Roe vs. Wade wobbling


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

At this very moment, the pro-abortion protest in front of the Supreme Court building is growing exponentially. I've heard there are about 20,000 so far and more coming as busses arrive. Most of the day there were about 1,000. This growth has only happened in the last two or three hours or so.

Now here's the kicker.

The violence is already starting to happen.

Wouldn't it be cool if this turned into a full-on rampage?

Not like Jan. 6, which was tame and full of false flaggers doing most of the dirty work. I mean a fuck-up everything and everyone rampage. This would show clearly what the people who organize issues like this, who pay for them, are really about.

And, the idea of giving the Capitol Police a big-ass black eye after what they have been doing is heartwarming.

I would love to see them use overwhelming force against a predator class demonstration and imagine the meetings the next day. :) .

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

3. The timing of this leak is quite suspicious. It has totally knocked the Ukraine mess out of the news and it is also hogging the airwaves for the 2000 Mules documentary showing all the illegal ballot harvesting in the 2020 election. Also, some primary elections are starting up with MAGA slated to win most of the Republican ones and the news space is being sucked up. And there's this. Large numbers of vaxxed people--famous ones--are getting COVID and the sheer number of stories has been a major embarrassment to the predator class. Now nobody is talking about COVID while new authorizations are begin sought from the government by big pharma.

Look what I came across (after I wrote the post).

The Timing Was Intentional: Roe v Wade Leak Was Left’s Answer to “2000 Mules” Documentary Release Today that Proves 2020 Election Was Stolen

engelbrecht-phillips-2000-mules.jpeg
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

The movie ‘2000 Mules’ is set for its theater release today in over 200 theaters across the country.  In the film, Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote provide answers and evidence of the stolen 2020 Election in this...

And this:

Maria Bartiromo on Supreme Court Leak: "I'm Not Buying It" "On Day One Of Primary Season?"

WWW.REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM

 

I bet if I keep looking, I will find main stories that state my other points.

:)

But this ain't about me.

It's about getting rid of these dirty tricksters and cheaters and getting MAGA into power with Trump to fix things.

Roe v. Wade is merely a stopping point. It will be great for the Dems to adopt overturning SCOTUS on this as a plank, too. Why? Because this go around, they will have to preach pro-abortion, not just pro-choice. They won't be able to avoid this frame in light of a SCOTUS decision.

And pro-abortion is an election loser in today's America. So that will throw them one more length of space into irrelevance.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own thinking has been that a human embryo is “human,” at that stage of development. The beginning of a fetal heartbeat is more proof it is living. However, the beginnings of fetal “thinking” around the 28th week proves there is now a human “person” sharing the mother’s body . . . and that changes everything.  Here are some edited paragraphs Robert Tracinski wrote about abortion back in 2013:  

April 28, 2013 FEATURE ARTICLE The Philosophy of Gosnell. The Abortion Debate Requires a Philosophical Perspective on Individual Rights by Robert Tracinski

 . . . Put simply, if you think rights are granted by society, as the left does, that leads to one particular view of abortion. If you think that rights are given to us by God, that tends to support a different view. And if you believe that rights have a secular, non-collectivist foundation, as I do, that leads to yet another approach to the question. The standard "pro-choice" view on the left clearly reflects the social and collective view of rights. If rights are granted by society, then issues of freedom and entitlement will naturally be defined in terms of which groups a society is seeking to protect or empower. We will think of every issue in terms of a battle between women, racial minorities, and youth versus old white males (who are themselves a minority, of course, but whose wealth and power the left seeks to redistribute to the other groups) . . . The traditional conservative view that rights are granted by God makes rights an inherent possession of the individual, rather than the group. There are collectivist strains in conservatism, by the way, but when it comes to abortion, the conservatives generally are absolutists in their insistence that the individual has a right to life that supersedes social norms or needs. But who counts as an individual? If you believe that rights are implanted in us by God, then you will look for a theological answer to the question of when those rights begin. Thanks partly to John Paul II, who popularized among Protestants the Catholic doctrine that God implants the soul at the moment of conception, this is the moment the religious right identifies as the point when an individual acquires rights.

What about a secular concept of individual rights? The religious right relies on the assumption that rights either come from God or from society, but what about a third possibility: that they come from nature? Thomas Jefferson described the rights in the Declaration of Independence as coming from "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Those of us on the secular right, which is to say those of us influenced by Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, accept the first half of that formulation while seeing no need for the second half. So, what in the "laws of nature" provides a secular basis for the concept of rights?

