Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BREAKING: Leaked US Supreme Court Draft that would overturn the rulings that have led to 63+ million abortion deaths in the US since 1973

Categories
Academic Freedom
Defending our Civilization
Ethics
Geo-strategic issues
News Highlights
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This, seems worth pondering on the state of the US’s ongoing 4th generation civil war as a civilisation level issue:

A draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has been leaked to the press in one of the greatest scandals to ever hit the nation’s highest court and a possible attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose Congress in November.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” the possible draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito reads, making the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” It then adds, “That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

The document published by Politico that claims to be a draft opinion appears to be authentic, but it is not a binding decision of the court unless at least five justices sign it, and this looks like a transparent and unprecedented betrayal by one of the 45 or so people with access to a draft Supreme Court opinion to prevent this decision from becoming law by scaring off moderate justices and attempting to whip the political left into a frenzy.

Of course, the global pattern, with the US as a trend setter, has seen 800+ million [statistically 1.4+ billion] deliberately inflicted deaths on our living posterity in the womb. An associated picture is that in certain asian countries, devaluation of girls has led to widespread sex selection abortions and a preponderance of boys and now young men in population statistics.

To all of this, I make two self-evident assertions. 1: A human child is precisely that, human. 2: The first right is life, without which there are no rights.

Let’s add, 3: there can be no right to take innocent life at will.

Our civilisation is in the dock. END

U/D, Blaze TV discussion:

U/D, May 10, as Vivid has pointed it out, let us embed a video of testimony by a former abortionist regarding second trimester abortions:

F/N May 7: As tangential objections to the design inference have been taken up (in obvious subject switching) I pose p. 5 from Sir Francis Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter to his son:

Crick’s letter

And, here is the protein synthesis process in outline:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

Together with a summary of the information communication system involved, as outlined by Yockey:

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

F/N, May 8: As the tangent continues, it seems a further illustration is advisable:

It seems more is needed, so here is how this fits into protein synthesis and the metabolic network and how we see prong height coding:

In for a penny, in for a pound, here is a video:

Notice, we are actually dealing with a storage register. Say, each shaft with pins is set for five positions, four elevated, one on the ledge. This is directly comparable to GCAT, and as the video shows there are five digits:

| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 |

The key is encoded to the correct string of digits that in combination will open the lock, say 13213. The resting fully locked position is of course 00000.

