The Magical Thinking Underlying the Pro-Abortion Argument
The pro abortion argument fails on both logical and legal grounds. It’s a construct of smoke and mirrors designed to arrive at the desired result with platitudes and unexamined certainty while avoiding the unpleasant reality. Chanting slogans and avoiding the unpleasant reality is what the pro abortion movement is all about.
As Kevin Williamson wrote:
,"the pro-life position is easy to understand, requiring no special intellectual training, no religious commitment, no mysticism, and nothing you’d really even call a philosophy. What we believe is that you don’t kill children who haven’t been born for the same reason you don’t kill children who have been born. That’s it. There isn’t some magical event that happens at some point during the pregnancy that transforms the unborn child from a meaningless lump of cells to a meaningful lump of cells. Modern, literate people don’t need the medieval doctrines of “quickening” or “ensoulment” (or some half-assed, modern, secular repackaging of those ancient superstitions) to know that the unborn child is an unborn child — we have biology, genetics, and, for those who need to see with their own eyes, imaging technology for that. The human organism that you hold in your arms six months after birth is the same organism it was six months before birth. It isn’t a different organism — it is only a little older. It is true that the child six months after conception isn’t fully developed — and neither is a 19-year-old. We have a natural, predictable, reasonably well-understood process of individual development. There is no magic moment, no mystical transformation, and the people who tell you that there is are peddling superstition and pseudoscience."
If you want to see magical thinking undergirding the abortion movement at work just look at the criminal law, where someone can be charged for a crime for killing a fetus, but the mother can kill the exact same fetus without repercussions. Somehow, magically, the same baby is either legally protected from harm, or can be killed merely on the mood of the mother. It’d be laughable if we weren’t talking about the taking of human life.
The Constitutional argument is even more absurd. One need only have paid attention to the arguments put forth supporting the legal argument on this site to understand that even the most devoted abortionists don’t have a clue where the actual right to abortion supposedly exists. Random amendments, even the supposed DOI have been cited. One can hardly blame them, even liberal Supreme Court justices looked all over before finally settling on the 14th Amendment.
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
That’s the sum of the Constitutional language that supposedly creates a positive right to an abortion. Good luck making that argument based on the English language to anyone who can read. But of course, the “right to abortion” is just results oriented legal legislating where the unelected Justices decided to play Congressman and impose their personal policy preferences upon the country. The sum total of their argument is “I like it, therefore it’s Constitutional." Then they appeared to put the Constitution on a dartboard to decide where the supposed right would be "discovered" a hundred years after the Amendment was passed.
It’s no wonder the defenses of their less informed fellow travelers are so incoherent. They just like abortion, what the Constitution actually says is irrelevant. Any honest, literate person will tell you the Constitution is silent, and therefore neutral, on abortion. Anything else is just sophistry.
[deleted]
I have never seen or heard of a "pro-abortion" group. Perhaps you could list a few few, and show how they qualify as "pro-abortion" as opposed to "pro-choice".
I have never heard a "pro-life" argument that wasn't religiously based at its core. I've heard a number of them that were disguised as non-religious, but when you brush away the crap on top, it always came down to religion.
Nice Strawman!
Then you are advertising your ignorance or your bigotry.
So you have no idea what a "strawman" is. Or are you going to claim that the very 1st sentence doesn't reference "pro-abortion"?
Actually your failure to provide one is speaking to ignorance, not to my claim as to never having heard one. You want to try to provide one that is not rooted in religion?
Do you know the difference between the words "group" and "argument"?
You want to try to provide one that is not rooted in religion?
Lol. Did you not read the seed, or did you not understand it? You might at well claim it's rooted in Tolkien mythology, since you obviously don't feel constrained by reality in projecting your imagination onto the english language.
Doesn't matter. I have never heard a "pro-abortion" argument for anything more than a 1 on 1 discussion, and since the article is discussing a "pro-abortion" movement, 1 person urging another to have an abortion for any reason, does not fit.
Just say you can't. It would save a lot of back and forth.
Obviously not to you. It does to those who care about reality, logic and the English language. But since you just make declarations that bear to relationship to those things, I can see why the defintiions of words "doesn't matter" to you.
Keep on with your war on reality, though it's amsuing.
Just say you can't. It would save a lot of back and forth.
That's already been done. Now it's just a matter of seeing how ridiculous you are willing to make yourself. So, by all means, explain how the post is a "religious argument" You are making my day with this.
Thanks for posting this blog and opposing the pro aborts. Well done!
I am glad, since you have refused to explain any of your claims, or attempt to backup any of the claims in the seeded article. One has to wonder why you seeded an article you cannot justify, I suspect it falls to trolling.
Once again, you are correct
Do YOU know that using the term 'movement' connotes a 'group'?
I understand it just fine. I do not find it a cogent argument.
Since you pretend to be all about the reality, logic and the English language, how about you recognize that in the block quote you posted, the author doesn't understand the biological definition of 'organism'.
Exactly! So very well said Sean!
Except Sean didn't actually say that Xx. Try to keep up...
I have never heard a rational pro-life argument to begin with. Just lots of appeals to emotion, with or without a religious slant.
I have never heard anyone make a "pro-abortion" argument either, much less declare that as a position. With a little thought, I'm sure I could make a pro-abortion" argument. But given how some people get emotional or irrational about the issue, I doubt it would be received well.
Making abortions illegal does not stop abortions...
Sex education and birth control do stop abortions!
Cool! Making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Making drunk driving illegal doesn't stop drunk driving. If you believe the only laws we should have are those that completely eradicate illegal behavior, we will have no laws.
