Abortion

[iambiguous]

From the NYT:

'The man most responsible for shaping a United States Supreme Court that delivered the conservative movement a long-sought victory has spent weeks saying he didn’t think it will be good for his party.

'Publicly, after a draft of the likely decision leaked in May, former President Donald J. Trump was remarkably tight-lipped for weeks about the possible decision, which the court ultimately handed down on Friday, ending federal abortion protections. But privately, Mr. Trump has told people repeatedly that he believes it will be “bad for Republicans.”

'The decision, Mr. Trump has told friends and advisers, will anger suburban women, a group who helped tilt the 2020 presidential race to Joseph R. Biden Jr., and will lead to a backlash against Republicans in the November midterm elections.'

Let's call this the "politics of abortion".

On the other hand, who the hell really knows what might unfold between now and the November Congressional elections. Let alone between now the 2024 presidential elections.

[henry quirk]

In the American system, legislatures craft legislation and courts rule on legislation. R v W was the supreme court oversteppin' in a large way by legislatin' from the bench. Now, states will have to decide, by way of their legislatures (and presumably the citizens of those states) on whether to allow abortion or not.

Practically this means states that favor abortion will expand access, mebbe even codify that access in their state constitutions; and states that frown on abortion will restrict it further or out & out ban it.

And this means court challenges on the state level, for and against, and that means eventually some or all of these challenges will go before the supreme court which will rule for or against these state-level challenges case by case.

Or: congress could pass legislation than bans abortion or that guarantees access, and, either way, there wouid be challenges to that law that ultimately the supreme court would hear.

This is all as it should be under the American system: legislatures legislate, courts adjudicate.

Other than in-house proceedings (like impeachment) legislatures don't adjudicate and courts don't legislate.

If all this is not to your likin', and you're American, there's article five...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Or, if you're me , and find all that legislation and adjudication as illegitimate as The State who crafts and issues them, you'll scoff the law and do as you see fit.

This means, in the unlikely event congress banned abortion and such a thing was upheld, abortions would still occur just as in the unlikely event congress bans private gun ownership and such a thing was upheld, guns will still be in private hands.

[Immanuel Can]

...back in 1973 by a vote of 7 to 2 this same Supreme Court referring back to the same Constitution made Roe v. Wade the law of the land,

Apparently, they had no constitutional basis for doing so.

And now on to the part where in state after state virtually all abortions will be deemed to be, what

We don't know. It hasn't happened yet. All we know is that the states have the jurisdiction.

I suspect places like California will go on way, and other states the other way.

[iambiguous]

Right. It's all about the Constitution and the law. And even though back in 1973 by a vote of 7 to 2 this same Supreme Court referring back to the same Constitution made Roe v. Wade the law of the land, this new Supreme Court, in being much closer to your own Christian dogma, is necessarily much closer to pinning down objectively when in fact mere mortals become human beings.

Apparently, they had no constitutional basis for doing so.

On the contrary, the Supremes always bring their arguments back to the Constitution. That's expected of them. Some are just more inclined to interpret it as an adjunct of the Christian Bible than others.

And now on to the part where in state after state virtually all abortions will be deemed to be, what, premeditated first degree murder? And therefore those who either perform one or obtain one will be arrested and charged with premeditated first degree murder? And, if convicted, what, sentenced to death?

We don't know. It hasn't happened yet. All we know is that the states have the jurisdiction.

On the contrary, "abortion is now banned in at least eight states, with trigger bans in several more set to take effect in the coming days."

As for this...

And, again, just out of curiosity, for those who support this ruling, if a woman you know and love either performs or obtains an abortion in a jurisdiction where they are made illegal, do you turn her into the law?

Is she in fact a premeditated murderer who is, if convicted of this crime, morally justified in being executed by the state?

...what say you?

And others as well.

[Iwannaplato]

I find it odd that Christians are so passionately (in general) worked up about abortions given that their worldview entails the best possible outcome for eternity for the child/fetus: it will live forever with God and Jesus. I am not saying that it is hypocritical to be against abortion, given the Bible. I just don't understand the fervor.

[iambiguous]

I find it odd that Christians are so passionately (in general) worked up about abortions given that their worldview entails the best possible outcome for eternity for the child/fetus: it will live forever with God and Jesus. I am not saying that it is hypocritical to be against abortion, given the Bible. I just don't understand the fervor.

And then this part:

"Miscarriage is generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability. An estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide, translating to 44 pregnancy losses each minute." National Library of Medicine

Now, true, some of these miscarriages occur as a result of decisions that we mere mortals make...consuming alcohol and tobacco and drugs for example.