Comments
Justice Thomas. Fine upstanding man with very supportive wife.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Vivid, I think we count, both of us, as stand ins for Justice Thomas. Shamelessness. And it is indeed high time to set aside polarising distractors and address substance. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Unbelievable https://www.theblaze.com/news/liberal-racist-abortion-roe-wade Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
F/N, slander tactics begin https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1521340822989402113
Rep. Eric Swalwell @RepSwalwell The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote. iwillvote.com I Will Vote Be a voter. Find everything you need to vote in your state's next election. 12:08 AM · May 3, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
Then, we see: https://twitter.com/derekjgz/status/1521304911283113986
Derek Johnson @derekjGZ The right to an abortion has about as much legal precedence in America as the right to interracial marriage, which is to say, apparently, none at all. 9:45 PM · May 2, 2022·Twitter Web App
Let's see, since Bible snip and snipe patently lurks, Moses being married to an Ethiopian woman doesn't count? More to the point, the natural qualification for marriage is, man, one plus woman, one. With certain due limitations. Race is not a due limitation. Going back to the serial slanderer Mr Swallwell, the actual evidence of an intent to ban marriages such as senior supreme court judge Thomas' is? ______ Correct answer, nil. This is a pure invention of shameless malice in disregard to truth in an attempt to gain political advantage through further escalation of racial issues. So, what are they so afraid of in seeing the Court contemplating returning the matter to the people of the states, especially, if they think by 70% to 30 in favour of such a policy? Would that not decide the issue, never mind to detriment. Because, more than half the states, likely, would severely restrict abortion in defence of the life interest of what Mr Biden just admitted is the child in the womb. And if a federal republic cannot endure as half slave and half free, it cannot long endure being half respectful of life and half nihilistic in law. So, we are at kairos. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
“And mostly old white guys posting comments in this thread.” Intersectionality at its finest passing as a reasoned argument LOL Perhaps you might actually engage Alito’s alleged opinion or is that above your pay grade? BTW can you tell me what is a woman? Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Seversky writes
. And it’s mostly old, white men pushing these laws.
And mostly old white guys posting comments in this thread.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
Susan Collins thinks she was misled. She even seems surprised about it.Fred Hickson
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
F/N: Let us hear from John C Wright, first on the breach of professional duty: https://www.scifiwright.com/2022/05/re-dobbs-v-jwho-et-al/
it must have been someone in the legal profession, a justice or law clerk, who stole this draft and released it to the public. Whatever faith one might have is dashed. This leak is akin to putting a hidden microphone in a confessional booth, and having a priest or deacon broadcast your most intimate sins to the world. It is a blasphemy. As an attorney, the degree of dishonesty, dishonor, and contempt for rule of law and the safeguards of liberty needed to betray one’s oath, one’s sacred trust, and one’s manhood to publish a document entrusted and privileged to a lawyer is literally unimaginable. Even having seen it done, even with the evidence before my eyes, I cannot believe that even the lowest of the low would stoop to such criminality. We all know that lawyers have a reputation for sharp dealing and sly deceit. But even so, there were some things below what they were willing to do, or so I thought. Since the only point was to encourage political violence to intimidate the High Court, this is a deeper breech of the unwritten social contract by which civilization endures than it seems at first. We are one step closer to civil war [--> actually, you are already in 4th gen shadows civil war, this is escalatory], thanks to this. For civilization to endure, both sides must regard the rule of law as legitimate, and be willing to abide by unfavorable decisions. By this leak, meant to stir riots to coerce the Justices, it is clear one side is no longer willing. If election fraud, misinformation governance boards, widespread censorship, and abuse of the legal system in witchhunts against political enemies and innocent protestors were insufficient, this adds one more straw to the camel’s back.
He also speaks to the draft:
The words below are allegedly those of Justice Alito: *** *** *** Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Sealia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand. *** *** *** Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. The Courts abortion cases have diluted the strict standard for facial constitutional challenges. They have ignored the Court’s third-party standing doctrine. They have disregarded standard res judicata principles. They have flouted the ordinary rules on the severability of unconstitutional provisions, as well as the rule that statutes should be read where possible to avoid unconstitutionality. And they have distorted First Amendment doctrines. *** *** *** My comment: The Roe v Wade case was the first case read on my first day in law school at William and Mary’s. It was also, without a doubt, the more poorly constructed jury-rig of legal reasoning I have ever read, before or since. Every other case, and I do mean every single solitary other case, as far back as the Case of the Thorns from 1466 (see YB 6 Ed 4, 7a pl 18) listed the legal precedent on which the case rested, or quoted a law, or quoted a principle of natural law and showed the current application. Not this one. Not Roe v Wade. It merely asserted certain rights suddenly retroactively existed and always had done, to commit what several states (and all history) condemned as a crime, and that these newly-discovered eternal rights overrode any state interest in protecting “potential life” (whatever that jabberwocky phrase means) after a certain point in time but not