Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I wish I could leave it up to the individual, but as long as evil and selfish people exist and can be combined with late term abortions--which means that a person could decide to abort a full term baby for no other reason than they don't want to put off a vacation to Hawaii for a month--I don't think stopping all state or federal oversight is moral.  

The differences between embryos and full term but unborn babies are stark enough and huge enough that I just can't accept the idea that all abortions should be viewed equally.

 

I agree with you completely. There has to be some reasonable middle ground here. The absolutists are unfortunately the ones pushing legislation. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

By they way I an generally opposed to abortion but I am also opposed the the conservative religious trying to impose laws on everyone because they think their god says so.

I reject this characterization.  It is used to attempt to delegitimize the right of religious people to participate in the political process.  We all have our personal preferences, opinions, ideologies, beliefs, ets.  That some of these are influenced or informed or to some extent based on religious tenets does not - in the main - matter a whit.  If a government action is constitutional, then voters are free to call for legislation that is based on or influenced by personal beliefs, including religious beliefs.

If the religious right wants to impose their beliefs on those who have different beliefs

You are only proving my point when you say things like this.

When irreligious people vote, they are imposing their beliefs "on those who have different beliefs."  Yet you do not object to that.  Why?

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

then the reverse should be fair should it not? 

I don't know what you mean by "the reverse."

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And be careful here. The religious right may come for others who they view as a cult, etc. 

"May come for?"  Fearmongering much?

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Don't forget the government power that was used against the church in the late 19th century. 

I haven't forgotten.  I am grateful that we have progressed much since then.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I didi not say that religious people cannot participate in the political process. 

Sure sounds like it.

"I am also opposed the the conservative religious trying to impose laws on everyone..."

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Just don't jam your religious positions down the throat of the rest of us.

By . . . participating in the political process?  

Don't you see the incongruity here?

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I guess it is a tough line to walk.  Not sure I have a soliution.

I think we need to look to the Constitution.  Again, if a government action is constitutional, then voters are free to call for legislation that is based on or influenced by personal beliefs, including religious beliefs.  And non-religious beliefs as well.

Attempts to discourage or dissuade religious people from participating in the political process by accusing them, by delegitimizing their participation and characterizing it as "{jamming} religious positions down the throat of the rest of us," is not the way to go, IMO.

I am reminded of this 2009 story about Tom Hanks:

Quote

Last week, the Oscar-winning actor said: "The truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop. 8 happen," a reference to the California initiative outlawing gay marriage.  "There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them."  Now, he tells People magazine, he wishes he'd used different words:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience -- nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.

Sincerely, Tom Hanks

I see your accusations against "the religious right" as comparable and analogous to Tom Hanks accusing us of being "un-American" for voting according to our conscience, preferences, beliefs, etc.  To his credit, Hanks reversed and corrected himself.  I think he was right when he said: "But everyone has a right to vote their conscience -- nothing could be more American."

I'll close with the 11th Article of Faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I think acting "according to the dictates of our own conscience" is an important precept, and one I hope others would endorse.  It's not unique to us, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

And I think there is a point that baby has rights. Now what do we do?

I agree with you. Again, there should be space for reasonable compromise. 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The absolutists are unfortunately the ones pushing legislation. 

On both sides. 

I don't think anyone here is an absolutist though.

Edited May 12, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree with you. Again, there should be space for reasonable compromise. 

Purple states and the senate filibuster help us not be subject to the extremes. With states rights, people can at least vote with their feet if one sided governance gets too extreme. We see it happening right now. 

[Kenngo1969]

Why does it seem as though folks who are in the most ardent, rabid, pro-abortion-on-demand-at-any-time-for-any-reason camp are opposed to democracy*?  If that's what someone thinks should happen ... if that person thinks that the law in his or her jurisdiction should permit a woman to come in an hour before giving birth and get an abortion ... fine.  Talk to your legislator(s).  Lobby for a change in the law.  Put up signs in your yard.  Host meetings in which the main topic of discussion is changing the law more to your liking.  Make phone calls.  Hand out flyers.  Raise money.  If you wish to protest and are willing to do so peacefully and lawfully, you can even do that.  Fine and dandy!  Knock yourself out!  This is the United States of America!

