DEVELOPING, the US Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade (is it cry havoc?)

_{kairosfocus
June 24, 2022

Defending our Civilization, Ethics, Intelligent Design, News Highlights, Politics, rhetoric

3}_{Categories
Defending our Civilization
Ethics
Intelligent Design
News Highlights
Politics
rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Having returned from a shopping trip to Junction, Jamaica [here for 4x bereavement reasons], I noticed news as captioned. I clip:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-overrules-roe-v-wade-in-dobbs/

Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade in Dobbs Decision – Returns Abortion to State Lawmakers
WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding in the Dobbs case that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion and returning the issue of abortion laws and regulations to state legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Supreme Court in Friday’s ~~5-4~~ [–> 6-3] decision:
>>Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return the authority to the people and their elected representatives.>>
Roe was handed down in 1973 in a 7-2 decision, holding that the U.S. Constitution includes a constitutional right to abortion, despite the fact that abortion is not found in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and the nation went more than 180 years without ever noticing it existed. It has been one of the most divisive legal issues in American history.
An early draft of Alito’s opinion leaked in May, the first such leak of a full opinion in the 233-year history of the Supreme Court, leading the left to violent protests, including destroying a pro-life center in Wisconsin, vandalizing churches, and threatening protests at the home of conservatives justices in violation of federal law.
These threats have culminated in what was almost an assassination attempt of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which went seemingly unnoticed by President Joe Biden – who did not speak out to condemn it – and has led to rapid action on a new federal law to protect the justices. The court majority evidently stood firm against the threats and public pressure, overruling Roe and the later revision of Roe in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
With Roe overruled, the issue of abortion now goes back to the states to pass whatever restrictions on abortions the voters of each state choose to adopt.

This is an issue that pivots on life, the first right, and lurking within is, what is law and what may a civil authority legitimately rule as law. DEVELOPING

Comments

ET: School and other mass shootings occur because humans have developed a total disregard for (human) life. And that starts with the senseless mass slaughter of society’s most vulnerable
Yet many other countries have access to abortion on demand without the mass shootings and school shootings. Your logic is non-existent.JHolo_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

School and other mass shootings occur because humans have developed a total disregard for (human) life. And that starts with the senseless mass slaughter of society's most vulnerable. We are discussing guns and abortions with complete hypocrites. To be pro-abortion and anti-gun is being a total hypocrite.ET_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Yes, Fred. the central issue is that you don't care about science nor reality.ET_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

F/N3: Unsurprisingly, we find these thoughts deeply echoed and endorsed in that foundational anthology for our civilisation, the Bible. Unsurprising, as self evident, first principle, branch on which we sit first truths, first duties and first law would tend to be fairly readily recognisable for one who is open to ponder such matters. So, Paul of Tarsus clearly reflects the received consensus summarised by a certain X = MTC . . . there are some hereabouts that seem to be allergic to the spelled out name. But before we go there, here is Luke (a serious historian) reporting Festus' reply to the Judaean elites who wanted Paul simply handed over to their power:
Ac 25:. 16 I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him.
We can call that an entrenched custom or tradition of governance expressing a jurisprudential principle, of force of law, that one has rights through duty of the state and its officers to justice. Here, a right to a hearing in which one confronts accusers on specific recognised charges tied to a body of acknowledged civil law. Which, in turn, rests on the priority of the civil peace of justice, taking us right back to the seven first duties of -- shudder -- MTC. Of course, the elaboration of a state framework of law and government is precisely why there is an etc in the list, we here outline the root, the rest grows organically therefrom. (And no, this is not mere repetition of things said over and over, this is the first time I am drawing this out explicitly.) We turn to the person Felix protected from judicial murder, Paul. Just two years before this, he had written to Christians in Rome, in a foundational work of theology that has affected the course of civilisation:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic] law [code], by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Here we see the concept of a built in law of our morally governed, conscience guided nature, with thoughts in conflict leading to an internal trial, and of the duty of neighbour love being at the heart. Indeed, this is how the core law found in the decalogue turns out to be written in our hearts. A base is being laid for the Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome. This synthesis formed our civilisation as we know it. Underneath, of course, lie the river valley civilisations and the heritage of the wider fertile crescent. We can see this in Justinian's Institutes, the built in textbook for the Christianised synthesis of Roman Law led by Tribonian that is the foundation of Continental Law, Corpus Juris Civilis. This includes, the derivative Napoleonic Code. In Anglophone jurisprudence, it is no accident that Alfred the Great and his Witans began The Book of Dooms with when God was speaking to Moise this is what he said, paraphrasing the Decalogue. Yes, the Common Law system literally begins from the ten commandments. Those who foam at the mouth and attack the decalogue and its display reflect anticivilisational ignorance. So, we have a framework. One, which obviously extends to the right to life. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

