Patterico's Pontifications

6/27/2022

A Word About Dobbs

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



In discussing the Dobbs decision with Twitter leftists, I have noticed something unusual: if you got all of your abortion information from them, you wouldn’t even know that a second life (besides the life of the mother) is part of the equation. Many of them treat the decision to have an abortion as if it were a trivially easy issue about making your own health decisions, having no more moral significance than clipping your toenails.

It’s very common for them to refer to abortion as nothing more than an uncomplicated personal health care decision. It is a health care decision, but a unique one that involves another life. The Twitter leftists act like the baby is nothing more than an unwanted parasite, as if the mother played no part in its having arrived in her body. In their view, she just had bad luck, like getting struck by lightning.

The most obvious way to demonstrate the flaw in this position is to realize that, if you take it seriously, the mother may have a doctor stab her perfectly healthy baby in the head with a pair of scissors a week before the normal delivery date. She may do this on a whim, simply because she does not wish to continue “hosting” the “parasite” in her body.

I support an exception to anti-abortion laws for early-term abortions that are the product of rape. I would try to persuade a woman impregnated by a rapist to have the baby, but I would not have the state force her to do so, when she never took any voluntary action that she knew could result in pregnancy.

But if you chose to have sex, you knew that pregnancy was a possibility. You made a choice, and now another life is involved. To say the mother can end that life, unilaterally, even on a whim, at any point in the pregnancy, regardless of the baby’s health, strikes me as a morally monstrous position.

A popular one — on Twitter, at least (David French compares reading through the abortion comments on Twitter to taking a stroll through Berkeley). But monstrous nevertheless.

128 Responses to “A Word About Dobbs”

  1. If you don’t believe life begins at conception this makes sense.
    Most people believe life begins after conception but well before birth.

    Time123 (6d482f)

  2. I very much doubt that these same Twitter leftists would accept a man’s argument that he should be free of 18 years of child support payments because “he never agreed to support some woman’s parasite” should she choose to carry it to term. After all, he never intended for her to become pregnant and may have had less control over the situation than she did.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  3. There is a huge break in public opinion about abortion at the end of the first trimester. You see that same break in laws world-wide.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  4. It’s very common for them to refer to abortion as nothing more than an uncomplicated personal health care decision. It is a health care decision, but a unique one that involves another life. The Twitter leftists act like the baby is nothing more than an unwanted parasite, as if the mother played no part in its having arrived in her body. In their view, she just had bad luck, like getting struck by lightning.

    Sadly, there are actually those who freely acknowledge that what is in the womb is indeed an innocent unborn human and yet still believe that aborting said unwanted resident is okay. That is a shade past ghoulishness. And to those who believe it is an uncomplicated personal health care decision, keep telling yourself that. By default, the willful taking of another’s life is (and should be) always complicated and wrought with an intense emotional aftermath, eventually. We are not a people without a conscience. Seared, perhaps, but not absent of one. And that is what so frequently and conveniently ignored in the debate.

    Dana (1225fc)

  5. The state has an interest in the woman’s health even without the baby. It is a medical procedure and the state can require that it should be performed for medical reasons pursuant to medical standards. As I recall, the doctor was the Rock Hudson to the woman’s Doris Day in the 1973 production of the play. They got arrogant with their “unduly burdens” which put the lie to their “women’s health”.

    nk (18ae23)

  6. There are multiple levels of irony going on here.

    On the surface this was promoted in the name of empowering women. But it doesn’t empower them at all. It objectifies them. It takes something uniquely female and trivializes it. All so that men and women can have sex on “equal” terms.

    It has an odd effect on rape and incest as well. We’ve already expanded the definition of rape in a way that watered it down. Now rape isn’t much different from assault and battery. The consequences of rape and incest can be resolved with a “medical procedure” and, maybe, some counseling. Only allowed to get an elective abortion if you lie and say it was rape? That’s ok, we won’t even pretend to prosecute the rape charge. At this point I’m not really sure why it isn’t more akin to trespass.

    It increases the chances that they will be pressured into having an abortion. It gives the man on the other side of this complete license to demand this. In fact it encourages it. At this point it’s expected that unwanted pregnancies are a trivial problem. But remember, this is empowering to women.

    The same people who claim unexpected pregnancies stigmatize the mother and that society doesn’t value children would stigmatize mothers for not choosing an abortion and not valuing themselves more than their children. Because, after all, why have an unwanted child.

    I’m also struck by the otherwise intelligent people making obviously dishonest and poor arguments. I love the “life begins at first breath” tee-shirts. At least they clearly identify themselves.

    frosty (e06071)

  7. I support an exception to anti-abortion laws for early-term abortions that are the product of rape…..

    Not incest?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  8. Most people believe life begins after conception but well before birth.

    Time123 (6d482f) — 6/27/2022 @ 9:12 am

    Unfortunately, there’s not a line that can be found after conception where it begins.

    frosty (e06071)

  9. Off-topic; French really needs to be eating more humble pie instead of trying the hello fellow conservatives routine.

    frosty (3f0993)

  10. I think it’s pretty tricky to decide where a fetus falls on the morality scale, and I think different people will fall in different places.

    When my wife and I experienced a somewhat late miscarriage it was pretty devastating because we viewed the fetus in the same realm as a baby rather than as, say, “a clump of cells.” That said it was nowhere near as devastating as if one of our children were to pass away now or how it would have felt had the baby died a week after being born.

    And I think most people have this kind of in-between view of how fully “person” a fetus is that grows as the pregnancy goes on.

    Nate (1f1d55)

  11. Chilling and disgusting, but just the tip of the iceberg. Pretty soon they will be coming for children born alive:

    https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

    Hoi Polloi (ade50d)

  12. On the surface this was promoted in the name of empowering women.

    Watch your language – it’s “birth persons” now.

    Hoi Polloi (ade50d)

  13. As long as we argue via analogies I wonder about the exception for rape. (An exception I understand and support, but…)

    If we allow the abortion — the execution, the termination of life — for the product of a rape, should we not also impose (or at least ALLOW juries to consider imposing) the death penalty, the execution, the termination of life of the PERPETRATOR of a rape?

    I mean, yeah, mistakes are made and maybe some people are convicted of rape who were actually innocent. DNA evidence now has cleared some persons who were formerly and mistakenly convicted. Mistakes happen. But if we allow abortion for victims of rape do we not encourage women who find themselves pregnant to (let’s be charitable) “mistakenly” holler rape after an encounter turns out to be more consequential than expected?

    Pouncer (599cf1)

  14. @Patterico:

    To say the mother can end that life, unilaterally, even on a whim, at any point in the pregnancy, regardless of the baby’s health, strikes me as a morally monstrous position.

    That’s the position of the modern left/Democrats these days, and so far, they haven’t disabused me of that notion.

