Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

My right makes right is ONLY when poop hits the fan.
Else we as people try to give ourselves rights.
And then those Rights need an enforcement mechanism.

 

Violence is never the answer.
But sometimes mob mentality takes over.

Jan 6, 2021 is an example of that also.

 

Yes it sometimes is.

 

Got it.
But it seems since actual person's rights were being infringed upon. They corrected a mistake.

 

To the uncivilized. Yes.

Or as self defense. If civilized discourse can't prevail.

 

Actually the court's ruling in Plessy that segregation was constitutional did not, in the mind of the court, infringe on anybody's rights under the banner separate but equal. The point being that SCOTUS can get things wrong for whatever reason, like R v W or Plessy, and other SCOTUS's should correct it if the opportunity arises.

 

IMO, R V W is different.
As it deals with rights of unborn. For which there's no federal or constitutional determinate as to when those not yet people or person is clarified as a person.

 

Guffaw. That wasn't an argument.

 

I'm citing violent "progressive" terrorists who went on a months-long rampage that caused billions of dollars of damage from coast to coast.

What you did in your post is what terrorist apologists do.

Worse than pathetic....

 

I gave you the citation above. You can download "The Republic" and read it there. It's a very important discussion that takes the form of someone (Thrasymacus) taking your position and debating Socrates in a public forum.

The gist of Socrates' argument is that the "might makes right" ethos is inimical to a healthy society, not only to the governed but also even to the rulers themselves. It may be a reality in some societies, but calling it "Justice" is inappropriate.

That's my reading and the philosophers here can tell us if I have it wrong.

 

Can we agree that both are objectively wrong?

 

Might enables right.

 

That is really the point with the current SCOTUS hullabaloo, not when is a fetus a human being or any other abortion criteria, but that it is and was none of the court's business and authority in the first place, and its 1973 ruling should be moot and invalid..

 

The core issue, in my opinion- is the rejection of fundamental realities, of principles of life that have existed long before humans- and the idea that while all other species are subject to them, we believe we are not and can write our own. In theory, we do that to improve ourselves- but in practice, we have improved technology, invented millions of things and done great damage to the planet, it's inhabitants and our fellow man- BUT we have not improved the capacity of the average human being to live in harmony with their own kind, or any other kind. We are not only lacking in harmony with the world- but with each other.

You are obviously religious in the christian sense, I am not. But I totally recognize a higher power; I see that as nature, a teacher- not a god deciding for us. I see the responsibility for everything you think, say, feel or do as being totally that of the person, and the greatest failure we have is to think we can take responsibility for others or force them to take it for us. Regardless of what guides your values in life- to me, a good man is a good man, a bad man is a bad man. I see us all as individually responsible for who we are. That is where your personal power lies, your control over your own life and destiny - and it's only in your hands if you accept it and live it in a way that earns your own respect. Thus- when we attempt to end poverty by giving people what they should be doing for themselves- we make them dependent, we steal their power, diminish their self-respect. That is not to say we can't help people in need, but to say that you can't help people who won't help themselves, and trying to do so only confirms their belief that they don't have to.

This is how nature has produced millions of species that have thrived for millions of years without governments, schools or any of the constructs humans use to try to make ourselves better- and all but man has done so without poisoning the planet or using up all the natural resources- simply by following the fundamental principles of life.

A religious person would see this too, just acknowledge it as god's work, and I have no conflict with that. Many years ago I was teaching there things, and was invited to a thanksgiving dinner at a family friends house. He was a very successful young minister, now a fairly famous one. In discussions, we talked about this and he asked to see the materials of my classes. He soon said- you are doing the same thing I am, just with different tools- attempting to improve the human condition. That was true.

It is however, far simpler than most people make it. It is the trash on the table that prevents us seeing the treasure, and we put it there ourselves. I found that while what I taught was simple- convincing people to change what they had already been taught to live by was not. It's not learning that is hard, it's the process of un-learning. I never discovered a way to make that easy.

It became clear to me over 40 years ago that nature and the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth knew a lot of things that humans did not, and we should be learning from them, and I went about doing that.
Thus- I have a fundamental value system that works very well, but is different than that of most. My life is guided by three natural principles, one-line basic rules. Every decision I make reflects those principles. When they do not, they prove wrong, and like all of us- I don't like to be wrong. It's a lot easier to live by three consistent rules than by thousands of conflicting ones.

 

49 of them to be precise. Thats 49 of them supporting late term abortions up to the time of delivery.

 

Right. And all it takes to abort in the 9th month is for a healthcare worker to find that the pregnancy could harm a mother’s mental or physical health.

Can you believe this? Every pregnancy presents a potential risk to the mother! I mean birthing person.

 

And if this gets kicked down to the states it's a pretty safe bet that some of them will allow that.

 

Sure it was. That's why it is deemed very weak. Again.

If not an argument, what was it?

 

So you think many arrested on Jan 6 are justified in being convicted and sentenced?

I am not apologizing for anyone or anything.

Violence is NEVER the answer.

Another very weak attempt.

 

A statement of fact.

There's nothing to argue there...

 

Hence my caveat, 2x to you know, when the poop hits the fan. When push comes to shove. When all else fails.

Civil societies will try and give themselves certain rights. And there needs to be an enforcing mechanism to administer said rights and violations of them. For rights are man made. Society made.

 

Absolutely.

 

And it's not a gov't business either.
It's the person's choice of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Which is probably where the court has to get involved. And they should make the choice of it being up to an actual person.
Not a gov't entity.

 

Can you cite the words stating up until the time of delivery?

 

All it takes? So the mother should possibly die?
If the mother does die because she could not abort, then an abortion opponent should have to die with her.