Women will affirm that abortions are to be granted by Congress by codifying Roe v. Wade when Biden is reelected as President. Individual states can just suck it and so can Project 2025!
Women will affirm that abortions are to be granted by Congress by codifying Roe v. Wade when Biden is reelected as President. Individual states can just suck it and so can Project 2025!
If only the anti-abortionists stop wanting to force their ideology on the whole country. I have no problem with anyone who is opposed to abortion, let them not have an abortion. Just stop wanting to force everyone else to comply with your ideology, which for what it is worth has NOTHING to do with protecting zygotes and everything to do with punishing women for having had sex.
Oh, Jen, there is never a time when punishing a <italics> man<italics> for having SEX is appropriate. Men MUST have sex when they want it. There is no responsibility for their SEX DRIVE. It is only the woman who must bear the child who has no say in the matter. <bold and capitalized sarcasm font>
I have had this very argument with a friend (still, sort of) repeatedly. He refuses to see how his "belief" that all pregnancies are a "gift from God" no matter how they occurred is outlandish on its face. I gave him the counter argument if that was so, then why wasn't there a "God made me do it" defense for rape? No answer.
Well, we disagree here, for once; decent men are decent, too. Nevertheless, I believe that, if legislation seeks to abridge a woman's right to privacy and autonomy, there should be a separate referendum of women in which a super-majority -- say two thirds or three quarters -- consents to such abridgement.
тЪЦя╕ПЁЯдФЁЯТбЁЯдЭЁЯЧ╜
After all, under the Constitution, citizens surrender certain rights and freedoms to vest power in the government to provide for 'domestic tranquillity'. Soooo, the government, including the Supreme Court, should not take that right away without the consent of the governed, specifically women in this case.
Did you miss both the italicized "men" in my first sentence, and the <bold and capitalized sarcasm font> part of the last sentence in my next to last paragraph?
Yes, forever slimy little men who are hiding their own perversions тАж. Dictating to women on what we can do involving our very personal individual CHOICE. LetтАЩs start each man who starts a zygote a checking account to pay for that life until his death!
I was pro-life for a long time. When Roe v. Wade was first seriously threatened under Casey versus Planned Parenthood in 1992, I became a card-carrying hypocrite. Twenty-five years later, when studying reformed Judaism, I swung around to pro-choice. One has to look at those unarticulated assumptions (s)he holds from years before.
Growing up in moderately observant R.C. atmosphere, I came to believe in an archetypal intuition that life started at conception. In my pro-life politics as a young conservative, I felt that government should not legislate on the topic, though I believed in the Houses of Congress should pass non-binding resolutions stating that life starts at conception.
Then came the direct attack on Roe versus Wade in the 1990s. That ended my thinking that Roe versus Wade was similar to the Dred Scott decision in the Supreme Court trying to resolve a question only the citizenry would be able to. At that point, I figured that, like it or not, the moral choice would have to rest with the individual.
Over time, that thinking expanded to aiding women -- and, hopefully, the men involved -- in making the choices they preferred by provision of pre-natal care, counselling if the abortion proved traumatic, job-training etc. Then, in 2017, I took a class through a local Temple about Judaism for beginners. That class opened my eyes.
The rabbi, a decent and incredibly erudite gentleman of gentility, stated that the position of Judaism (or, perhaps, his position) on the beginning of life was that life started at baby's first breath, per the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 (i.e., G-D breathing life into what was still a figurine). Well that blew my mind.
Why?
Because, had I grown up in a moderately observant Jewish family, in all likelihood, I would have had an archetypal intuition that life started at baby's first breath. So, I was able, finally, to feel comfortable with what had been my reluctant politics all along. Dobbs offended me not only in its reasoning, but also in its implication that women are neither entitled to, nor capable of, moral agency.
I was never anti choice. It just never squared in my gut. I saw the unalienable right component and carry it still, and only strengthened my devotion to it as principle to my core once I was blessed with daughters. ** It occurred to me just after I posted this that the "pro life" movement is misnamed. They should evermore be known, posted,, and signed as the "anti free will" movement. jmho ~
Some also say that pro-lifers are pro-birth. Once the baby is born, forget about it. Inhumane to the many poorer women stranded with unwanted, unexpected pregnancies.