"But, Ken, what if I can't get enough people to agree with me, or what if I do, but we can't get our elected representatives to agree with us?"  Well, perhaps that is unfortunate.  Bummer, Dude(tte)!    What to do, what to doooooo?  There are, perhaps, areas of the country where what you think should be the law of the land already is the law of the land, or at least areas of the country where, even if what you think should be the law of the land isn't yet the law of the land, that is more likely to happen than it is where you are now.  As my sister, @bsjkki , points out, it's called federalism, and it's a wonderful thing.

Move.

Utah isn't like California isn't like New Hampshire isn't like New York isn't like Wyoming, et cetera, ad infinitum.  It isn't supposed to be.  You don't like the fact that I disagree with you?  Fine.  Persuade me.  Use logic, and sound reasoning, and cogent argumentation.  But what you don't get to do (or at least what you shouldn't be able to do, notwithstanding the fact that too many snowflakes have read an alleged "right to not be offended" or an alleged "right to silence anyone with whom I disagree" or an alleged "right to avoid being exposed to ideas with which I disagree" into the First Amendment ... ideas that, frankly, stand the Amendment on its head) is to shout me down, to shut me up, to hound me into silence simply because I disagree with you or because you disagree with me or because you think I have the "wrong" opinion.  "Democracy" is fine, as long as people agree with me?  No, no.  That ain't how it works.

*At least, they're opposed to representative democracy, aka republicanism.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes thanks.  My argument was a poor one  This is a tough issue for me.

Same here.  I think both sides are making legitimate points.

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have always been opposed to abortion. That position has softened due to my faith transition but I still personally oppose it but struggle with imposing that view on others.

I'm curious if you can perceive - if not share and agree with - the comparison between abortion and slavery.  I am opposed to slavery, and I have no qualms with "imposing that view on others."  To the contrary, I find it both my right and duty to participate in the political and legal processes that create laws that govern society, and to make some effort to have those laws comport with my generalized notions of right and wrong.

I dislike accusatory rhetoric against the "religious right" about "{jamming} religious positions down the throat of the rest of us."  Our system of laws is set up with all sorts of checks and balances.  Meanwhile, we need to all feel free to participate in the political process.  Disparaging and insulting religious people for voting their conscience is not the way to go.

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I also believe that many who oppose abortion also oppose things that could help prevent abortion as well as programs that can help so many who may seek abortion due to economic circumstances. 

I'm happy to talk about such things.

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Lastly, I do believe the religious right is pushing this agenda to impose their religious beliefs and values on the rest of Americans that do not agree with those beliefs and values and that they won't stop here.  Just listen to a little Ben Shapiro.

I've listened to him a fair amount.  I do not detect anything like what you are suggesting.

Again, the "impose their religious beliefs" rhetoric is ugly.  Tom Hanks was wrong to disparage as "un-American" people who choose to vote according to the dictates of their conscience, and I htink you are wrong to disparage "the religious right" for voting by characterizing their participation in the political process as "impos{ing} their religious beliefs."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yep.  You are not wrong to use the word child in reference to the unborn.  It is common accepted usage in our society - with one single exception...abortion.  Than it is a BIG no no.  

Quote

 

Child

: an unborn or recently born person… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

 

 

"Meghan Markle ... now pregnant with {a parasitic clump of cells}."  Yeah, never heard that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2022 by smac97

[bsjkki]

40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

What do you mean by health requirements. I'm not sure what you're describing?

 

With luv,

BD

Covid mandates. 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Meghan Markle ... now pregnant with {parasitic clump of cells}."  Yeah, never heard that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just like I’ve never heard anyone say my daughter is a baby killer if she doesn’t transfer all her embryos. Oh, wait. I have. 

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Purple states and the senate filibuster help us not be subject to the extremes. With states rights, people can at least vote with their feet if one sided governance gets too extreme. We see it happening right now. 