F/N2: As a start point, I wish to highlight what we can discern as core, built in first duties and first law, pivoting on the three points that
a: untruth is the foundation of injustice [ask the ghost of brutally and cruelly judicially murdered Milada Horakova], that b: we are neighbours with a common nature and mutuality, and that c: the civil peace of justice is best understood as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties, drawing out that mutuality.
I think objectors will have a hard time dismissing these three theses, without revealing contempt for blatant and sometimes painful facts of history, without showing themselves evasive, inconsistent/incoherent and/or otherwise irrational, without showing themselves misanthropic, without showing themselves anticivilisational. Let us simply bring up a list of first duties that is in an order reflecting a, b, c just above, for the moment setting aside its foundational roots in our civilisation's history of ideas [yes, one certain M____ T______ C_______, shh, don't let heads explode . . . ]. Namely, duties:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
If you object, why, and why should we take you seriously? Apart from, oh we are duty bound to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, ought not to mislead neighbour, and should be fair and just? If you think, oh something deeper must warrant them, prove it, then what is the request for proof but a manifestation of said call to first duties? Indeed, as Epictetus showed for right reason [key to warrant and to prudence, so to knowledge], the attempt to prove already uses these principles. Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]
Of course, what we are seeing here is the reality of some things that have been marginalised and which are cases of willfully disappeared knowledge in our civilisation: branch on which we all sit, pervasive first principles that are self evident from the absurdity of having to appeal to them to give one's objection any persuasive traction. The late, great Dallas Willard highlighted a particularly pernicious case, the disappearance of moral knowledge; which may be energising a strong feeling to dismiss the above without further consideration. Yes, crooked yardsticks confused for sound first principles have that effect. What is truly straight, accurate, upright can never conform to crookedness. And that includes a naturally straight and upright plumb line. So, are we dismissing plumb lines? How wise is that? KF PS, On objectivity of moral knowledge, a little algebraic analysis might help:
Objective moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn't even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1
[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]
However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.
PPS, maybe we will now be more open to reconsider what was so ill advisedly mocked earlier on here at UD:
We may readily identify at least seven branch- on- which- we- all- sit (so, inescapable, pervasive), readily knowable first principle . . .
first duties of reason and first universally binding laws written into our rational, responsible nature and forming morally driven governing principles of reason, high and low alike:
"Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to and pervasive in our reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that the objector to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
It is time for reformation, so back to roots.kairosfocus_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

F/N: At the heart of the exchanges and evasions above, and of the issues lurking behind the decision, is the isue of justice, so too of rights, freedoms and duties. Where, we are inherently social, rational, morally governed anima-ls [I emphasise here the soul issue in the name] in two compatible sexes tied to the reproduction and thriving of our common human race. This requires clarification, i/l/o the centrality of the civil peace of justice. Justice, being best understood as due balance of rights, freedoms, duties, with life, liberty, innocent reputation [key to social survival], property etc as foci for rights. This means that our claims to autonomy, freedom, rights, etc must be restrained by the needs of mutual compatibility. I cannot justly claim a freedom or right that unduly infringes on rights or freedoms of others, or would force them to cooperate in and enable evil. As Vivid noted above, forcing people to habitually lie in support of demands of activism is a case in point of exceeding this issue. Similarly, we must reject nominalism, by asking for a demoinstration of a nine sided hexagon. Where, polygonality is an abstract universal, and so are six-ness, three-ness and nine-ness. (I cite here to demonstrate by a clear and even "extreme" case that the rejection of abstracta and/or of universals is ill founded in logic of being. That extends to cases where borders may be fuzzy or there may be failure of proper function in forming an entity, etc.) In the case in the OP, the USSC actually recognised that the prior cases Roe and Casey were improperly decided and restored status quo ante. However, after nearly 50 years of state enabled mass blood guilt of 63 million victims, thinking will be profoundly warped and a serious work of correction is needed. As well as one of finding repentance, forgiveness and healing. I have suggested a truth, reconciliation and reformation commission, but that is the least likely approach, given the polarisation at work. At least, we need to know there was a more prudent way, an opportunity foregone. Now, as to the way forward, I believe we must restore a sounder foundation for moral government, for moral thought and knowledge [yes, KNOWLEDGE, there are knowable moral truths forming a framework for life, community, law and government, through the civil peace of justice], thence for the state, law, government, public policy and public morality as an aspect of culture. These will not be easy, and many are too angry and polarised to pay significant attention, but the issues remain. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/
Of supplemental note:
Busting the Left’s Vapid Abortion Talking Points - May 2022 https://amac.us/busting-the-lefts-vapid-abortion-talking-points/?campaign=daily-news-email
bornagain77_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

