Getting to Know Kamala

I don’t think it’s disingenuous, and certainly more appealing to me than the “my beliefs are betters than yours, and I’m going to use the power of government to force my beliefs onto you” crowd….

 

I would add the 42% of the applicants failed the California bar exam in 1990 so she is not alone. She passed the exam the second time she took it.

By the way Pete Wilson former Republican governor of California failed the bar exam three times before passing it on his fourth try. Wilson was considered a potential Republican presidential nominee.

I would also add that Kathleen Sullivan the current Dean of the Stanford University Law School failed the bar exam on her first attempt. In addition to her current position as the Dean of one the most prestigious law schools in the country she was a successful appellate attorney who argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court.

 

It’s disingenuous when she says she just wants to let people make decisions about their own bodies. There are numerous laws that restrict what we do with our own bodies.

There are laws that restrict when we can put cigarette smoke into our bodies, or alcohol into our bodies. We cannot put legal medications into our bodies unless we have a prescription from a doctor. The law never allows us to put cocaine or heroin into our own bodies. We can’t drive our body down the street without wrapping it in a safety harness.

It’s irrelevant that those laws are for our own good. It is still the government controlling our bodies. Does she want to do away with all restrictions on our bodies from the government, or only in one area?

 

Is this a serious post?

 

Of course it is. I only post serious things.

She needs to be honest. It’s not about keeping the government hands off woman’s bodies. It’s about women terminating pregnancies. Because the government is allowed to keep their hands on women’s bodies in a lot of other areas.

 

That’s literally what both sides do, because that’s the nature of governing.

I have no problem saying that, even if it is taking a life, there are some circumstances where it should be legal to take that life even if I myself wouldn’t do so. Exactly as there are, and should be, some situations where homicide is legal.

But “the government should stay out of it so that everyone can make their own choice” simply isn’t a true position - by allowing it, the government is expressly making a choice that it should be allowable. By having a self-defense statute, the government is endorsing the views of those who believe there should be a right to self-defense over those who believe that homicide is never justifiable. Same is true by allowing capital punishment. And abortion is more or less the same - by allowing abortion, the government is endorsing the view that it should be allowed in the permitted circumstances over those that believe it is never permissible.

There’s nothing wrong with the government endorsing one view of morality over another. That’s what nearly every criminal law in existence does. And, whichever way the government comes down, the people who disagree are going to think that the law is immoral and that the government has rejected their views and forced them to live with something they disagree with.

 

She is a walking word salad. The same people on the $100m+ payroll are the same people who prepped Joe Biden for the debate.

 

Requiring you to wear a seatbelt or not smoke in a restaurant really isn't the same thing. It's not the government exercising control over a person's body. That doesn't mean there's no bodily autonomy interest involved, but it's a horse of a completely different color from the government mandating that you must keep something in your body that could kill you and in the best case scenario will still cause you a lot of physical pain (not to mention the months of discomfort and affecting one's quality of life).

 

These never stop being funny, but I think the below is probably more accurate:

 

But that’s not true, here, it seems pretty obvious to me that one side is backing freedom, and the other is backing oppression. The anti abortion people can always choose not to have an abortion if they are against it. The flip side is that Anyone that wants or needs an abortion is being oppressed based on some else’s opinion, largely based on their being an invisible man in the sky that frowns upon it.

 

Definitely the same people on the staff, and they have practice from Joe who is far from a brilliant public speaker.

That quote she has repeated 100 times is just cringe though to use a Gen Z term.

 

The guy who starts threads about transgender athletes claiming to protect girls posts a cheap misogynist pic. What are the odds? Keep up that conservative spirit.

 

Exactly how people who believe that they should be allowed to kill folks that bother them, or steal from the rich, or pay for sex, or do heroin, or profit from being smart enough to defraud others, or conspire to monopolize trade, or discriminate on the basis of protected classes, or anything else addressed by our laws are “being oppressed” by others’ views that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so.

That’s what law-making is, making moral judgments for society, which necessarily takes away the ability of people who disagree to make a different judgment for themselves.

The answer that “people who disagree can always choose not to do it themselves” rings quite hollow to the people who believe the government got that moral judgment wrong, exactly how no one would think it would make sense to say “people who believe fraud is wrong can always choose not to defraud people themselves.”

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong for the government to make that moral judgment and decide where the line should be drawn, it just makes the suggestion that the government isn’t drawing a line if it happens to agree with you disingenuous.

 

Win or lose he still will troll you.

Your $500 isn’t gonna sway the election.

 

It may be a horse of different color, but it is still a horse. In all these cases, it is the government regulating what we can do with our bodies. All you’ve highlighted is the difference in degree of interference by the government. All these cases, nevertheless, are government interference.

I just want Harris and others to be honest and not use the euphemism that it is somehow about bodily autonomy. It’s about terminating a pregnancy.

It’s about destroying the developing child. If they want to argue that that’s a good and right thing to allow, that is their right. Just be honest about it.

 

She’s a prosecutor. I’m not a lawyer, but I do have a masters from a law school. They ain’t goofy. They are mean as snakes when necessary.

 

Agreed.

I hope she lays it out as is: in one case you making a decision based on whatever it is you hold dear. In the other it is me overlording.

But I most likely will never be POTUS with such an outlier idea. Not enough overlording.

 

It is the government regulating what we can do or put into our bodies. But it is not the government asserting control over our bodies and imposing pain and discomfort. And yes, I have highlighted the difference in degree because that matters.

For example, a police officer can briefly detain and frisk you based on reasonable suspicion. But a police officer cannot arrest you and put you in jail based on reasonable suspicion. The difference in degree of governmental intrusion carries a lot of weight on these sorts of issues.

So to address your point head on, it is bodily autonomy. It is also a question of equality. To be frank, we're never going to agree on this because we view the problem through fundamentally different lenses. I put most of the weight on the woman's interest in liberty and equal citizenship. You put it on the "developing child's" interest in surviving to term.

I am of the belief that both of those things matter. But I subordinate the interests of the "developing child" to the woman's, at least until viability. At that point, I think there's a better argument for protecting the "developing child."