Getting back to the abortion issue i.e. Roe overturned..

Two main balks:

1) It throws the law into pandemonium

A main policy in the practice of law is of course the giving of deference, bowing, to well-catalogued precedents. And so the "stare decisis" mandate is critical else the law devolves into a chaos. That Latin phrase means "hold fast the decisions resulting from previous just litigations". What is the judiciary to rely on after the brazen baseless Dobbs reversal? That action was the height of miscarriage.

2) It conflates valor with policymaking, an uprising of some self-acclaimed lily whites

Former VP Mike Pence was heard announcing, "From the Trump administration, the accomplishment that I am most proud of was the Dobbs decision". Is that perhaps the holier-than-thou Mike speaking I wonder? Is that the self-acclaimed goodie-two-shoes Mike speaking? Being a chief executive is a job - the laborer should perform it with detachment and acumen primarily, and not with valor, or as a religious crusade. Lest you all retort, the word "leadership" is way overrated, way overused.

 

The willingness of A to tell B what to do and, if possible, force B to do it, is a characteristic seen from time to time in h. sapiens. It is most readily detected in the sub-species h. politicus.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

One could also apply that comment to aspects of the Democrat program as well well.

I am pro choice so I am not happy with some of what some states are doing, but your party is hardly a beacon for freedom with its heavy handed big government policies.

 

Force who? Who is forcing who in regard to abortion?

Here in America we value individual rights. A human fetus is identifiable as a separate individual from both their mother and their father. This is easily determined as half the fetus DNA came from the mother, and half came from the father to create a separate and unique individual.

Did you think taking away an individual's right to life is supposed to be easy?

 

Hi, JohnHamilton.

For the record [Ed.: Again!], I'm neither lib nor con, red nor blue, Rep nor Dem. To ascribe a party affiliation to me is an error of perception, I do subscribe to the ethos of secular humanism.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, Green Man.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that it is non-specific.

In answer to your question, as a secular humanist, why would I think that?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Couldn't agree more!

 

That “the Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion,” a point made as though it were some sort of discovery, in no way establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty” from government deprivation “without due process of law” excludes control over one’s own body, not to mention the course—indeed, continuation—of one’s life. On the contrary, the Ninth Amendment’s explicit instruction that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” rules out any claim that the Constitution’s failure to list the right to bodily integrity among its “enumerated” protections excludes that right from those “retained by the people.”

. . . Conspicuously absent from Dobbs is any coherent legal analysis—or anything that deserves to be called “analysis” at all—of why someone’s right to avoid compelled pregnancy, involuntary childbirth, and forced parenthood is not an essential part of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (and perhaps even of the freedom from “involuntary servitude” protected by the Thirteenth). As a result, it’s the Alito opinion in Dobbs, and not Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe, that is “not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

Put simply, Dobbs is a fiat issued by five justices simply “because they could.”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022...bbs-decision-was-wrong-and-based-on-religion/

The conservatives, not being able to find a cogent legal argument for overturning Dobbs, didn't bother trying. Alito basically said "we didn't like the decision."

 

The only thing the Court says about it in Dobbs is that “the abortion right” is not itself “founded…in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” But that is a wholly irrelevant observation and confuses the category of “rights” with the category of rules about how to read a text dealing with rights. Nobody has ever seriously claimed that the “abortion right,” or indeed any substantive right, could possibly be “founded” in a rule about how to read the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is not the “foundation” of any group of rights but a directive about how constitutional decisions about rights are to be made. Searching for rights in it is akin to searching for actual pieces of lumber in a manual on how to build a house.

 

The defining standard of statist authoritarianism is politicians' abrogating and arrogating personal freedom. Invasion of wombs in contravention of half-a-century of established law is compounded by the extremists' banning safe medication that facilitates termination of pregnancy at the earliest stages. The state dictating gender identity to Americans is similarly dictatorial.

The public will is, overwhelmingly, opposed to the womb-grabbers.

That contrasts starkly with policies such as those pertaining to sensible firearm safety regulations in which the will of the People is reflected.

Polls show a solid majority of Americans want gun control

Americans still support abortion rights
​

 

But......but......those Dems are pure evil totalitarians for requiring people to vaccinate themselves against COVID, a deadly disease.

School Vaccination Requirements and Exemptions

All states, the District of Columbia, and territories have vaccination requirements for children attending childcare facilities and schools. These vaccination requirements are important tools for maintaining high vaccination coverage and low rates of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). Exemptions from vaccination requirements may apply for some children.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/schoolvaxview/requirements/index.html

 

My biggest problem is the impact on maternal health. It takes years to challenge legislation, especially badly written legislation meanwhile women will die.

 

As a preface, I oppose restricting abortion, because I see it as a moral issue, not an issue of mantaining social order or stability. And I oppose legislating morality.

But in this argument of not upsetting the order of rule of law... it seems a rather disingenuous argument to make, given the vast majority of folks who oppose restricting abortion, would happily see other common and popular things heavily restricted, like firearms. About 3 in 100 women get abortions. About 46/100 households have firearms, and ~17% of those fall into the ill-defined category of 'asssult weapons' that are legal, but currently being targetted for bans. Does that not similarly 'throw the law into pandemonium'?

 

Okay - how soon does that “separate individual” thing start? At viability? At implantation? At conception?

 

Sorry, I have read your posts. If you don’t identify as a Democrat, you are trying to fool us all if you deny that you are a liberal. Perhaps given the extremely progressive nature of Manhattan, maybe you would be called a moderate or even a conservative there.

 

Hi for the last time on this thread, JohnHamilton.

How you choose to label me is, of course, your choice. It is no no further concern to me. I remain exactly who and what I am, no matter the labels applied.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

What pandemonium was created in 1994 when the assault weapons ban was put in place?

 

As will I. I call them as I see them.

 

Some people have this weird fascination with needing to label people. It reminds me of junior high school. I would have thought most people would have grown out of that. Guess not.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

I wouldn't dream of taking a life but let's wait until the child can actually envision his/her life. It's not until five months along that the fetus can experience dreams. That ought be the juncture at which abortion is no longer permitted. It's plain as day.

 

For me it's when a fetus is viable outside the womb. Which I believe can be about 22-24 weeks. While my wife and I would NEVER have an abortion, I'm ok with allowing abortions (I believe in freedom of choice) up to 21 weeks. Outside of that timeframe it should only be if the mothers life is in danger or the fetus becomes non-viable.

 

Dave Barnhart wrote about the Pro-life movement


"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.”

“Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

 

There are extremists who wish to impose upon everyone, by government dictate, their notion that every microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells in a womb is an itty-bitty person.

Most differ.

Rather than the coercive power of the State intruding upon private, personal morality, Canada respects the latter.

The Canadian Medical Association defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks of gestation. Most facilities calculate gestational age by date of last menstrual period (LMP), meaning that some facilities perform abortions on request up to 22 weeks LMP. The estimated percentage of abortions at 21+ weeks to be close to 0.59%. A small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both. Many impairments or health risks are not detectable until after the 24th week of gestation

By respecting a woman's decision, made in consultation with loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts, politicians are not empowered to intrude and dictate.

The result is that Canada's abortion rate is somewhat lower than that of the U.S., and the Northern neighbor avoids the divisive Sturm und Drang of abortion politics.

 

Hi, ECA.

Years back, I heard of someone who supposedly said, "It takes all kinds of people to make a world. Glad I'm not one of them!"

Grins to you this lovely morning!

Regards, stay safe 'n well.