Kansas overwhelmingly votes to protect Abortion access for women

Why is every baby aborted saved from a life of poverty? That’s a lazy argument.

 

who said anything about saved from a life of poverty? What are you even talking about?!

 

Fine. This is about what I expected as a response from you or hopefully anyone else who demands R v W to return. So, a day-old is precious and the woman can't just off it because she has changed her mind. If science (I said SCIENCE, not social conservatives) says a fetus (ie, child-lite) can be removed from the woman surgically and placed in the care of medical professionals who will bring it to term and then present it to a government-sponsored and regulated adoption agency (hopefully exclusive to traditional newborns and preemies), why is that not a person with God-given rights? Or as I said, rights ARE God given, and thus the way our constitution was originally written.

If I read your original post (which I replied) correctly, you do NOT like the notion that a child is a child earlier than what a woman has previously had the option to call it something else (like an "inconvenience"). And so, I ask you...again...why is YOUR WIFE allowed to justify removing YOUR one-day-old from this earth because she is the mother? This isn't about a push through the birth canal issue, this is about science and it's push towards understanding what makes God work and how to "back engineer" animals, and in this case real human beings. Once we go from, say a 40-week preemie to a heart-beating 3-week fetus, we ARE God (in this instance) and WE decided that OUR children have rights. And the mother has the ability to say "I don't want it, he/she is yours" but she does NOT have the right to say "can I please kill the child now? I have a tennis game scheduled for Monday."

Sorry that the "quaintness" of your life has been usurped by science. It IS a double-edged sword. You can't just cherry-pick which you want and which you can ignore, not unlike saying when you drop a bomb on a populace, you only want it to hit "the bad guys" and none of the innocent ones. It doesn't work that way.

 

The intelligent ones among us— those who can read and understand a legal opinion and history— can tell you how utterly full of it that garbage opinion in Dobbs was and how it derailed individual rights well beyond abortion. As time goes by, even the right wingers will be complaining. And Alito may be intelligent, but he did it use his intelligence in an intellectually honest was. But the dripping arrogance of that opinion— the insults to the Justices who came before him and his insults of European leaders show how personally involved he was. Not a balls and strokes guy at all. How do you like losing your federal constitutional right to privacy?

 

Unless the Supreme Court changes precedent again, a state cannot punish someone for traveling to another state to engage in legal activity in that other state. Allowing such punishment would destroy federalism.

 

You did. You been drinking or something? Go look it up. Post 95

 

I know this is sort of "out there", but what you are inferring is like the NIL and major college football. You see the effect of the ruling, and you (correctly) see the unintended consequences of the new and drastic change-of-direction. And you don't like it, analogy speaking.

What I want you to realize (I presume) is that "pure amateur athletics" in a sport that is making HUGE sums of money should have never manifested in the first place. It was wrong MANY years ago and yes, the NCAA could have gradually changed course, but their setup prevented it (my assumption) or they have become too fat, happy and stupid to do any heavy mental lifting and so...chaos abounds.

My analogy is simply, R v W was incorrect MANY years ago. It simply was. It may have served a service or a convenience (Bama mammas can do exactly what NYC elites can do) but that is NOT the way it works. It is like saying the Jags HAVE to spend as much as the Cowboys in free agency. Each team can do what it wants with whatever resources it has at its disposal. That is the way the US Constitution is designed. And all we have done over the years is to conveniently ignore this fact. Talk about unintended consequences!

Listen, abortion is a solution to a problem that should be rare and mostly conflicting (to the mother) instead of what it is today: snap judgements and another form of birth control. And yes, trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube is messy. It always is.

Aren't children's rights worthy of that attempt?

 

From a secular standpoint, this is how it should be …… an individual’s choice based upon their own spiritual beliefs as allowed or limited by state law.

 

I read your signature but hear the Byrds

 

I can’t speak for anyone but there are over 134,000 children with “special needs” awaiting permanent homes, and the number will undoubtedly grow. There are a lot of children deemed unadoptable not just because they had mental and/or physical disabilities. Sometimes they’re older, have siblings, or of a specific ethnic background that makes them more difficult to place. Just look at the number of children in foster care.

I have no problem with what you’re saying, and in fact I find it admirable. However have you made a mad dash to adopt a disabled child?

 

The rights of an early term fetus that is nowhere close to viable, has no capability of thought or even pain should not supersede the rights of a living mother to determine what happens to and in her body.

Practically nobody thinks a non viable non thinking and non feeling fetus should have rights that supersede the mother, except Christians and some Muslims.

 

I can say from direct experience and also observation that raising a special needs child (or two) will be the primary focus of your life, can often be exhausting, unrewarding, and it never ends.

 

I know, I adopted and raised two.

 

A must read for anyone trying to be thoughtful on this issue.

For me, pregnancy was “obscene,” in the phrasing of one of my doctors. And mysterious. Over the course of my two pregnancies, more than 40 physicians and midwives, by my count, failed to explain why my blood work kept coming back with so many anomalies, why so many debilitating complications kept piling up in an otherwise healthy woman.


