Friday, February 01, 2019

Home truth

Ramesh Ponnuru, writing for National Review, gets to the nub of the matter in re the current spate of absolutist abortion laws:
Supporters of the country’s expansive abortion regime now fear that the Supreme Court will retreat from it, either by declaring that the Constitution permits states to protect unborn children in general or by letting them offer more protection. That’s why they are pushing legislation in the states to codify that regime. It is an effort that is forcing supporters of abortion to be a little more candid about what they really want: an extreme regime that denies any meaningful protection to unborn children and threatens the protection for born ones.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't coming back, and the Democrats know this. Roe v. Wade isn't intellectually sustainable. The Democrats know this as well. So now we're getting the truth. There's no such thing as "safe, legal, and rare."

9 comments:

Unknown said...

It's gonna be one hell of a nomination circus when she passes.it will start with articles of impeachment and the argument that a president shouldn't fill a vacancy while under impeacent... Then the real clowns will start burning things.

Bike Bubba said...

Look up the Indiana AG's note on this. New York State is allowing nurses to perform them, which is a blatant argument "we are going to make the cost structure of abortuaries match the revenue structure even if it kills mothers because nurses aren't skilled at suturing to stop severe bleeding.". The pro-abortion left can shut up about caring about women, really.

John said...

My opinion, for what it's worth.

I am so old I can remember the fear the right had when the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was just passed on strict party-line votes. The big issue I remember was the GOP talking about “death panels” that would make determinations whether a patient’s health care was actually a wise investment or should he or she be allowed to just die, either through assistance or just wasting away.

Of course, the left countered those were just flagrant exaggerations and no such thing would ever be done in this country. A country and a party that claimed to value life as long as they were already born.

Now we see states with Democratic majorities moving to ensure an infant can be killed almost anytime the mother chooses to do so. Right now, it is until the moment of birth in NY. The Governor went so far as to have the new World Trade Center specifically lite to celebrate this great victory for women who don’t want to have a child. I’ve heard them celebrate this as a woman’s right, but since roughly half the abortions are future women I don’t see how that can really be the case.
http://aviewfrombehindthecurtain.blogspot.com/2019/01/golly-that-sounds-reasonable-and-moral.html

J. Peterson said...

Abortion could be made to be illegal in a perfect world. Just like Libertarianism will work in that same world that doesn't exist as well. And the last time that I checked Kansas, where I'm at isn't located in such a place, and why the gutting of spending, and taxation made a very red state put a Dem in the Gov Mansion. We're fine over in the counties that have the population base to tax at the county, city, and zip code level, but not outside of it.

It was just an example because I as a former libertarian can draw the parallel between the two. I'll get back on point, though. Abortion is an awful thing. I'd hope that we can all agree on that. It should not be used as a form of birth control. I'll be the first one to say that the women who do that should face charges.

I'll also add that people need to use birth control. A condom costs about a dollar, and other forms can be purchased for roughly fifty to a hundred a month. But the SCOTUS opened a Pandora's Box in 1973. It took the round about sentence of the one year of having to take a pregnancy to term, or the twenty to raise one.

I'll just make a few minor statements about my dealings with the topic to aid in why and where I'm coming from on the matter. I was raised in an evangelical and republican household. We're family friends of a few major crusaders in this issue. One has actually been before the SCOTUS after being brought up on trumped up charges using RICO Statutes. Another has been on a walk for life since the middle eighties. And another is knee deep in outalwing the practice.

So when a friend of mine told me that she had one in high school, she missed the last half of our junior year of high school, and was almost held back for it, I felt that I had a decision to make. Our friendship, or my belief. We're still friends to this day. She hasn't been the same since. She's developed associative personality disorder. I'd bet that it had a lot to do with it.

Most women pay for that decision through the guilt and psychological effect for the rest of their lives. I now have to leave for work as I work seconds at my job. I'll be back to finish giving more to why I feel the way that I do, and why I think that making it illegal would be devastating for this land for at least two generations.
So, to be continued...

John said...

J. Peterson,
"So when a friend of mine told me that she had one in high school, she missed the last half of our junior year of high school, and was almost held back for it, I felt that I had a decision to make. Our friendship, or my belief. We're still friends to this day. She hasn't been the same since. She's developed associative personality disorder. I'd bet that it had a lot to do with it."

In my opinion, putting the value of a personal friendship before an abstract moral position will always be the right choice, especially when that friend has already made their decision. We live our lives as part of a society and depend on those friendships we develop to help us maintain ourselves. You don't need my validation of your choice, but you have it none the less. Thank you and well done.

What is most troubling to me is the feminist movement and the whole DNC push for woman's choice portrays the abortion decision in analytical terms with little regard to the emotional toll on the decisionmaker. It will never be a purely binary choice, but that is the political argument put forth when we chose to make this a political battlefield and mandate the approved morality.

Bike Bubba said...

Check out the Northam yearbook picture! And now for his next impression, Al Franken!

Mr. D said...

JP,

I'm going to wait for your promised second comment before I respond. One thing, though -- you say this:

I think that making it illegal would be devastating for this land for at least two generations.

We're now two generations past Roe v. Wade. I'd say the devastation is already baked in, good sir.

John,

I'm adding your blog to my sidebar. And well said.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

One of the great troubles we have in discussing issues is in our inability to make the distinction between abstract principles and concrete/particular circumstances. We don't need the two to align in order to be consistent. Rather, these two ways of understanding a thing serve different functions. The abstract principle exists to protect people in general (in this case to reduce abortions) and doesn't make allowances for exceptions or it would collapse under the weight of them; the concrete/particular exists to care for an individual and is willing to make any number of exceptions. The former is justice, the latter love.

J. Peterson said...

I need to put more effort into being a nihilist. Especially when it comes to things that really don't concern me. I'm Caucasian, have a preference for women, and I'm male. If I were wealthy and religious I'd be Trump Proof. I don't have to worry about abortion being legal, or illegal with being a man. I should just focus on how lucky I am, and figure out how to become wealthy in order to make myself invincible to whoever is, or comes in to power.