cipriano Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Unless we miraculously come to agree on the semantics this will continue to be a dangerously divisive issue. What actions would you like to see? More and more I feel like Sir Godfrey in The Kingdom of Heaven when the angelic hospiteler asks him "When shall we stop this madness?" Godfreys weary response - "Soon it will be out of my concern". Something tells me the "crusaders" that have overturned Roe V Wade, will do nothing to take on the military-industrial complex which is the granddaddy of mechanized carnage.
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 20 minutes ago, cipriano said: More and more I feel like Sir Godfrey in The Kingdom of Heaven when the angelic hospiteler asks him "When shall we stop this madness?" Godfreys weary response - "Soon it will be out of my concern". Something tells me the "crusaders" that have overturned Roe V Wade, will do nothing to take on the military-industrial complex which is the granddaddy of mechanized carnage. The voters in each state now have the ability to set their own standards. My former home state vows to become an abortion haven. If that’s what they want, so be it. I don’t see the connection between abortion opposers and war advocates. 1
cipriano Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The voters in each state now have the ability to set their own standards. My former home state vows to become an abortion haven. If that’s what they want, so be it. I don’t see the connection between abortion opposers and war advocates. I'm simply saying that a little consistency in the valuation of human life would go along way in quelling people's cynicism. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, cipriano said: I'm simply saying that a little consistency in the valuation of human life would go along way in quelling people's cynicism. Again from our very own @Dan McClellan: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR1jR21T/?k=1 1
teddyaware Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 56 minutes ago, cipriano said: More and more I feel like Sir Godfrey in The Kingdom of Heaven when the angelic hospiteler asks him "When shall we stop this madness?" Godfreys weary response - "Soon it will be out of my concern". Something tells me the "crusaders" that have overturned Roe V Wade, will do nothing to take on the military-industrial complex which is the granddaddy of mechanized carnage. How can someone be so lacking in self-awareness as to not catch the excruciatingly obvious irony in your comment? As if the mass slaughter of 62 million innocent human beings in the United States since 1973, by highly trained and equipt so-called medical professionals, isn’t a supreme example of “mechanized carnage?” Edited June 25, 2022 by teddyaware 1
cipriano Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 29 minutes ago, teddyaware said: How can someone be so lacking in self-awareness as to not catch the excruciatingly obvious irony in your comment? As if the mass slaughter of 62 million innocent human beings in the United States since 1973, by highly trained and equipt so-called medical professionals, isn’t a supreme example of “mechanized carnage?” Relax Francis! I think you need to read my post again to catch my intent. If the MIC is the grandfather, than abortion is the son, and gun violence would be the grandson. Addressing abortion but not the other two issues leaves an impression of this being "performative" righteousness, as noted earlier by Nehor. It would be a better world if we could decrease all three by 99%. But I doubt conservatives (and establishment Democrats) are willing to reduce the MIC by even 1%, let alone 99%. Edited June 25, 2022 by cipriano 1
Meadowchik Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 "If it was about babies, we’d have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn’t be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we’d have months and months of parental leave, for everyone. If it was about babies, we’d have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we’d have free and excellent childcare from newborns on. If it was about babies, we’d have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements." -Leila Cohan It's not about babies. 2
smac97 Posted June 25, 2022 Author Posted June 25, 2022 The landscape is changing fast: Quote Jennifer Kerns, a California physician, will soon also practice 1,800 miles away at an abortion clinic in Kansas, where women from nearby states in the Midwest with bans on the procedure are expected to seek care. Abortion clinics and providers say Kerns is among dozens of doctors who have recently sought new medical licenses in states where abortion could remain legal, anticipating Friday's landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to end recognition of a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. ... Adding out-of-state doctors is just one of the measures being taken by abortion clinics facing an uncertain landscape in which abortion access will be decided state by state, threatening to put some clinics out of business and straining those that remain with more patients. In some instances, clinics are relocating to nearby states likely to protect abortion rights. Others are developing legal strategies to fend off restrictions, and helping people figure out how to obtain abortions in different states. And at clinics in states like California where women are likely to travel for the procedure, preparations are underway to add services and staff. ... Clinics run by Planned Parenthood in Utah, another trigger law state, said they will stay open as long as possible, hoping to use the legal system to delay or overturn bans passed by lawmakers. Here's a legal strategy that may be interesting: Quote Lawyers representing abortion providers are coalescing around a plan to argue that privacy and equal protection rights in the constitutions of many states protect abortion without explicitly saying so. ... The strategy, said Cary Franklin, faculty director of the Center for Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, is to establish wherever possible that abortion is a state right even if the Supreme Court has ruled it's not a protected federal right. The legal strategy is already being tested in Pennsylvania, where the Women's Law Project is arguing in court that the state's constitution protects abortion rights, even as conservative lawmakers back an amendment to outlaw it, said policy and advocacy director Amal Bass. In Kansas, where the state supreme court has already ruled there is a right to an abortion in its constitution, proponents figure that even if a proposed new amendment banning abortion is approved by voters in August, they have about a year to stave off restrictions through legal challenges. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted June 25, 2022 Author Posted June 25, 2022 15 hours ago, Danzo said: Quote I am still for punching Nazis. I think things have gotten this bad primarily due to Nazis not getting punched enough. Always be punching Nazis! All you have to do is label someone a Nazi and you are free to punch them. Here: Quote A young pro-life woman was attacked Friday night in Seattle amidst violent protests over the overturning of Roe V Wade. The Post Millennial's Katie Daviscourt reported from the Seattle protest and captured the attack on video, showing the woman was pepper sprayed and tackled to the ground by Antifa militants. The woman was joined by another pro-life advocate and the two had been carrying signs that read "your body, your responsibility" and "life wins." The attack comes as the Seattle protest escalated into violence. Earlier in the evening, Daviscourt reported that thousands were gathered outside Seattle's Federal Building. Prior to the pepper spray attack, a militant protestor can be seen trying to deploy pepper spray on the same pro-life counter protestor but the spray misfired. The Antifa group broke windows of nearby nearby buildings and adjoining protest groups began to coalesce with the main protest group downtown. The woman in question was approached by The Post Millennial's Katie Daviscourt prior to the attack. Daviscourt asked what she thought about the overturning of Roe V Wade and the woman responded, "I think it should be up to the states." Wanton, mobocratic violence is not a proper mode of expressing political disagreement. Thanks, -Smac 1
Nofear Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 Leila Cohen-Miccio screen writing projects have been popular so that must add weight to the words and we can overlook statements that suggest a lack of understanding of economic theory and/or represent logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Tacenda Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 38 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: "If it was about babies, we’d have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn’t be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we’d have months and months of parental leave, for everyone. If it was about babies, we’d have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we’d have free and excellent childcare from newborns on. If it was about babies, we’d have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements." -Leila Cohan It's not about babies. So very true, nailed it! Ewww, but that's socialism. 🙄 We must not ever do that. 😠 It's about the rich getting richer and capitalism, no government programs. Which is hilarious because capitalism wouldn't happen without the programs to help the citizens get a leg up. And poo poo'ing some programs by taking them away could prevent healthy families, sadly.
Meadowchik Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 20 minutes ago, Nofear said: Leila Cohen-Miccio screen writing projects have been popular so that must add weight to the words and we can overlook statements that suggest a lack of understanding of economic theory and/or represent logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence I liked how well she said it and I agree. And--economics?? For goodness sake how much political will and energy has been spent towards this overturning which could have been channelled towards the measures she mentions? More than enough, imo. Caring for women and babies is perhaps the most direct investment in social health, and overall health of a nation. 1
JAHS Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 Protesters outside the Supreme Court. If it's not a human yet then what is it? a kitten? a puppy? a hamster? Maybe a watermelon?
Tacenda Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, JAHS said: Protesters outside the Supreme Court. If it's not a human yet then what is it? a kitten? a puppy? a hamster? Maybe a watermelon? Sick! I hope she doesn't really mean this. Is she that dumb?!?
Nofear Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I liked how well she said it and I agree. And--economics?? For goodness sake how much political will and energy has been spent towards this overturning which could have been channelled towards the measures she mentions? More than enough, imo. Caring for women and babies is perhaps the most direct investment in social health, and overall health of a nation. Caring for women is helpful to society, that is true. But not making everything free isn't the same as not caring (hence false equivalency). Indeed, there are many cases around the world where trying to make everything free has made things worse. I'll grant she can't go into such subtleties in a short quote and it's quite possible she's intelligently informed on such issues. /shrug
smac97 Posted June 25, 2022 Author Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: "If it was about babies, we’d have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn’t be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we’d have months and months of parental leave, for everyone. If it was about babies, we’d have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we’d have free and excellent childcare from newborns on. If it was about babies, we’d have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements." -Leila Cohan It's not about babies. This seems like a pretty big non sequitur. Let's try this reasoning in a different context: Quote "If it was about a woman's constitutional right to choose, we'd have excellent and free universal abortions. You wouldn't be charged a cent to get an abortion, no matter what complications arise from it." "If it was about bodily autonomy, we'd have free follow-up medical treatment for postabortion patients suffering medical and/or mental health complications because of the procedure ('One study found that 44% of respondents regretted their decision to get an abortion.'). It's not about a "right to choose." Do you find this persuasive? Thanks, -Smac Edited June 25, 2022 by smac97