    Further more, what twitter (social media) has shown me is a serious lack of basic US Civics 101. My lord, that’s a serious indictment of our education system.

    whembly (7e0293)

  15. Not incest?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/27/2022 @ 9:42 am

    Not accusing you of being dishonest but this has always seemed like dishonest wordplay.

    I always wonder what people really mean when they add this.

    If they’re referring to situations where older male family members impregnate younger female family members then it is rape. There’s no reason to add “and incest” to the usual clause. I can’t help but think this is just providing a no consequence situation for these older men.

    It’s very rare for an older female family member to do this to a younger male but it happens. That also seems like an egregious case of enabling terrible behavior.

    If they are referring to some situation where consenting family members to some degree have some special right not available to other pairings then it’s just ridiculous.

    I suspect this is meant to be a play on emotions more than any fully flushed out position.

    frosty (e06071)

  16. Pouncer (599cf1) — 6/27/2022 @ 12:24 pm

    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    Here’s an option; what say we have a trial for the rape and as part of that due process proceeding we determine whether the child is allowed to live.

    I don’t like it. I think it’s nonsensical and immoral. But it’s less so than the current approach.

    frosty (e06071)

  17. I very much doubt that these same Twitter leftists would accept a man’s argument that he should be free of 18 years of child support payments because “he never agreed to support some woman’s parasite” should she choose to carry it to term. After all, he never intended for her to become pregnant and may have had less control over the situation than she did.

    If any of you are on Facebook (or even Instagram), perhaps you have seen your pro-abortion friends sharing a letter to the editor written by some dude who says that in the aftermath of Dobbs, the man named on a child’s birth certificate should be required to take a DNA test to confirm paternity, and if he is indeed responsible then the state should compel him to pay for that child’s upbringing until the child reaches adulthood.

    I violated my moratorium on commenting on political Facebook posts to tell a progressive friend that I was pleased she was starting to sound like a pro-family social conservative. She had the good grace to accept my light ribbing. But seriously, do these progressives really believe that us nasty mouth-breathing right-wingers were ever against forcing the father of the child to step up to his patriarchal obligation? We’re not the ones who replaced the nuclear family with a welfare check during the Great Society; that was their own side.

    JVW (020d31)

  18. As noted on this forum, abortion as a specific issue doesn’t mean much to me; it’s crabgrass on the lawn of a house on fire. Rescinding a constitutional right is broader concern. But allow this: these decisions are never easy. There was this couple I knew where the wife had a developed a late stage difficulty w/her pregnancy and she and her husband were faced w/a hard decision; a choice: the doctor told them it could very well come down to saving the wife or aborting the child; so they had to decide; the decision: if it came down to it, save the wife- they could always try for another child. Fortunately the child made it after all. Me.

    DCSCA (674f06)

  19. In discussing the Dobbs decision with Twitter leftists, I have noticed something unusual: if you got all of your abortion information from them, you wouldn’t even know that a second life (besides the life of the mother) is part of the equation

    There are things you wouldn’t know (like that Justice Clarence Thomas was calling for the whole jurisprudence dealing with rights to be overruled (and replaced with jurisprudence based on the privelges and immunities clause and the only thing he said was that would give the court an opportunity to re-evaluate what were rights – or that the places where peole are protesting are unaffected right now – ) but that a second life with blood flowing in involved is not one of them. Because it is obvious.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  20. I would hope that pregnancies resulting from rape would become more and more uncommon, due to the availability of the morning-after pill which should be standard with any rape kit (yes, I know there is a strong pro-life argument to be made against abortifacients, but I’m not interested in having that argument just now). There will naturally continue be situations in which it is too late for the morning-after pill to work, but hopefully those cases will be exceedingly rare.

    JVW (020d31)

  21. Not incest?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/27/2022 @ 9:42 am

    Not accusing you of being dishonest but this has always seemed like dishonest wordplay.

    That was not my intention, usually the two are paired together when speaking of abortion exceptions. There certainly can be incestuous relationships between siblings or close relatives that may or may not include coercion.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. Twitter is just insane about this.

    One person tweeted about the DNA being human, so it is extinguishing a human life.

    A person then quoted it with the statement that the same could be said of cancer cells.

    What a sick society.

    Simon Jester (d2a1ea)

  23. The other interesting thing about the abortion debate is that the pro-abortion crowd is the first to accuse their opponents of appealing to emotion. And they’re also more than happy to do exactly that if they think it will help them.

    The pervasive dishonesty is at least consistent.

    frosty (e06071)

  24. If they’re referring to situations where older male family members impregnate younger female family members then it is rape. There’s no reason to add “and incest” to the usual clause.

    Incest is typically older male relatives raping and impregnating minors. Let’s call it what it is and be as accurate as possible. There is a reason to add “and incest”. According to the Justice Dept:

    The average age of incest victims is approximately 11 years old, with the majority of victims experiencing their first encounter between the ages of 5 and 8.

    The heinous monsters who commit such an act of violence toward little girls deserve to have the complete description of their crime made known. There is no reason not to add “and incest”.

    Dana (1225fc)

  25. I would hope that pregnancies resulting from rape would become more and more uncommon, due to the availability of the morning-after pill which should be standard with any rape kit (yes, I know there is a strong pro-life argument to be made against abortifacients, but I’m not interested in having that argument just now).

    When Cory Gardner was Senator, he introduced legislation to make Plan B a true OTC drug, rather than going though a pharmacist. Because he was a Republican, all of the organizations who had supported such measures in the past suddenly found all sorts of things wrong with it due to “health and safety reasons,” even though they are provided OTC in other countries without any apparent issues.

    Not surprisingly, the bill went nowhere, even though it would have actually expanded “reproductive health care access” across the board.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  26. Given that Senator Lankford (R-OK Insurrectionist) thinks that his own 13-year-old daughter can consent to sex, you got to wonder what his family life is like.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  27. @17 The funny thing about this is that it’s not a new argument. For years people have been pointing out that pro-choice people are in favor of always holding men accountable and absolutely not giving them a choice. So, has everyone else. This is family law 101 since forever.

    Of course this isn’t forcing the men to be support systems for the child. No, this is something entirely different. Yes, their wages can be garnished. Sure, they can go to jail. But there’s no force involved here.

    frosty (e06071)

  28. Would Rip M. accept OTC (though who knows with all these Sorosian DAs how readily accessible a kit would be to all) access to Plan B as a trading piece for total ban?

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2)

  29. There is no reason not to add “and incest”.

    Dana (1225fc) — 6/27/2022 @ 1:21 pm

    If more fully describing it actually increased the chances that this would be punished I’d be all for it. In this case it’s being used to justify abortion and to avoid punishing the underlying activity. It’s being used to do the opposite of what you’ve described as important.

