Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Hmmm, more like advocating for the rights of the fetuses about to be killed who don't get to decide their own fate, including the chance to question or leave the church which might have saved them; a right which others on this board exercise regularly, and then complain about escaping abortion themselves.

:)

 

 

So really you are ok with protesters harassing people when you support the protesters' cause but object when you don't. 😏

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sorry man, I'm still scratching my head at this.   What exactly are you saying in regards to preventing unwanted pregnancies?  Are you suggesting that there may be a constitutional problem with the government assisting in such measures because of the word "posterity" in the constitution?  I am lost on the reasoning if so.  This is all kind of cryptic to me. 

I am saying that a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity as included in the Preamble of the Constitution is germane to the discussion of preventing unwanted pregnancies through legislative means and their constitutionality. It is interesting to me that because it hasn’t been much considered, immediate reactions to its introduction are that it can only point to disgustingly gross, ambiguous, esoteric, head-scratching applications. Lots of resistance to discussing it.

I would like to see how Posterity gets addressed in posters’ arguments. For example, why and how would a nation be interested in its future generations; why have we not taken more of a “Fed” approach to regulate them? Maybe some of the lawyers among us have some constitutional insights to share.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am saying that a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity as included in the Preamble of the Constitution is germane to the discussion of preventing unwanted pregnancies through legislative means and their constitutionality. It is interesting to me that because it hasn’t been much considered, immediate reactions to its introduction are that it can only point to disgustingly gross, ambiguous, esoteric, head-scratching applications. Lots of resistance to discussing it.

I would like to see how Posterity gets addressed in posters’ arguments. For example, why and how would a nation be interested in its future generations; why have we not taken more of a “Fed” approach to regulate them? Maybe some of the lawyers among us have some constitutional insights to share.

You are still being extremely cagey about what you think should be considered here. It seems that a nation that ensures each child comes to a home that is ready for it and wants it, is a nation that is ensuring the prosperity of its posterity. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment

We need to maximize the number babies from teens and other people who are least equipped to parent them. If we don't, we'll have fewer children in poverty and fewer families to deny services to.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

According to your belief, what happens to the spirit in the eight week old fetus/(baby yet to be born) that is aborted? Straight to heaven? Another chance in a another body? Either way, what exactly is the problem there from their point of view according to Latter-day Saint doctrine?

 

As I said you vote one time to remove peoples constitutional rights and they get all upset about it. The nerve!

I would worry more about what the Lord thinks.

Unless you no longer believe, and then it's a waste of time anyway.  We might as well be arguing about Harry Potter 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are still being extremely cagey about what you think should be considered here. It seems that a nation that ensures each child comes to a home that is ready for it and wants it, is a nation that is ensuring the prosperity of its posterity. 

So only married Harvard graduates can have children.  Interesting.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are still being extremely cagey about what you think should be considered here. It seems that a nation that ensures each child comes to a home that is ready for it and wants it, is a nation that is ensuring the prosperity of its posterity. 

Well then, let me add "cagey" to the list of reactions demonstrating resistance to and bias against a critical analysis of the ramifications of "Posterity" as part of the discussion of legislating various aspects and matters of pregnancy prevention. Only those who have considered its constitutional application will be able to engage in my approach. Otherwise, you are just jumping to arguments and rhetoric before analyzing this consideration, while the latter is all I'm asking to discuss.

I suppose some may see this as moving the focus from viability to Posterity rather than to prevention, but constitutionally more fundamental to both viability and prevention in my estimation would be Posterity.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think you are bringing your interpretation to the text. You perhaps prefer children going to homes where they aren’t wanted and aren’t ready?

It’s an odd leap from people having a choice not to have children they don’t want to eugenics. It’s like saying that if I don’t like eggplant, it’s discrimination not to force me to eat eggplant like everyone else. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am saying that a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity as included in the Preamble of the Constitution is germane to the discussion of preventing unwanted pregnancies through legislative means and their constitutionality. It is interesting to me that because it hasn’t been much considered, immediate reactions to its introduction are that it can only point to disgustingly gross, ambiguous, esoteric, head-scratching applications. Lots of resistance to discussing it.

I would like to see how Posterity gets addressed in posters’ arguments. For example, why and how would a nation be interested in its future generations; why have we not taken more of a “Fed” approach to regulate them? Maybe some of the lawyers among us have some constitutional insights to share.

The "head scratching" does not come in resistance to consider or discuss the topic, it comes more out of genuine confusion as to what you are trying to say or what your position is - because it sounds like you are saying that taking measures to help others fulfil their liberties of family planning in preventing unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing unintentional single teenage motherhood, abortions, etc. may be unconstitutional.  But I know that can't really be what you are saying.  so I am left scratching my head.   