Sex education and birth control do stop abortions!
Great! Keep on keeping on with those.
Demand for terminations is entirely determined by the incidence of unwanted pregnancies...
And that's relevant to what I wrote how?
Mandatory sex education and easy access to birth control practically eliminate the demand for abortions. What does that for murders?
We know how to drastically reduce the incidence of abortions. Making abortions illegal does nothing to reduce demand. The same mental midgets most opposed to legal terminations are also those standing in the way of us doing what is proven to eliminate the demand for terminations. What don't you get?
There IS easy access to birth control.
And we still have abortions performed daily.
Access to birth control is not easy for the poor, the underaged or the uninsured...
Yes it is.
Hell, you can buy condoms at many places, including your corner gas station/convenience store.
Clinics run by counties and cities abound. Planned Parenthood has many facilities.
Making excuses for why people don't take advantage of what is available is silly.
The difference between a born baby and an unborn fetus is painfully obvious. One of them is inside someone else's body.
If you say abortion must be outlawed from conception you are saying that women must allow someone or something outside of themselves control what happens inside their body, and to do so not for the fleeting instants that a vaccine shot entails, but for nine months.
Never in human history has this been entirely accepted. There has always been abortion. There always will be. Some people argue that abortion is murder , but more people say it is not. Such a contrast in opinion requires compromise.
So you support abortion until the "unborn fetus" moves a couple inches and becomes a life worth protecting. Just another arbitrary marker on the developmental chain. Sen Boxer thinks you should be able to abort a baby up until the moment it leaves the hospital.
here has always been abortion. There always will be
There has always been murder, theft etc and always will be.
Such a contrast in opinion requires compromise.
So in 1861 you would have been a slavery supporter, since people disagreed on the subject and there always had been slavery.
In 1861 a wide consensus was forming that slavery was wrong. That is not the case with abortion.
Same principle on your argument about murder.
. IF there was such a wide consensus, why did not a single Presidential candidate campaign on abolishing slavery in 1860? If the consensus was so wide, why did it take the bloodiest war in American history to legally enforce that consensus?
You think it is crystal clear that abortion is murder, but it doesnt appear that a majority of Americans agree with you.
As I said the other day , if a woman shoots her husband in the back, she understands she has murdered him . The same recognition does not exist with abortion.
but it doesnt appear that a majority of Americans agree with you.
That's fine. If my view of the Constitution prevails, abortion would only be illegal in those states where there is a clear consensus that is should be. States like Illinois will be free to continue to terminate the lives of disproportionate amount of minorities up until birth.
That is the bottom line. The pro aborts want to continue roe vs Wade so that the California, Illinois, and New York view of the issue be crammed down everyone else’s throats. If roe bs Wade is repealed then those three states will affect only themselves, not everyone else. Repealing roe vs Wade does not outlaw abortion in America
The 'states' aren't 'terminating' anyone Sean.
No one is being forced or even encouraged to have an abortion by the state.
FAIL.
You need to add Florida to your 'boogieman' list since they have a higher rate of abortion than California AND Illinois.
Using your logic here, why on earth would any mother ever be prosecuted for delivering a baby addicted to drugs then?
Is that mother being FORCED to give birth to the baby, or was it her CHOICE? Also, perhaps you would like to provide examples of a mother being prosecuted for that, I cannot find any in my Google search.
You didn't try hard enough...............
YOU didn't try hard enough.
Judge Dismisses Murder Charge Against California Mother After Stillbirth
one must look to find!
thanks!
why did the judge dismiss the case?
Many States Prosecute Pregnant Women for Drug Use. New Research Says That’s a Bad Idea. | The Center for Child Health Policy (vumc.org)
There already is a compromise; elective abortion is allowed up to the point of viability and for medical issues after. What more do people want?
Well Sharia Law would be the sarcastic answer except that they use the 4 month rule.
not a lot of daylight between either extreme religious versions.
It seems that the "My body, my choice" position is now also used by those opposed to vaccination and many but not all opposed to abortion also oppose the vaccine.
And vice versa.
Some of you glorify the potential lives of one species while subjecting an entire planet to animal husbandry with no
concern for the lives of other creatures or the planet itself in the name of one or another supposed creator
and subjugate many of the women of our own species to a form of bondage.
Millions more humans have been killed in the name of one religion or another, even no religion.
Nothing about humans or their religions deserves their imaginary sanctity of life arguments when
A: they destroy pretty much everything they build.
B They kill each other indiscriminately generation after generation for thousands of years
C. They breed like rats with no plan for long term survival
leading to the starvation of millions of lucky "born" children annually.
UNICEF: Too Many Children Dying of Malnutrition | UNICEF USA
D: abortion laws (animal husbandry) only apply to half the American population
so they are inherently unconstitutional.
.
Religion is a waste of time unless you are selling it like Joel Osteen.
Lol... Somehow of the greatest legal minds in American history missed that for 200 years. Sure.
llions more humans have been killed in the name of one religion or another, even no religion.
Nothing about humans or their religions deserves their imaginary sanctity of life arguments when
Religion is a waste of time unless you are selling it like Joel Osteen.
What does anything I wrote have to do with religion?( other than to disparage those who rely on the concept of ensoulment to justify abortion before it supposedly occurs)
People who restrict their own thought processes based on the written words of other men
aren't the greatest legal minds.
The Constitution's only advantage over the Bible's et al is that it can be amended over and over.