    Those heinous monsters you’ve rightly named simply have to make sure their prey have easy and unquestioned access to abortions.

    frosty (e06071)

  30. Would Rip M. accept OTC (though who knows with all these Sorosian DAs how readily accessible a kit would be to all) access to Plan B as a trading piece for total ban?

    urbanleftbehind (553bd2) — 6/27/2022 @ 1:37 pm

    No.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  31. CVS, Walmart Limit Purchases of Plan B Pills After Surge in Demand
    ……..
    CVS Health Corp. and Walmart Inc. were limiting purchases of the pills, which were in short supply or out of stock Monday morning on major retailer websites. CVS was limiting purchases to three. Walmart had some pills available without limits, but only in cases where they wouldn’t ship until next month. Pills available this week were limited to four or six.
    ……..
    The pills are often referred to and sold under the Plan B brand without a prescription. Also called morning-after pills, they are designed to be taken up to three days after unprotected sex. The medication mainly works by preventing ovulation and, failing that, may stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

    Plan B pills are different from medication abortion, also known as plan C, which requires a prescription and involves the administration of different pills to terminate a pregnancy. In the U.S., medication abortion has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. Two medications—mifepristone and misoprostol—are typically used in a medication abortion regimen.

    Several companies make versions of Plan B that range in cost from $10 to more than $50. On Monday, the cheapest option available from major retailers’ websites was a pill for $35……..
    ………
    In the days following Friday’s court decision, social media filled with comments either encouraging or dissuading people to stock up on the contraceptive. Some users posted that they were buying as many as possible; others argued against stockpiling for fear it would cut off access to people with an immediate need.
    ……….

    Stocking up.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  32. In my state, incest is a criminal offense, so it does matter. Also, because a minor who is impregnated via incest and has abortion, doesn’t make the claim or charges disappear.

    Dana (95417f)

  33. What Are Abortion Pills and How Widely Are They Used?
    ………
    In the U.S., medication abortion has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. Though their efficacy decreases as gestational age increases, abortion pills can be safe and effective beyond the 10-week mark, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In countries including the U.K., abortion pills are used to terminate pregnancies of up to 24 weeks. For later-term abortions, the pills are administered in clinical settings.
    ……..
    Medication abortion accounted for 54% of abortions in the U.S. in 2020, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Since 2000, when the FDA approved mifepristone, a steadily increasing proportion of patients have chosen medication abortions. Some 37% of U.S. abortions were medication abortions in 2017, up from 14% in 2005.
    …….
    According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based advocacy organization, 25 states will likely ban or severely restrict access to in-clinic abortion procedures and medication abortions as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
    ……..
    Many states had already moved to restrict medication abortions before outright bans went into place following the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 24. Tennessee’s Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a bill criminalizing mail-order abortion pills, while South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Kristi Noem signed a bill restricting medication abortions via telemedicine that goes into effect July 1. Louisiana’s ban on mail-order abortion pills starts Aug. 1.

    There could also be heightened legal risks. Since 2000, at least 60 people have been prosecuted in the U.S. for obtaining a medication abortion or helping someone do so, according to Plan C (an abortion-pill advocacy group). If abortion becomes illegal in swaths of the country, many more patients and health providers could be charged for seeking abortions, including using mail-order services for abortion pills.

    This is why a federal ban is needed. Only the federal government can restrict what goes through the mail.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  34. Given that Senator Lankford (R-OK Insurrectionist) thinks that his own 13-year-old daughter can consent to sex, you got to wonder what his family life is like.

    OK, I’m curious as to why you brought up the concept of consent when it doesn’t appear anyone had previously mentioned it, and why you decided to take a potshot at Sen. Lankford. Were you concerned that not enough Republicans were coming in for derision in this discussion?

    It’s none of my damn business (or yours, frankly) what Sen. Lankford’s family like is life. He apparently was given a difficult scenario where a 15-year-old boy had sex with a 13-year-old girl, while the statutory age of consent in Oklahoma is 16. Is Lankford supposed to say that no, a 13-year-old girl cannot possibly consent to sex, thereby declaring the boy to be a rapist? But if the age of consent is 16, then the boy can’t really consent to sex either, so does that make the girl a rapist too?

    How would you address this dilemma, Rip? Could the true answer perhaps lie within the realm of ambiguity? We should be able to determine that a 13-year-old girl can’t rightfully consent to sex with a 22-year-old man, but maybe she can to some degree consent with someone closer to her in age. Lankford was given a gotcha question in a difficult scenario, so frankly I don’t blame him for a muddled answer.

    JVW (020d31)

  35. @32 In your state are people allowed to stock up; ref @31? If your state isn’t requiring any sort of reporting or gatekeeping then, no, the claim or charges don’t disappear because they never existed.

    frosty (e06071)

  36. OK, I’m curious as to why you brought up the concept of consent when it doesn’t appear anyone had previously mentioned it, and why you decided to take a potshot at Sen. Lankford. Were you concerned that not enough Republicans were coming in for derision in this discussion?

    I brought it up as part of the discussion as to whether “incest” should be separated from “rape.” See posts 21, 24, 27, and 29. Personally, as an adult I would have had no problem saying “no” as to whether a 13-year-old girl could give consent to sex (especially after just being elected to Congress, the time when Lankford’s deposition occurred). It is up to the local DA and courts whether to view the 15-year-old boy as a rapist, not Lankford or anyone else. The specific facts would determine who was the predator. I’ll admit that it was cheap shot at Lankford.

    I am frankly surprised how many states (37) have an age of consent less than 18. Even Libertine California is at 18 (though back in 1850 it was 10) and doesn’t have a “close in age” exceptions.

    They can’t vote, drive, buy a gun, sign contracts, etc. but they can have sex without consequences.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  37. It is up to the local DA and courts whether to view the 15-year-old boy as a rapist, not Lankford or anyone else. The specific facts would determine who was the predator.

    I can agree with this in principle, and not knowing the situation I don’t blame Lankford one bit for declining to speculate on who seduced whom (though with teenagers, there’s a pretty good chance they were both willing participants). Better that he should have declined to answer, but then I suppose his critics would be accusing him of weaseling out of a tough question.

    If memory serves, at one point in my youth New Mexico had an age of consent of 13. But maybe I am mis-remembering that.

    JVW (020d31)

  38. JVW @37-

    After seeing this movie I wanted to lock up my niece until she was 18…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. Dobbs Won’t End the Legal Battle Over Abortion

    Today, knowledgeable conservatives probably recognize that that the reversal of Casey and Roe in Dobbs won’t put an end to the political struggle over abortion. At least in the short to medium term, it is likely to actually intensify it. But they may hope it will at least put an end to legal battles over abortion’s status under the Constitution. If so, they are likely to be disappointed on that front.