before, namely, the third trimester. The court then listed a number of provisions of Constitutional law that could perhaps possibly justify the invention of a right to privacy, on which the alleged right of infanticide was based, but did not bother actually to make the justification saying how and why. Later, in Casey, the third trimester rule would be replaced with a new standard, saying that any regulation of aborticide, include regulations applicable to every other aspect of medical practice, if it placed an undue burden on the woman, was unconstitutional — a standard that is no standard, for the court gave no guideline as to what constituted a due versus an undue burden. Where did this standard come from? No where. One which provision of the Constitution was it based? None. What Common Law cases showed a long tradition of this natural law principle? Not one. How, then, was it law? It was not. Rule of law is not rule by fiat. They are opposites. Also note other constitutional rights, as free speech or bearing arms, are not hedged about by any undue burden test. The legal reasoning was so bad in Roe v Wade I could not believe it had been written any a lawyer, much less a judge, much less Justice of the Supreme Court, much less several. Had any first year law student turned in a paper containing such weak and elliptical reasoning, he would be flunked out. Whether one agree or disagree with the justice of granting a right to abortion, one cannot agree that a court of law is authorized to invent new laws out of the ether with no hint of precedent, law or logic. The case was an abomination from the beginning. It was an outrageous imposition on the sovereignty of the states and of the people to determine the laws under which we shall live, and, worse, there was no legal logic behind it. I was amazed, that first day in law school, that lawyers could not see the legal fallacy of interpreting a law that did not exist so as to making it spring into existence. Finally, finally, we have language in this draft pointing out the obvious. It is enough to restore one’s faith in the legal profession.
Of course, he then uses but to introduce the issue of the leak. KF PS, on the 1466 case, Wikipedia testifies yet again against interest:
The defendant owned a 1-acre farm adjoining the plaintiff's 5 acres, which were separated by a hedge of thorn bush. The defendant was trying to retrieve thorns from a dividing hedge which had fallen onto the Plaintiff’s property. In retrieving the thorns the defendant had damaged some of the plaintiffs crops, specifically that he “trampled and damaged" the crops. The issue was whether the defendant was liable for trespass.[2] Although the decision was divided, the majority held that if a person damages another property there is a tort even if the action that brought such damages was itself lawful.[3] As Pigot, J states, "And so if a man has a fish-pond in his manor and he empties the water out of the pond to take the fishes and the water floods my land, I shall have a good action, and yet the act was lawful."[4] One who voluntarily does an act which results in damages to another is responsible for the damages even if the act was lawful.
If we were to entertain for the moment the notion that abortion on demand was lawful as an expression of rights over one's body -- which conveniently vanished when the push was to force-jab everyone -- then the interests of the child that Mr Biden admits is in the womb as living posterity must be recognised. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
,” we are talking about aborting fetuses.” Better inform Joe Biden who today let the cat out of the bag when he said we are talking about” aborting a child” Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
JH, 103, I suspect, many of the ills we now face would be a lot better were we -- through formal education and informal cultural influence -- to instill comprehensive moral education framed on self evident first law, the first duties of reason. Y'know, what begins with say Cicero and self evident 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.
Duties to neighbour would include those to our living posterity in the womb. Duties to prudence would include recognition of the character and significance of the act of union and where it commonly leads, thence, if I am not ready and willing to sustain a 20+ year project of nurture of my posterity and I am not in the stable marriage that frames that, I should not be engaging in acts, words and thoughts that lead to, or break down rationality regarding, or enable the sort of holocaust that is now in progress. Not to mention, HIV and what, forty other sexually transmissible diseases, many without effective cure, point to the question, what happens when -- yes, when not if -- the next epidemiological study reveals another fatal viral STD with a latency of several years has already gone pandemic? If we have refused to learn from HIV, what does that say to/about us? And more. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Sev,
104: We are no talking about “murdering children”, we are talking about aborting fetuses. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with premeditation or malice aforethought. Under the provisions of Roe, abortion is lawful and not therefore murder.
Dehumanisation by twisted labelling. Denial of humanity to our living posterity in the womb. Just as was noted already. QED KF PS, hyperskeptical dismissiveness to evidence of God on your part does not undermine his reality as necessary being world root. Of course, joined to the just above, we see a very familiar issue of atheism emerge. Will Hawthorne rightly warns, echoing Plato in The Laws Bk X:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'.
kairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
SA “If so, that’s good – but that makes you a Bible believer and I thought you were an atheist? If you’re saying, however, that you don’t believe the accounts of the Bible, then why are you bringing it up as evidence to support your case? I’ll just consider that a double standard.” Your to kind, Sev is a shameless hypocrite but what would you expect of someone when asked could not say what a woman is!! Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Seversky
We are no talking about “murdering children”, we are talking about aborting fetuses.