The secular basis for individual rights is the quality that separates man from the animals: our ability to reason. When we ask what is the basis of rights, what we are really asking is: why not just deal with other men by brute force, the way we deal with the animals? There is no such thing as "rights" in the animal kingdom, because there is no such thing as persuasion; you can't reason with a lion and convince it that its long-term interests would be better served by not eating you. But when it comes to your fellow man, you have far more to gain from voluntary cooperation than you do from expropriation or coercion. That's true from the very beginning, from early men banding together to hunt gazelles, to every step up on the rungs of civilization: working together to build farms, cities, factories, and global telecommunications networks. The difference between a long, peaceful, fulfilling life in a civilized society and the short and brutal life of a solitary hunter-gatherer is the scope of cooperation among men . . . .

. . . . If that is the basis for individual rights, what does this imply about when rights begin? Well, for example, it explains why children don't have the same rights as adults. A three-year-old does not yet have the ability to think clearly and to rationally control his actions; believe me, I have one at home. But the key word is "yet." . . . .

. . . From a secular perspective, an embryo is an easier case. It is living, of course, and if allowed to grow it will become a human being. But at these early stages, it is still part of a woman's body and totally dependent on her. An embryo has not yet even formed the organs that will make it capable of being conscious or viable outside the womb. Because it is not a separate, independently viable living being, much less a rational being, it does not have a separate right to life.

But as a fetus moves along the continuum the question becomes more difficult. A late-term fetus in particular has developed all of its organs and is mostly just growing in size and strength. It is already capable of being conscious and of independent life. Advances in medicine have pushed back the point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb to as early as 24 weeks, which is probably the limit of what is possible. But the survivability of a fetus at this stage is still somewhat doubtful, so we can take the third trimester of the pregnancy—from about 28 weeks on—as a better guide for when the fetus is fully formed and viable . . . .

 . . . And here is where I will agree with the conservatives. In the third trimester, I think it is immoral to abort a fetus—in the absence of some serious extenuating circumstance, such as a threat to the life of the mother. By the time you have reached the third trimester, you have already made a baby; you're just waiting for the right time to deliver it. You might decide you don't want to raise the child, in which case you can pass that responsibility on to someone else. But the baby is already there, ready and able to live, and I cannot think of a moral reason to deny it that opportunity, particularly in a day and age when there are waiting lists for couples eager to adopt a healthy child and give it a good home.

But the moral issue is not necessarily the same as the legal and political issue. To begin with, the fetus is still in its mother's body and ideally will stay there until full term, so you cannot protect the life of the fetus without regulating the use of the mother's own body, which raises both legal and practical difficulties. And you will notice that I made an exception for extenuating circumstances such as a threat to the life of the mother. When my oldest child was at this stage, the Supreme Court was considering a case that related to late-term pregnancies, and I remember how close to home that idea hit. I remember thinking that if something went horribly wrong in my wife's pregnancy that we might have a very difficult decision to make, and that we wanted to be able to make it ourselves, based on the best advice from our doctor, without a judge or a prosecutor sitting over our shoulders ready to countermand that decision.

So, while there is a legitimate debate about restrictions on late-term abortions, there must also be a strong presumption in favor of the judgment of parents and doctors, even at the risk that some will use their authority immorally. It is important to fill that gap, to know where we stand philosophically, and to clearly define our principles, because this debate is just getting started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The New York Times: . . . ,According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a group that fights abortion restrictions in court and closely tracks state laws, 25 states are likely to ban abortion if they are allowed to. Those states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming . . . . How would the number of U.S. abortions change? Some women seeking abortions could obtain them in other ways, including traveling to a state where abortion is legal or ordering pills online from outside the country. Texas provides an example. In September, a law went into effect banning abortion after fetal cardiac activity is detected, around six weeks. Abortions at Texas clinics fell by half. But many women were able to obtain abortions in neighboring states or by ordering pills, resulting in an overall decline of only around 10 percent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only speculating below, but it's speculation based on observation.

A huge number of people in the middle think like Tim Pool thinks on abortion.

And notice how he goes back and forth--waffles--on the issues surrounding abortion.

That's because he doesn't want to promote harm and he doesn't want to ignore one of the lives at stake/

So it's complicated.

One of my early cognitive dissonances in Objectivism was Rand defining a fetus as not human, or at least not a human deserving of rights. But I just couldn't look at simple repeatable biology and say, "That doesn't exist." Even Rand herself did not convince me that this was not what she was doing.

Man, did that cause me a lot of suffering.

(I ended up coming to my own conclusion that I have written about several times.)