It's still just a piece of paper written by men, almost entirely white male theocrats who couldn't even
conceive of women participating in government and yet abortion was not illegal then.
Everything about abortion is intertwined with religious beliefs.
Please tell me how the pro-choice decision is intertwined with religion. And which religion it is intertwined with.
Do you even know what a Judge Does? Interpreting laws written by others is a primary function of a Judge. A legislator makes the laws for the Judge to enforce. It's sad to see how far basic civic literacy has fallen that people conflate the two and think a Judge is the one who creates law.
[deleted]
So amend it.
Everything about abortion is intertwined with religious beliefs.
That's just close minded idiocy. It's your right to cling to silly stereotypes, but it's not a good look.
I suspect that will go unexplained.
Every religion has strong views on abortion.
Most Christian groups are strongly against it.
The UCC and some Methodists being the exceptions.
Other religions, not so much.
Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org)
Well, that certainly answered what was not asked.
Oh well. Figured it would be too hard.
How's it go?
"Sorry I can't understand it for you?"
You are right, I can't understand the question for you, but anyone can plainly see what you answered wasn't what was asked, and the question is still there so all can see it.
I bet most people understood the question.
Lol... The literal first religion covered "There is no official position on abortion among Buddhists"
That's one strong view.
Or don't know much about religions, or are simply intolerant of religions.
Particularly the latter…
gee, difficult to imagine why...
No it isn't.
They are simply intolerant assholes, intent on insulting anyone who has a religion.
Not one thing hard about figuring it out.
Plain as day.
Can't trust anybody who believes in mythology and superstition.
It is irrational at the very least.
This KC guy believes in Patrick Mahomes.
It's interesting that so many people assume that any argument that it's wrong to take innocent human life must be religiously based. Says a lot.
Where does morality come from?
There are those on this site that insist this country was founded on the ten commandments of Christianity.
Are they wrong?
Are you claiming atheists aren't moral? That the only moral people are religious?
No, that's just closed minded idiocy.
Everyone is born an atheist and has to be taught right from wrong.
Are you even trying to make a coherent argument?
Why do you believe morality is tied to religion?
No, but any claim that a tiny mess of cells inside a woman's body, is a human being, is religiously based.
It's like you are going out of your way to prove my post correct. Thanks for that. Do you imagine that "mess of cells" is a goblin, or maybe a dinosaur, that magically transforms into a human when the mother decides not to abort it?
If you believe in science, it's a human.
Biased, or just ignorant.
You seem to have a hard time grasping the science. That tiny "mess of cells", is a tiny "mess of cells". You are the one trying to make it more than it is.
Whenever you go to the bathroom, do you feel that you are drowning human beings since you are flushing some of your cells?
At its very very best, it is a potential human being. Based on world average, it has a 1 out of 4 chance of never getting past that point.
Yes, yes. thank you for yet another unsupported conclusion.
Nope, Oz is correct.
u seem to have a hard time grasping the science. That tiny "mess of cells", is a tiny "mess of cells
I'm the one who actually based his argument on science. Thanks for the new and even more arbitrary and ridiculous standard. How many cells, exactly, must be in this mess for it to magically transform into a human?
. feel that you are drowning human beings since you are flushing some of your cells?
Did you not study biology? Do you understand where babies come from and the difference between one's cells and a different life with a unique genetic identity?
t, it is a potential human being
Of course it's human. It's not a goat or a puppy. It's at a point of the continuum that takes decades to reach full development.
Whoops. Got your name wrong. Sorry, your style of argument is indistinguishable from her's.
And Oz is still correct.
The point is that a woman's own body commits abortion on its own, and no one has a stroke over it or calls it an unborn child.
The point is to intercede before there is a viable baby and not a mass of cells that happens to look human but does not feel.
So what? You realize our legal system is based upon the concept of intent, right?
What I am saying is that it is a totally normal thing for the body to do and if it is normal, then this should be a nonissue.
It is not a normal process for the body to intentionally terminate the healthy life inside of it. That takes a conscious decision to interfere with the normal thing a body does.
You are essentially arguing that since all people die (it's totally normal for humans to die of natural causes) that murder should be a non-issue. Death is natural and normal after all.
Whether intentional or unintentional, it happens, and it usually happens long before viability.
No it’s not.
However many cells is necessary to make it a viable, independent organism.
Does it come from a fandom clump of cells found in a body?
It is not, it is a clump of cells at that point. It just has a potential to be more.
At that point, there really is no difference between them.
Until it's independent, it's essentially a parasite. Regardless of whether one wants to equate a clump of cells with an actual born individual or not, the fact remains a woman can choose to remove that clump if she wants. Equating cells with an actual human, aside from being disingenuous and a weak appeal to emotion, is also essentially irrelevant.
First of all Sean, the body doesn't have 'intent'. If you're going to hang your hat on science and especially biology, admit at least THAT.
As Perrie stated, it's a 'normal thing' for a fertilized egg to be expelled prior to attaching in the wall of the uterus. The estimates are about 80% are expelled. Of those do attach, 31% end in miscarriage.
Strawman.
the body doesn't have 'intent'. I
Where did I claim it did?
us. The estimates are about 80% are expelled. Of those do attach, 31% end in miscarriage
So what? Humans have a 100% death rate. We still prosecute those who intentionally take life.
Strawman.
Lol. No it's not. I'm glad I taught you this word, but learn what it means before you use it.
So that's your arbitrary standard. Got it.
is not, it is a clump of cells at that point. It just has a potential to be more.
You really don't understand biology.
that point, there really is no difference between them.
You really don't understand biology.