Harvey I couldnтАЩt agree more. Right Wing Christians see abortion as a тАЬget out of jail freeтАЭ card for women who have sex out of wedlock. They view unmarried women who have sex to be immoral and promiscuous. As such their stance is тАШif unmarried women get pregnant they can simply have an abortion and continue their immoral promiscuous ways.тАЩ
Their anti-abortion BS has much less to do with the тАЬright to lifeтАЭ than it has about imposing their тАЬsexual moralsтАЭ on all women. ItтАЩs about stopping what they see as an unmarried womanтАЩs lascivious and immoral behavior.
How many of those protesting abortion have themselves had abortions or been actively involved in arranging an abortion for someone and then get right back in line to protest again.
I would like to see the re-opening of the Equal Rights Amendment to ensure its ratification. Though 'belts-&-suspenders' in its presence, the E.R.A. -- not earned run average -- would make Justice Ginsburg's application of the Fourteenth Amendment to a woman's moral agency inviolable as women would be integrated fully as citizens into the polity of the republic.
What galls me most about the Trump versus United States decision is this statement from the majority opinion: "True, there is no 'Presidential immunity clause' in the Constitution. But there is no 'separation of powers clause' either." Originalism exercised at the convenience of the originalists; what hypocrisy. This becomes important in the Dobbs decision.
ЁЯлг
In that opinion, the Supreme Court argues that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Well, duh. Abortion in itself is not a right but the exercise of a right, the right to privacy (under Roe versus Wade) or right of autonomy of a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. So the lack of word works in Dobbs but does not matter in Trump versus the United States. ЁЯЦХ
Abortion and IVF will be what this election is really designed to protect along with a lesson learned in 2020 that Trump and Trumpism is not what тАЬAmericaтАЭ stands for!
Women will affirm that abortions are to be granted by Congress by codifying Roe v. Wade when Biden is reelected as President. Individual states can just suck it and so can Project 2025!
If only the anti-abortionists stop wanting to force their ideology on the whole country. I have no problem with anyone who is opposed to abortion, let them not have an abortion. Just stop wanting to force everyone else to comply with your ideology, which for what it is worth has NOTHING to do with protecting zygotes and everything to do with punishing women for having had sex.
Where is the punishment for the men, without whom a pregnancy would never happen?
Oh, Jen, there is never a time when punishing a <italics> man<italics> for having SEX is appropriate. Men MUST have sex when they want it. There is no responsibility for their SEX DRIVE. It is only the woman who must bear the child who has no say in the matter. <bold and capitalized sarcasm font>
I have had this very argument with a friend (still, sort of) repeatedly. He refuses to see how his "belief" that all pregnancies are a "gift from God" no matter how they occurred is outlandish on its face. I gave him the counter argument if that was so, then why wasn't there a "God made me do it" defense for rape? No answer.
Oh Ally..... I'd relish an argument or arguments with that *^!!
Well, we disagree here, for once; decent men are decent, too. Nevertheless, I believe that, if legislation seeks to abridge a woman's right to privacy and autonomy, there should be a separate referendum of women in which a super-majority -- say two thirds or three quarters -- consents to such abridgement.
тЪЦя╕ПЁЯдФЁЯТбЁЯдЭЁЯЧ╜
After all, under the Constitution, citizens surrender certain rights and freedoms to vest power in the government to provide for 'domestic tranquillity'. Soooo, the government, including the Supreme Court, should not take that right away without the consent of the governed, specifically women in this case.
Did you miss both the italicized "men" in my first sentence, and the <bold and capitalized sarcasm font> part of the last sentence in my next to last paragraph?
If so, you fell into the sarchasm.
OOOH... I 'like' that word Ally.. "sarchasm." I'm borrowing that one - many thanks !
DonтАЩt ya know, sometimes ya just have to тАЬSPELL IT OUTтАЭ?
Yes, forever slimy little men who are hiding their own perversions тАж. Dictating to women on what we can do involving our very personal individual CHOICE. LetтАЩs start each man who starts a zygote a checking account to pay for that life until his death!
I was just going to say the same thing!!
It is the men who are doing the punishing.
Indeed ! And this agreement from a dude. Human reproduction requires two components to 'maybe' produce a viable human child.
I was pro-life for a long time. When Roe v. Wade was first seriously threatened under Casey versus Planned Parenthood in 1992, I became a card-carrying hypocrite. Twenty-five years later, when studying reformed Judaism, I swung around to pro-choice. One has to look at those unarticulated assumptions (s)he holds from years before.