You just compared abortion to the warfare in Old Testament times so I think we are talking about murdering children. Abortion in places like NY State is legal up to the moment of birth. Gov. Norquist of Virginia famously stated that children who accidentally survived an abortion attempt should not be given medical care and should be left on the table to die. The infanticide craze https://www.aei.org/articles/the-infanticide-craze/ I support an organization called "Abortion Survivors" that represents more than 400 people who have survived attempts to kill them. Would you want to say to any one of those people that they never were a child but only a "fetus" and therefore shouldn't be alive today? I honestly don't think you would.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with premeditation or malice aforethought. Under the provisions of Roe, abortion is lawful and not therefore murder.
The way you've stated this it sounds like "Since Roe states abortion is lawful, it is therefore not murder". But that's putting the definition of human life in the hands of the Supreme Court. But I'd also hope then, if Roe was overturned, your view on abortion should change also in that case.
According to the Old Testament, your God or his proxies killed large numbers of their fellow human beings with impunity or without even criticism.
Again you're comparing abortion with the bloody deaths of human beings in a time of battle and conflict Let's note that your reference takes us back 5,000 years and you're accepting the Bible account as accurate and authentic. That's a good start. So, we have the Jews who miraculously crossed the Red Sea - you're accepting that right? And they were miraculously fed directly by God in the desert for 40 years, with a mystical cloud following them day and night, and God speaking a sacred Law to them. Still with me? If so, that's good - but that makes you a Bible believer and I thought you were an atheist? If you're saying, however, that you don't believe the accounts of the Bible, then why are you bringing it up as evidence to support your case? I'll just consider that a double standard. Use the Bible as if it is true when you want to attack it, and then claim that it's just fabricated when you are challenged to believe it. But it can't work that way. If you don't believe the Bible account, then you can't use it as a weapon against God.
A significant percentage of those casualties must have been pregnant women. Your God apparently had no problem with that so I’m assuming that you don’t either.
Every life on earth will end - even yours. After that, we all have to face God in the judgement. I fully accept God's authority over the lives He created. It is the second death that we must fear, not the first one. In your scenario, you want justice for every human that has been deprived a continual life on earth - a life that was designed to be temporary. Some live in sin and luxury, others live in virtue and sacrifice.
So what are your grounds for opposing abortion?
Abortion is a deliberate act to end an innocent human life. My grounds for opposing it are based on human reason, first. We have the moral responsibility to protect the lives of children. As adults, that's a measure of our integrity. The man who saves himself and lets the child he could protect die, has revealed his weakness and selfishness. When its his own child that he brings to the abortionist to have killed, he reveals his moral depravity. It's not that complicated.
Also bear in mind that less than 50% of fertilized eggs – zygotes – actually make it to implantation. The remainder are flushed out during menstruation. Of those that do make it to implantation anything up to 60% are lost in spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. If this prodigiously wasteful system was “intelligently” designed then why are you and the other anti-abortionists here not holding that individual responsible for all the uncounted billions of incipient human lives lost.
It is the Lord who gives life - and life does not end with the first death. I'm sure you know that by now, so just repeating hostility towards God for having sovereignty over the life He created is not doing anything. Life on earth is temporary. The hedonist thinks it only has value when he is getting everything he wants. But its value comes from its creator. Some people live to be over 100. Others die in the womb. For us, we should treat all sacred to the extent that we can. I know mothers who have given reverent burial to miscarried children. It's a sign of the appreciation of life. You're trying to blame God - the author of life, and the giver of all the meaning and sacredness of life - as if he has the same moral responsibility that you do. That does not make sense. We are recipients of life - not the authors of it.
Again, if your Designer is comfortable with that casualty rate due to his incompetence, what are your grounds for opposing abortion?
The casualty rate for human life is 100%. That includes your own. You'll have to enter the darkness of death and be judged, just as we all will. Your hostility towards God is noted. But the grounds for opposing abortion come not only from respect for the life that God has given us, but from our duty to protect and defend life as far as it is in our power to do so. Children in the womb are not the only humans who are vulnerable and need our help. Why did God create it this way, so that some people need the help and care of others? It's to give us an appreciation of the fragility of life, and to enable us to do some good by caring for others and trying to heal them. Again you seem frustrated that this will inevitably lead to the death of every person. But that frustration is at the heart of the atheistic view. This life, designed to be temporary as a testing-ground where we can develop virtue and appreciation and love - has to be seen by the atheist as "all there is". That's a radical misunderstanding of what human life is. Without the chance for life-after-death, life on earth would be nothing but frustration and despair -- since we are oriented to purpose and meaning. The atheist idea that denies purpose and meaning is therefore in contradiction to our orientation.Silver Asiatic
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
BA: No one, including Texas and Louisiana, has made abortion a capital offense.