IF nothing else, it's always illuminating to see how irrational the abortion crowd gets when confronted with basic biology. Supporting abortion has caused a lot of broken brains.
Now the hysteria has really set in.
uating cells with an actual human, aside from being disingenuous and a weak appeal to emotion, is also essentially irrelevant.
So just more emotionally overwrought declarations without any support. Yawn.
What hysteria? It's a basic fact.
Says the guy that has been espousing his own arbitrary standard. At least mine is a better reflection of the legal definition.
If you dispute that, then you are the one lacking in understanding.
How would you know? You have yet to provide any scientific biology claims.
I don't think you know what arbitrary means. Of all the things to criticize it for, arbitrary is probably the least applicable.
hAt least mine is a better reflection of the legal definition.
Lawyers are well known scientists.
You have yet to provide any scientific biology claims.
Lol. I'm claiming a human organism is a human organism throughout it's developmental process . That's basic biology. You are claiming it magically transforms from a clump of cells at some point into a human. That is, and I quote, "some half-assed, modern, secular repackaging of those ancient superstitions"
IF you want to publicly admit you think there's no difference between a parasite and a human embryo, there's really nothing I can say in response. People admit they are flat earthers too. To other flat earthers that makes sense, to any rational person, it's an admission of irrationality bordering on insanity. You can't reason with that sort of crazy.
So, if you want to claim human embryos and their mothers are different species altogether, there's not much a rational person can say in response.
I never claimed mother's and their unborn are different species. That's a strawman on your part. I said a fetus is like a parasite. I've said that many times before. Just because you ascribe some special value to something being a particular species is irrelevant. It means nothing as far as abortion rights go.
A human organism itself is irrelevant to the abortion issue. It's when the organism becomes viable that it becomes relevant to the issue.
So you don't know what a parasite is then?
Just because you ascribe some special value to something being a particular species is irrelevant.
Form your own sake, you really need to look up what a parasite is ,.
I can't do anything more than laugh at this. Sorry.
Doesn't matter. It just shows you don't get it. That's your problem, not mine.
An organism that lives on a host and feeds on or at the expense of the host. Sounds like an apt description of a fetus.
Right here:
That was YOU right Sean?
If you think that's relevant, perhaps you can explain WTF you're whining about then.
So what?
Unless you're Mrs. Larson, my 8th grade teacher, you're comment is utter bullshit.
hat was YOU right Sean?
Yes, don't you understand English?
u think that's relevant, perhaps you can explain WTF you're whining about then.
I'm not whining about anything. Can you please make a relevant point?
So what?
Try and put 2 and 2 together.
A scientist like Kevin Williamson? /s
Nope. In biology, an organism must function as an individual entity.
Neither a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo or a 15 week fetus can function as an individual entity.
FAIL.
Perfectly Sean.
Since I DO understand English perfectly Sean, I can see for myself that what you insist is an argument is actually just a long whine.
You first...
In what comment did you make that argument Sean. I have read everything you wrote in this seed and don't see it.
Note that proclamations do not qualify as arguments.
Silence ensues.
And Oz is still correct.
As soon as the term "pro-abortion" was used, this article lost all credibility.
Be sure and tell the people who call themselves pro abortion you've issued yet another unsupported conclusion that they have no credibility.
I'm sure they'll be crushed.
I don't know anyone who calls themself "pro-abortion." Such individuals are likely on the fringe. I don't see protests with people advocating abortion like there are with pro-lifers. The rest of the article is flawed as well.
Sean, they are a small minority of people who support reproductive rights and IMHO, they have no credibility, but they do supply a great go-to for people like you who don't believe that women should have rights over their own bodies.
You realize females are aborted too, right?
You must oppose vaccinations and the conscription of men into the army too, I suppose.
It's truly amazing how you and others just ignore the human life that is being terminated and pretend the only interest at stake is that of the mother's. You'd think if you were trying to argue a point you'd actually address the other person's concern.
I realize that a fetus with XX chromosomes is being aborted.
??????
I realize that a potential human being is being terminated. That is a group of cells working towards that eventuality and not the same thing as a person.
And there is the dividing line. You believe that is a person. I don't. When they cross into personhood, I am against it.
Furthermore, your personal belief of when life starts is not the same as mine. Why does yours override mine?
And what do we call someone with XX chromosomes?
??????
You claim this is about "woman having rights over their own body", so you must agree woman and men! have the right to object to any action involving their body they don't consent to.
You believe that is a person. I don't. When they cross into personhood
I believe in science. "The human organism that you hold in your arms six months after birth is the same organism it was six months before birth. It isn’t a different organism — it is only a little older. It is true that the child six months after conception isn’t fully developed — and neither is a 19-year-old. " This can't be debated. Your subjective opinion about when a human crosses the mystical threshold of "personhood" is simply that, your opinion.
But that is a false equivalency. What would be even closer is if we forced young men to undergo reversible sterilization as to not produce unwanted pregnancies in women.
And there you are wrong. To be an organism is to have homeostatus and to have that, there needs to have a fully connected neurological system. So no, it is not the same and this can not be debated. And I don't believe in a mystical threshold of "personhood", which is why I believe that there should be a buffer time during the maturation of the neurological system.
Do you believe humans have absolute control over their bodies or not. ?
And there you are wrong.
Lol. Please provide an authority for your claim that 3 month old fetuses are not humans. What species are they? Goats?
d I don't believe in a mystical threshold of "personhood
Perrie: "And there is the dividing line. You believe that is a person. I don't. When they cross into personhood, I am against it."
