issuing an opinion.
Whether you realize it or not, you just proved my point.
ot anything better than "What if" scenarios?
No, that's how arguments and theories are tested. Maybe it's a little more advanced way of thinking than you are used to but its how you test the logic and principles that form the basis of an argument.
Lol... You are proving his point.
Parasite - an organism that lives off its host. Examples: ticks, worms, Covid virus.
I am not emotional about parasites.
I have seen some people hysterical about the Covid virus.
Do you think humans and the fetuses they carry in the womb are different species?
Because unless you want to argue that insane proposition, you should probably stop now. I get you need to de humanize fetuses. But don't murder the English language and science to do so.
Because I expect better then mere speculation or conjecture. Especially since you're the one who brought it up.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I focused on the issue of abortion. You seem to be trying to throw up a smokescreen now or deviate off that topic.
I have not mentioned my moral positions. Try again!
One must first have a valid point to make before it can be proven!
Roe has been revisited since the original case. It's been addressed, reaffirmed, and expanded upon in the years since. All challenges to Roe have been unsuccessful.
Except I'm not the one making emotional arguments.
You first Vic! You're the one applying a broad paintbrush to progressives. Note how I have not (nor had the need to) even mention progressives or conservatives or whatever.
Lol I know you can't answer it without discrediting your point. Your evasions are admissions. Since my principles are logical and thought out, I can apply them in diverse situations. Since you use dishonest pretexts, you can't.
I focused on the issue of abortion. You
So am I. Why can't you answer my question on abortion?
I have not mentioned my moral positions.
Of course you have. You just refuse to call a spade a spade because of your outburst earlier about morals so oyu pretend your subjective beliefs have an objective basis, but as I've demonstrated, that's not true at all.
ust first have a valid point to make before it can be proven!
Of course I have a valid point. Your little, unsupported emotional declarations don't change that. That's what little kids do when they have a tantrum.
You can pretend to the contrary all you like, but in the big boy world you test the basis of an opinion by applying it to different scenarios. It's why the Socratic method is used in advanced college courses, and not just parroting rote declarations. Logical arguments can stand up to Socratic scrutiny. Since, as you've shown, have no logical basis for your claim, your can't withstand even the slightest bit and were exposed by a simple a alternate fact pattern.
Not at all.
However, the damage done to a woman's body of a "normal" pregnancy is lifelong.
If the woman has any known risk factors, then the woman is risking her life by attempting to bring a pregnancy to term.
This is why abortion is a medical decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor based on facts instead of being legislated by anyone, anywhere at anytime.
Then a fetus is not a parasite.
It does live off the host and fits the definition of a parasite in that respect. But it is not a different species. So if the second qualifier is that it must be of a different species then it is not a parasite.
However, the host should have the final say of whether to allow it to feed off or their body or not.
It requires a host to survive. Comparing a fetus to a parasite is a valid comparison.
The SCOTUS 'viability' limit isn't random. The RW is attempting to replace it with random and unscientific limits.
Again, you seem desperate to separate the Constitution from the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments. Why?
Your BS is fooling no one! I addressed the abortion issue using legal and scientific basis. You can't even make a rational argument to support anti-abortion laws or measures. The best you can do is deflect with Red Herring nonsense and personal attacks or Strawmen. Such tactics is dishonest and slimy. Go play your games elsewhere!
It feeds off its host, can potentially cause harm to its host, and offers little or nothing in return to its host. That describes a parasite.
Exactly! How sad that some do not seem to share that viewpoint.
They know this as well as we do. It just goes to show you the lengths some people will go to in order to justify the unjustifiable. What they will convince themselves of in order to silence their conscience. Then they get incensed when we don't fall in line with the same insanity. Just one more piece of evidence that what the Bible says about us is right. No wonder God destroyed us with a flood, once.
Loved your argument in this thread, by the way. Spot on!
Justify what? Justification is not required or necessary. If someone wants an abortion or not, they are free to make that choice. No one need justify anything to anyone.
That assumes people have an issue with getting an abortion. Some probably do not.
More like they get annoyed when some try to restrict or deny their rights!
An amusing little myth. But nothing more.
Another thought rattling around inside my head.
Morality isn't a positive/negative issue that we all somehow grasp equally or universally.
