Food For Thought On Abortion

[American]

Originalism is at least a factor in the Alito draft ruling. He argues that nowhere in the constitution is abortion written and thus it is not a right of pregnant women. But originalism has a problem. In the late 18th Century women were legal chattel and were denied many rights which men of property over the age of 21 years enjoyed. So if one takes an originalist's interpretation of the constitution with respect to women's rights then women are second-class citizens who can be legally abused and who can be denied rights which men enjoy. Thus originalism will deny women the right to own property, the right to vote, the right to run for elected office and the right to work as ls gal professional such as jurists.

Alito thereafter argued because there was no overtly expressed right to abortion explicitly stated in the US constitution that SCOTUS decisions in 1972 and 1992 created a right where no right had existed before in the constitution or in the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that in the late 17th Century America was a country which had no guaranteed future and only the growth of its population could guarantee its continued existence in the face of British French and Spanish imperial aspirations. Only by growing and arming its population could the USA fend off these threats and expand its dominion in the face of these dangerous rivals. Thus abortion was deemed both a religious and a secular sin and therefore it is no mystery why it was not included in the constitution explicitly. So abortion would endanger the country and the country was more important than women's rights and women's health or even their lives. Many women died in child birth in the late 18th Century. So again originalism is condemning women to a shorter, more hardship-prone and brutalised life because it served the interests of men in power both in the 18th Century and now.

More to come tomorrow.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

The flaw in your constitutional argument, is that you assume a 1787 Constitution, which contains no amendments. Once the 27 amendments are included in this debate, all complaints are mooted.

Original intent means the intent of the authors/ratifiers at the time that a clause was included. Canceled portions by amendment are now excluded from consideration.

 

[Evilroddy]

??? DNA & chrom. are human----what are you talking about?? Just science ol' buddy....

tshade:

Cysts, cancerous tumors and septic organs all have human DNA in their cells. So do your fingernails, skin flakes and hair when you cut them/clean them off your body. Rarely children are born as chimeras with the DNA of an undeveloped twin present in the cells of parts of their bodies. That doesn't make them two human beings or two persons. Having human DNA does not make a group of cells a human being. Being a potential human being does not make an organism a real person in the eyes of the law. That's just the science buddy and the law as it stands right now.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

The flaw in your constitutional argument, is that you assume a 1787 Constitution, which contains no amendments. Once the 27 amendments are included in this debate, all complaints are mooted.

Original intent means the intent of the authors/ratifiers at the time that a clause was included. Canceled portions by amendment are now excluded from consideration.

American:

I must ask are there any amendments which explicitly mention a woman's right to body sovereignty or abortion? No. Yes, women were granted a belated right to vote and to run for elected office, but that does not really impact their ability to control their own reproductive choices, does it. The SCOTUS is not an elected body so all American women except three are left out of this decision making process.

My point still stands IMHO.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[American]

American:

I must ask are there any amendments which explicitly mention a woman's right to body sovereignty or abortion? No. Yes, women were granted a belated right to vote and to run for elected office, but that does not really impact their ability to control their own reproductive choices, does it. The SCOTUS is not an elected body so all American women except three are left out of this decision making process.

My point still stands IMHO.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Stop moving the goal posts around. You specifically tied this to an old version of the Constitution prior to women's suffrage. I pointed out your error. I accept your apology for your gross oversight.

 

[mrjurrs]

In both cases murder is involved even by the author of the meme. The only thing different is the nonchalant viewpoint over one type of murder. All that speaks to is the viewpoint while acknowledging both events are murder.

Nope, murder is a crime in all 50 states. Abortion is not.

 

[Overitall]

Nope, murder is a crime in all 50 states. Abortion is not.

Irrelevant to the point I raised.

 

[Evilroddy]

Stop moving the goal posts around. You specifically tied this to an old version of the Constitution prior to women's suffrage. I pointed out your error. I accept your apology for your gross oversight.

American:

No goal posts were not moved and no apology offered. This thread is about reproductive rights plus abortion, and not about voting rights. In my earlier post I was describing the mind-set of the men who drafted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I pointed out that originalists, by accepting original language (when they do) and original intent (when they do) are accepting the biases and prejudicices baked into the constitution and its amendments, when they opt for an originalist's interpretation. This ignores social/societal evolution and changing ethics within societies which change overtime. As you know the amendment process has grown more difficult with the addition of more states and the fundamental cultural differences between many states. Therefore constitutional amendments are far, far harder to achieve these days. The SCOTUS knows this too and should be very careful about overturning long standing law, jurisprudence, custom and usage and stare decisis which has prevailed for more than 49 years.