@Querius I've addressed UB in that thread. If UB has more to say, I'll respond. You don't appear to grasp the central issue. Thanks for derailing this thread, though, it needed it.Fred Hickson_{June 26, 2022
June
06
Jun
26
26
2022
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson @79, Baloney. Upright Biped posted the following on that thread:
704 Upright BiPedJune 25, 2022 at 11:30 am . … returning from a short vacation. I’ve read through the comments. It appears it might be a good time for a quick summary. Fred issued a challenge where he was to “propose the steps that could have taken RNA world to DNA-protein world” … or more succinctly, the steps from dynamics to descriptions. I entered his challenge by asking two general questions. The first was about the design inference and the second was about the transition from his proposed dynamic replicator to the actual description-based replicator. The point of the first question was to demonstrate whether or not Fred was intellectually willing to acknowledge the substance (documented uncontroversial facts) of the position he was arguing against. The point of the second question was to demonstrate if Fred was prepared to address the actual physical system he was required to explain. Fred answered the first question by sharply denying that SETI would infer an intelligent source if it received a signal from space that contained encoded content. His reasoning behind that answer was that SETI hasn’t received any signals yet. That answer is not only logically incoherent, it is transparently evasive. Yet he stands by it. Fred then answered the second question with an equally incoherent answer. The question is simple: an aaRS is a complex protein that serves a critical function — it performs a double recognition of a particular tRNA and a particular amino acid. It then binds them together, thus establishing the genetic code. The entire gene system ceases to function without the aaRS. They are synthesized (specified) from genetic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a very first time that this synthesis ever occurred. The question was specifically this: regardless of what anyone might believe occurred prior to that point in earth’s history; when the first ever aaRS was synthesized from memory and went on to serve its critical function, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place? Clearly, the question was intended to focus the discussion not on the speculated (unknown and undemonstrated) first ramblings of RNA replicators on a prebiotic earth, but on the actual steps involved in the transition from dynamics to descriptions (i.e. the actual core topic of Fred’s challenge). Fred’s eventual answer to this question was “One”. This is yet another completely incoherent answer. An aaRS made up of “one” amino acid cannot perform its function. No one would even suggest a thing. His answer is another transparent evasion. Fred has no intentions of addressing the documented physical requirements of the system he is attempting to explain. So now to Fred’s actual challenge, i.e. the transition from his speculated dynamic RNA replicator to the actual DNA/protein (description-based) replicator found in living things: It has been established by experiment (now over a sixty years ago) that the cell does not determine which amino acid is presented for binding in the ribosome based on the dynamic physical properties of the RNA triplet used as a messenger for that amino acid. The RNA is used only as a token of memory, requiring an interpretive constraint in order to function as it does. Full stop. The capacity of the gene system — to specify something among alternatives — is not based on a dynamic association between the amino acid and the messenger. It is a discontinuous association, which functions by not having that physical limitation. This enables the use of a code, which in turn enables the system to have the informational capacity to describe itself in a transcribable memory, making life (autonomous open-ended self-replication) possible. Physically, one of these processes is rate-dependent and reversible, the other is rate-independent and non-reversible. They are obviously not the same thing. Fred has stated that his goal in this challenge is to describe the evidence-based steps to get from the former to the latter. Thus far he hasn’t even acknowledged the distinction, much less provided any steps. Repeating over and over that his explanation begins by assuming the existence of a self-replicating RNA isn’t going to do the job he has set out for himself, even though that does appear to be the full extent of his explanation. Fred’s challenge ends with a blatant evasion on question 1, a blatant evasion on question 2, followed by an (evidence-free) argument-by-assertion on the challenge itself. The actual substance of the challenge was never even addressed. Indeed, he tells us twice that he has no idea how aaRS came into being in his RNA world. This is something he knew before he even issued the challenge. Fred’s goal here was never to explain the steps from dynamics to description. He is here to dance around the science and tread water long enough to get in another round of passive insults and mockery. The question “why” certainly comes to mind. People do what profits them.
All you did there was evasion . . . so the challenge is still there for all to see and your promise to address Upright Biped's specific points remain unaddressed by you: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-gunter-bechly-repudiates-professor-daves-attacks-against-id/#comment-759110:~:text=from%20the%20start.-,644,-Upright%20BiPed -QQuerius_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Trumper “so what is the root cause of the choice” Worldview, it’s post modernism in all its glory. To quote Richard Yorty “Truth is made not found”. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Paxx “No such thing as “transgender”” Spot on, those who control the language control thought. Notice I never use that term. Once you use that term you have given the store away. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