We have way too many examples of nations and leaders who had the best speeches and yet lead their nations astray
over and over again.
We have defeated some in the past and may yet have to defeat some in the future.
Just saying.
We hear things differently.
I saw that program, so well done. I loved the part the live action founder in the program.
It is more compelling when one sees it.
Didn't Ben break down when he read "Dear heart," she said in a pleading voice, "we couldn't do that awful thing to a little baby, not to a little baby, dear heart?"
Making abortions illegal does not even necessarily reduce the number of abortions. In Mexico and Czechoslovakia where abortions have been mostly illegal till now the true abortion rates are about twice that of the United States because the demand for terminations is driven by unwanted pregnancies...
There are a lot of idea's expressed there. One of them was that abortions should be blocked after a certain point in time. Another would be that the people should have decided this issue. Also related to those would be the way we were lied to:
"Since the moment Roe v. Wade short-circuited the legal conversation about abortion, the pro-abortion left has worked to gaslight the country into believing things that just aren't true. They pretended they wanted abortions to be rare, they claimed they didn't profit from them, they denied they sold organs, they refused to acknowledge the science of what we know about the development of unborn babies - utterly unknown to the authors of Roe - and they ignored the terrible and tragic impact on America's poorest and most vulnerable families, and on the black community in particular - more black babies are aborted than born in New York City every year. That's fine with them."
No thinking person could claim that the legal conversation about abortion has been short-circuited. There has been a plethora of litigation cases about abortion since 1973 and over 20 have reached the SCOTUS.
Well since the author predicates his blather by labeling people as 'pro-abortion left', the rest of his screed should be ignored. Whoever 'they' are, the author provides NO evidence for his allegations.
Oh and BTFW, since the author refuses to acknowledge that in science, 'unborn babies' do NOT exist, he should STFU about science.
There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "Roe" decision belongs in the same category as the "Dred Scott" decision. And before you twist my meaning - it obviously means that the Court had no constitutional basis for making either decision.
Well since the author predicates his blather by labeling people as 'pro-abortion left', the rest of his screed should be ignored.
Or maybe it should be ignored because it's indesputable?
Oh and BTFW, since the author refuses to acknowledge that in science, 'unborn babies' do NOT exist, he should STFU about science.
Show us where "the science" officially specifies where life begins? That would be a major breakthough, which might possibly put the whole argument to rest.
I'll wait.
So you don't think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right? So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right? Good thing the SCOTUS disagrees with you!
Merely your opinion and one that is wrong!
The legality of the abortion issue isn't based on when "life begins" (which is an emotional based argument). It's based on individual rights and autonomy with regards to viability, which science has determined.
Show me that right....the one that Justice Blackmun and his runaway Court based Roe on. I don't want a notion of privacy, I want to see it in clear English.
So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right?
Isn't that what the IRS is going to be doing? Everyone who has a minimum of $600 in a bank account that banks will be providing to the IRS? Didn't the NSA spy on Americans? Where is this "right"?
Merely your opinion and one that is wrong!
And merely your opinion that it was right!
The legality of the abortion issue isn't based on when "life begins" (which is an emotional based argument). It's based on individual rights and autonomy with regards to viability, which science has determined.
You mean it is based on ignoring any right of the unborn. Your side may control all the levers of power for now, but you are all facing a tidal wave of opposition.
Not opposition - oppression by zealots who have a distorted emotional need to enslave women.
Why would anyone support enslavement of women in the US when we have spent trillions of dollars fighting the exact same mindset in the Middle East?
You seem to be under the impression that something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid or legal? The SCOTUS has deemed privacy to be a right. And you didn't answer my questions: "do you think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right? So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right?"
I don't know. Nice deflection too. Care to actually answer my question this time?
Because it is right, backed by legal precedent and multiple SCOTUS rulings affirming said precedent.
What "rights" do the unborn have? Especially that over the rights of the woman in question? Point them out in the law books!
People have said that same nonsense for nearly 50 years now. All emotionally based drivel! No rational counter arguments. I suppose that's why the "opposition" have consistently lost on the issue too!