Why not? If I kill you, even if you are days away from a natural death, and you beg me to kill you, I am guilty of a capital offence. If a fetus has the same right to life as you or I, why isn’t the woman who procures an abortion also guilty of a capital offence?JHolo
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Marker/95
It takes two to get pregnant. Saying this is only about women ignores that fact. Two people are required for pregnancy.
True, but let's not ignore the double standard in play here. If a man gets a woman pregnant out of wedlock, there's a secret admiration of the "Nudge, nudge! Wink, wink!" kind for a guy who was "spreading his seed" around. The woman, on the other hand, is just considered a slut. And it's mostly old, white men pushing these laws.Seversky
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Sev
So you are opposed to abortion being made a capital offense? That’s something, I suppose, but you might want to take it up with legislators in Texas and Louisiana who support the idea.
No one, including Texas and Louisiana, has made abortion a capital offense. You have no evidence that such a thing will happen. Come out of your leftist fever swamp of conspiracy Sev and breath the fresh air of truth.Barry Arrington
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/86
Our ontological status is ______
We exist.
and God’s is_______
There is no credible evidence for the existence of such a being.
The import of the difference is _______
We get to decide what is moral and lawful. Why not?
I think we both know the issues on the table have to do with self evident first law, here, that the first right is life, that murder is willful shedding of INNOCENT blood, that there can be no right to take another’s life at will.
Murder is the unlawful taking of another human life with premeditation or malice aforethought. Roe made abortion lawful so it cannot be murder. You may consider it immoral on other grounds but you will find scant support in Christianity.Seversky
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
JHolo/83
Misrepresenting the opposing view is never an honest tactic. The pro-choice advocates believe that making abortion illegal is counter-productive because it will not stop people getting abortions, it will only stop people getting abortions in the most medically safe means. The best way to reduce the abortion rate, repeatedly demonstrated, is to provide early and comprehensive sex education, without the puritanical overtones, as well as readily available contraceptives (the pill, IUD, condoms, etc).
I couldn't have put it better myself.Seversky
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington/47
And right on cue Sev sets up another insipid false binary. It is either allow millions of abortions for any reason or no reason at any time right up to the point of crowning or hunt down and execute women. Black and white. Nothing in between. Stop it Sev. Just stop it.
So you are opposed to abortion being made a capital offense? That's something, I suppose, but you might want to take it up with legislators in Texas and Louisiana who support the idea.Seversky
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic/28
Children are dependent on their parents up through teenage years. So yes, I don’t agree with murdering children just because they’re inconvenient to parents.
We are no talking about "murdering children", we are talking about aborting fetuses. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with premeditation or malice aforethought. Under the provisions of Roe, abortion is lawful and not therefore murder.
But I can envision a society where there are death-chambers for 12 year olds because the parents don’t want to “suck it up” and care for them any more.
We can all envision such abominations but I seriously doubt they will ever happen.
We’ve got people already proposing that children can (or even should) be killed after birth.
We have people who believe Donald Trump has been anointed by your God to lead the US back to greatness. People can and do believe in all sorts of odd things
In a godless society, the public can take away the right to life, and establish the maximum age when children can be legally killed.
According to the Old Testament, your God or his proxies killed large numbers of their fellow human beings with impunity or without even criticism. A significant percentage of those casualties must have been pregnant women. Your God apparently had no problem with that so I'm assuming that you don't either. So what are your grounds for opposing abortion? Also bear in mind that less than 50% of fertilized eggs - zygotes - actually make it to implantation. The remainder are flushed out during menstruation. Of those that do make it to implantation anything up to 60% are lost in spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. If this prodigiously wasteful system was "intelligently" designed then why are you and the other anti-abortionists here not holding that individual responsible for all the uncounted billions of incipient human lives lost. Again, if your Designer is comfortable with that casualty rate due to his incompetence, what are your grounds for opposing abortion?Seversky
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Marker: Before 1960, and the approval of the birth control pill, both men and women knew they were responsible for sexual acts resulting in pregnancy. They viewed sex as being for the purpose of having babies.
Sorry. Going to call BS on this. People have had sex without the purpose of procreation for centuries. All the pill and condoms and IUDs have done is give a higher level of certainty that pregnancy wouldn’t occur. I am in my mid to late sixties and my wife and I still have sex two to three times per week. And I can say for certain that we are doing it for the simple purpose of pleasure. Should we be stopping this simply because you and others feel that we shouldn’t be doing it for pleasure? To be honest, I feel sorry for those who have always perceived sex as only being for the purpose of procreation. You are really missing out on one of the biggest joys of life.JHolo
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Marker: Many who prefer sex to be separate from love and marriage think that abortion is OK.
Nonsense. It is not about people “preferring” that sex is separate from marriage. It is about knowing that you can’t restrict sex to marriage.JHolo
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