"Vote with their feet"?  Why, that's just crazy talk!    Whoever heard of such a thing?!

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Vote with their feet"?  Why, that's just crazy talk!    Whoever heard of such a thing?!

So, people should stop fighting for their rights and just leave? Wow. 

[Kenngo1969]

@Teancum

So, you don't think that religious considerations have any place in civic life (that, for example, the devout should not allow such considerations to influence how the person votes)?  Do I understand you correctly? 

If my understanding of your position is correct, I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question.  There are people who base their decision about for whom they vote on whether the candidate "is someone the voter would like to have a beer with," or on whether the voter thinks the person would make an amusing or interesting appearance on Saturday Night Live or on one of the late-night talk shows (or, for that matter, on their late-morning or afternoon counterparts), or on whether the candidate is "a prized hunk of man-flesh" or "woman-flesh" (my phrases, both, but don't hit me, hate me, or hurt me: I'm just pointing out that there are voters who do think that way).

I think that any of the reasons listed in the foregoing paragraph are absolutely stupid reasons to vote for someone (or, for that matter, that their opposites are stupid reasons to not vote for someone).  That said, however, the privacy of the voting booth (let alone of the mental inner sanctum of the voter himself or herself) is sacrosanct: If, in the privacy of the voting booth, a voter wants to make the decision by marking his or her ballot randomly (or by making random selections electronically), the voter can do that.  It's none of my business.  And I wouldn't take away the franchise, even from someone who votes for (or who votes against) someone for what I consider to be stupid reasons.

How about you?  And even if you say, "No, never would I do that" [which is what I hope you would say, and what I expect you would say] bear in mind that there are people who say, "We shouldn't allow people who [fill in the blank] to vote," for example, "We shouldn't allow people who [are religious] to vote."  Yet, on the other hand, if we're not going to stop people from voting even for frankly stupid reasons such as the ones I list in my first paragraph ...

Think about it.

 

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, people should stop fighting for their rights and just leave? Wow. 

No, I will thank you to not put words in my mouth.  (And I will accept your sincere apology for attempting to do so.)  You have taken a single sentence completely out of the context of the other several hundred words in which it appeared.  That's not the way good faith  discourse is supposed to work, Friend.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

No, I will thank you to not put words in my mouth.  (And I will accept your sincere apology for attempting to do so.)  You have taken a single sentence completely out of the context of the other several hundred words in which it appeared.  That's not the way good faith  discourse is supposed to work, Friend.

I was responding to your post, which was three short sentences. If I missed some other context, I apologize. 

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, people should stop fighting for their rights and just leave? Wow. 

Yep. Why do you think the population of certain states are growing and others decreasing. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yep. Why do you think the population of certain states are growing and others decreasing. 

What of those of low income who cannot afford to move even when laws make it harder for them to break even?  Or at least the way some use the laws to take advantage of others? What is a reasonable approach to their situation?

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I believe in federalism, but not when it comes to guaranteeing basic rights. That’s what the Constitution is for. 

Okay.  Show me which provision in the United States Constitution guarantees a "basic" unfettered "right" to an abortion.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.  https://usconstitution.com/.*  And, by the way, there are even a good number of liberals who, although they support abortion, believe, nonetheless, that the majority reasoning of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is flawed.

____________________

*Conversely, I can point to another founding document that does contain a "basic right" to life.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Who use this "religious {people are wrong for} trying to impose laws on everyone" thing are hardly ever consistent about it.  Nobody says "We must decriminalize sexual abuse of children because Luke 17:2 states that '{i}t were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.'"  You don't mind it when religious folks vote in accordance with ther scruples on matters that you agree with, right?  The "legislating morality" canard is patently arbitrary and ad hoc.  I reject it.

There is a flaw in your thinking here. The problem is that ancient musings from a book that was compiled 1700 years ago are a terrible basis and authority for delimiting right and wrong.

There is a flaw in your thinking here.  Blithe reductionism of the Bible as "a book that was compiled 1700 years ago" is a terrible basis for disparaging it. 