I mention this because, if you watch the video above, notice how this is a nonissue for Tim. He thinks defining--as not human--the result of conception, even at the single cell stage, is silly. He blows it off. Of course it's human to him.

If one wants an idea to change a culture, the idea has to be taken seriously. Oh, in the beginning an effective idea might be laughed at, but as time goes on, it gets taken seriously. 

The idea that a fetus is not human has been around for a hell of a long time and it has not caught on as serious to the vast middle.

This was part of the predicate of Roe v. Wade (albeit mostly implied) and this was the reason Roe v. Wade had to happen as legislation from the bench instead of a law passed by Congress. Ultimately, this is the reason Roe v. Wade is being overturned and will probably not result in a law passed by Congress. People in the middle are not on board with the founding principle, the premise.

Most people see a human fetus as human. By extension, they see killing it as killing a human.

As Tim said, in a complicated situation, one tries to chose that which does the least harm. Killing a human is up there on top of the list as the greatest harm. If that is the kind of standard one wants to use, that may not instruct exceptions, but it is solid for the rule for most cases.

I believe this sort of reasoning will be the way most see it, even those who call abortion a sin due to religion. They will not just be following dogma. I believe they will be looking at doing the least amount of harm as a standard--amidst two lives.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will the Supreme Court Roe leak accomplish? Will more concerned women vote on Nov., 2022 and perhaps against Republican candidates? Who would have gleefully or scornfully leaked the anti-abortion “notes?” I think it could equally have been a man or a woman working there, and with access to documents . . . but a Supreme Court Justice leaker is less likely. The concerning facts are, In the womb and dependent but thinking and human yet it is the mother's body and she has rights to herself and life. It's always been a tough one unless you have an absolute religious conviction or a women's rights conviction. But to me, the issue is nuanced and so rationally dependent upon time, brain activity and viability and when rights are conferred upon a fetus  . . . by doctors and society . . . and Constitutional law. Like others, i remember reading The Objectivist Newsletter when I left the army and not totally agreeing with Rand's oh so sure, conclusion. The women's rights movement was and is a colossal question mark as regards "all human rights." Just rambling. Sorry.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be inelegant and say something horrible.

But it's bigger than me.

:) 

This SCOTUS leak was worth it simply because it resulted in videos like the following.

:)

For those who don't know these people, this is Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian on a program called The Young Turks. Half of their show is mocking others. They pretend they are progressives in their discourse (and that's already not good), but in the policies they endorse and work toward, they are predator class activists. Pelosi puppets and endless war for profit mongers at root.

The sheer number of lies they have told about Trump and MAGA people over the years could fill a library. They told the lies knowing they were lying. At times they even said so and said it was necessary just to get him out of public life.

These sanctimonious hypocrites have a world of pain coming to them.

They have no idea yet.

Schadenfreude is not a beautiful thing... unless it is...

:) 

btw - Ana is crying, "What do you want them to do?" She's was screeching about child care for people who have to go to work. (This in an abortion context. :evil: ) Would you want this lady taking care of your child? Yuck. If so, may I point you to the time she and Cenk ran a segment called "The Camel's Toe"? And yes, it was about that, showing and commenting on pictures of celebrity women whose tight clothing outlined their crotches. :evil:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok… so the pendulum swings and dampens … you need to time when to set it going… when to add more pushes … or if you are in tension with an adversary perhaps when to pull to create more tension and just let go… waiting for it to swing back farther…. to your side 

Now midterms are coming up… but are farther away from when this SCOTUS decision likely would’ve been final and published…

now there is the reaction of the lefties and moderates,  and then the actions of the far lefties, and then reactions and backlashes… of the center -right … counter actions etc. normies.. a whole host of interacting undulations of perhaps … predictable timing.

Timing is complex and it’s everything if you can get it right.  In the wake of a relatively new lefty judge and staff for cover (of a leaker), IF the timing were better for republicans could not a conservative staffer, mastermind, been behind it?

As a secondary question… ahead of midterms, is this timing, one of an earlier leak as against a later actual decision, something that plays to the advantage  of the democrats or the republicans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL,

From the comments I have been reading and watching, this leak is a Hail Mary pass by the Dems precisely to affect the midterms.

Unfortunately for them, abortion is not a selling issue like pro-choice is. And abortion is the only way they can express outrage about this. Just look at the loud people. They are not screaming about pro-choice. They are screaming about abortion. America is not a majority pro-abortion country. Even most people who are pro-choice find abortion icky, distasteful and/or tragic.

Worse for the Dems, the voting issues for the vast majority are going to be about the economy and immigration. And the Dems suck at both.