    It is obvious that Dobbs is likely to open up legal battles over such issues as whether states can bar residents from getting abortions in other states, and whether the federal government can adopt nationwide abortion bans (or nationwide laws protecting abortion rights). But Dobbs is also unlikely to definitively settle the central question it set out to consider: whether there is a constitutional right to abortion.

    Just as most conservatives never accepted the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, and waged a fifty year struggle to overturn it, so the vast majority of progressives are unlikely to accept Dobbs, and would be happy to reverse it as soon as they get a chance to do so……..

    If a future liberal Supreme Court majority reverses Dobbs, conservatives might cite the Dobbs’ dissent’s paeans to the value of precedent. But liberals could easily respond by citing the conservatives’ own willingness to reverse precedent in Dobbs itself. Moreover, the Dobbs dissent does acknowledge that “we are not saying that a decision can never be overruled just because it is terribly wrong.” Most progressives no doubt believe that Dobbs is one such “terribly wrong” ruling, perhaps even a paradigmatic example thereof.
    ………
    Could anything ever end the legal struggle over abortion? Yes. The fight could end if American society reaches a broad consensus on the issue (similar to that which exists in many European countries, which have rules more restrictive than the Roe regime was, but less so than demanded by US pro-lifers). …….
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  40. Just wondering –

    I remember the conservative opposition to Medicare in the mid-60s. The idea that the government would interpose between physician and patient was anathema to a broad section of the Republican party. It was “socialism” if not “communism.” What changed?

    While I am deeply troubled at the trivialization of abortion, I wonder why the relationship between physician and patient is not regarded in the same light as that between lawyer and client?

    I also wonder why, if abortion is regarded as the taking of a human life, it has not been prosecuted as premeditated murder. The states already have the necessary laws to do this, do they not?

    If a fetus is not human, why is its removal any different than the removal of a tumor?

    John B Boddie (3f90ad)

  41. @11: Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

    A truthier statement would end “and would cause a great deal of expense and difficulty for parents or other custodial caregivers.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  42. This is why a federal ban is needed. Only the federal government can restrict what goes through the mail.

    I was under the impression that federal law already banned sending these drugs through the mail when the recipient is in a state prohibiting them. Not sure if it is limited to USPS or covers FedEx and such.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  43. I remember the conservative opposition to Medicare in the mid-60s. The idea that the government would interpose between physician and patient was anathema to a broad section of the Republican party.

    Trust me that Medicare doesn’t actually do that, at least no more than any insurance company. You may have to decide how to proceed based on whether they will cover it, but that’s true with any insurance.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  44. If a fetus is not human, why is its removal any different than the removal of a tumor?

    John B Boddie (3f90ad) — 6/27/2022 @ 4:13 pm

    At what point does a fetus become “human”?

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  45. A fetus is not a baby just because you say it is. You can call your self a martian that does not make you from mars as you tell transgender people. For the religious zealots read exodus 21:22-25. You say it is not a woman’s decision if she is forced to carry a fetus to term ;but yours. Before the civil war conservatives on the supreme court tried to decide the slavery issue once and for all with the dred scott decision. However the decision was appealed to a higher court which set in judgement on july, 3 1863 at cemetary ridge gettysberg pennsylvania. This is dred scott II As AOC said on friday this will be decided in the streets. The court of last resorts. Posters here keep trying to get be banned because they can not argue against what I say will happen.

    asset (eb9516)

  46. @44 when it has the ability to reason. We have the ability to know the stars they do not have the ability to know us. Don’t waste time with meaningless angels dancing on the head of a pin excuses like unconscious or brain dead people or born babies they are not forcing anyone to carry them inside.

    asset (eb9516)

  47. @44 when it has the ability to reason.

    So what age is that, exactly?

    Don’t waste time with meaningless angels dancing on the head of a pin excuses

    Cripes, if your standard won’t stand up to even that level of basic scrutiny (“Nuh uh, these examples that refute my simple-simon generalization don’t count!”), one should probably ask if the person arguing it has the ability to reason themselves.

    Come on, asset, give me an age.

    Just a quick reminder that abortion on demand has never gotten more than 25% support, even 50 years after Roe. Quite a great example of the truism that anything where the left doesn’t get its way is a “threat to democracy,” even when it actually isn’t.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  48. @44 when it has the ability to reason.

    A goodly portion of the adult population would fail that test.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  49. asset is for amusement purposes only.

    If I weren’t pretty confident that he is an octogenarian former schoolteacher, and not a taxi driver with a Mohawk, I would be concerned about his obsession with AOC, though.

    nk (18ae23)

  50. This is dred scott II

    So, what was Roe then? It attempted to promulgate a law based on nothing but “we say so!”. This decision just vacated that, much as the 13th Amendment vacated Dred Scott.

    If a court decides to make up a rule “to settle the issue” and 50 years later the still-festering opposition manages to (after about 18 Court appointments) get the decision rescinded, it really is not the second decision that is an usurpation.

    Again, prediction: Before the next presidential election, a compromise national standard will have become law. Roughly the same compromise that has been established in most every democracy around the world. Here, the stupid Roe decision made compromise impossible. Now, it’s gone.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  51. I would be concerned about his obsession with AOC

    Well, any oldster would be quite happy with AOC taxing all those damn young people to provide more gravy for the old guys. After all, it’s not like old people pay much in taxes.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  52. @49 Actually I have been a taxi driver for over 50 years ;but no mohawk or war paint. As I said ability to reason and not in the womb stops you cold.

    asset (eb9516)

  53. I think extremists on both sides of the abortion issue are ridiculous, from those who would not bat an eyelid at an abortion in the eighth month, to those who equate the morning-after pill to murder.

    It’s not that cut and dried, people, as much as it feels good to be full of conviction.

    norcal (da5491)

  54. @40 At times and in places where it was illegal the person performing the abortion was prosecuted. At times and in places were it was declared legal they weren’t. Much like how various drugs are legal some places and times and others not so much.

    But I don’t think it’s ever been legally acknowledged as the taking of a life. It should be. In some cases it’s been seen as a property crime against the husband. We’ve made a lot of progress I suppose.

    Historically there was some confusion on exactly what was going on in the womb. Since Roe we’ve developed 3d imaging tech. You can see them making faces. Learned about babies feeling pain in the womb. Learned that they recognize voices. Since Roe viability outside the womb has improved.

    Why has the doctor/patient relationship been eroded? It might have something to do with the realization that doctors don’t always have their patients best interest at heart? Maybe to many of those doctor tv shows that portray them as irresponsible and selfish. Doctors don’t help themselves here. That whole pharma-doctor pipeline for example.