No such thing as "transgender"Paxx_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Vivid- agreed....all should be treated with respect (or with meds in some cases..ha). If a man wants to ignore science and drag-queen himself to looking like a gal... so be it.. that's his choice. or a woman who somehow feels she woke up as a dude.... so be it. those two souls also have to admit to the absurdity of the soul that believes they identify as a wolf (yes there are many out there).. but in no sense are they anything close to a wolf... or those that try their best to identify as a dragon...or other mythical creature... sad that they are degrading their human potential. But back to the fakers of identity shape shifters, why? feel good-ness?..... mental trauma?.....emotional trauma as a child? ... inept adult guidance?..... why? it's not a factual position that one can scientifically defend so what is the root cause of the choice.Trumper_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Life Wins - End of story.Trumper_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Golden rule should be applied to abortionists too. If you accept crime on others without punishment then you accept same privilege to be performed on you.Lieutenant Commander Data_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

JVL, long since, we have discussed malfunctions vs proper function. One must here treat with compassion but must not allow that to cloud understanding of proper function. You are embarked on a key error. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Buck v. Bell is a Supreme Court decision, never overruled; it permitted compulsory sterilization of the unfit; “unfitness” lay in the opinion of the state. The majority opinion in Roe referred to it as a precedent expressing obliquely a vague hope that their Roe decision would not lead to compulsory abortion because of the ‘privacy’ rights recently discovered to be lying in the shadowlands of the constitution. Buck v Bell is still the law. With Roe overturned, the incoherent ruling in Roe that abortion is not limitless loses weight, and compulsory abortion - at least for the “unfit” - is available for abortion enthusiasts in States like California to pass such a law. Tell us, J Holo, if made compulsory in California would your company pay for the legal defence of a pregnant woman who wanted to keep her baby? Would you? Don’t bother to mention the Supremes, in Skinner, wouldn't allow involuntary sterilisation of ‘unfit’ criminals; they didn’t overrule Buck v Bell.Belfast_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Jholo “You reject that homosexuality exists? That transgendered people exist? Well, then you are living in a delusion. Homosexuals and those who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex have existed for as long as we have had recorded history. That is neither leftist nor rightist. It is just fact.” What kind of fever dream is this? Who has denied the existence of homosexuals or men who think they women or women who think they are men? Who exactly? “Or you can try to understand them and accommodate them within society.” All people should be treated with respect. Let me tell you what is not respectful, requiring me to embrace and affirm a lie when it comes to men who think they are women or women that think they are a man when they are not. Thinking so does not make it so. Just. because they deny reality as do you does not require me to affirm the lie. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Jvl, >>> “Oh, and before you answer…” Are you suggesting that people seeking trans or non-binary status be limited to those with these actual conditions?OhReally_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

JH at 118, I reject your Leftist rhetoric, and the "new" terminology of victimhood invented in a vain attempt to create bad guys. I knew since the 1960s that homosexuality existed, but you, and others who share your views, make it sound like not "recognizing" that LGBT people "exist" is some new idea. It's not. It's just a new way to add a layer of victimhood and an attempt to intimidate others. I have an acquaintance who went through the procedure and now presents as a woman. He's not. And your purely Leftist comments to create bad guys again. >>> NO <<<< LGBT person needs my permission to do what they want. Do you understand? Because if you say no, then the victim v. Bad Guy scenario must continue. That is clearly the current approach. And please stop with the Leftist concept of ATTACHMENT. "Like was done for blacks, asians, indigenous peoples and women for a huge chunk of US history. Or you can try to understand them..." My first girlfriend in college was Native American. I have a friend who is engaged to an Asian woman. You think you are justified in throwing your rhetoric at someone you don't know and never met and ASSUMING that I believe any of the things you wrote. I have friends who are black. But in the Leftist world, everything is exactly the way you paint it. I must be one of those bad guys. Based on what? Your assumptions? That's what's wrong with Leftists - they have this very black and white view of who the enemy is. I'm seeing the same rhetoric on a message board where I'm a moderator.relatd_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