The draft decision is made more absurd given the availability of abortion drugs which can often negate the need for a therapeutic medical abortion procedure. Are states going to ban the commerce and transportation of abortion drugs in an effort to stop abortions and if so, is that not an intrusion into the Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce? This draft decision will effect slightly over half of the population of the United States and will throw women's rights which have stood for almost 50 years under the bus. The SCOTUS better think long and hard about such a potential decision because it could throw American Society into upheaval and more conflict than it already experiences.

The Federal Government must find a way to preserve these rights temporarily, until federal legislation can be crafted and passed to protect women's constitutional rights which have stood for just shy of 50 years. If this does not happen, the resulting kulturkampf will further divide the American Republic and make it more ungovernable than it already is. That state of ungovernability plays right into the hands of powerful elites, corporations, interest groups and NGOs which would like nothing more than to see the erosion of representative government into an unelected oligarchy ruled by money, power and influence rather than the people of the electorate.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[American]

American:

No goal posts were not moved and no apology offered. This thread is about reproductive rights plus abortion, and not about voting rights. In my earlier post I was describing the mind-set of the men who drafted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I pointed out that originalists, by accepting original language (when they do) and original intent (when they do) are accepting the biases and prejudicices baked into the constitution and its amendments, when they opt for an originalist's interpretation. This ignores social/societal evolution and changing ethics within societies which change overtime. As you know the amendment process has grown more difficult with the addition of more states and the fundamental cultural differences between many states. Therefore constitutional amendments are far, far harder to achieve these days. The SCOTUS knows this too and should be very careful about overturning long standing law, jurisprudence, custom and usage and stare decisis which has prevailed for more than 49 years.

The draft decision is made more absurd given the availability of abortion drugs which can often negate the need for a therapeutic medical abortion procedure. Are states going to ban the commerce and transportation of abortion drugs in an effort to stop abortions and if so, is that not an intrusion into the Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce? This draft decision will effect slightly over half of the population of the United States and will throw women's rights which have stood for almost 50 years under the bus. The SCOTUS better think long and hard about such a potential decision because it could throw American Society into upheaval and more conflict than it already experiences.

The Federal Government must find a way to preserve these rights temporarily, until federal legislation can be crafted and passed to protect women's constitutional rights which have stood for just shy of 50 years. If this does not happen, the resulting kulturkampf will further divide the American Republic and make it more ungovernable than it already is. That state of ungovernability plays right into the hands of powerful elites, corporations, interest groups and NGOs which would like nothing more than to see the erosion of representative government into an unelected oligarchy ruled by money, power and influence rather than the people of the electorate.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

You're going to sit there and deny the bad law precedent set by that case. Legal scholars have admitted to this. You brought up your skewed version of the Constitution, not me. The rest of what you say is irrelevant at this point.

 

[Evilroddy]

As usual, you present a well thought out argument on a subject that typically manages to incite people to extreme emotionalism. It's a topic which in my heyday I've discussed to great lengths, but unfortunately I no longer have the patience for digging down into all the nuances -- especially since your argument is a two-prong one -- biological and legal. Nevertheless, I'd like to add my two cents on the subject relative to your last point highlighted in bold here. (One final word on your perspective presented in this thread -- I would love to see you challenged in a formal debate. What a debate that would be!)

One of the fundamental points that must be agreed to in a discussion of any important matter is the definition of terms used. This meaning of the term "human" is one such point that can be debated. What does it mean to be human?

If you say it is a physical form consisting of body parts then you run into the dilemma of what do you call a quadra amputee? Only partially human? That can't be right.

Or if it's a matter of mental then what about a person who is in a vegetative state of mind. Less than human?

I'm interested in your take on these rudimentary points. Forgive me if my simplistic approach to your obvious complex presentation dealing with the subject is insulting to your intelligence. It probably won't stretch your thinking on the subject as much as yours has mine.