smac97 Posted June 25, 2022 Author Posted June 25, 2022 21 hours ago, smac97 said: When an act is necessarily and inherently and wrongfully injurious to another person, engaging in that act ought not to be characterized as a "freedom." On June 19, 1865 U.S. Army general Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to proclaim the war had ended and so had slavery (in the Confederate states). We now celebrate June 19, "Juneteenth," as "{a} holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved African Americans." From the perspective of the African Americans, the Juneteenth elimination of the "right" or "freedom" to hold black men, women and children in involuntary servitude was to be celebrated. In time, I hope something similar can be said regarding the perspective of the unborn and June 24. Thanks, -Smac I should note that the comparison between the ideologies underlying/justifying abortion and slavery did not originate with me, and is not new. It is, however, both apt and uncomfortable. See, e.g., here: Quote In 1857, the United States Supreme Court—through the majority opinion of Roger B. Taney in Dred Scott v. Sanford—ruled that blacks, "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."1 According to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott and the rest of the African-American population were not persons; they were property. This distinction, that black people were "property," not "persons," is the same basic premise upon which elective abortion is based and justified. Quote It would be eight years before their ruling would be reversed—first through the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery, and then expanded through the 14th Amendment which gave broad rights of citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. It look a lot of work and time and sacrifice to persuade the nation that black people were "people," but it was well worth it. Quote One hundred and sixteen years after Dred Scott, the Supreme Court once again ruled that certain members of the human race should be regarded as property under the law. Roe v. Wade—argued on much the same lines as Dred Scott—federally legalized abortion and remains with us to this day. From an ideological perspective, there are many connections between abortion and slavery. Both fit the classic "pro-choice" model—as evidenced by the prevailing rhetoric. Against Slavery? Don't Own a Slave! Against Abortion? Don't Have One! Lost in both equations is the victim—the human being who is made the property of another human being and thereby stripped of all rights of personhood. I find this reasoning persuasive. And I haven't seen an effective rebuttal to it. Lots of vitriol and vituperation, sure, but no substantive, reasoned, fact-based rejoinder. I would appreciate anyone pointing me to such a thing, as I would like to give it due consideration. Quote The mistreatment leveled at both victims is justified on the premise that they're not really people. They're sub-human. Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision argued that, "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted [the Declaration of Independence]." Justice Blackmun, in the Roe decision, likewise concluded that the protections guaranteed in the 14th Amendment were certainly not to be extended to unborn children. Thomas Jefferson believed that, "in reason, [blacks are] much inferior [to whites]... and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous."2 The late Carl Sagan, was fond of comparing unborn children to segmented worms, fish, tadpoles, reptiles and pigs,3 but he was not alone in using language to dehumanize the victims of abortion. The same sentiment is seen by abortion advocates who balk at the terms “baby” and “child”—insisting instead that it’s only a fetus! In the modern vernacular, “fetus” (which is Latin for “offspring”) has largely become a term of derision, strategically wielded by those seeking to marginalize babies in the womb. Statements like "the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit" and "{h}e was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic" and "the enslaved African race were not intended to be included" and "{blacks are} much inferior {to whites}" are essentially indistinguishable from "it's not a baby, it's a fetus" and "it's not a person, it's just a blob of tissue." Quote John Wyatt, the Professor of Ethics and Perinatology at University College London, commented on this development as follows: The world of the modern, perinatal unit is a strangely schizophrenic kind of place because in many cases the fetus, the baby, is uniquely precious. The first ultrasound scans are a time of wonder and excitement. And so the professional language we use is the language of parenthood. It's the language of a baby, but if it becomes apparent that the fetus is not wanted, then the professional language changes. Now we use language like, "you are making decisions about your pregnancy. If this is what you wish, the pregnancy will be terminated." The language is vague, deliberately technical, (and) euphemistic. And what this tells us is that the value of the unborn has become a personal construct. Value is bestowed by the other. I decide whether this other being is uniquely valuable or in some way disposable.4 Professor Wyatt supports the right to legal abortion, but he recognizes the disingenuous way language is used to communicate or withhold value—just as it was with regard to enslaved African-Americans. I find this persuasive as well. In the former situation the baby's personhood is acknowledged and celebrated. In the latter situation, the baby's personhood is ignored and covered over with euphemisms. Quote Just as language has been used to dehumanize the victims of both slavery and abortion, language is also used to "spin" vice into virtue. Thomas Jefferson argued that the most loving thing he could do for his slaves was to keep them enslaved. In the book, The Constitutional Principles of Thomas Jefferson, Caleb Patterson writes that "it was Jefferson's humane feeling for his slaves that kept him from freeing them. To free the ordinary slave was not very different from starting him on the road to starvation. Or as Jefferson put it... like abandoning children."6 Today, people argue that the most loving thing an impoverished mother can do for her children is to abort them. I've sometimes wondered how people can declare an unborn child to be "just a blob of tissue" and in the next breath say that electively killing it is an act of love. Quote Slavery and abortion are both institutions where those in power have the legal right to abuse or destroy those who are not in power. Slavery and abortion are both institutions with huge financial interests, and slavery and abortion are both institutions defended on the freedom to choose. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion; Nobody is forcing you to own a slave! Why don't you let people make their own decisions? Stop forcing your morality on me! This is, I think, a critique of Planned Parenthood and other organizations that have a vested financial interest in preserving and propagating abortion. Quote Despite their many similarities, there are also some real differences. While slavery was not always fatal, abortion almost always is. Where the victims of slavery were publicly visible, the victims of abortion are not. While victims of slavery could speak in their own defense, victims of abortion have no voice. Where the government was never willing to subsidize slave ownership for whites who couldn't afford slaves, abortion is often paid for with government funds. I think these are legitimate points. I suppose one could argue that it would be better to be dead than to live in perpetual slavery. I don't think that is correct, but even if it were, it would need to be the choice of the individual. Quote Today, many of the people who defend abortion in principle, still try to distance themselves from it in practice. I'm personally opposed to abortion, but people should be free to make their own choices. I have heard this many, many times. But consider the analog: "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but people should be free to make their own choices." It doesn't hold up. Thanks, -Smac 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 43 minutes ago, JAHS said: Protesters outside the Supreme Court. If it's not a human yet then what is it? a kitten? a puppy? a hamster? Maybe a watermelon? She’s holding the answer in her arms. That’s the problem of semantics. We can’t even agree what the words mean. Edited June 25, 2022 by Bernard Gui 1
OGHoosier Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Sure. Have you considered that the Constitution actually confers broader rights and that states don't have the right to limit due process or the right to privacy? You know, the 14th amendment and all that? Have you also considered that the SC issues a ruling in the same week that blatantly contradicts the first amendment? THe court seems a bit inconsistent. Nah, Carson v. Makin doesn't contradict the First Amendment at all. Back in 2002 the Court decided Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which ruled that vouchers do not "establish a religion" if the citizens to whom they are granted put those vouchers towards religious schools as an act of free choice. It's the citizens doing the establishing, not the government, and restricting them from doing so is blatantly discriminatory. The Court reaffirmed this holding in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and just the other day in Carson v. Makin. The "wall of separation between church and state" isn't in the Constitution, it's a Thomas Jefferson idiosyncrasy with no juridical significance. The Court has been nothing but consistent on this. Just went back and read the 14th Amendment. I don't see a right to privacy in there, which is an invention of the Supreme Court in ages past (questioning the Court's legitimacy is a bad tactical move, perhaps) and I certainly don't see abortion being part of any such right in the constitutional text. Roe v. Wade was pure judicial activism and poor legal reasoning. What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court taketh away. The correction is long overdue.
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: "If it was about babies, we’d have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn’t be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we’d have months and months of parental leave, for everyone. If it was about babies, we’d have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we’d have free and excellent childcare from newborns on. If it was about babies, we’d have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements." -Leila Cohan It's not about babies. No parental responsibilities? 1
provoman Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 “I have heard this many, many times. But consider the analog: "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but people should be free to make their own choices." It doesn't hold up.” Your fist, my nose, holds up the personal choice for abortion. Slavery is not, in my opinion, is a comparison. A born human has rights, and I would venture to say there are few in American society who find slavery would be acceptable. In terms of abortion. The debate centers around when embryo has rights. 2
Raingirl Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Sick! I hope she doesn't really mean this. Is she that dumb?!? Have you not been paying attention? This is a common belief among abortion advocates. Some even participate on this forum.
teddyaware Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 In the earlier decades of my 52 years of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wondered how it was possible that the following most sobering prophecy could be fulfilled? But after reading all the blasphemous and pitiful wishy washy comments on this thread, I’m no longer in a state of wonder as to why God’ is going to pour out his terrible judgements of retribution upon his Church first, as an unmistakable sign that the great tribulation of the last days has begun. 23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face. 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
provoman Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: About the Carson case and school vouchers. I don’t think we need to worry too much. A satanic temple or some other unpopular religion will likely file suit when they are denied vouchers.
Duncan Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 Just now, teddyaware said: In the earlier decades of my 52 years of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wondered how it was possible that the following most sobering prophecy could be fulfilled? But after reading all the blasphemous and pitiful wishy washy comments on this thread, I’m no longer in a state of wonder as to why God’ is going to pour out his terrible judgements of retribution upon his Church first, as an unmistakable sign that the great tribulation of the last days has begun. 23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face. 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. don't worry some 13 yr girl will be raped by her uncle, father or cousin and she'll bleed to death trying to do her own abortion because she can't afford to get it done properly so you'll be happy then and all will be well in your "strange roads" as per 1st Nephi
Recommended Posts