On the contrary to the timing of this leak being a bad thing, this abortion issue might focus their energies so much, they don't try shenanigans about the economy or immigration. And that would be a good thing.

 

On another point, Ukraine is so far down, it's almost not on the list. Americans are not in war mode and it's proving impossible for the predator class to gin them up to a froth.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a US Congresswoman.

Jayapal Claims U.S. Supreme Court Does ‘Not Have The Right’ To Overturn Roe v. Wade

 

Quote

A far-left House Democrat made a stunning claim about the U.S. Supreme Court during an interview on Tuesday following reports centering on a majority draft opinion regarding the landmark 1973 abortion legalization case Roe v. Wade.

Speaking to CNN, Rep. Pramilla Japayal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, suggested that the justices did not have the authority or “the right” to reverse the ruling.

. . .

Jayapal tried to argue that the court had no right to over turn the decades-old ruling because it is “settled law.”

“These justices are acting like this is somehow something that they have the right to change. They do not have the right to change this which has been settled law for two generations now of people who have grown up and have gone through their twenties in the firm belief that they can make these decisions about their own bodies,” Jayapal argued.

There have been some pretty idiot things said by members of the US Congress (remember the dude who said an island would tip over into the ocean if too many people went on one side?), but this ranks right up there with the stupidest of them.

What on earth is this lady doing in government if she not only doesn't know how it works, she claims-strongly-that it can't work the way it works?

Dayaamm!

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the mean IQ is in her district , and if that played a small function in her being elected, I sure hope they regret her selection and work to undo it. Two years of that kind of stupid is plenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About that leaker...

Why indeed?

And...

Left-Wing Group Doxxes Home Addresses of Conservative Supreme Court Justices and Calls for Protests

supreme-court-building.jpg
WELOVETRUMP.COM

Far-left group “Ruth Sent Us” doxxed the home address of the six conservative justices of the US Supreme Court. They’re hoping...

That's how they roll.

The predator class can't win unless it cheats. And when it can't cheat, it resorts to violence, starting with crap like this.

But man is this going to backfire...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2022 at 6:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm going to be inelegant and say something horrible.

But it's bigger than me.

:) 

This SCOTUS leak was worth it simply because it resulted in videos like the following.

I might as well let Jimmy Dore have his fun with this.

When TYT and Jimmy parted ways, TYT went full on Trump Derangement Syndrome and Jimmy did not. Then Jimmy did a progressive project that did not agree with the Pelosi crew and, once it started getting a lot of traction at the level of Congress, TYT helped sink the project. If that wasn't enough, Ana came out and accused Jimmy of being inappropriate sexually with her when he worked at TYT.

That blew up in their smug TYT faces big time and it is one of the reasons everybody now knows about the Camel Toe episodes that Ana, herself, hosted.

I'm only posting this because I follow Jimmy. I like his adherence to reason when he looks at the the underbelly of the progressive movement and sees the predator class. I also like when he looks at non-predator class conservatives and identifies them as such (even when he tries to save face by snarking at them in the same breath). If only he could see the inherent authoritarianism in progressivism, but that's just now who he is. Oh, well. You can't have everything, so I'll take what I can get. Jimmy is a good man who has adopted some bad ideas. But those ideas do not take away from the fact that he is a good man.

So, for me, let's let Jimmy have his fun.

He earned it the hard way--by having integrity.

rjk_k5wOQ7Y_640x360.jpg
WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

TYT host and producer Ana Kasparian has had it with the Democrats, in a recent video going off on the “fecklessness” of the blue team and...

btw - Notice how unconcerned he is about the SCOTUS leak.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2022 at 7:48 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From the comments I have been reading and watching, this leak is a Hail Mary pass by the Dems precisely to affect the midterms.

Unfortunately for them, abortion is not a selling issue like pro-choice is. And abortion is the only way they can express outrage about this. Just look at the loud people. They are not screaming about pro-choice. They are screaming about abortion. America is not a majority pro-abortion country. Even most people who are pro-choice find abortion icky, distasteful and/or tragic.

Worse for the Dems, the voting issues for the vast majority are going to be about the economy and immigration. And the Dems suck at both.

Tolja.

CNN Poll Finds Leaked Supreme Court Opinion On Abortion Doesn’t Change Outlook For 2022 Midterms

US-Supreme-Court.jpg
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

When the Supreme Court opinion on overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked this week, Democrats immediately jumped on the issue, with many of them voicing outrage. In a way, they were actually happy...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how the left (and predator class) expects to change the upcoming SCOTUS decision.