West Point, perhaps the finest military academy in the world, has a "Top Ten" reading list from its History Department:

Quote

Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. 1832. Ed. and trans. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Indexed ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Nearly 200 years old.

Quote

Corbett, Julian Stafford. Some Principles of Maritime Strategy. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1976 (originally published by Conway Press Ltd., 1911; 1st Reprint by U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1972).

50 years old.

Quote

Delbruck, Hans. History of the Art of War Within the Framework of Political History.  Original German edition, 4 vols, 1900-1920.  Vols. 1-4 trans. by Colonel Walter J. Renfroe, Jr. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1975-82.

Over 100 years old.

Quote

Douhet, Giulio. The Command of the Air. 1921. USAF Warrior Studies. Richard Kohn and Joseph P. Harahan, eds. Trans. by Dino Ferrari. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983, paperback, (Ayer Company published an edition in 1972 which was a reprint of the 1942 edition originally translated by Dino Ferrari).

Over 100 years old.

Quote

Du Picq, Ardant. Battle Studies. In Roots of Strategy, Book 2, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:  Stackpole Books, 1987, paperback (previously published by The Military Service Publishing Co., 1946, and by the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, as part of the "Art of War," colloquium, undated).

76 years old.

Quote

Jomini, Antoine Henri. The Art of War. 1838. Trans.by G.H. Mendell and W.P. Craighill. Reprint, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1971.

184 years old.

Quote

Machiavelli, Niccolo.  The Art of War.  1521. Trans. by Ellis Farneworth.  Revised with an introduction by Neal Wood.  New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1965, 1990 repr.

501 years old.

Quote

Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783. 1890. Reprint, New York: Hill and Wang, 1957. Paperback, New York: Dover Books, 1987.

65 years old.

Quote

Sun Tzu. The Art of War.  4th century B.C. Trans. with an introduction by Samuel B. Griffith.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1963 (also available in Roots of Strategy, R.H. Phillips, ed., Stackpole, 1987, paperback).

2,400+ years old.

Quote

Thucydides.  The Peloponnesian War.  Revised Edition.  Trans. by Edward Crawley. New York:  Modern Library, 1982. 

2,500+ years old.

Your reasoning seems flawed.  The Bible is old, ergo it is unreliable, even "terrible."

My take is that the Bible has stood the test of time and has proven its value.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, some versus happen to align well with the humanist values our society is based on (e.g. Luke 17:2). However, other versus teach things that are inherently evil and ought to be rejected (e.g. Proverbs 13:24). Whether a moral teachings is promoted in the Bible has no bearing on whether or not it is a good moral teaching.

Uh huh.

"Humanist values" presuppose Judeo-Christian ethics as a starting point.  Nietzsche had it right, I think, when he said that humanism is "nothing more than an empty figure of speech" and a "secular version of theism."  It would be like me quoting Hamlet's Soliloquy and then concluding with "By the way, Shakespeare has no bearing on what I just said."

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you have a ideas based on reason and humanism of how our society can be made more perfect, then by all means fully participate in our political process.

We have plenty of these.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

But if your beliefs are based solely on the writings of old books, keep your opinions to yourself--they have no value in crafting the laws of our secular nation.

First, I hope Teancum is reading what you have said here.  Teancum, do you see what Analytics is saying here?  There doesn't seem to be much daylight between his rhetoric and yours.  He's a bit more explicit is all ("keep your opinions to yourself").

Second, I am grateful for the Constitution, and that it allows people like me to participate in the political process, even when people like you suggest we should not.

Third, we have plenty of examples of "humanism" in control of the political process.  How many tens of millions have died under the regimes operating under your preferred set of ethics, which you apparently claim to be superior to Judeo-Christian values?  In the immortal words of Karl Marx: "Atheism is humanism mediated with itself through the sublation of religion, while communism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of private property.”

And the cost of that supersession?  100+ million lives.  And counting.

Next up: A "No True Scotsman" take from Analytics.  "No, no.  Real humanism in politics doesn't lead to misery, death and destruction on a massive scale.  We'll get it right if we do it this way..."