    On the socialism thing; we embraced socialism. The Rs lost that one and most of them didn’t really care. Boomers got old and realized it was easier to keep selling out their kid’s future. Take your pick.

    frosty (09987e)

  55. By the way I just put on a new bumper sticker on my taxi which I own making me a capitalist wage slave master ;but a non exploitive one as I have no capitalist wage slaves. Bumper sticker Vote democrat or use a coat hanger. The democrats at my district meeting said we shouldn’t use coat hanger analogy. It must offend the donor class. This is the kind of wimps I have to put up with in the democrat party so mostof the time I have to vote green party.

    asset (eb9516)

  56. @45 I absolutely don’t want to get you banned. I think hearing your arguments in all their glory is the best of all possible options.

    frosty (09987e)

  57. > a compromise national standard will have become law.

    unlikely. more likely: in 2023 the republican controlled congress abolishes the filibuster for the purpose of passing a strict ban (no exceptions for health/life of mother or for rape or incest), and then it becomes one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  58. Posters here keep trying to get be banned because they can not argue against what I say will happen.

    asset (eb9516) — 6/27/2022 @ 4:24 pm

    Who is trying to ban you? I’m a moderator here, and I’m not trying to get you banned. You can disagree and debate all you want. You just can’t make personal insults against other commenters, and on my posts involving the Jan. 6 Committee, you can’t push the Big Lie. And even those come with a warning or two before being moderated.

    Dana (1225fc)

  59. @58 I was posting about other posters last night on another thread not you. I try not to make personal attacks on other posters as some make on me. As lincoln said as I would not be a slave I will not be a master.

    asset (eb9516)

  60. Real cool… reinforce stereotypes about who is ardently pro-choice stateside. I wonder if Bibi would quash this if he’s back in: https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-loosens-abortion-regulations-response-174738368.html

    urbanleftbehind (d5b707)

  61. @54 In some states, if the murder of a pregnant woman results in the death of the fetus, the perpetrator is charged with two murders, not one.

    Chris (f50502)

  62. @57: There’s a lot more divergence in the GOP than there is in the Democrat party regarding abortion. As can be seen here.

    I find it odd that, while insisting that all elective abortions happen in the first trimester, Democrats are so intensely opposed to codifying that as a limit for elective abortions.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  63. There once was a being named tessa
    who never was able to bessa

    Though many had tried
    then took it in stride

    it proved better to smile sur la messa.

    felipe (484255)

  64. I wonder if Biden will put pressure on Zelenski to condemn the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, or to lengthen Ukraine’s 12 week limit.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  65. Posters here keep trying to get be banned because they can not argue against what I say will happen.

    I, for one, am definitely not trying to get you banned.

    Moreover, the weakness of your argument is obvious. How is AOC going to lead her armies at Gettysburg, if we keep her and her followers barefoot and pregnant and too busy raising their passels of kids? You underestimate the deviousness of the cis-heteronormative patriarchal capitalist plutocracy.

    nk (9bfaac)

  66. No wonder Joey Jeremiah took Tessa home from the graduation party instead of Caitlin (guess the TV series).

    urbanleftbehind (d5b707)

  67. Have you heard the medical rumor
    a fetus is just like a tumor?

    Although it’s not fair
    but actually rare

    A display of despicable humor.

    felipe (484255)

  68. Jeremiah was a bullfrog, and Rosebud was a sled!

    By which I mean to say “I give up!”

    felipe (484255)

  69. It’s not that cut and dried, people, as much as it feels good to be full of conviction.

    norcal (da5491) — 6/27/2022 @ 4:50 pm

    At least the “every sperm is sacred” types will actually take a stand when you ask them, “When does life actually begin?” I don’t agree with it, but at least they’re willing to draw a line in the sand.

    Ask the same question of a lefty, and you get the arm-waving and obfuscation that asset put on display, demonstrating the trusim that “Marxism doesn’t know”. But then, they’re only reflecting the ideology of their fellow travelers in China and North Korea, where abortion on demand is allowed.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  70. @67. felipe- stay on message: Dobbs was a bugler. 😉

    DCSCA (7aeffc)

  71. Thanks, DCSCA. It is my wont to wander.

    felipe (484255)

  72. DeGrassi High, late 80s early 90s. Canadian ish recycled on PBS. The rapper Drake starred in it’s 2000s reboot.

    Speaking of Canadian…Mayra Flores has to be 4′ 10″ or so …https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1541418645787754496?s=20&t=pG_tW3SgxaJqdZrmTLYXPg

    urbanleftbehind (d5b707)

  73. You can disagree and debate all you want. You just can’t make personal insults against other commenters, and on my posts involving the Jan. 6 Committee, you can’t push the Big Lie.

    Also, asset, you can’t cheer on political street violence or attacks on public or private property. This is what you were warned about the other day. It’s one thing to suggest that you fear these will be happening in the near future; it’s quite another thing to imply that you think the violence is warranted.

    JVW (020d31)

  74. Dobbs was a bugler. 😉
    DCSCA (7aeffc) — 6/27/2022 @ 6:15 pm

    “And what is so funny about the term ‘tromboner?'”

    felipe (484255)

  75. urbanleftbehind (d5b707) — 6/27/2022 @ 6:19 pm

    Thank you for putting me out of my misery. It’s true, I “mis” easily.

    felipe (484255)

  76. As I said in the other thread, if you believe the government should be allowed to force one person to be a life support system for another person, that’s your belief. Mine is that the government shouldn’t be allowed to force one person to be a life support system for another person.

    Nic (896fdf)

  77. Mine is that the government shouldn’t be allowed to force one person to be a life support system for another person.

    And mine is that an adequate but limited window of opportunity to avoid being a “life support system” is enough, and that after that one is committed, baring unusual and/or unpredictable events.

    An analogy: I am not required to pick up hitchhikers. But if I chose to do so, I can’t arbitrarily eject them in the middle of the desert. I may do so in certain unexpected situations.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  78. the ideology of their fellow travelers in China and North Korea, where abortion on demand is allowed.

    Whose demand?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  79. Mine is that the government shouldn’t be allowed to force one person to be a life support system for another person.

    Ah, philosophy! Well, not exactly. I would say sophistry. It is not just another person, it is a person who is one’s own offspring. The means of perpetuating the species.

    We can switch to philosophy now. What is any living being except a life support system for its next generation? Has Nature given it any other purpose than the perpetuation of the species?

    nk (9bfaac)

  80. @75, I read something earlier today which referenced the Good Samaritan story from the Gospel of Luke. The Samaritan (despised by the Jews) comes upon a man badly beaten after a priest and a Levite pass him by. The Samaritan bandages the man, uses his donkey to take him to an inn, then pays the innkeeper to look after him. The point of the parable is how you should treat your neighbor in need, even if there is some group animosity.

    Now how this ties into the abortion debate is society’s ask of the pregnant woman…to not just be a Good Samaritan but to be a Splendid Samaritan for the unborn fetus. Note, the Samaritan did not face any personal risk and was just out a bit of money, whereas the pregnant woman is being asked to potentially risk life, health, and security….for not quite a stranger….but for an unplanned guest.