I would suggest that the word "Posterity" in the Preamble to the Constitution is completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments, organizations, or individuals, taking measures to assist in securing the liberties to choose prevention of unwanted pregnancies in family planning - unless you are suggesting that the church's teachings are unconstitutional in that they violate some intended meaning in the word "Posterity" that should not be intentionally prevented via abstinence before marriage (a birth control measure) as it violates some imagined rights of mere theoretical potential posterity that could exist if we all simply stopped intentionally avoiding pregnancy and let our wild horny rabbit instinct run unchecked.  No, the church is not in violation of the constitution (of which the preamble is simply an introduction to and does not define government powers or individual rights).  No, the efforts of the CDC to reduce unwanted pregnancies on the national level are not in violation of the constitution either. But surely, you are not actually suggesting such things...so again, I am left scratching my head. 

We actually consider family planning (leaving abortion out of it - which is often due to a lack of planning) a constitutional right and privilege as part of our secured liberty, and any measure to assist in such measures only serves to secure and realize such liberties and personal choices and should be encouraged and pursued by federal and local governments and private organizations.  If one intends to breed without restriction or restraint like a Mormon in the 1800's, that is their liberty.  If one has other intentions, that is their liberty and they are not violating some imagined rights of some imagined and potential Posterity. 

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States...

Family planning both promotes "the general Welfare", and "secures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".   It is about securing and protecting "liberty" of those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.  The freedom to plan when and how many children one has through birth control measures is a protected liberty.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s an odd leap from people having a choice not to have children they don’t want to eugenics. It’s like saying that if I don’t like eggplant, it’s discrimination not to force me to eat eggplant like everyone else. 

I’ll have to remember @Hamba Tuhanaccusation that I am pro eugenics here for the next time he complains about Bill Reel or John Dehlin. Pathetic. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, pogi said:

The "head scratching" does not come in resistance to consider or discuss the topic, it comes more out of genuine confusion as to what you are trying to say or what your position is - because it sounds like you are saying that taking measures to help others fulfil their liberties of family planning in preventing unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing unintentional single teenage motherhood, abortions, etc. may be unconstitutional.  But I know that can't really be what you are saying.  so I am left scratching my head.   

I would suggest that the word "Posterity" in the Preamble to the Constitution is completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments, organizations, or individuals, taking measures to assist in securing the liberties to choose prevention of unwanted pregnancies in family planning - unless you are suggesting that the church's teachings are unconstitutional in that they violate some intended meaning in the word "Posterity" that should not be intentionally prevented via abstinence before marriage (a birth control measure) as it violates some imagined rights of mere theoretical potential posterity that could exist if we all simply stopped intentionally avoiding pregnancy and let our wild horny rabbit instinct run unchecked.  No, the church is not in violation of the constitution (of which the preamble is simply an introduction to and does not define government powers or individual rights).  No, the efforts of the CDC to reduce unwanted pregnancies on the national level are not in violation of the constitution either. But surely, you are not actually suggesting such things...so again, I am left scratching my head. 

We actually consider family planning (leaving abortion out of it - which is often due to a lack of planning) a constitutional right and privilege as part of our secured liberty, and any measure to assist in such measures only serves to secure and realize such liberties and personal choices and should be encouraged and pursued by federal and local governments and private organizations.  If one intends to breed without restriction or restraint like a Mormon in the 1800's, that is their liberty.  If one has other intentions, that is their liberty and they are not violating some imagined rights of some imagined and potential Posterity. 

Family planning both promotes "the general Welfare", and "secures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".   It is about securing and protecting "liberty" of those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.  The freedom to plan when and how many children one has through birth control measures is a protected liberty.

OK, let’s add “confusing” and “irrelevant” to the charges, but I’m not sure why a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity in consideration of the constitutionality of various proposals is so confusing and irrelevant.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK, let’s add “confusing” and “irrelevant” to the charges, but I’m not sure why a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity in consideration of the constitutionality of various proposals is so confusing and irrelevant.

The actual topic has been engaged by both pogi and me, each of us laying out why birth control is good for our posterity. You’ve chosen not to engage those arguments and have failed to explicitly state your own position. If you’re not going to stop being deliberately obtuse, there is no where for the conversation you want to have to go. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK, let’s add “confusing” and “irrelevant” to the charges, but I’m not sure why a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity in consideration of the constitutionality of various proposals is so confusing and irrelevant.

"Charges"?   It seems you are putting words in my mouth and misconstruing my intentions.  I am simply having a hard time understanding where you are coming from.  If you are suggesting that the Preamble to the Constitution is relevant in defining government powers and individual rights, then you are mistaken.  You can play a victim and take offense with this too if you so choose, but that is not my intent, I am simply expressing my position.   I think the preamble is irrelevant.  There are no constitutional "ramifications" that the preamble has in regards to family planning.  None.  I will also note that Dobbs v. Jackson.. is also completely irrelevant to the matter.  I have explained why previously.

I am not "charging" you with anything.  I am discussing the "ramifications" as I see them, and as you have directed the discussion.  I don't see any ramifications.  I have plainly explained why, you can address my points and defend your position, or continue to play a victim.  

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The actual topic has been engaged by both pogi and me, each of us laying out why birth control is good for our posterity. You’ve chosen not to engage those arguments and have failed to explicitly state your own position. If you’re not going to stop being deliberately obtuse, there is no where for the conversation you want to have to go. 

