Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[tsm]

Democrats Argue That Clarence Thomas Should Only Have 3/5 Of A Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats in D.C. have lashed out at Justice Clarence Thomas following his vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, arguing that he should only get 3/5 of a vote in the Supreme Court.

babylonbee.com

Babylon should have added a note that this would also apply to Breyer’s replacement!

 

[BigRed]

There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se - in declaring "behavior X" wrong merely because we say it is, vs declaring "behavior X" wrong because it is inherently wrong. The key determinant is when "behavior X" is something that infringes upon the natural rights of another. Slavery did. If one believes that the gestating being is a living human being, then elective abortion does so, as well.

It is interesting to note those who claim killing an unborn child is cool because it is not human are often the same twits screaching for reparations, equity, and such bull ****.

 

[Tombs]

 

[chipbennett]

“Understand that people who are pro life don't hate women or want to control them. They want to protect children.”

It’s hard for people on my side if this debate to take a statement like this at face value, because the way your side seeks to protect children is by controlling women (through limiting their legal options).

Where "controlling women" = "preventing women from killing their offspring", then, yes. But that's an awfully simplistic and insincere way of looking at the other side's position, to reduce a proscription against taking the life of another as "controlling" the would-be actor in the taking of that life.

I struggle to understand how forcing a child to be born to a mother that doesn‘t want it to exist protects that child.

I struggle to understand how death is a better outcome than life under any circumstances.

There are a number of documented ways to reduce the total number of unwanted pregnancies, but conservatives stand against almost all of them. In effect, the party of market values does everything they can to keep demand for abortion high while simultaneously seeking to criminalize the supply.

Contraception. More discrimination in choosing one's mating partners. Abstinence. There are myriad ways to reduce the total number of unwanted pregnancies, all of which start with people taking responsibility for their own actions.

It’s just like the war on drugs.

Why is the liberal the only one in this conversation talking about keeping the state out of the marketplace?

I am an adherent of the Declaration of Independence. As such, I believe that the only legitimate role of the state is to ensure the protection of individual liberty: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Abortion infringes upon the right to life of a living human being; therefore, it is the legitimate role of the state to act in the interest of securing the right to life of that human being.

I am trying to understand the other side, that’s why I’m involved in this conversation with you.

Please note I have not brought up anything in my posts about conservatives hating women or seeking broad control over them, nor have I referred to the unborn as anything but human, why did you?

I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to dialogue. I accept that you do not share my belief that the gestating being is a living human being, and that this difference in belief is the basis for reasonable, rational people to come to different conclusions. Here, however, you seem to make a distinction between "controlling women" (as stated above) and "seeking broad control over [women]". What is the difference? And if there is a remedy to protect the life of the unborn human being that you would not construe as "controlling women", what might that be?

 

[foszoe]

The law should be nuanced and have certain carve-outs. Not some ham handed blanket law. you dont get nuance in 2 weeks.

My understanding of Indiana law is that abortion is allowed up to 9 months. Would you believe a law passed shortening that time span passed now is better than a law passed next year?

If abortion is murder, I can't see how waiting until next year is acceptable. I guess if we want to "compromise" on when life begins, the discussion should be had but leaving it at 9 months doesn't seem right either.

 

[ancjr]

Roe being overturned doesn't need to stop anything. I'm just glad it lifts the implication of a nationwide Constitutional endorsement of abortion.

 

[JCSR]

Mental illness has no boundaries.............

 

[bwframe]

'Mostly Peaceful' Abortion Rioters in LA Attack Police, Including With Makeshift 'Flamethrower'

redstate.com

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2022-06-26/man-held-for-alleged-torch-attack-during-abortion-protest

 

[jamil]

For the central point of your entire debate, why does viability matter? Or whether it's a life, matter?

This concept seems entirely contradictory to the concept of it being a woman's right, or permissible under the recommendation of a doctor.

If it's a right, it does not matter if it's a life or whether it's viable.

I think for the purposes of LG's position you're right. If he believes the only two determinants in this is the doctor's recommendation and the woman's choice, then it doesn't matter if the baby would otherwise come out a full grown man. If it's on the wrong side of the umbilical cord, all that matters is the doctor and pregnant woman.

 

[Ingomike]

There still seem to be two different points/arguments intertwined, and I'm trying to address them separately: the question of viability, and risk of life to the mother posed by childbirth.

Currently, we know with medical certainty that ex utero viability is no more than 21 weeks (a few days fewer, IIRC?). That point of viability has decreased in gestational age as medical technology advances. My issue with linking life, and its attendant, natural rights, with ex utero viability is that the former changes based on medical technology advances, while the latter, if it exists, must be fixed. It makes no sense that life is a function of the advancement (or lack thereof) of human technology. If that were true, humans today would more of a right to life than humans from 500 years ago - which would undercut the natural, unalienable quality of the right to life. I simply cannot square this.


The question of risk to life of the mother is, more or less, objective. There are very real - and, thankfully, very rare - pregnancy-related risks to the life of the mother. This is not an area where one doctor would decide that something is a risk to the life of the mother and a different doctor would decide otherwise. Ectopic pregnancy, if untreated, is a death sentence for mother and embryo, fullstop.


And we're back to the fundamental disagreement. Since I believe that the gestating being is a living human being, I believe that the gestating being also has a voice that matters in that discussion.


Again, I would argue that the third human being directly impacted by the decision/act has moral ground to object.


At one time, some people said, "I'm morally opposed to slavery, so the state should intervene to stop others from engaging in it." I don't think any would question that this statement, and acting upon it, was correct.

There is a difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se - in declaring "behavior X" wrong merely because we say it is, vs declaring "behavior X" wrong because it is inherently wrong. The key determinant is when "behavior X" is something that infringes upon the natural rights of another. Slavery did. If one believes that the gestating being is a living human being, then elective abortion does so, as well.