In the current situation regarding abortion, both sides can't be right. One side has truth, evidence and facts. The other side does not. Human life begins at conception. The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new human being is created. "In biology, the beginning of pregnancy, marked by fertilization of an egg by a sperm." The women will experience 'morning sickness.' "nausea in pregnancy, typically occurring in the first few months. Despite its name, the nausea can affect pregnant women at any time of day." "The heart of an embryo starts to beat from around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy." In the early days, some abortion providers would refer to what was removed as a 'blob of tissue' or say 'It looked nothing like a baby.' In Michigan, a pro-life woman found abortion remains in a dumpster behind a clinic. The remains were referred to as "medical waste." Before the 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize abortion, those promoting abortion lied to the American people and the press. A co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws said as much. Doctor Bernard Nathanson realized that babies were being aborted. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks I believe the Supreme Court acted properly and there is sufficient evidence to support their decision.relatd_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Relatd: I reject your Leftist, or Leftist inspired rhetoric. It’s wrong on many levels.
You reject that homosexuality exists? That transgendered people exist? Well, then you are living in a delusion. Homosexuals and those who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex have existed for as long as we have had recorded history. That is neither leftist nor rightist. It is just fact. You have a few options. You can bury your head in the sand, pretending they don’t exist. You can acknowledge that they exist and pass laws to persecute them and to exclude them from participating equally in society. Like was done for blacks, asians, indigenous peoples and women for a huge chunk of US history. Or you can try to understand them and accommodate them within society. I choose the latter. As do all sensible people.JHolo_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Aaron Well done.!! JVL thinks questions are answers. I guess that’s better than his incessant whining all the time about his posts being censored which only exists in his mind or faulty computer. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

JH at 109, I reject your Leftist, or Leftist inspired rhetoric. It's wrong on many levels.relatd_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Oh I know I’m not gonna get a rational conversation out of them :) I’m literally doing this on purpose because I find it entertainingAaronS1978_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

You're never going to get a rational conversation from a pro-abort. Peddling the death of innocents destroys your mind. Andrewasauber_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

And what about those people that have both organs or have no organs because that’s a genetic defect why does your splitting a hair actually trump 7.2 billion other people yes hermaphrodites are a real thing they both have sex organs (Funny I knew what they were called and you didn’t) But often they lean towards one sex or the other And if they can’t reproduce they can’t reproduce it’s a one off situation that shouldn’t define every single instance there after But in your world like abortion it should and I don’t care to play in your world And take a little bit of your own advice the only truth that you believe in is your own and you’re telling me that my truth is not good enough I’m sorry you’re a hypocrite and that’s why I can’t take you seriously and I never will but please continueAaronS1978_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Lol do you really take your self seriously You honestly brought up ZERO and I mean ZERO examples that can’t be easily addressed by the the two definitions I posted It is laughable to see you split hairs and create strawmen in your sad little attempt to create some REAL world concern you deal with your delusional little internal world What’s truly disgraceful is you parading around as an intellectual tangled in your own word garbage attempting to make it seem like no one understands the sophistication of real life like you do The problem is is when I read everything that you’re trying to state I just see somebody has mental issues There are real world biological attributes of both female and male and they are real and you can probably reach into your pants and touch them, if that is not real enough for you and you have to over complicated things, that’s not my issue that’s yours and I’m sorry that’s not my job to figure out you mental conundrums. And the fact that you think your definitions of reality trumps all other show that you are both a hypocrite and a Sociopath Yes its simplistic it’s called Ochman’s razor for a reason now get over it and start slowly drifting back to reality it will be helpful for everyoneAaronS1978_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978: Watching you babble entertains me. Literally both definitions I googled answer everything you are attempting to over complicate Right, so you can't address the real world examples I brought up. You can't even say when someone becomes an adult. You can't admit that a 'woman' means different things in different times and different places. Your snickering, superior, simplistic view of the real world and what some estimates put at over 7 million human beings is shocking and disgraceful. For someone who professes to believe that one should love your neighbour as yourself but can't even see their neighbours for what they really are you should be ashamed. But you're not because you are so sure you are right that you think you can disregard and dismiss any data or evidence that disputes or even puts into question your beliefs. Cleary you are not interested in science; you only see what you want to see. And if you're not interested in actual data or evidence then are you really interested in truth? Or just your version of it? No they really do actually, it’s pretty damn cut and dry unless you like ignoring those very obvious physical biological organs produced by those very real genes What about the people who don't have those organs? They exist you know. Or are you going to deny that as well? You guys can't define "woman" despite thinking you can because you can't deal with the existing, documented, studied human beings who don't fit into your simplistic model.JVL_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

No they really do actually, it’s pretty damn cut and dry unless you like ignoring those very obvious physical biological organs produced by those very real genes But please continue your gender circus from my understanding of the left there is technically around 742 different genders all developed from the word garbage you believe trumps biological formAaronS1978_{June 25, 2022
June
06
Jun
25
25
2022
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply