I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[Mika-El]

Neither is the fabricated right to an abortion.

Using your logic above, necessarily your response above is also fabricated.

For the same reason if I were to respond and call your statement above self righteous, I would engage in the same.

So I will simply say :

1-the fact you disagree with others opinions does not make their opinions fabricated
2-the right of a woman to control her own body is not fabricated-it is a physical reality each time she takes a breath.

 

[Mika-El]

And that right there is why the Anti-abortion movement is perceived as a theocratic and their policies being fought in court and in the media. Denial of rights is a step toward theocracy and control.

Paul Weyrich: When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

Overturning of Roe is judicial activism.

Well as its often used in meaning "Judicial activism is an approach to making legal decisons where Judges feel they can consider broader societal implications in regards to public policy and interconnected collective and individual rights.

It now used by people to believe Judges should be political agents that enforce specific political desires.

So we have Trump supporters simultaneously demanding government regulation (with abortion) but demanding no government regulation (with guns) and claiming laws that agree with Trump's interests be upheld by the military and police to suppress any opposition but if the laws go against Trump's interests his followers should be able to break the laws and use violence and force to do so.

This is the danger of activism. If Judges have preconceived political opinions and then use the law to construct justifications for those political opinions, they may lose their impartiality which can only come from remaining dettached to any one political ideology. A judge is supposed to be neutral and not create law but only interpret it and many people on this thread and in general feel Judges should create laws as well.

Elected members of legislative assemblies not Judges create laws. Judges are supposed to limit their role to interpreting how to apply the laws, i.e., statutes passed by these assemblies when the wording is not clear as to how to apply it.


The abortion issue like the gun regulation issue polarizes people into extreme positions or black and white pro or con. Its then exploited by politicians like Trump to inflame his supporters and pose himself as their warrior leader ready to demonize and destroy anyone who disagrees. Trump poses himself as the cult leader/messiah of what is legally correct. By embracing such issues and fueling and fanning anger he creates a mindless supportive base of followers who show you when they come on this forum they do not discuss, they insult-and anything that disagrees with them is to be ridiculed and denied.

I think Trump supporters are nothing more than an extremist cult and the views of their leader are not right or left, but both and basically have no true ideology other than to view the law as junk food Its something Trump cultists feel they need to get at fast when one is hungry (when its politically necessary to impose Trump' enunciated political interests) but something to scorn and reject if takes awhile to create and may have things that do not taste good (suitable to the immediate needs of the Trumpet and their leader).

Trump is a symptom of junk food America has grown to be dependent on.

 

[weaver2]

Well as its often used in meaning "Judicial activism is an approach to making legal decisons where Judges feel they can consider broader societal implications in regards to public policy and interconnected collective and individual rights.

It now used by people to believe Judges should be political agents that enforce specific political desires.

So we have Trump supporters simultaneously demanding government regulation (with abortion) but demanding no government regulation (with guns) and claiming laws that agree with Trump's interests be upheld by the military and police to suppress any opposition but if the laws go against Trump's interests his followers should be able to break the laws and use violence and force to do so.

This is the danger of activism. If Judges have preconceived political opinions and then use the law to construct justifications for those political opinions, they may lose their impartiality which can only come from remaining dettached to any one political ideology. A judge is supposed to be neutral and not create law but only interpret it and many people on this thread and in general feel Judges should create laws as well.

Elected members of legislative assemblies not Judges create laws. Judges are supposed to limit their role to interpreting how to apply the laws, i.e., statutes passed by these assemblies when the wording is not clear as to how to apply it.


The abortion issue like the gun regulation issue polarizes people into extreme positions or black and white pro or con. Its then exploited by politicians like Trump to inflame his supporters and pose himself as their warrior leader ready to demonize and destroy anyone who disagrees. Trump poses himself as the cult leader/messiah of what is legally correct. By embracing such issues and fueling and fanning anger he creates a mindless supportive base of followers who show you when they come on this forum they do not discuss, they insult-and anything that disagrees with them is to be ridiculed and denied.

I think Trump supporters are nothing more than an extremist cult and the views of their leader are not right or left, but both and basically have no true ideology other than to view the law as junk food Its something Trump cultists feel they need to get at fast when one is hungry (when its politically necessary to impose Trump' enunciated political interests) but something to scorn and reject if takes awhile to create and may have things that do not taste good (suitable to the immediate needs of the Trumpet and their leader).

Trump is a symptom of junk food America has grown to be dependent on.

View attachment 67396653

I think you are right most conservatives have bought into the religious right's agenda. The theocratic aspects of it give them a sense of security that they have the moral high ground. From that vantage point one can simply declare all other positions immoral and wrong without ever having to look carefully at the reality of a problem. Never having to examine or acknowledge one's own biases or flawed rationalizations is very rewarding. It is not surprising that the Trump/pro-guns/anti-abortion cult is thriving.

 

[Lursa]

... he says ... in a post ... in a thread ... that is now over 2700 posts long ... and has been averaging ... 70 replies a day for over a month.

That is one huge boatload of failure for the OP, eh?

 

[NatMorton]

We don't live in the State of Nature... so yes, they do exist.

In what sense did inalienable rights matter to a slave in Georgia in 1791?

 

[bongsaway]

Why only now after 30+ years of having these debates?

Five conservative supreme court justices might have a little something to do with them walking away?

 

[bongsaway]

Oh, they don't think I'm right. What they are is frustrated that they can't prove me wrong.

Maybe it's because the question 'when does life begin' is very subjective? The religious right wants it to be at conception, which nobody knows when exactly that happens and some folks say it's at birth which leaves a long time in between. Your guess as to when life begins is as subjective as anyone else's.

 

[NatMorton]

Roe was not a fiat ruling establishing when life begins, rather Roe ruled viability as the point in gestation where bodily autonomy becomes subordinate to the state's compelling interest in the welfare of the woman.

The statements you’re making are just remarkable. Viability was not a fiat ruling …. the justices just decided that's where the line was going to be drawn.

There was a just boundary, viability was that requisite boundary. Which makes your post quite ironic given that the neo-right seems quite content upon determining both boundry and justification for each and every women.

Sorry, the word salad you're tossing does not make your opinion any less dogmatic. Viability is in no way a required "boundary." It is an opinion on when life ought to begin, no more. The Roe court could have just as easily settled on birth, a beating heart, or conception. What matters is there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the authority to SCOTUS to impose their majority opinion on when life begins on the entire country.

 

[NatMorton]

She's saying the sovereignty over pregnancy is a transcendent Right whether or not any states or the United States or any other persons acknowledge it or not. I agree.

The only way to counter that right is to be willing to imprison a pregnant woman in a padded cell, put her in a straitjacket, put a barrier between her teeth to prevent her from biting her tongue to commit suicide, and force-feeding her and forcing medical treatment on her for nine months.

If you're not willing to do that to a person, and I can't even imagine doing that to a dog, which is not a person, then you have to realize that any pregnant woman can end a pregnancy even by ending her own life, and that others really don't have any way to stop that short of showing her respect. Force is ultimately worthless.

Where we are is off topic. Yes, there are those who will oppose any law. What we are discussing here is who gets to decide what the law is.

Her (and your) argument seems to be that one cannot make abortion illegal because it's written in the stars that a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy at any time. You can stargaze if you like, but I'm more interested in how best to resolve our differences fairly here on the ground.

 

[NatMorton]

And that right there is why the Anti-abortion movement is perceived as a theocratic and their policies being fought in court and in the media. Denial of rights is a step toward theocracy and control.

Paul Weyrich: When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

So what? Should we nullify any policy idea that has its roots in a Judeo-Christian ethic? I suppose it would be good news for murderers and thieves if we did.

Overturning of Roe is judicial activism.

No, that's entirely wrong. Judicial activism is not defined by decisions you do not like. Judicial activism occurs when there's a violation of the separation of powers and courts go beyond interpreting the law and into making new law. The Dobbs draft does not do that. It literally returns the issue to the legislative process. In that way Dobbs will not be judicial activism. It will be an act of judicial restraint.

 

[NatMorton]

Oh look one of your many attempts to discharge a pithy insult.

View attachment 67396629

Oh look, a nothing-post.

 

[NatMorton]

You still at it with the pithy asides? Lol.
View attachment 67396631

If you have a relevant argument to make here, make it.

 

[NatMorton]

2-the right of a woman to control her own body is not fabricated-it is a physical reality each time she takes a breath.

It's becoming clear why you'd rather not attempt to make relevant arguments here. The statement above is ridiculous. That one has the right to breathe does not give one the right to do anything one pleases.

 

[NatMorton]

Five conservative supreme court justices might have a little something to do with them walking away?

In a sense, you're right, but that's the point. As I said in the OP, these folks no longer have Roe to fall back on as their trump card. They must now make logical, legal arguments, and many simply cannot. A good example is the post I replied to in 2783. quip is unable to defend viability as a valid federal standard without resorting to conflicting or dogmatic statements.

 

[bongsaway]

In a sense, you're right, but that's the point. As I said in the OP, these folks no longer have Roe to fall back on as their trump card. They must now make logical, legal arguments, and many simply cannot. A good example is the post I replied to in 2783. quip is unable to defend viability as a valid federal standard without resorting to conflicting or dogmatic statements.

Let me try to defend viability, can the fetus survive outside the mother?

 

[NatMorton]

Maybe it's because the question 'when does life begin' is very subjective? The religious right wants it to be at conception, which nobody knows when exactly that happens and some folks say it's at birth which leaves a long time in between. Your guess as to when life begins is as subjective as anyone else's.

We are in violent agreement. An opinion on when life begins -- or more specifically, when we acquire basic human rights -- is entirely subjective. What it is not is within the scope of the US Constitution, and that is the point.

 

[NatMorton]

Let me try to defend viability, can the fetus survive outside the mother?

By definition, no.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well, I'm back now, so the Abortion forum is automatically 1,000% more fun. Meat's back on the menu, boys!

 

[bongsaway]

By definition, no.

In my mind that equates to not being viable.

 

[NatMorton]

In my mind that equates to not being viable.

Again, by definition.

What's your point?

 

[bongsaway]

Again, by definition.

What's your point?

You are using your definition of when life begins to support doing away with abortion. There is no proving you wrong just like you can't prove others who hold the opposite opinion of you are wrong.

 

[NatMorton]

You are using your definition of when life begins to support doing away with abortion. There is no proving you wrong just like you can't prove others who hold the opposite opinion of you are wrong.

No, I'm not. I have not stated my prefered policy in this thread or anywhere on DP.

I'm not here advocating for a specific policy. I'm advocating for who gets to decide what the policy should be. The zealots here cannot separate those two concepts. Can you?

 

[bongsaway]

No, I'm not. I have not stated my prefered policy in this thread or anywhere on DP.

I'm not here advocating for a specific policy. I'm advocating for who gets to decide what the policy should be. The zealots here cannot separate those two concepts. Can you?

How many abortion threads would you say you've started? Ten, twenty but your not advocating one way or the other? I don't read your posts as such, I read them as you are against abortion and think RvW should be overturned. Am I wrong?

 

[NatMorton]

How many abortion threads would you say you've started? Ten, twenty but your not advocating one way or the other? I don't read your posts as such, I read them as you are against abortion and think RvW should be overturned. Am I wrong?

What you should gather from what I've written is that I think Roe is among the worst examples of judicial overreach in the history of The Court. You should also gather that if what's in the Dobbs draft is finalized that I will be thrilled as it will be a victory for democracy over well intentioned authoritarianism. What you should not do is try to infer my policy preference on abortion for two reasons: I have not shared it, and if you were to later learn of it it might actually surprise you.

One can reasonably be in favor of choice and opposed to Roe.

 

[bongsaway]

What you should gather from what I've written is that I think Roe is among the worst examples of judicial overreach in the history of The Court. You should also gather that if what's in the Dobbs draft is finalized that I will be thrilled as it will be a victory for democracy over well intentioned authoritarianism. What you should not do is try to infer my policy preference on abortion for two reasons: I have not shared it, and if you were to later learn of it it might actually surprise you.

One can reasonably be in favor of choice and opposed to Roe.

Roe is by far not one of the worst examples of judicial overreach in our history. I'm not sure at this point if it's you or me that is confused? You support choice but not RvW? If republicans get their way abortion will be outlawed in america, where's your choice then?