And now we have "deliberately obtuse" as a personal epithet. Congratulations, to took it there!

If you have presented that critical analysis in prior posts, I missed it since I only looked for it in direct replies to me after I requested it. Please offer a summary and I'll be happy to respond to the analysis, since I haven't much interest at this point in making or critiquing specific proposals.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 each of us laying out why birth control is good for our posterity.

...and how it secures and protects the liberty of our "Posterity" - as family planning is a liberty that they deserve. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I haven't much interest at this point in making or critiquing specific proposals.

I’m sure you don’t! You seem quite scared to engage this conversation beyond playing the persecuted victim. We are only talking about it because you brought it up. And now you don’t want to talk about it. What an engaging poster you are. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 It seems that a nation that ensures each child comes to a home that is ready for it and wants it, is a nation that is ensuring the prosperity of its posterity. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

I would suggest that the word "Posterity" in the Preamble to the Constitution is completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments, organizations, or individuals, taking measures to assist in securing the liberties to choose prevention of unwanted pregnancies in family planning - unless you are suggesting that the church's teachings are unconstitutional in that they violate some intended meaning in the word "Posterity" that should not be intentionally prevented via abstinence before marriage (a birth control measure) as it violates some imagined rights of mere theoretical potential posterity that could exist if we all simply stopped intentionally avoiding pregnancy and let our wild horny rabbit instinct run unchecked.  No, the church is not in violation of the constitution (of which the preamble is simply an introduction to and does not define government powers or individual rights).  No, the efforts of the CDC to reduce unwanted pregnancies on the national level are not in violation of the constitution either. But surely, you are not actually suggesting such things...so again, I am left scratching my head. 

We actually consider family planning (leaving abortion out of it - which is often due to a lack of planning) a constitutional right and privilege as part of our secured liberty, and any measure to assist in such measures only serves to secure and realize such liberties and personal choices and should be encouraged and pursued by federal and local governments and private organizations.  If one intends to breed without restriction or restraint like a Mormon in the 1800's, that is their liberty.  If one has other intentions, that is their liberty and they are not violating some imagined rights of some imagined and potential Posterity. 

Family planning both promotes "the general Welfare", and "secures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".   It is about securing and protecting "liberty" of those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.  The freedom to plan when and how many children one has through birth control measures is a protected liberty.

Somehow you missed these @CV75!? Despite responding to both posts!?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Charges"?   It seems you are putting words in my mouth and misconstruing my intentions.  I am simply having a hard time understanding where you are coming from.  If you are suggesting that the Preamble to the Constitution is relevant in defining government powers and individual rights, then you are mistaken.  You can play a victim and take offense with this too if you so choose, but that is not my intent, I am simply expressing my position.   I think the preamble is irrelevant.  There are no constitutional "ramifications" that the preamble has in regards to family planning.  None.  I will also note that Dobbs v. Jackson.. is also completely irrelevant to the matter.  I have explained why previously.

I am not "charging" you with anything.  I am discussing the "ramifications" as I see them, and as you have directed the discussion.  I don't see any ramifications.  I have plainly explained why, you can address my points and defend your position, or continue to play a victim.  

 

Inasmuch as the Preamble establishes for whom the highest law of the land applies, the government powers and individual rights that follow must also apply.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sure you don’t! You seem quite scared to engage this conversation beyond playing the persecuted victim. We are only talking about it because you brought it up. And now you don’t want to talk about it. What an engaging poster you are. 

You are not answering my request that consideration of the meaning of Posterity be included as part of justifying the constitutionality of the proposals that are offered. I'm not interested in making or critiquing specific proposals simply because I'm not vested in any at the moment, but I am interested in how one's concept Posterity, and thus their constitutionality, plays into them.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Somehow you missed these @CV75!? Despite responding to both posts!?

I saw these and responded to both posts because I am civil. But I did not see a critical analysis of Posterity in either of these posts. The first post is circular rhetoric – it just asserts that “a nation that ensures each child comes to a home that is ready for it and wants it, is a nation that is ensuring the prosperity of its posterity,” and not how that is done in terms of what Posterity means constitutionally or in relation to constitutional rights; no analysis. The second one just says Posterity is irrelevant, avoiding an analysis altogether.

Either of you could have said something like this: I take the term “Posterity” very broadly, to refer to anyone living in this country after our arrival into it (no matter how we got here), to the furthest generation. This includes natural and adopted descendants, whether intentional, accidental, formal, legitimate, informal or illegitimate, of both natives and immigrants. By virtue of its mention in the Preamble, we treat the foreigner and stranger at least as well as we would ourselves, and none are more foreign or strange than those yet to come.  For this reason, I’m suggesting our proposals need to consider how they would affect us as if we were the Posterity, taking into account what we are willing to do ourselves [if that is a moral value]. Of course, the rights of extant and yet-to-be people may be realized and protected differently along a timeline, but the rights and protections are still there.

Lead out with something like that, and then apply your analysis to justify your more detailed proposals if it comes to that level of discussion/debate.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...