Great post. Very well explained…

 

[jamil]

There is a puritanical element to this debate that just rubs me the wrong way: “I’m morally opposed to Behavior X, so the state should intervene to stop others from engaging in it.”

That isn’t how morality works in a free society. People can hold legitimately differing views, and it isn’t up to the the state impose the “correct” moral viewpoint.

I guess I'll chime in on this too. This is actually incorrect. When people are free to adopt the rules they want, they legislate their morality every time. The basis of laws in a society indeed reflects the morality of that society. We like to say you can't legislate morality, but we do. The left legislates it's morality when it's in charge. The right does when it's in charge. What we really mean when we say we can't legislate morality is that we don't like the particular law being discussed.

When I was young you couldn't find a grocery store open on Sunday. And at some point that became, you couldn't find a grocery store open until Church was over on Sunday. And eventually, as fewer people went to church on Sunday, stores stopped doing that. It wasn't that society evolved past adopting laws based on morality. Those laws changed because the moral demand for that law decreased.

So sure, laws are going to prohibit behaviors the people in the given jurisdiction thinks are immoral. Personally I don't like that. I think libertarians have that one right. The least harm principle is primarily what I'd prefer as a basis for laws. Most morals are subjective. If we base laws on morality, I'd prefer we pick some objective morality, which I think "least harm" fits.

I think you find the discussion puritanical because you're in a discussion with people who have a different worldview from yours. They don't understand you. You don't understand them. I think you're doing a great job of trying though, so congratulations for that.

 

[Cameramonkey]

My understanding of Indiana law is that abortion is allowed up to 9 months. Would you believe a law passed shortening that time span passed now is better than a law passed next year?

If abortion is murder, I can't see how waiting until next year is acceptable. I guess if we want to "compromise" on when life begins, the discussion should be had but leaving it at 9 months doesn't seem right either.

I stand by my statement. I'd rather have a good decent and proper law in 6 months over a bad law now.
Dont we ask the same for 2A issues?

 

[jamil]

30 seconds of pure enjoyment. The comments are golden as well.

I'm not sure what provoked the police to go hands on, but given the summer of love, I strongly suspect they were being non-peaceful in their protests.

 

[JEBland]

So sure, laws are going to prohibit behaviors the people in the given jurisdiction thinks are immoral. Personally I don't like that. I think libertarians have that one right. The least harm principle is primarily what I'd prefer as a basis for laws. Most morals are subjective. If we base laws on morality, I'd prefer we pick some objective morality, which I think "least harm" fits.

I just came to kick the hornet's next by dropping a link, but I think least harm is a bad standard. Maximizing individual liberty while balancing competing interests is typically how I try to think of it, society will determine least harm by its actions modulo the maximum individual liberty principle (this balancing is the difficult part, and I certainly don't have all the answers on it). Here, the competing interests like Chip and I discussed earlier are at the crux of this, the abortion, issue. We can see some other examples like how black students taunting other black students for doing well in school happens more frequently in ethnically mixed schools than in mostly homogeneous school populations, but the fact that black families have the right to choose what neighborhood they live in trumps any possible population-scale least harm principle, IMO. Individuals have the right to act in a way that on the whole might have negative effects. Society will sort out the details.

For the article I came to drop:

The Hypocrisy of the Dobbs Dissenters | National Review

The Court’s staunchest advocates of unchecked federal power now complain that the majority placed no limits on Congress’s right to regulate abortion.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[foszoe]

I stand by my statement. I'd rather have a good decent and proper law in 6 months over a bad law now.
Dont we ask the same for 2A issues?

When it comes to the 2A, we are pretty much like the pro abortion crowd. No new laws and repeal most if not all restrictions.

 

[jamil]

Time Magazine should just shut down and sell its assets at this point.

Supreme Court Ruling Catapults Abortion Into Midterms Races

Abortion will be particularly salient in races where the outcome could determine abortion access in those states

time.com

Really? Looking around at a few polls, this far in, they are showing people don't give very many ****s about RvW compared to, Idunno, that one issue. It's the economy stupid.

Dobbs is not a top election issue. It's a top news story sure. The biggest story going right now. And I don't fault the media for that. It's huge. It's just not moving the political needle much. People need to drive to work. People need to buy food, and staples. People are seeing their buying power nose dive.

 

[semperfi211]

'Mostly Peaceful' Abortion Rioters in LA Attack Police, Including With Makeshift 'Flamethrower'

redstate.com

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2022-06-26/man-held-for-alleged-torch-attack-during-abortion-protest

Rioting in California because of course that right wing conservative state is really going to have some strict abortion laws. They are rioting because they like too.

 

[jamil]

My understanding of Indiana law is that abortion is allowed up to 9 months. Would you believe a law passed shortening that time span passed now is better than a law passed next year?

If abortion is murder, I can't see how waiting until next year is acceptable. I guess if we want to "compromise" on when life begins, the discussion should be had but leaving it at 9 months doesn't seem right either.

What? Pretty sure I read the other day that Indiana restricts abortions to 20 weeks or something close to that.

 

[Cameramonkey]

When it comes to the 2A, we are pretty much like the pro abortion crowd. No new laws and repeal most if not all restrictions.

I agree. but if a law was GUARANTEED to pass, such as the latest kneejerk, would you prefer a bill overnight that includes an AWB and magazine limits, or a bill in 3 weeks that doesnt include such BS?

And "I prefer neither" is not an option for this discussion as it misses/avoids my point.

 

[actaeon277]

If this is "controlling women", then I guess child support is "controlling men".
If one is bad...
so is the other.