The judiciary is forcing pregnant people and their doctors to justify care that was once allowed by constitutional right. What if I had had to plead my own case? Would I have been denied a termination if I had never gotten my proper diagnosis, and had only a history of extreme symptoms and abnormal test results? Would I have qualified on the basis of my liver disease and diabetes, both now diagnosed as permanent? How about my chronic fatigue, or my history of pregnancy-related mental-health troubles? Would a physician have been able to end my pregnancy if I’d had another placental abruption or another bout of dangerously high blood pressure? Would the state have required me to itch for months on end as my body and my mind deteriorated?

These queries are personal, but Dobbs has raised more metaphysical ones too. What does the life and health of mothers mean? How could it possibly mean so little? What are we supposed to do?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-complication-abortion-life-of-mother/671006/

 

Swing and a miss. So now you are accusing me of not having empathy for children born into poverty. That’s when you know you’ve lost the argument. Thanks for proving my point.

 

. You have the structure of the constitution wrong.
When the 14th Amendment was passed, substantive due process applied the Bill of Rights to the states. No majority of the court had ever before adopted originalism or a “recognized in history” test before. They could not because the 14th Amendment discarded notions of original federalism. And this Court utterly disregarded the Ninth
Amendment. And it isn’t what “it always was.” This decision is a departure that portends an activist right wing departure from 14th Amendment substantive due process jurisprudence. Griswold and Roe traced the right to privacy and how it was recognized historically. And what was most embarrassing about Dobbs is it also got abortion history wrong. The Court has already taken away your rights. No Bivens suits for illegal searches near a border where national security is raised? They searched a hotel. Find that in the constitution anywhere. The entire stat of Florida meets the rest for a border search.

 

Amen amen amen.

The 14th and the 15th Amendments hardly exist in the minds of the modern conservative legal movement. Their conception of faithful adherence to the Constitution envisions a constitutional vision that predates those amendments and the Civil War.

Many of them have little idea of the particulars of constitutional law. Their celebration of elected officials being "true" to the Constitution, like DeSantis, is based upon their belief that the Constitution arose during the time of rigid white male supremacy and hierarchy, which is true, and that fidelity to the original constitutional vision means maintaining that social structure.

That is why it is necessary to ignore the amendments.

 

Well, thanks for interjecting in the middle of a dialog. So, you prefer to jump forward to see the Russians fighting the French in the middle of War and Peace instead of learning why we should care about the characters to begin with? That is your choice, but you may appear to be kind of limited in a Book Club discussion.

What you did not see or comprehend in Chapter 1 was my assertion that abortion IS the choice of the mother, provided that entity she is carrying is not viable outside her womb. Today, that is pretty far along, although preemies are getting born pretty damn early. That is plainly called "science and technology". It isn't close to the current abortion limitation line but my point is, you DO realize that science marches on and there WILL be a time when a scenario such as 3 weeks after conception may be quite doable. And THEN, once the mother realizes she has a viable child-lite inside her, she should be able to call an audible, but she can NOT end the game. It will become a ward of the state and she no longer has responsibilities towards the welfare of the child. Anything short of this is child endangerment or murder.

Is this going to happen tomorrow? Not likely, but if technological leaps in other arenas are any indication, I think you and the "carefree" women are going to have to come to grips with the new reality. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...allegedly.

 

You and I obviously have different views. Yours appears to be in the trenches where the ball bounced in one direction instead of into your hands, and you believe that was SO key to the win or loss of the game. How about "the butterfly effect"? My view is plainly strategic and sees 1) where we were and 2) where we are going. Now yes, we can say we never had a trip planned and we were just taking a stroll, deciding to change directions whenever we saw something compelling and stopped for a bite to eat whenever we were hungry. But, and I know this can be difficult to grasp, that would mean that the success of the US was nothing more than a bunch of rich frat boys who got tired of the British party and decided to start their own and got damn lucky that all the booze, bands and women magically arrived at the exact moment they were needed. Um, maybe our position in history is a bit more complex than that. But that is me.

Why did the Founding Fathers end at 10 amendments? They got tired and wanted to get the party started? I can plainly tell you why they gave us the chance to add amendments: because if things change, and we have either grand insight into the future or utter ignorance, we can "update" what the frat boys bought for the party. I can not say whether we had grand insight but in my mind, utter ignorance is kind of an ingrained concept of human beings. Franklin plainly said when asked what kind of government we were getting, "A republic, if we are smart enough to keep it." We had a pretty good run, but I am afraid the "tinkering with perfection" gene has kicked in a lot.

And I know you won't agree with this, but to me the first 10 have WAY more pull than an amendment that says "you get to be whatever sex you want to identify as", or whatever the "new thinking" is wroughting. 4th addition to the original document? I see it like the designated hitter rule in baseball; it isn't the death knell of baseball but it IS a modern idea that did not have to manifest. States can have the DH, it does not need a to be nationalized.

So, in summary, I still believe how the game of football is played, even though some games are won or lost by a silly bounce of the ball. I won't jump off the cliff if my team doesn't get the bounce. But I WILL be alarmed when they allow middle school-aged girls to play with grownup men because they demand to be included.

 

If our values change in 50 years due to technology then we can reevaluate. Perhaps there will be an option to remove and preserve an early term fetus. Having said all that it doesn’t change what I said, the early term fetus is a largely unformed, non thinking, no consciousness and non feeling entity. The belief that it should be preserved and supersedes the right of a woman to control her body is largely a Christian and Muslim belief.