    It’s a little uncertain what Jesus actually thought of the priest and Levite that abandoned the man on the road to Jericho. They obviously fell short of his ideal. The pregnant woman is asked to sacrifice much more…..and the question becomes, what’s reasonable to be a good neighbor? Society is not asking for a couple of hours of the woman’s time, but nine months plus all of the risk and uncertainty tied to that. And society isn’t exactly generous with the ask….there is even an air of punishment about it — even for those that tried to be careful.

    Society is much different than it was 70 years ago when women had few opportunities outside of the home and had much of their identity tied to motherhood. We can debate whether much of the change is for the good or not, but we can’t ignore the change. Lot’s of men will cavalierly expect the woman to assume her role….as if anything other is craven selfishness….and irresponsibility.

    I hope that women can be the Splendid Samaritan. The question is, should I expect it?

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  81. Well, any oldster would be quite happy with AOC taxing all those damn young people to provide more gravy for the old guys.

    Reagan did it:

    http://www.seniorinfo4u.com/blog/ronald-reagans-1983-amendments-to-the-social-security-act-of-1935/

    https://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

    DCSCA (d6ced8)

  82. Actually that was your favorite guy, Bob Dole.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  83. A tendency to abortion will eventually breed itself out.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  84. We can switch to philosophy now. What is any living being except a life support system for its next generation? Has Nature given it any other purpose than the perpetuation of the species?

    A zygote is a gamete’s way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe.

    –R A Heinlein

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  85. @82. You’re way off base on that one. The Big Dick’s eulogizer and Jerry’s Hatchet Man was not a favorite. Unfortunately, his SS IOUs from the 1970s weren’t buried in his lock box. But did love it when he spoke about himself in the third person. At his birth he said from the womb to his mother: ‘Bob Dole wants out.’ When divorcing his ailing wife: ‘Bob Dole wants out.’ And forever from Hell: “Bob Dole wants out.” 😉

    DCSCA (d6ced8)

  86. I note that the Left is ramping up the “LGBTQ rights are next!” scare tactics.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  87. Kevin M – of course they are; the judicial conservative opposition to Lawrence was based in the exact same argument that the majority used in Roe, and if *Lawrence* can’t stand, then Obergefell has enormous ramifications.

    If the Supreme Court is actually applying judicial reasoning and not engaged in some adhoc imposition of its own preferences, Lawrence and Dobbs are impossible to reconcile.

    aphrael (c793e3)

  88. @86/@87. It doesn’t help publix discourse when cabal zealots Thomas and Alito pencil-up ‘to-do’ lists that get out to the public. Those two love to gab. And one of ’em- you know who- is the leaker. Like Colonel Jessup- just itchin’ to tell ‘ya, too.

    DCSCA (d6ced8)

  89. @87: No, it’s just fear tactics. Only Thomas is interested in going there. I’m surprised that you’re buying into this crap.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  90. Dobbs happened because the abortion question was not settled by Roe, and 50 years is quite long enough to see that it would never be settled by Roe. Add to that 100 million dead fetuses and you have a situation that is intolerable.

    Obergefell is, what, 5 years old? And outside a few church sermons, not terrible controversial. Lawrence even less so. Loving was accepted almost immediately — it’s 60 years gone and nobody wants to go back to that time.

    Sure, these are not the best ways to go about establishing rights — legislative action is always preferred. Loving came after numerous states got rid of those laws, and other states that still had them didn’t enforce.

    By the time Lawrence happened, sodomy laws were largely unenforced and IIRC they had to go out of their way to get them enforced in Texas to have a case.

    I did think that Obergefell was rushed, rather than waiting on the states, but I accept that human concerns were involved. But like Loving, and unlike Roe, there are serious equal protection claims apart from substantive due process.

    Again, this is just fear-mongering and battlespace preparation. It’s all about getting people to the polls and making them fearful is a traditional plan. It’s still utter BS.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  91. @Kevin@76 IANAL, so someone may have a more educated opinion on this, but I think actually that you can. You can kick a homeless person out of your garage even if it’s below 0 weather, and even if you are in the middle of rescuing someone, if you have doubts you can stop, even knowing they will die.

    @nk@79 Does life have purpose at all? Or do we simply create our own purpose?

    @AJ@80 IIRC from the first aid cert classes I took a few years ago, the law doesn’t require us to help other people at all, much less be splendid at it. 😛

    @kevin@83 IDK about that. If we were just going for quantity, we’d have litters of humans, OTOH, we can generally only produce about one person a year per woman, so if a woman has an abortion and that allows her to put her current or later offspring in a better societal position, a mild tendency to abortion could be an evolutionary advantage.

    Nic (896fdf)

  92. @nk@79 Does life have purpose at all? Or do we simply create our own purpose?

    I don’t know about creating purposes, but creating new ones of us is built-in and one of the most compelling.

    nk (9bfaac)

  93. Lawrence and Dobbs are impossible to reconcile.

    At the time, I thought Lawrence and Texas were impossible to reconcile. If there was one place where I thought sticking your nose into your neighbor’s private business would be a tort …. And now SB8. I’m very disappointed, honestly. Disillusioned, too.

    I am not at all dismissive of aphrael’s concerns. Half the time, maybe more, Five Of Nine just make it up as they go along, and sheen it up with historical trivia to disguise that they have no basis in jurisprudence.

    nk (9bfaac)

  94. I couldn’t agree more with you, Patterico. An implicit assumption made by the pro-aborts is that consequence-free sex is (or ought to be) some kind of inalienable right. Aside from the statistically few pregnancies resulting from rape (and I agree that there is room for compromise in those cases), “choice” begins with the choice of intercourse. Abortion is the intentional termination of a unique, unrepeatable human life. Such pronouncements are inevitably followed by a series of “yes buts,” with heavy emphasis on the “but” and dismissal of the “yes.”

    Roger (17a3ee)

  95. “Dobbs happened because the abortion question was not settled by Roe, and 50 years is quite long enough to see that it would never be settled by Roe. Add to that 100 million dead fetuses and you have a situation that is intolerable.”

    Dobbs could have just upheld the Mississippi law and narrowed Roe without repealing it (incremental progress toward an equilibrium). Second the pile of 100M fetuses is still going to grow. California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, etc. have state constitutional provisions in place to ensure abortion access. It seems that we will just have more woman traveling to secure an abortion and more waiting lists in these states. And the 100M will just grow.

    Certainly there will be states like Alabama that do not want even narrow access to abortion, and states like Massachusetts who don’t want choice restricted at all. So in that sense, Dobbs faciltates achieving an equilibrium faster. But let’s also recognize that Roe has been the #1 fundraising tool for the GOP for 40 years, and now Dobbs will be the same for the Left. The issue remains unresolved, because for many it’s black and white. If 100M dead fetuses make you sad, how can shuffling the mounds between states make you any happier?