You skip over my main point. Abortions do not happen because they are legal so making them illegal will not significantly reduce the incidence of terminations. Women in Texas are just going to back alley abortionists or merely driving to Oklahoma or New Mexico or Louisiana since Texas enacted its new law. The only way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. Compulsory sex education and easy access to birth control and family planning accomplish that far better than making criminals of poor women who already have more kids than they can care for. Again, make abortions illegal does not reduce the demand for termination services one bit!
The "American Taliban," right?
Right.
It does seem odd that the Jewish religion doesn't take issue with a woman's right to abortion according to YHWH, but the two gods of the offshoots (Christian -Yahweh and Muslim -Allah) do.
Why did this happen?
Are the Christians and Muslims both led by radicals with the same mindset when it comes to women?
I wonder how many similarities in personality there are among the men who have a burning desire to control the lives of others.
Absolutely!
The SCOTUS has deemed privacy to be a right.
Please note: Blackmun's Court didn't even try to ground it's ruling in specific provisions of the Bill of Rights; the Due Process Clause, protecting "liberty," was all Blackmun needed. BTW, saying a "right of privacy" was broad enough to encompass a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, was never truly argued or explained in that decision.
And you didn't answer my questions: "do you think you have a right to privacy Vic? Or you don't want that right? So I can access your personal information and you would have no legal recourse, right?"
Whatever percieved right of privacy I have would never exert itself over the life of another. That is the big problem for the pro-abortion crowd. It's that other life that you want to ignore. It's going to keep hitting them over the head.
Does that answer your question?
Because it is right, backed by legal precedent and multiple SCOTUS rulings affirming said precedent.
Does precedent enshrine a bad ruling? Remember Dred Scott!
What "rights" do the unborn have?
Don't know....Blackmun never bothered to mention. Blackmun's only hint of humility was that he refused to deal with the tricky question of when life begins!
People have said that same nonsense for nearly 50 years now. All emotionally based drivel! No rational counter arguments. I suppose that's why the "opposition" have consistently lost on the issue too!
As opposed to your emotional argument (which garnered an illegitimate decision)....Their voices are only going to get louder.
Blackmun should have left it to the states and the voters!
Then you are wrong, plain and simple.
The right to privacy was based on the court's interpretation of the 9th and 14th Amendments.
According to your view of the constitution, you have NONE!
That's a choice you make for yourself. Not for another!
That statement shoots down whatever last vestige of credibility you might have had Vic.
So your answer to my questions is: No, no, and yes. Is that correct?
A Red Herring, as the case circumstances were entirely different.
Then how can you imply the unborn have rights?
Maybe because "when life begins" is irrelevant and was not the basis of the argument.
What emotional argument would that be Vic? My arguments (more like counterarguments) thus far have been based on legal and scientific findings.
Ad will the voices countering theirs. So what?
Individual rights should never be put to popular vote!
Nor should they be invented by the Court.
I'm afraid that you can't defend that terrible overreach by the Court 48 years ago. The one that still divides this country today.
I leave you with the words of Ben Domenech:
"Tonight I'm going to be talking to a number of heroic pro-life women who brought us to this moment. Their determined work in law and politics and culture is absolutely the reason we are at a point so many of us despaired and thought impossible. They have taken on the Goliath of the abortion industry and all its vile works with a fearless dedication to be a voice for the voiceless."
Have a good day.
It wasn't. The SCOTUS reviewed the Constitution to determine the right existed and such laws unduly prohibiting that right was unconstitutional, as is the court's responsibility.
Actually, I have Vic! You're the one who cannot rationally argue against that ruling, which has only been reaffirmed and expanded upon in subsequent cases before the Court. And now you're essentially pouting and running away.
I agree .. however there is only so much compulsory education can do. So many young people are desperate for love and acceptance that they do not receive at home, from family, or even friends .. so many smart choices go out the window when sex is associated with love .. sex is even called 'making love'...!
Here is where I have a conflict .. abortion as birth control - I have friends that have done it, in one case several times and it is something I do not understand. By the time you have too many kids to care for, one should understand what unprotected sex produces.....?
Wish I had an answer for unwanted pregnancies ... I sat my sons down and we talked about their personal responsibilities and their responsibilities to their sex partners. There was no sex ed necessary .. just made it clear that birth control was their responsibility and I will be happy to buy it for you... probably was not the greatest approach, but they knew I cared about them and the young women they dated
I know that the buy-bul says that life begins at, "first breath", meaning after the fetus is born.
A fact that bible beaters seem to always forget about.
The Mishina and by extension, the Talmud is the basis for the seed, article, Fox News segment.
The Talmud states that there is no soul until the first breath.
The Bibles all say life begins with the first breath and ends with the last.
A Jewish person using the Mishna should know that.
Go read the cases cited in Roe. They refute you unfounded opinion. Here's a list from Roe:
Again, the Amendments that I highlighted in bold ARE in the Constitution.
That is an utterly failed false equivalency Vic.
BTFW Vic, please cite the Article and Section in the Constitution that limits the scope of the SCOTUS that you claim exists.
I had the same conversation with my daughters.
They were raised to understand that having sex with someone was not and should not be viewed as a lifetime commitment by either party. I did my very best to explain why it was totally unacceptable to try to get with pregnant without their partner's consent. Babies should be born to emotionally stable adults and hopefully, a financially stable household.
My only grandchild was born after my younger daughter graduated college.
Neither one bans abortion.
The point was that they had responsible cutoff points.
If that was the point why not post it instead of the BS that abortations are banned in those two countries?
In Sweden, it's up to 18 weeks for any reason.
In France, it's up to 12 weeks for any reason. (14 weeks after the last menstrual period)
Because the LIE works so much better for them.
Authors like Ben Domenech count on their readers to swill their BS without vetting their claims. The fact that he actually pretends to decry gaslighting is galactically hypocritical.
Why is 12 or 15 weeks (or any period before viability) cutoff responsible? On what basis?
It is no different than what the Court did. What science did Blackmun use?
Holy Shit! Are you reading the same article???
The Court in Roe originally used the trimester frame for establishing limitations on elective abortions. Subsequent SCOTUS cases used the viability standard to establish a cutoff, which still stands. Anything before is a violation of that court ruling and therefore unconstitutional.
It is of some amusement that the anti-abortion pro-Israel right helps to fund free abortions in Israel via a number of aid programs ... every dollar sent to Israel in the form of aid releases a dollar from the Israeli public chest.
What is it with you and Israel? : )
Other than all the fireworks, I like the people.
There is a great deal of drama at times surrounding Israel
Not a fan of the dramatists, the comedians on the other hand ...
The comedians once could say the things we would all like to ...............!
I have a question .. or 2...
Why is there such an issue with having a cutoff date for an elective abortion? .. I get the uproar over no previsions for rape and incest, that should be a given ..and in situations that the mothers life is in danger - which in my mind is a required medical procedure. I just do not understand the uproar over restricting an elective abortion after say 20 weeks ... perhaps someone can explain it to me? just curious ...
The Supreme Courts decisions was viability of the baby which is consider to be 24 weeks...
I am pro life, but also pro choice, it is not for me to decide what another individual should do regarding their reproductive choices ... I have also been known to say ... 'you can have your right to abortion, as long as you do not fuck with my right to have a firearm' : )
Peace
I don't get it either. Perhaps some people feel some kind of moral high ground or they can feel good about themselves if they have a cause which is essentially none of their business.
And that was based on science too.
According to some, you can't be both. Such claims are pure ignorance of course.
Exactly!
Bingo! There is nothing logical about getting involved in a woman's reproductive decisions.
If emotional people feel they need to be involved in breeding something other than themselves, they need to get involved with something like dogs, cats, cows, horses, birds, fish, etc.
Ultimately, they could mind their own business and breed goodwill.
I am a dreaded 'both sider' on so many subjects - I can see all sides, in doing so I can make an informed opinion on the subject .. or so I think : )
Indeed. People do not get involved in another's (especially a total stranger's) personal medical decisions under normal circumstances. So why do they try to involve themselves when it comes to abortion?
If only.
That makes you smart. Unlike some anti-choicers, you're not tunnel visioned into 1 way of thinking or close minded and ignoring all else or the circumstances. And I presume any decision you make, you make for yourself.
It is the only decisions I can truly make .. my sons are grown men now : )
I can share my opinion should some one ask for help in making a decision .. but even then one must be cautious, ultimately each individual has to make their own choice...
If only others followed your example. Especially where abortion choices are concerned.
Exactly. That's what it boils down to, being able to choose for oneself.