But millions upon millions of others occur as a result of how God [if there is one] created human biology to function once a pregnancy occurs. Sometimes a birth occurs, other times it doesn't. Meanwhile those women who did everything they were supposed to do to bring about a healthy newborn are devastated.

And yet even then most won't blame God. They'll convince themselves it's all just a part of God's plan. After all, what's the alternative? No God and the miscarriage "just happened"...just another manifestation of the brute facticity that is the human condition in a No God world.

[iambiguous]

Then this part...

From the NYT:

'Taking pills to end a pregnancy accounts for a majority of abortions in the United States, both legal and not. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, medication abortion will play a larger role, especially among women who lose access to abortion clinics.

'What is medication abortion?

'It’s an F.D.A.-approved regimen of pills that women can take at home. The approved protocol includes two medications. The first one, mifepristone, blocks a hormone called progesterone that is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. The second, misoprostol, brings on uterine contractions.

'Is it effective, and is it safe?

'Yes on both counts.'

Will those who manufacture the pills and those who take them eventually be deemed guilty of premeditated murder as well?

After all, once conception occurs, anything that stops it ends a human life, right?

What I always come back to are those here who are willing to "leave it up to the individual states" to decide what the law will be, and those who [re God or No God] won't rest until all abortions in all fifty states are deemed to be criminal offenses.

Also, the extent to which those who do believe this are willing to take this criminal offense seriously enough to charge those who perform or cause or have an abortion with the crime of premeditated first degree murder.

To actually sentence the guilty to long prison terms...or even to advocate executing them.

[Iwannaplato]

And yet even then most won't blame God. They'll convince themselves it's all just a part of God's plan. After all, what's the alternative? No God and the miscarriage "just happened"...just another manifestation of the brute facticity that is the human condition in a No God world.

Well, the range of theisms is wide, but yes Christian and other Abrahamist reactions to a number of things often strike me as odd.

And so many in the heartland were pronuke. Nukes leading to, well, abortions if used, as do pretty much any war. The mothers might be guilty, but not the fetuses. Where's the committment to the acceptance of the consequences of holding an absolute moral position?

And, to be clear, I don't think any this around abortion is easy and people on all sides can be odd. But this oddness in relation to abortion has struck me recently.

[Immanuel Can]

On the contrary, the Supremes always bring their arguments back to the Constitution.

Not in this case. R v. W has been found unconstitutional for the jurisdiction of the SC.

On the contrary, "abortion is now banned in at least eight states,

Only eight? What a shame. It should be all of them.

However, whether it's banned or not at the state level has nothing to do with the SC. That's what this finding means. It's simply not a matter upon which the SC has jurisdiction to rule. It's a state matter, one way or the other. That's what they've concluded.

And, again, just out of curiosity, for those who support this ruling, if a woman you know and love either performs or obtains an abortion in a jurisdiction where they are made illegal, do you turn her into the law?

Is she in fact a premeditated murderer who is, if convicted of this crime, morally justified in being executed by the state?

Here's my answer.

Let's say you have a female whom you know and love. She has a daughter she created by choice. But one day, she takes her two-year-old daughter, sticks a pair of scissors in the back of her neck, sucks her brain out with a vaccum, then calmly tears her arms and legs off, then maybe flushes them away, or even allows them to be sold on the organ market.

Her crime is discovered. What penalty do you prescribe?

When you answer, you'll have answered your own question.

[FrankGSterleJr]

If only as much concern was given to the already born and breathing as is given the unborn, some real progress could be made.

As a free-nation society, we cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, including those who insist upon procreating regardless of their inability to raise children in a psychologically functional/healthy manner. We can, however, educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those high-schoolers who plan to remain childless.

If nothing else, such curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood.

But, owing to the Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mindset, the prevailing collective attitude (implicit or subconscious) basically follows: ‘Why should I care — my kids are alright?’ or ‘What is in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support programs for other people’s troubled families?’ While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when social progress is most needed.

As for abortion services, they, along with critical health services and long-term-care residences, should never be a for-profit medical procedure.

[Walker]

If only as much concern was given to the already born and breathing as is given the unborn ...

But it is, by the abortionists. It's concern enough to kill.

[Dontaskme]

But it is, by the abortionists. It's concern enough to kill.

Nature is just a..toxic bitch..oh my, I'm such a complainer..