Overitall:

Defining what is "human" is a tough nut to crack. Such definitions depend on the perspectives and frame of reference which you are starting from. Is "human" about the morphology (shape and structure) of an organism? Is "human" about the DNA of an organism? Is "human" about the spirit/soul which which might inhabit an organism? Is "human" a legal label created by fiat through the application of law? Is "human" the arrogant self-declaration by some self-absorbed and biocentric primates who think that they are better than the rest of the biosphere? There are a lot of plates to balance in such an argument. So, I will have to think about this for a while. Then, if I can, I will have a crack at the question you have asked.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Overitall]

Overitall:

Defining what is "human" is a tough nut to crack. Such definitions depend on the perspectives and frame of reference which you are starting from. Is "human" about the morphology (shape and structure) of an organism? Is "human" about the DNA of an organism? Is "human" about the spirit/soul which which might inhabit an organism? Is "human" a legal label created by fiat through the application of law? Is "human" the arrogant self-declaration by some self-absorbed and biocentric primates who think that they are better than the rest of the biosphere? There are a lot of plates to balance in such an argument. So, I will have to think about this for a while. Then, if I can, I will have a crack at the question you have asked.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Fair enough. Take your time.

 

[Evilroddy]

You're going to sit there and deny the bad law precedent set by that case. Legal scholars have admitted to this. You brought up your skewed version of the Constitution, not me. The rest of what you say is irrelevant at this point.

American:

Revolutions are almost never irrelevant, even when they are peaceful. Women by the tens of millions will not be put back into a lock-box concerning reproductive rights. If the SCOTUS renders such a decision as the Alito draft argument, then there will be protracted civil disobedience and unprecedented protests which will paralyse your country and put your political economy into a shambles. Women and millions of like-minded men will vote with their feet and will trample such legal abuse from on high. This will not stand so it is better to avoid societal upheaval and let things stand.

The other option is to pass federal laws requiring all males to have reversible vasectomies at puberty until they can prove to the state that they have accumulated the means and the wisdom to support and guide a family where women have been reduced to second-class citizens. If women cannot have reproductive rights and sovreignty from state intrusion then men should be put into the same legal straight-jacket. No abortion rights, no sperm rights. This scenario should make the absurdity of such a potential SCOTUS ruling clear to anyone.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[mrjurrs]

Irrelevant to the point I raised.

Your point was irrelevant, because abortion is not murder...no matter how many times you write it.

Didn't you just write this?
"In both cases murder is involved even by the author of the meme. The only thing different is the nonchalant viewpoint over one type of murder. All that speaks to is the viewpoint while acknowledging both events are murder."

 

[TurtleDude]

tshade:

That is not the biological or the legal reality. People may disagree with these positions but they are both biological and legal facts at this time.

Perhaps it would be better to consider the unborn "becoming human" rather than "being human".

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

that's a fair argument-when does the fetus become human-when they are born? or viability? My son was born 3 weeks "late". was he less human during those 3 weeks than my niece who was born a day earlier but came three weeks prior to her medically predicted due date?

 

[TurtleDude]

American:

Revolutions are almost never irrelevant, even when they are peaceful. Women by the tens of millions will not be put back into a lock-box concerning reproductive rights. If the SCOTUS renders such a decision as the Alito draft argument, then there will be protracted civil disobedience and unprecedented protests which will paralyse your country and put your political economy into a shambles. Women and millions of like-minded men will vote with their feet and will trample such legal abuse from on high. This will not stand so it is better to avoid societal upheaval and let things stand.

The other option is to pass federal laws requiring all males to have reversible vasectomies at puberty until they can prove to the state that they have accumulated the means and the wisdom to support and guide a family where women have been reduced to second-class citizens. If women cannot have reproductive rights and sovreignty from state intrusion then men should be put into the same legal straight-jacket. No abortion rights, no sperm rights. This scenario should make the absurdity of such a potential SCOTUS ruling clear to anyone.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I don't think the dire predictions-many of which are nothing more than political theory and strategizing combined with the hysterics of low information, low wattage sheep-are going to come true

 

[Overitall]

Your point was irrelevant, because abortion is not murder...no matter how many times you write it.

Didn't you just write this?
"In both cases murder is involved even by the author of the meme. The only thing different is the nonchalant viewpoint over one type of murder. All that speaks to is the viewpoint while acknowledging both events are murder."