You probably need to to sort this out with yourself first.
I can't do anything more than laugh at that. Not sorry.
When you can have a civil discussion again, and actually read what I wrote, instead of twisting it, I might have a discussion with you. Sheesh.
Oh and btw... I noticed how you cherry-pick my words and left out the most important part:
Fetuses do not have homeostasis.
Now have at it, since I will not be replying to you.
My thinking isn’t magical at all. Until a fetus reaches the point of viability I have no problem with abortion. Until the fetus reaches a developmental stage to where someone other than the mother can care for it it is subject to the decisions of the mother, whatever they may be. If that means she decides to abort it then so be it.
If the state is going to mandate that women give birth and take away the alternative then the state should be required to cover all the costs associated with the process and additionally compensate the mother for things such as lost wages, and anything purchased because of the pregnancy should be a tax write off.
Additionally I am of the opinion that the worst anyone who causes the death of a fetus should be charged with is illegal termination of a pregnancy. Whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is the mother’s decision and hers alone.
y thinking isn’t magical at al
causes the death of a fetus should be charged with is illegal termination of a pregnancy. Whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is the mother’s decision and hers alone
I don't know what to tell you. If you think arguing that a mother's wish can instantly transform a fetus from being something that can be killed without a second thought into something that is legally protected, isn't an example of magical thinking, there's not much that can be said. The mental gymnastics people go through to justify abortion never ceases to amaze me.
You misunderstand. I am not protecting the fetus, I am protecting the mother's choice. I don't give a fuck about the fetus, it is nothing to me. I do care about the mother's bodily autonomy however, and the decision to remain pregnant or not is hers and hers alone. So if she decides to terminate a pregnancy, well that is her choice and her right. If someone else does something against her wishes and the pregnancy is terminated, then charge them with the illegal termination of a pregnancy.
No mental gymnastics required.
m not protecting the fetus, I am protecting the mother's choice.
You are protecting the fetus. That's what the statutes say. It's a crime to harm the fetus, (depending on the mother's mood at the moment the baby is harmed). If You could take the exact same getus and place it in two different mothers. One can be legally killed, one can't. There's no rational basis for that, only the magical belief that a mother's wish makes one a human with the right not to be killed, and one free game to be mutilated.
It sounds to me that your argument is with legislatures that criminalized the death of a fetus. Call your state Senator and Congressman.
No I'm not. Again, the fetus is immaterial to me, doesn't matter one way or the other.
And I am saying the crime is or should be taking the choice to terminate or carry a pregnancy to term away from the mother.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Again, it is not magical thinking. It is the mother's decision, if she decides to carry the fetus to term, then as soon as it is able to survive outside of the womb it gains personhood and the protections that involves. If she doesn't decide to carry it to the point of viability then it doesn't. It isn't magical, it is just a cut off point and a perfectly reasonable one at that IMO.
I'm a little bit curious, but where the fuck are all those right wing conservatives who reassured everyone, when ACB and Brett Kavanaugh were being vetted, that it had NOTHING to do with overturning Roe? They swore up and down literally swearing on a bible that they were definitely not coming in to overturn established Supreme court precedent.
"Silly Americans, you knew damn well I was a snake before you brought me in"...
When will the majority of liberal, progressive and centrist rational freedom loving Americans get it through their thick skulls, right wing conservatives will always fucking backstab anyone who gets in their way because they don't give a fuck about America or our freedoms, they only care about their slimy personal religious ideology that they would burn the constitution and the country to the fucking ground before abandoning. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Overturning Roe, does NOT make abortion illegal, it does not stop one single abortion!,
Where do you guys come up with this garbage? The court overturned 200 years of established precedent when they ruled in Roe in the FIRST place? what's the difference for 48 years of precedent?
The Supreme Court cannot change it's mind? It cannot correct it's errors? especially when doing so doesn't not change a damned thing in society? Overturning Roe, or better put, the right to privacy basis of Roe, DOES NOT MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL!
Brown v Board of Education was the Court also overturning 200 years of precedent... Correcting a Long sitting error in our legal system and society.... Should we throw that one out too cause the court JUST CAN'T OVERTURN PRECEDENT? {chuckle}
As far as your claim to being stabbed in the back by republicans? Ask all those republicans that make deals with democrat congresses which the democrat congress refuses to fund... Political parties stab each other in the back numerous times each and every session of congress...
It's their reason for being if your really interested in the truth... Using it to foment your own hate? pretty good set of political blinders you have on there....
How long will prison sentences be in Oklahoma for assisting abortions once they can legally charge women, doctors and family members who assist in abortions with MURDER?
That's not the question I raised. I asked about all those right wing conservatives who swore that hypocritically stacking the court just weeks before a Presidential election wasn't a shameless attempt to overturn Roe.
So you're simply justifying the shameless lies by saying everyone does it so who cares and it should be expected of right wing conservatives to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want because "that's politics".
Like I said, everyone should have known not to trust them, we knew they were snakes before we let them in so it's shame on us for ever believing their daily lies as they justified stacking the court with conservatives.
How can one really hate the snake for being true to its nature. It's been lying ever since Genesis. It's just interesting how the self-proclaimed righteous Christian moral leaders are the most shameless liars among us. All I'm doing is pointing it out but clearly from all your shouting right wing conservatives hate being exposed.
Just like Obama's (as you call the process) hypocritical nomination of Garland wasn't an attempt to stack the court the other way?