Growing up in moderately observant R.C. atmosphere, I came to believe in an archetypal intuition that life started at conception. In my pro-life politics as a young conservative, I felt that government should not legislate on the topic, though I believed in the Houses of Congress should pass non-binding resolutions stating that life starts at conception.
Then came the direct attack on Roe versus Wade in the 1990s. That ended my thinking that Roe versus Wade was similar to the Dred Scott decision in the Supreme Court trying to resolve a question only the citizenry would be able to. At that point, I figured that, like it or not, the moral choice would have to rest with the individual.
Over time, that thinking expanded to aiding women -- and, hopefully, the men involved -- in making the choices they preferred by provision of pre-natal care, counselling if the abortion proved traumatic, job-training etc. Then, in 2017, I took a class through a local Temple about Judaism for beginners. That class opened my eyes.
The rabbi, a decent and incredibly erudite gentleman of gentility, stated that the position of Judaism (or, perhaps, his position) on the beginning of life was that life started at baby's first breath, per the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 (i.e., G-D breathing life into what was still a figurine). Well that blew my mind.
Why?
Because, had I grown up in a moderately observant Jewish family, in all likelihood, I would have had an archetypal intuition that life started at baby's first breath. So, I was able, finally, to feel comfortable with what had been my reluctant politics all along. Dobbs offended me not only in its reasoning, but also in its implication that women are neither entitled to, nor capable of, moral agency.
I was never anti choice. It just never squared in my gut. I saw the unalienable right component and carry it still, and only strengthened my devotion to it as principle to my core once I was blessed with daughters. ** It occurred to me just after I posted this that the "pro life" movement is misnamed. They should evermore be known, posted,, and signed as the "anti free will" movement. jmho ~
Some also say that pro-lifers are pro-birth. Once the baby is born, forget about it. Inhumane to the many poorer women stranded with unwanted, unexpected pregnancies.
I think among other things like religious extremists, they are also "control freak" types.
It is that 'control' that may lead some men into misogyny.
Harvey I couldnтАЩt agree more. Right Wing Christians see abortion as a тАЬget out of jail freeтАЭ card for women who have sex out of wedlock. They view unmarried women who have sex to be immoral and promiscuous. As such their stance is тАШif unmarried women get pregnant they can simply have an abortion and continue their immoral promiscuous ways.тАЩ
Their anti-abortion BS has much less to do with the тАЬright to lifeтАЭ than it has about imposing their тАЬsexual moralsтАЭ on all women. ItтАЩs about stopping what they see as an unmarried womanтАЩs lascivious and immoral behavior.
How many of those protesting abortion have themselves had abortions or been actively involved in arranging an abortion for someone and then get right back in line to protest again.
Spot on!
From your keyboard to the eyes of the goddess of women's right to self-determination.
ЁЯСН
I am voting for Joe Biden and Democrats all down the ballot
I would like to see the re-opening of the Equal Rights Amendment to ensure its ratification. Though 'belts-&-suspenders' in its presence, the E.R.A. -- not earned run average -- would make Justice Ginsburg's application of the Fourteenth Amendment to a woman's moral agency inviolable as women would be integrated fully as citizens into the polity of the republic.
ЁЯЧ╜
https://nedmcdletters.blogspot.com/2022/05/letter-176-to-friends-and-familiares.html (summary: why the Dobbs decision is plain wrong; why abortion is not a right but an exercise of a constitutionally protected right)
https://nedmcdletters.blogspot.com/2019/05/letter-157-why-originalism-is.html (summary: written five years ago; why originalism is an ideological cover-story for some very ugly politics)
тЬНя╕П
What galls me most about the Trump versus United States decision is this statement from the majority opinion: "True, there is no 'Presidential immunity clause' in the Constitution. But there is no 'separation of powers clause' either." Originalism exercised at the convenience of the originalists; what hypocrisy. This becomes important in the Dobbs decision.
ЁЯлг
In that opinion, the Supreme Court argues that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Well, duh. Abortion in itself is not a right but the exercise of a right, the right to privacy (under Roe versus Wade) or right of autonomy of a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. So the lack of word works in Dobbs but does not matter in Trump versus the United States. ЁЯЦХ
Abortion and IVF will be what this election is really designed to protect along with a lesson learned in 2020 that Trump and Trumpism is not what тАЬAmericaтАЭ stands for!
Brava, Marlene.
... Along with a spelled out law, defining 'women' as whole persons and therefore citizens.