    Finally, not counting the remainder of Nixon’s term and counting the end of Biden’s term, since Roe we’ve had 24 years of GOP presidents and 24 years of Democrat presidents. Both sides are now invested in purely political nominations and are no longer even superficially concerned about balance or judicial caution (the days of a nominee getting 97 votes are over). The Left will be on an even more frenetic full-court press. The question becomes is this in the long term interest of the country? One could argue that this is just pushback (hello JF) and a corrective for our democracy, but it’s also abrupt and ideological change. Is it Solomon like? Does this help our long-term functioning of our democracy or is yet one more pebble in the gear train?

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  96. “consequence-free sex is (or ought to be) some kind of inalienable right”

    This cuts to the quick. Can the genie be put back in the bottle? Religious conservative mores are up against Hollywood, internet porn, and crass hyper-sexualized commercialism. Leave it to Beaver has taken on a wholly different meaning.

    “Abortion is the intentional termination of a unique, unrepeatable human life”

    Though it can be argued that we no longer have a society where we need as many pregnancies as possible to populate our armies to defend against opposing tribes, to work the fields, or to survive the ravages of childhood illness and disease. We acknowledge this with the wide availability of contraception. Abortion, rightly or wrongly, is just society’s placeholder of backup (or primary) contraception. The ends justifies the means. Consequentialism is the new ethics.

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  97. @91 What you can’t do to the homeless person is give them a drug that causes them to starve to death or cut them up before you throw them out of the garage or inject something into their brain before you crush their skulls and make sure you hose off the garage.

    There’s a bit of a difference between failing to rescue a person from something you didn’t cause and failure to rescue a person from a harm you created. If you are very clever and can hide the casual chain you might be able to get away with murder by proxy but I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s not like shotgun traps are illegal or anything.

    So, I feel like it’s important to say this; don’t put homeless people into a situation where you know they’ll die.

    But I agree with you on one thing; you should advocate for an abortion method that just removes the baby and lays it on the table until it dies. That would match your failure to give aid example and be slightly less morally culpable. It’s also in line with your selectively choosing the start of this chain of events. Then everyone can pretend the baby just appeared on the table, that no one has a duty to rescue it, and claim that the baby died of natural causes.

    frosty (3f0993)

  98. @95 It’s not shuffling the mounds. There may be some interstate commerce but it’s not a zero sum set. But overall, this is just making just making perfect the enemy of good.

    This notion that the left will be even more frenetic has a similar problem. I’d argue that the left has always been willing to sacrifice whatever is standing in the way of whatever shiny thing they’ve fixed their eyes on. This is the fundamental nature of progressivism. That is simply more obvious now and that makes it a good thing. Fewer and fewer people believe any of the lefts claims of morality or superior empathy.

    The argument that we shouldn’t confront the left directly because they’ll fight nastier is like arguing you shouldn’t cut out a tumor because the surgery might be painful.

    frosty (3f0993)

  99. Our esteemed host wrote:

    I support an exception to anti-abortion laws for early-term abortions that are the product of rape. I would try to persuade a woman impregnated by a rapist to have the baby, but I would not have the state force her to do so, when she never took any voluntary action that she knew could result in pregnancy.

    So, the unborn child’s life is less important if the mother didn’t consent?

    The child is innocent in all of this, and the argument for an exception for rape or incest weakens the position that the unborn child is a living human being.

    There’s another point for the rape exception. At least in the proposed rape exception laws of years ago, the exception was for a rape promptly reported to the police! The idea was simple: such would prevent women from using an unjustified rape claim to get past legal barriers, but we all know that many, many rape victims delay reporting, or never report the crime at all.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (64a717)

  100. JVW wrote, hopefully sarcastically:

    But seriously, do these progressives really believe that us nasty mouth-breathing right-wingers were ever against forcing the father of the child to step up to his patriarchal obligation? We’re not the ones who replaced the nuclear family with a welfare check during the Great Society; that was their own side.

    This evil reich-wing conservative would support forcing the sperm donor to face his obligations. To do otherwise is to force the taxpayers in general to do it for him. That, to me, is no different from ‘forgiving’ student loans, a bad, bad, bad idea.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (64a717)

  101. Mr M wrote:

    @11: Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

    A truthier statement would end “and would cause a great deal of expense and difficulty for parents or other custodial caregivers.”

    The “lives not worth living” argument has always been a specious one: it assumes that a person gets to judge whether someone else’s life is not worth living.

    I would not want to be a prisoner, incarcerated for the rest of my life; I would judge that a life in Hell, and not worth living, but when I look at all of the inmates on death row, using every legal ploy they can to keep from being executed, it becomes clear that even someone locked in a cell for 23 hours a day thinks his life is worth living. When I look at the statistics of the handicapped committing suicide — statistics which are very hard to find, by the way — and I see that the seriously handicapped, despite all of us having said that “I’d rather be dead than live like that,” do not commit suicide at notably greater rates than those not handicapped. Apparently the handicapped see their lives as worth living.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (64a717)

  102. Abortion, rightly or wrongly, is just society’s placeholder of backup (or primary) contraception. The ends justifies the means. Consequentialism is the new ethics.

    AJ_Liberty (411e90) — 6/28/2022 @ 6:02 am

    There’s a difference between contraception and abortion. That’s why the logical line is at fertilization.

    Otherwise you end up arguing each decision not to have sex is just abortion by different means.

    frosty (e06071)

  103. So, the unborn child’s life is less important if the mother didn’t consent?

    Yes. Absolutely yes.

    The child is a 9-month prolongation of the rape with potential severe consequences including death or great bodily harm to the woman. I don’t know what the law is in Kentucky, but in Illinois a woman being raped or someone coming to her assistance can kill the rapist. Same principle.

    And I’ll tell you something else. If any state enacts a law forbidding emergency rooms from administering an abortifacient to a rape victim, I will enlist in AOC’s army and go all Putin on it.

    nk (9bfaac)

  104. If any state enacts a law forbidding emergency rooms from administering an abortifacient to a rape victim, I will enlist in AOC’s army and go all Putin on it.

    nk (9bfaac) — 6/28/2022 @ 8:04 am

    That, by itself, seems like reason enough to vote for it.

    frosty (a2d0cc)

  105. You can kick a homeless person out of your garage even if it’s below 0 weather

    Not if you offered him the garage as shelter.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  106. And I’ll tell you something else. If any state enacts a law forbidding emergency rooms from administering an abortifacient to a rape victim,
    Wondering what Bill Clinton thinks about that

    mg (8cbc69)

  107. of course they are; the judicial conservative opposition to Lawrence was based in the exact same argument that the majority used in Roe, and if *Lawrence* can’t stand, then Obergefell has enormous ramifications.