Court Stacking as a political process? {chuckle} Review Marbury v Madison, A president Adams tried to expand and stack the federal judiciary with federalist judges on the eve of President Jefferson's taking office, Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison prevented it from happening and won before the supreme court.... Whadda you know!!! the founding fathers stabbing each other in the back over political appointees to the court!!!
It's always been a part of the political landscape in this country so, YEAH, THAT'S POLITICS
It's a shame on us for believing ANYTHING a politician says, doesn't matter his political affiliation. They are all snakes in the grass... At least the establishment ones are... So yeah exhorting that one side is corrupt and liars and the other side is pure as the driven snow and doesn't do the same is a pretty large set of political blinders...
Well you can't all politicians are the same and it's their true nature, and yeah they have been lying ever since they came into being very true as well... If you have read some of my commentary to XXJeff concerning his interpretations of righteousness you would realize I'm as far from a self-righteous christian as it can get... But I'm a christian, at least profess to be one, so I guess that, in general, makes me bad...
And as far as hate? I believe that a woman has a right to make a choice concerning pregnancy, it is her choice between her and her god (whatever that may be) and her husband, (or child's father) if he is in the picture.. It is of no concern of yours, mine nor anyone else's.....
So your exclaiming about MY shouting? I'm a libertarian, Not a republican, someday you may learn to tell the difference...
Oh but it DOES NWM.
It's NOT 'garbage', it's fact.
26 States Are Certain or Likely to Ban Abortion Without Roe: Here’s Which Ones and Why | Guttmacher Institute
Oh please do cite this 'precedent' that you allege they overturned. I'll wait.
WRONG! Brown v. Board of Education overturned the 'separate but equal' finding in Plessy which was only on the books for 58 years.
Brown v Board of Education overturned Plessy and it's 58 years of progeny yes... But it's holding also overturned every precedent that supported Plessy up to and including the 3/5th compromise... That goes well beyond two hundred years of legal thinking and court precedent...
The "Citizen, But Not Equal" ideal of the 3/5th clause was excised from the entirety of american jurisprudence for all time...
The first of Thomas Jefferson's two major flaws in the constitution was destroyed forever...
That entire branch of legal thinking was cut off and burned at the stake of truth.... It was one of the Warren courts greatest decisions... AND it was a UNANIMOUS decision, all the justices said it was time to excise that particular piece of infamy from our existence, Yes both the liberal justices AND the conservative ones as well...
Your minimizing it's impact on american jurisprudence to support a political diatribe is sad, very sad...
Weak what-about-ism.
His nomination was almost A FUCKING YEAR before the election. And of course conservatives lost their minds and demanded that the upcoming election should decide the nominee. Then when it was just weeks before an election they reversed course like the hypocritical liars they are and pushed through ACB.
So we can expect no complaints from conservatives when liberals do whatever it takes to fuck them over even if it means increasing the number of justices, right? Cause "THAT"S POLITICS!".
So why do you bother voting at all? I would be fine if all pessimistic defeatists just chose to not participate.
I've never claimed Democrats are free from criticism or are anything close to pure. I do recognize that most of them seem far less likely to a monumental hypocrite or unwilling to compromise which seems like the minimum standard for conservative Republican legislators.
I agree and feel that choice should be protected from prosecution or civil action and possible financial penalty.
You certainly didn't sound like that when you shouted "DOES NOT MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL!" when clearly that is the intent of right wing conservatives Republicans. I would think most libertarians would support and defend the right to privacy that Roe established in 1973.
What fucking history book are YOU reading NWM?
The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865 outlawed slavery and nullified the 3/5 compromise. That was 89 years.
Seriously, get educated.
Wow, have you been living in a cave NWM? Do you really think that women lacking bodily autonomy is equal to men who does?
I am educated, as far as the law goes better than you apparently... Yes the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, The 14th Amendment eviscerated the 3/5th clause in the constitution, but it did NOTHING to the body of law known as precedent you guys love to say can't be overturned? You obviously don't know what precedent actually represents...
Well it represents the legal ideals of American jurisprudence, so yes, the amendments did what they did, but then didn't do EVERYTHING that needed to be done... That's how we got Jim-Crow? Remember Jim Crow? the 13th and 14th were in effect before Jim Crow came into being weren't they? How did Jim Crow come into being? Precedent is how... Yes Precedent, the body of law represented by prior court decisions which represent the ideals of american jurisprudence...
You can change the statutes even the constitution but they are only words on paper unless you change the ideals underlying them...
Those underlying ideals gave us Jim Crow and then Plessy and all of it's progeny...
Brown v Board of Education changed forever the ideals baked into American jurisprudence on equality... That's why it was called a LANDMARK decision, That's why it was a UNANIMOUS decision...
Brown v Board of Education FUNDAMENTALLY changed American Jurisprudence and social conscience on equality... FOREVER...
The only one that is apparent to is YOU.
NWM, the fact that you admit that the 14th Amendment eviscerated the 3/5th clause of the constitution, yet still claim that it did NOTHING to affect the law defies logic.
The Constitution of the United States IS the law.
Once the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, there were no longer 'other Persons', they became 'free Persons'.
The 14th Amendment explicitly repealed the 'those bound to Service for a Term of Years' and the 'three fifths of all other Persons' from the Constitution.
NO court precedent stands after the Constitution is Amended to make it MOOT.
Any 'precedent' that relied on those repealed portions of the Constitution, those 'precedents' became MOOT.
I encourage you to review the concept of MOOTNESS in both Common Law and in American jurisprudence.
The rest of your comment is just blather and deflection.