If only I could stop wanking off and killing all these potential toxic bitches from ever having the chance to live.

urgh!! what a mess I keep making, has anyone got a tissue...I'm such a mess maker, sigh!



whah! I've pooed my arse hole again, someone please clean me up...whah! whah!

[Iwannaplato]

Let's say you have a female whom you know and love. She has a daughter she created by choice. But one day, she takes her two-year-old daughter, sticks a pair of scissors in the back of her neck, sucks her brain out with a vaccum, then calmly tears her arms and legs off, then maybe flushes them away, or even allows them to be sold on the organ market.

Her crime is discovered. What penalty do you prescribe?

When you answer, you'll have answered your own question.

Iamb who does not believe in an afterlife would likely be influenced by that in his decision. And for a Christian that girl would go to Heaven - what two year old could go to Hell - and live in eternity in great joy. Of course this wouldn't make the killing ok, but what is all the hubub about. Is it the breaking of rules? or the person, the mother, not taking care of her own immortal soul?

There are certainly anti-war Christians, God Bless them, but I haven't seen a consistant support for anti-war movements by Christians. Most seemed to go along with the Gulf Wars, the Vietnam War, and of course WW2. I never saw any remotely united Christian opposition to bombing that will cause abortions.

I haven't seen much Christian support for measures against corporate pollution (that increases the liklihood of misscarried or infant death or child death and disease) Of course many Christians join in, but I never see organizations (the Vatican or The Baptist World Alliance take stands on these issues.

Killing other peoples fetuses if it is part of a capitalist enterprise or a just or unjust war seems ok, in general. Or they don't really want to think about. But when individual women what to abort their fetuses/babies, this leads to outrage.

And are those Christians outraged by these kinds of practices that lead to miscarriages and child deaths enough to bring this up with their peers? To call their organizations and say we must not just try to prevent abortions but protect fetuses/babies from corporations, from wars?

I would guess there are a few of these people. Why not more?

[Dontaskme]

Let's say you have a female whom you know and love. She has a daughter she created by choice. But one day, she takes her two-year-old daughter, sticks a pair of scissors in the back of her neck, sucks her brain out with a vaccum, then calmly tears her arms and legs off, then maybe flushes them away, or even allows them to be sold on the organ market.

Her crime is discovered. What penalty do you prescribe?

When you answer, you'll have answered your own question.

Iamb who does not believe in an afterlife would likely be influenced by that in his decision. And for a Christian that girl would go to Heaven - what two year old could go to Hell - and live in eternity in great joy. Of course this wouldn't make the killing ok, but what is all the hubub about. Is it the breaking of rules? or the person, the mother, not taking care of her own immortal soul?

There are certainly anti-war Christians, God Bless them, but I haven't seen a consistant support for anti-war movements by Christians. Most seemed to go along with the Gulf Wars, the Vietnam War, and of course WW2. I never saw any remotely united Christian opposition to bombing that will cause abortions.

I haven't seen much Christian support for measures against corporate pollution (that increases the liklihood of misscarried or infant death or child death and disease) Of course many Christians join in, but I never see organizations (the Vatican or The Baptist World Alliance take stands on these issues.

Killing other peoples fetuses if it is part of a capitalist enterprise or a just or unjust war seems ok, in general. Or they don't really want to think about. But when individual women what to abort their fetuses/babies, this leads to outrage.

And are those Christians outraged by these kinds of practices that lead to miscarriages and child deaths enough to bring this up with their peers? To call their organizations and say we must not just try to prevent abortions but protect fetuses/babies from corporations, from wars?

I would guess there are a few of these people. Why not more?

Well said...

But nothing changes, where there is life there is killing.

Christianity itself is a blood thirsty satanic cult like ideolgy - where according to the ridiculous story, god so loved you mere mortals, that he had his own son brutally tortured and murdered in cold blood. It was the only way he could think of to get you to bow down and obey him, so that you too, could become like him, so that you too could be LOVE.

The only peaceful place we can know and see, is on Mars, or Venus...to name but a few places.

Here on earth, just forget it.

.

[phyllo]

She has a daughter she created by choice.

Most women who have abortions didn't choose to get pregnant and then changed their minds. They chose to have sex and if they got raped they didn't even choose that much.

But one day, she takes her two-year-old daughter, ...

A two-year-old is a human being without doubt. Many people don't think that a fetus is a human being.

And for a Christian that girl would go to Heaven - what two year old could go to Hell - and live in eternity in great joy.

It depends on the denomination but the most common Christian interpretation is that children go to hell.
To avoid that fate, there is infant baptism in some denominations.