But as Claude Lévi-Strauss put it:

Quote

Lévi-Strauss famously laid responsibility for the twentieth century’s horrors—total war, genocide, colonialism, threat of nuclear annihilation—at the doorstep of Western humanism. As he remarked in a 1979 interview, “All the tragedies we have lived through, first with colonialism, then with fascism, finally the concentration camps, all this has taken shape not in opposition to or in contradiction with so-called humanism . . . but I would say almost as its natural continuation.”

That said, as much as I dislike humanism, I would never discourage you from participating in the political process, or seek to censor you from expressing your opinions.  I hope at some point you will be able to reciprocate that sentiment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  Show me which provision in the United States Constitution guarantees a "basic" unfettered "right" to an abortion.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.  https://usconstitution.com/.*  And, by the way, there are even a good number of liberals who believe that the majority reasoning of Roe v. Wade, 

____________________

Conversely, I can point to another founding document that does contain a "basic right" to life.

Speaking of putting words in others’ mouths, I don’t believe there is an “unfettered” right to abortion in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade certainly doesn’t establish such a right. 

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, people should stop fighting for their rights and just leave? Wow. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, I will thank you to not put words in my mouth.  (And I will accept your sincere apology for attempting to do so.)  You have taken a single sentence completely out of the context of the other several hundred words in which it appeared.  That's not the way good faith  discourse is supposed to work, Friend.

 

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was responding to your post, which was three short sentences. If I missed some other context, I apologize. 

Then read this one.  

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Speaking of putting words in others’ mouths, I don’t believe there is an “unfettered” right to abortion in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade certainly doesn’t establish such a right. 

Fair enough.  I apologize.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

Then read this one.  

Well, I apologize for assuming you were agreeing with the statement made about voting with your feet. Apparently the person who made the statement believes I interpreted their point correctly. I would never intentionally misrepresent your position. I hope you know that. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I apologize for assuming you were agreeing with the statement made about voting with your feet. Apparently the person who made the statement believes I interpreted their point correctly. I would never intentionally misrepresent your position. I hope you know that. 

If it comes to that, and if a person feels strongly enough about the issue, yes, I believe one can vote with his or her feet.  However, I also talked extensively about one attempting to sway one's neighbors and associates to his or her own position through advocacy, through raising money, through joining with like-minded individuals, through attempting to persuade and influence and win over with logic and reason and sound argument, et cetera and ad infinitum.  If all you got out of that was, "Just leave and don't let the door hit you in the hindquarters on the way out," I'm sorry.  I can't help you.  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, people should stop fighting for their rights and just leave? Wow. 

I think the point is that people have the option of moving to another jurisdiction.

Everyone has their own individualized set of metrics for deciding where to live.  Jobs and the economy.  Housing.  Preferences re: weather and outdoor amenities.  Proximity to family and friends.  Proximity to shopping and infrastructure.  

California ticks a lot of boxes for me, but it is way too expensive.  And its politics are too Coo-Coo-for-CoaCoa-Puffs for me.

My sister-in-law just moved to Virginia and encouraged us to move there also.  Beautiful area, and good job opportunities, but too far from my family, and too big an impact on my career, and my kids would not want to move.

My wife has relatives in a coastal state who have a beautiful waterfront house there, and they love the area overall.  However, the local schools are apparently becoming too invested in indoctrination - particularly as to matters of sexuality (IIRC, there was a mandatory lecture at the elementary school that involved cucumbers and condoms...), and the lawlessness and violence and generalized craziness of the nearby large metropolitan city is creeping closer to them.  They did not feel that homeschooling is an option, so as much as they love the area, they felt they had to move.

We all have the right to vote with our feet.

And contrary to Analytics' suggestion, we all have the right to vote with our votes as well.

Free Speech!  It's a grand thing!  So I reject Analytics demand that people like me "keep your opinions to {ourselves}" relative to political issues.  I am grateful that I have the right to speak my mind, and to vote according to the dictates of my conscience.

I am grateful that these rights are protected from people like Analytics. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2022 by smac97