The 3/5 compromise had NOTHING to do with Jim Crow so conflating them is just a failed attempt to support your failed posit.
Thank you... {giggle}
Just in case anyone is interested in learning that the Law is more than just words on a page... If you want more than just a basic High School understanding of law...
Read This ...
That will get you started down a road to greater knowledge
Just in case anyone is interested in facts about the TOPIC of this thread, refer to this link:
{Chuckle} Right the typical response when there is no refutation... Someday you guys will learn that the what-about-ism defense to a fact is an admission that the fact is true.... Thank you for that...
Like I said, It's always been a part of the political landscape in this country so, YEAH, THAT'S POLITICS. You might want to check the history of SC nominees, you will find that such has occurred at almost a half dozen times in our nations history... Yes it is the Presidents duty to nominate and the Senate's duty to approve or reject... The Senate doesn't have to even give a nominee the time of day if they so choose... You calling it a "Fuck Over" is an indication that you believe a political party is entitled to nominate someone and have them approved automatically... Show me the article in the Constitution that says that and I'll agree he was "Fucked Over" Until then, THAT'S POLITICS {chuckle}
No complaints from me... I know how it works, what's the real shame is you don't....
It's my right remember? Sure you would like everyone that disagrees with you to not vote...
Good I'm glad of that but then your characterization of Democrats are because you either are one or you believe strongly in their cause... So in essence its entirely your opinion on who is the hypocrites isn't it? and you know what Who you believe are the hypocrites are is irrelevant to me... Would it surprise you that I agree with you just substitute Liberal/socialist Democrat for conservative Republican... (Understanding I'm not a republican btw.)
Excellent! we have some common ground! we just differ on extent...Which is debatable.... You are aware that the percentage of people in America that support abortion in the first three months (13 weeks) has held pretty steady at around 60%, In the second three months it's held around 27-30% and in the last three months it's held at 12-15%.. And it's the same percentages no matter the gender?
You may have had an argument if I was a Right Wing Conservative Republican... I do support a right to privacy believe it or not and HIPAA which is the current legal standard covers abortions (a medical procedure) much better than Roe ever did from a privacy basis... Roe is no longer needed and if anyone is up with current legal thinking they would agree... Abortion as a legal medical procedure is absolutely allowable within valid societal and social limitations... Blanket abortions any time anywhere for any reason at government expense is completely unreasonable...
I'm gonna go back to the 70's for a minute here... when we marched the big argument in the marches was for women to have the same rights to have sex without the chance of getting pregnant, this was the women's lib thing, get them out from under the societal condemnation of playing outside the moral standard at the time, and legal abortion was the ticket to do that... Times change and today abortion is not needed to do that... The science of medicine has many more ways to deal with pregnancy than they ever had back then... And with safe haven laws on the books in all 50 states and the territories of this nation, there is no need for abortions to prevent a woman from being a mother if she so chooses not to be one...
The rational of abortion from the 70's which was used as justification for blanket abortions is so outdated today that the push to hang onto that reasoning is sheer lunacy... I submit that it is not the conservatives that are living in the past, it is the democrat liberals that are... One has to wonder why that is... (probably hanging onto an old campaign issue in it's death throes cause they hate to lose a divisive issue to the advancement of society)
Abortion is a valid choice for a woman today, there are safe places to have one so that is no longer an issue, there are safe procedures to perform one so that isn't an issue either, and the failure to get one in time has a valid legal solution as well... NONE of that is going away any time soon...
Y'all need to come forward into the 21st century on Abortion, instead of staying buried in the '70's...
Abortion is legal and will remain so... It is widely accepted today... Despite all the yapping and howling of persons buried in old stale thinking...
What utter bullshit NWM. A whataboutism either is or isn't. Yours obviously WAS.
Whether a whataboutism is a fact is irrelevant to whether it is in fact a whataboutism. Someday you guys will learn that fact. You're welcome.
{chuckle} I've seen your response and have asked the boards higher power for some advice on if I should even grace this with a response....
Please stay tuned.... {snicker}
Oh Dev? I HAVE actually requested some advice from the ultimate authority around here, so please don't delete this completely innocuous response until such time as I receive it please? Not begging mind you, call it respectfully requesting... {chuckle}
Silence ensues...
Most Americans today have no memories of the not so long ago days when birth control was difficult to get and terminations were mostly illegal. When women and girls routinely died from illicit back alley abortions and doctors and family members went to prison for helping desperate women terminate unwanted pregnancies. If all the good Christian women who ever had to make the excruciating decision to terminate a pregnancy were hauled off to prison on Saturday night the church pews of America would be half empty on Sunday.
We are going to need bigger prisons...
REALLY? where's the proof for this hyperbolic claim? Or is this just another politically hate fueled rant?
"21 states poised to ban or severely restrict abortion if 'Roe v. Wade' is overturned"
" During an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana argued that when it comes to abortion laws, "it's time to turn it back to the states." Braun went on to say that he is "perfectly comfortable" with criminalizing abortion"
Even former President Trump said there "has to be some form of punishment," when it comes to abortion.
"On a tip, police turned their attention to “Call Jane”, a feminist collective of young women who, since 1965, had provided safe but illegal abortions to roughly 3,000 Chicagoans per year. The collective was raided after two Catholic women told police their sister-in-law planned to have an abortion performed by the group.
A Chicago homicide detective was assigned to the case and traced “Jane” to the South Shore neighborhood, bordered by the blue waters of Lake Michigan. There, police raided an apartment, arrested nearly 50 people for questioning, and sent three women who were actively undergoing abortion treatment to the hospital.