So we have a bunch of commentators that a few weeks back could not tell me what a women is now screaming about women's rights. The shameless hypocrisy of these people know no bounds, As to the “slippery slope” criticism yeh it has become very slippery, we have gone from safe legal and rare to infanticide. One final comment, this leak is beyond the pale. We are witnessing the total destruction of the American experiment. So sad to watch. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
PAV re 30 Nailed it. Vividvividbleau
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
That's why it shouldn't be considered a "women's issue" since both parents are involved.Silver Asiatic
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Until men are held accountable for unwanted pregnancies, the problem will never be resolved.ET
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
JH: Observe your language:
those opposed to pro-choice
This begs a raft of questions, while indulging projection and burden shifting. Such, invites confession by projection, cognitive dissonance based analysis. First, history has showed over and over that genocidal mass slaughters begin with demonisation or dehumanisation. Indeed, chattel slavery of Africans also dehumanised and demonised through appeal to distinctive genetics as proof of inferiority and this of course was joined to the rapist legend, If you are about to enable treating someone unconscionably, you need to figure out a way to blame or dehumanise the victim. The former seeks to make seemingly just the taking of revenge for imagined or threatened wrongs. The latter, sets out to infer inferior so no rights inhere or attach. Sadly, the horrific history involved is as yet unfinished. Secondly, there is a calculated and insistent caricaturing misrepresentation. Anti choice, anti freedom, would be oppressors, fascists, theocrats seeking to reimpose the inquisition etc. When in fact it is trivial to learn that objection to abortion effectively on demand pivots on the first right; right to life. the right without which there can be no other rights, only entitlements held under colour of law but tracing to the nihilist credo, might makes right. Whence, it is trivial to note that once a zygote forms, a genetically unique new individual has begun his or her life. Where as "his" implies, slightly over half the time, the new individual does not even have the same sex as his mother. New life, species human, a species of rational animality. Life is therefore sacred and bearing a peculiar dignity far above rubies. Life, then, is the first right and it is never sound or just to confer on one individual, arbitrary power over the life of another. Which, is what lurks under that pseudo-innocent word, choice. Accordingly, the matter is warped from the root and places us under the peculiarly corrupting influence of blood guilt. From this frame, we may seek reform, first individually but then in our civilisation if we are to be worthy of the name. For example, the act of union is both an act of soul tying and the biological act of procreation. So, decent civilisation reserves it for a stable context that nurtures new life, given the development needs of the child and the vulnerability of pregnant women and nursing mothers. Marriage makes sense, and the ethical premise that the act of union belongs in the covenant of union is plainly sound. Which deserves to be a linchpin of moral and family life education. Even the biology and social psychology of virginity are confirming the message. Thus, responsible sexual, individual and family conduct supported by sound community make sense. In short, we see that abortion is a horrific quick fix to a cascade of entrenched moral failures of current civilisation. Which is part of why we find the projection game. We need to admit and turn from our gross error. Then, we can set about rebuilding sound civilisation. Civilisation that starts with recognising that life is the first right; without which, there can be no rights. more can be said but this is a start. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
JH If you're not pro-abortion that is good to hear. But that's not true for all of the people who call themselves pro-choice, so I don't think you can speak for them. Planned Parenthood favorably reports: "Each year on March 10 people from across the country celebrate National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers." "Celebrating" the "providers" who kill children? How about a guy like Kermit Gosnell? There's a site called "Shout My Abortion" which says "abortion is normal". Here's a pro-choice woman who wants to celebrate her abortion each year:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2021/05/03/why-i-celebrate-my-abortion-on-mothers-day/ But I wish my decision to have an abortion was as celebrated as my decision to have a child because it allowed me to continue being the parent my children needed me to be. Since it’s not, I always celebrate my abortion on Mother’s Day, and every other day of the year, too.
So, I can see no reason why the term "pro-abortion" doesn't fit those pro-choice people. But in your case, again - good to hear. But do you accept that abortion kills a child?Silver Asiatic
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
It takes two to get pregnant. Saying this is only about women ignores that fact. Two people are required for pregnancy. Many who prefer sex to be separate from love and marriage think that abortion is OK. And those who are married are not told how to control or regulate births. Before 1960, and the approval of the birth control pill, both men and women knew they were responsible for sexual acts resulting in pregnancy. They viewed sex as being for the purpose of having babies. That is the purpose of sex. In many cases, if a man was with a woman he intended to marry and got her pregnant, there was a wedding. He took responsibility.marker
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Maybe a better approach for a discussion here would be for those opposed to pro-choice to come up with a strategy that would prevent abortions. What does this approach entail? Death sentence for women who have abortions? Jail sentences for women who have abortions? A big letter A embroidered on the clothes of women who have abortions? OK. Have at it.JHolo
May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
1 13 14 15 16 17 19

Leave a Reply