    If the Supreme Court is actually applying judicial reasoning and not engaged in some adhoc imposition of its own preferences, Lawrence and Dobbs are impossible to reconcile.

    aphrael (c793e3) — 6/27/2022 @ 10:17 pm

    I agree, the SC has disabused the notion of “settled law.” Every decision (contraception, marriage) that has stripped power from the states, and is not grounded in the Constitution, (which does NOT have an explicit “right of privacy”) should be fair game, no matter how old the decision is.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  108. “Settled law” involves public acceptance as well as legal acceptance. When 50 years on people are still marching in the streets only a complete idiot (or liar) would call it settled law. Settled law is something Senators don’t ask about in confirmation hearings.

    Loving is settled law. Griswold is settled law. There are lots of cases that are settled law, even though the actual decision uses arguments that no longer fly. The Slaughterhouse Cases are settled law, even though nearly everyone agrees they were wrongly (and perhaps corruptly) decided.

    Lawrence, Obergefell and Loving all have “equal protection” arguments that don’t rest on “substantive due process.” Despite what Thomas might think, “equal protection” is not based on historical facts, but on facts of the moment. These 3 cases are easily distinguishable from Roe.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  109. Rip,

    Do you think that Congress could pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  110. Roe based the abortion right on “privacy” but that was abandoned in Casey because it was such a lame extension of “privacy.”

    That does not mean (and Dobbs did not assert) that there is no such thing as a “privacy” right.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  111. @108: “Despite what Thomas might think, “equal protection” is not based on historical facts, but on facts of the moment. These 3 cases are easily distinguishable from Roe”

    Roe could be upheld based on Equal Protection arguments as well. That was Ginsburg’s preferred argument. If Alito and Thomas are replaced by liberal justices, this will be the argument that the Court will use to reverse Dobbs. It was actually surprising to see so little discussion of this in Alito’s opinion. Essentially, some precedent was liked more than others.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  112. Settled law was a deception. Patterico has explained previously that it doesn’t really mean anything. But SCJ candidates used that type of phrasing to mislead non-lawyers into thinking that they wouldn’t reverse a decision that opponents of their party were passionate about.

    The right did on abortion.
    The left did it on guns.

    It’s one of the reasons that legitimacy of the courts is being diminished, lay persons follow confirmation hearings and draw the logical conclusion from the statements made only to see that those statements were meaningless.

    Time123 (58ed5d)

  113. Do you think that Congress could pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced?

    Such is the slippery slope. Vee know of za fella mitt ein Charlie Chaplin moustache in an earlier era who put free radios in “everyone’s home” – to broadcast sweet nothings in their ears:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6lpT6e8nAA

    DCSCA (348b0b)

  114. Rip,

    Do you think that Congress could pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/28/2022 @ 11:10 am

    No.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  115. There is no part of the Constitution that would authorize the federal government (or the states) to pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  116. No? Really??? Where there’s smoke; there’s fire… ‘The longest journey begins with a single step.’ Later on come the cries of, ‘how did we come to this?!’ Slopes are slippery…

    ‘As of 06/27/2022 text has not been received for S.4442 – A bill to require qualifying smoke alarms in certain federally assisted housing, and for other purposes. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate.’

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4442/all-info?r=3&s=1

    Seat belts… cigarette pack warnings… etc., draft registration…. undeclared wars… the government knows what is best for you, Rip. They told you so. 😉

    DCSCA (348b0b)

  117. There is no part of the Constitution that would authorize the federal government (or the states) to pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced.

    Slippery slope:

    Blue laws in the United States

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States

    DCSCA (348b0b)

  118. Seat belts… cigarette pack warnings… etc., draft registration…. undeclared wars…

    Seat belts… originally federally mandated, now set by state legislatures (as it should be). The threat to withhold federal funding is problematic. The SC needs to overturn South Dakota v. Dole (1987).

    cigarette pack warnings… Constitutionally problematic.

    draft registration…..Constitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12.

    undeclared wars……Congress indirectly supports “undeclared wars” by continuing to fund them-so stop funding them.

    And so ends my responding to inane hypotheticals from Kevin M and DCSCA.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  119. @118. And so ends my responding to inane hypotheticals from Kevin M and DCSCA.

    …’so let it be written, so let it be done,’ commanded the pharaoh to the enslaved.

    Hypothetical Volksempfängers, seat belts, smoke detectors, warning labels, slypery slopes– and mythical wars.

    Attaboy, Rip. More mustard on that pretzel, fella.

    DCSCA (25438b)

  120. Facebook and Instagram clumsy moderation regarding abortion etc.

    https://www.newser.com/story/322331/instagram-hid-posts-that-mentioned-abortion.html

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  121. Mr M wrote:

    Do you think that Congress could pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced?

    To which Mr Murdock responded:

    There is no part of the Constitution that would authorize the federal government (or the states) to pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced.

    Yet there are a non-negligible number of good American citizens who believe that the government could ban and confiscate all privately-owned firearms, which would require, among other things, sending the police or the Army door-to-door, and entering, forcibly if necessary, to search for and seize those firearms. No warrants would be necessary, because every home, office, garage, outbuilding and field would be part of the searched area.

    It’s quite clear that a whole bunch of people, of Americans, have no qualms at all about the government intruding into anyone’s home.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (64a717)

  122. There is no part of the Constitution that would authorize the federal government (or the states) to pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced.

    More to the point, a goodly portion of US law, starting with Medicare and Social Security, is unauthorized by the US Constitution. That ship has sailed. If you rely on something that has utterly failed the last 500,000 times it’s come up, you deserve what you get.

    This was the argument that was used to oppose a “bill of Rights”, and it was seen as failing even then. The point is that such an intusion would only be defeated by the 4th Amendment and the idea of Privacy.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  123. There is no part of the Constitution that would authorize the federal government (or the states) to pass a law requiring cameras in everyone’s home, and have it enforced.

    Yet.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6lpT6e8nAA

    DCSCA (d2e9f0)

  124. Or perhaps Rip would care to show how laws are routinely declared unconstitutional, not because they intrude on enumerated rights, or Article I, Section 9, but because they involve a power not clearly permitted to the federal government.

    Start with Medicare, if hypotheticals bother you so.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  125. One of the reasons I stopped calling myself a Libertarian was because most Libertarians confused reality with political theory. They would profess not to be worried about every usurpation by the Left, because “it’s unconstitutional anyway” and go on to expound some long-ignored section of the Constitution as if it would protect them.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  126. In any event, here’s a great graphic on the world’s abortion laws.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  127. “And so ends my responding to inane hypotheticals from Kevin M and DCSCA.”

    Hellaciously Harrowing Headline Has Happy Ending

    Colonel Haiku (bd9a44)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1945 secs.