Seven women were charged with 11 counts of performing an abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion. They would soon be dubbed the “Abortion Seven” by newspapers. But the Call Jane members protected people they served – they even ate index cards detailing patients’ contact information.
Then, in 1973, the Abortion Seven had a reprieve. Prosecutors abandoned the case when supreme court justices issued a landmark ruling in the case of Roe v Wade , effectively legalizing abortion across the US."
Gutting Roe will take us right back to where we were before 1973 and considering right wing conservatives apparent penchant for lying, we should not trust a single fucking one of them if they claim they're not going to re-criminalize abortion in the States they control.
What does making abortions illegal mean?
It means there must be criminal penalties...
Nope. Not going to happen no matter how much it is fear mongered....
I guess we are going to have to wait and see... Aren't we...
What a load.
You do know states have laws on the books that will automatically make abortion illegal depending on how this court rules.
It has already started, just look at the bullshit Texas law. All conservative run states are waiting for is the green light to recriminalize it, and overturning Roe will give them that.
The "bullshit" Texas law has nothing to do with Roe, It has everything to do with the Tenth Amendment and legal jurisdiction... AND it is my previously stated opinion on it is that IF it is upheld by the US district court the Supreme Court will overturn it... And it will be a unanimous decision... I've stated my reasons why on other articles over it so I won't re-state them here..
My point was that states will absolutely try to ban abortions across the country if Roe is overturned, and the bullshit Texas law is an example. It is tame compared to laws that will be enacted across the country inside of a week if Roe falls. I know the Texas crap has no bearing on Roe, it is merely an example of how fervently conservatives will go after abortion access if the SCOTUS overturns Roe.
Don't know your reasons but I agree and hope we are both right, otherwise people will be able to sue anyone for literally anything.
It has already started. California's Newsome said if the Texas law stands, he is going to write and make a similar law where everyone can sue gun manufacturers and sellers.
Thus proving that California has at least as many idiots in politics as does Texas.
We have more, many, many more….
Whelp, this is what the idiots in the SCOTUS have decided to allow.
That is what happens with all extremists, and that is who is in charge of the GOP now. The GOP flat out cannot be trusted.
Lemme fix this for ya...
That is what happens with all extremists, and that is who is in charge of the Democrats now. The Democrats flat out cannot be trusted.
Says the same thing your statement said doesn't it? so what is it really a statement of?
Dems are bad, but the GOP is definitely worse. As a person who is tired of both parties I definitely see more of a threat from the Republicans simply due to their relentless sucking of Trump's micro penis. The GOP is flat out a cult of personality these days, and Trump is someone who dreams of being a dictator.
And no you didn't fix anything, merely made me clarify.
Well we feel the same way, just slanted in the opposite direction... Clarification was what I wanted...
So you think Biden wants to be a dictator?
No more evidence to support that than exists for thinking Trump wants to be a dictator.
deleted
He'd LOVE to be, ALA Govenuer Inslee in Washington who IS acting as a dictator... except on the federal level it will never happen...
Yes, I know that Brandon wants exactly that…
Here is what the "pro-abortion" [a disingenuous term btw] is all about: a woman has the right to choose to continue her pregnancy or not! That's it. Plain and simple. It doesn't really need to go deeper than that.
I am just going to jump in with both feet <here>. So why not give abortion a voice? Help to put guidelines around it even that states can consider and vote. If conservative states won't deal with what is not in the constitution properly-yet, insist on the contract between states being static. . . it's a big problem. Why?
Because sophisticated, intellectual, people do not have the luxury to live in the 21st century like its some version of the 19th century!
Ironically, for most of the 19th century, abortion before 'quickening' was perfectly legal.
Here's another irony for all of these 'originalists'. Benjamin Franklin published the book, 'Every man his own doctor' by John Tennent in 1734, which includes a recipe for an herbal abortive for use in 'the Colonies'.
Hmm. Interesting. In that period piece, I see discussion of women's' "courses" - which I take is to aid with female "period." Could that be what you state or something else?
Yep that's the one. The use of Pennyroyal is the give away. It's been used as an 'abortifacient' since the early Greeks.
Ahhhhhhhh! Interesting. Pennyroyal is quite devastating an herbal 'drug.'
Here is 'the thing': Pro-lifers argument does not take into account that these girls and women 'driven' to abort a fetus do not WANT the child involved. They think to saddle a girl or woman into a constricted 'mode' where a man (and the surrounding laws) will hold her in 'CHECK' and dedication to the needs of family and hearth.
Girls, women, it is an open and shut case. You can not let this happen to yourselves AGAIN. You have to make it plain that your independence (to choose a man and birth time) is yours and yours alone!
Do NOT Give Back Your Power To Some Conservatives (Freakiness)! They will applaud themselves for 'owning' (recapturing) the lot of you!
This is true. It is a high consideration to be taken into account. Some will say put these 'innumerable' babies up for adoption. However, these same CONSERVATIVES have their own progeny! And these same CONSERVATIVES DETEST same-sex couples in long-term relationships and executing the caring and rearing of CHILD/REN.
Once again we have the stirring of female 'bottling' (capture) in a policy that takes no account of the life that is being lived or its one ushered in!
Well it looks like the author has bailed on his own seed.
Not surprising, especially since there is no such thing as a "pro-abortion" argument. At least, none that I ever heard. Pro abortion itself is a disingenuous term. But perhaps I'll write an article with an actual "pro-abortion argument." After all, I wouldn't want to make those who proclaim others pro-abortion to be liars.