I was addressing how the logic in the meme came up short. You may have the last word on this. I'm starting to get bored.

 

[Evilroddy]

I don't think the dire predictions-many of which are nothing more than political theory and strategizing combined with the hysterics of low information, low wattage sheep-are going to come true

TurtleDude:

You country endured a long summer of this when only 13% of your population was fed up with the killings of black folks by police officers. Piss-off more than 50% of your population and see what happens.

The Rule of Law requires that laws are supposed to apply universally, but anti-abortion laws only target women. Only women is not universal and therefore anti-abortion laws are discriminatory and thus lie outside the Rule of Law, IMHO.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

that's a fair argument-when does the fetus become human-when they are born? or viability? My son was born 3 weeks "late". was he less human during those 3 weeks than my niece who was born a day earlier but came three weeks prior to her medically predicted due date?

TurtleDude:

Since viability varies from case to case and is therefore is a fuzzy threshold, except in retrospect, a more clear delineation of the moment of gaining personality legally is at birth, which is a clearer threshold.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

You country endured a long summer of this when only 13% of your population was fed up with the killings of black folks by police officers. Piss-off more than 50% of your population and see what happens.

The Rule of Law requires that laws are supposed to apply universally, but anti-abortion laws only target women. Only women is not universal and therefore anti-abortion laws are discriminatory and thus lie outside the Rule of Law, IMHO.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

just wait till trans women find out a way to become pregnant. I don't think 50% of the population is going to get pissed off. Abortion is about the twelfth most important issue to most people

 

[Overitall]

just wait till trans women find out a way to become pregnant. I don't think 50% of the population is going to get pissed off. Abortion is about the twelfth most important issue to most people

It might be lower than that.

How Likely Is Abortion to be the Central Issue in the 2022 Midterms? | National Review

Every month, Gallup asks Americans the most important problem facing the country today. Almost no one ever says abortion.

www.nationalreview.com

Oh, and in the last four monthly Gallup polls asking Americans, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”, abortion has not registered at even one percent.

 

[Allan]

Originalism is at least a factor in the Alito draft ruling. He argues that nowhere in the constitution is abortion written and thus it is not a right of pregnant women.

This is a very interesting opinion. Where a right is excluded from the Constitution is that right ceded, or does it not exist?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

@tshade

"Kinda whack that aborting a clump of cells is murder but a cop murdering a minority is just a misunderstanding."

Guess which cell clumps white supremacists cry about?

The white ones, of course. They don't care about the fact that most aborted embryos had black parents.

 

[eohrnberger]

In both cases murder is involved even by the author of the meme. The only thing different is the nonchalant viewpoint over one type of murder. All that speaks to is the viewpoint while acknowledging both events are murder.

Biden publicly stated that: “So I mean, the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.”

Abortion is the choice "to choose to abort a child".

Abortion, the termination of a human life with potential, not the termination of a 'potential Human life'.

 

[Overitall]

Biden publicly stated that: “So I mean, the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.”

This would be a great time for the democrats to pull the 25th on Joe declaring he's mentally unfit for the office.

Abortion is the choice "to choose to abort a child".

Abortion, the termination of a human life with potential, not the termination of a 'potential Human life'.

I'm pretty sure that what is growing inside a pregnant woman is a human. And since its growing it must be alive. Anyone who plants seeds in the ground knows this fundamental truth.

 

[eohrnberger]

This would be a great time for the democrats to pull the 25th on Joe declaring he's mentally unfit for the office.

Meh. To have incompetent minority hire Harris and her toxic personality force the resignation of the White House staff with great rapidity?

I'm pretty sure that what is growing inside a pregnant woman is a human. And since its growing it must be alive. Anyone who plants seeds in the ground knows this fundamental truth.

Except for those who continue to assert that a fetus is simply a 'clump of cells directly comparable to a cancerous growth.

Those same people keep worrying about the 'dehumanization' and marginalization of some, yet unthinkingly think that this direct comparison is accurate and correct, in some manner.

They accuse others of dehumanization and marginalization of some, and yet are guilty exactly of the same thing they accuse others of.

 

[Lovebug]

My expectations are that someone could counter it-----------I challenge you to do so.

Counter what? Like removing clumps of potential black lives should be food for thought.