Report: Madison Anti-Abortion Headquarters Set on Fire, Vandalized, Graffitied

Police-car-red-lights-in-night-time-crim
WWW.BREITBART.COM

The Madison headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action, an anti-abortion group, was reportedly set on fire and vandalized over the weekend.

 

On the other hand, it just ain't happening all over the country the way it was supposed to.

 

Repeat after me for election advice:

Inflation and immigration.
Inflation and immigration.
Inflation and immigration.
Inflation and immigration.
Inflation and immigration.
Inflation and immigration.
Inflation and immigration.

:)

Without solutions to those problems, nobody wants the current creeps to stay in power.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It looks like Ted Cruz might be thinking abortions will be illegal Hmmm? My computer is saying “besmirchment” is not a word.

From Ted Cruz, tough as Texas. Friend, First, I am immensely proud to have voted for conservative minded jurists to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, who now may finally be poised to strike down the deeply flawed and illogical Roe v. WadeIf the reports are true, we will see a massive victory for Life! Second, I firmly denounce the leak of this draft opinion. This shocking leak is a shameful besmirchment of the Supreme Court, and it has done irreparable damage already. I hope whoever is responsible for the leaked draft opinion is fired, prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sentenced to appropriate time in jail . . . . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2022 at 2:45 PM, Peter said:

It looks like Ted Cruz might be thinking abortions will be illegal Hmmm? My computer is saying “besmirchment” is not a word.

From Ted Cruz, tough as Texas. Friend, First, I am immensely proud to have voted for conservative minded jurists to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, who now may finally be poised to strike down the deeply flawed and illogical Roe v. WadeIf the reports are true, we will see a massive victory for Life! Second, I firmly denounce the leak of this draft opinion. This shocking leak is a shameful besmirchment of the Supreme Court, and it has done irreparable damage already. I hope whoever is responsible for the leaked draft opinion is fired, prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sentenced to appropriate time in jail . . . . 

Mine says besmirch is to stain, sully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

If I remember correctly, Rand's positions were:

 

An absolute right to life after birth.

Violating a doctor's freedom to act for anyone (without harm to anyone) is a violation of the doctor's rights.

No special positive "rights" for anyone to get any medical procedure or any funding for anything health related.

 

I cannot recall any specific position on people who are in a coma, or on life support, at varying levels of cognitive function, and whether the level of brain activity is operative in extinguishing rights to life or in defining when a person ceases to be a person for the purposes of determining rights e.g. to life.

Edit: I would assume Rand would have accepted the concept of "brain dead", specifically in the medical sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally a legal idiocy has been fixed.

After today, if people want the federal government involved in abortion, they have to pass a law in both Chambers of Congress and have a President sign it.

What they did before was to disobey the country's system of government to get the result they wanted. 

And the country's system of checks and balances worked it out.

Just like will happen with the 2020 election fraud.

 

Why do these things take so long?

Precisely to make sure people are using reason, or at least full awareness, not emotional surges, to set permanent changes in place.

The USA has a beautiful system in this respect.

Much better than tyranny--including technocratic tyranny, Big Pharma tyranny, or any other kind of tyranny except reality.

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: Finally a legal idiocy has been fixed. After today, if people want the federal government involved in abortion, they have to pass a law in both Chambers of Congress and have a President sign it. end quote

Biden is saying: Congress can do something to restore a woman’s rights to medicines and abortions especially in the case of incest and rape. Keep all protests peaceful. Joe hears and supports women who are, this moment in need of obstetrical and gynecological, medical care. It is a sad day in America.

Shannon Bream on Fox is worried about terrorist attacks against clinics in states that will still have abortion clinics. Many companies will provide paid medial abortion care for employees even if they need to travel to another state, like Apple and Amazon have already done. There will be legal challenges to states that cease making any abortions illegal and try to prosecute clinic personnel and doctors.     

Notes: The American Medical Association went further than it has ever gone in its reproductive health policies as the US Supreme Court nears a decision that could cede abortion rights to the states. The AMA’s policymaking body voted Monday evening to adopt resolutions that oppose state efforts to criminalize abortion and other reproductive health services. The preeminent association of physicians and medical students previously had taken the position of tying its abortion-related policies to the law. But that was before it became widely known that the Supreme Court was considering overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said:

If I remember correctly, Rand's positions...

S,

Don't forget the one where the unborn is only a piece of protoplasm, not a human being.

This leads to my thing about cognitive versus normative.

If you identify something incorrectly, there is no way you can evaluate it correctly except by luck.

That holds true even for Ayn Rand.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now