Ops-Normal.org

From the outside looking in.....unborn babies are sacrosanct until such time they become sentinent beings after which they are dispensible because of the second ammendment.....once alive and living breathing on their own, taking their lunch to school the laying to waste of these children is OK because the 2nd ammendment is more important,...

After years of 'hamster wheel' arguements about this I'm finally coming to understand the American 'conditioning' behind this acceptance of such violence,.....but I'm yet to meet an American open to the idea that there may be another way....curious thing....

The US Supreme Court are not legislators, that is the job of Congress, the Court simply rules whether various laws and activities comply with the Constitution. in the case of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court did not rule whether abortion laws were good or bad, they simply clarified whether it was the job of the States or the Federal Government to make such laws. The fact that pro-abortion groups prefer to obscure this fact and claim the sky is falling does not make it less true.

Since there is no specific reference to abortion in the Constitution control of abortion issues devolves to the States rather than the Federal Government, that is the way the Constitution says these matters should be handled. For many years it has been considered that Roe v Wade was Constitutional overreach ie the Government got involved in something that is none of their business.

One side of the argument could be that anything to do with "my" body is my business including the life of a semi-sentient human being inside me, the other view point is that destruction of that semi-sentient being equates to premeditated murder. Who has the wisdom to decide? Certainly, irresponsible screwing around followed by a sequence of abortions would seem to be reprehensible. An abortion as a result of rape is more understandable. Incidentally, why is it OK for any organisation to say I must, by law, accept a certain involuntary medical procedure such as vaccination but then state that the law has no control over my body?

We, as a society, do not have the legal and mental flexibility to handle all of the nuances of life. Should we compel incarceration on the insane? Can we decide when someone judged criminally insane has recovered sufficiently to return to society? Who takes responsibility for that judgement? When does an unborn baby become a a viable human being? Is a crime of passion as culpable as a crime committed for financial gain? Not until we are developed enough, changed fundamentally enough, as a society will we be able to answer the questions posed by such matters as abortion.

Until then, first you must use your vote, and second, live in a State where the majority of voters agree with you viewpoint, and third, understand that breaking the law to change a law you do not agree with is still breaking the law. You can't have it both ways.

.

An excellent summing-up, boeing. Thank you.

The media is dead, long live Boing!

If a significant number of people previously opted for abortion, does that mean that there will now be a significant increase in the population? - or, are numbers so small that no significant increase will be noticed?

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Impossible to tell, since people may change their behaviour due to the change (if any) in the Law in their State.

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:31 pm

Impossible to tell, since people may change their behaviour due to the change (if any) in the Law in their State.

Indeed, some people may have used abortion to simply postpone additions to their families (of course some will undoubtedly have used abortion as birth control to permanently cancel additions - maybe numerous times).

EA01 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:57 pm

From the outside looking in.....unborn babies are sacrosanct until such time they become sentinent beings after which they are dispensible because of the second ammendment.....once alive and living breathing on their own, taking their lunch to school the laying to waste of these children is OK because the 2nd ammendment is more important,...

After years of 'hamster wheel' arguements about this I'm finally coming to understand the American 'conditioning' behind this acceptance of such violence,.....but I'm yet to meet an American open to the idea that there may be another way....curious thing....

It’s because the 2nd amendment is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, while abortion is not mentioned even once in the entire Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or The Bill of Rights.

If the Supreme Court is not qualified to make this decision, as has been spouted many times, how was the Supreme Court qualified to make the Wade versus Roe ruling in the first place? And the interpretation of the decision is so warped. and the statement from Biden, an out and out public criticism of the highest Court in the land, just shows, to me at least, how low this administration is prepared to go.

Some rabbi commented that his religion allows abortion, so this is the court (and states) imposing a predominantly Christian belief on other religions. It should be down to the individual, if federal government is not competent to impose rules then neither is a state government.

prospector wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:41 am

If the Supreme Court is not qualified to make this decision, as has been spouted many times, how was the Supreme Court qualified to make the Wade versus Roe ruling in the first place? And the interpretation of the decision is so warped. and the statement from Biden, an out and out public criticism of the highest Court in the land, just shows, to me at least, how low this administration is prepared to go.

Mitch McConnell tarnished the court by first declaring that Obama shouldn't be allowed to nominate a new judge in his last year of office, then rushing through the Coney Barrett confirmation mere weeks before the election. One of those should not have happened.

The court needs to be expanded to 13, with term limits. The original justification for 9 is that there were 9 judicial circuits. Now there are 13.

Just shifts the problem in time Llondel, but doesn't solve it. It's a politically appointed Supreme Court (they all are), and there will always be decisions which the non-governing party (or parties) disagree with.

The simple fact is that there is no international Law or treaty which protects or requires any medical procedure, including abortion.

https://c-fam.org/wp-content/uploads/In ... -FINAL.pdf

Therefore, by the UN principles of both Sovereignty and Subsidiarity, each country gets to decide things for itself.

The US Constitution is very clear that only explicitly stated matters are to be handled Federally, and the rest remains States' Rights.
There is likewise no mention of anything to do with medicine, or abortion, in the Constitution.
This is entirely consistent with the aforementioned UN principles.

And the US Supreme Court has just confirmed that.

In fact, this is the most expected change to a Ruling there's probably ever been. The Democrats have had numerous opportunities when holding a majority in Congress to put a Right to Abortion on a firmer footing in Law, and have never bothered to even start the process. They have likewise had numerous opportunities to run on a platform to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and have never done that either. We must conclude they either don't care or believe either matter will cause them to lose the next election.
Not that the other party, or indeed any other nation's parties, are any better.

^^^
And that is about the size of it.
.

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:03 pm

In fact, this is the most expected change to a Ruling there's probably ever been. The Democrats have had numerous opportunities when holding a majority in Congress to put a Right to Abortion on a firmer footing in Law, and have never bothered to even start the process. They have likewise had numerous opportunities to run on a platform to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and have never done that either. We must conclude they either don't care or believe either matter will cause them to lose the next election.
Not that the other party, or indeed any other nation's parties, are any better.

That's always been the problem, too many people assumed it was settled and there was no need to do anything more. The 2A stuff isn't going to fly because of how the constitution is set up with the individual states having equal power regardless of population unless there's a concerted effort by the anti-2A people to move into the other states so as to change the voting balance and elect their own people.

The breaking point comes when you've got a group of states banning abortion, birth control and other stuff, and another group which allows them all and you get migration from one group to another which reinforces that polarisation. If you're a woman who is pro-choice, there's now a lot of incentive to move to state that matches that belief, which means that the restrictive state gets more firm in its stance too. In the limit, you could see 70% of the population in the pro-choice states and 30% in the pro-birth states, but with 2/3 of the states being pro-birth. That's not going to be a stable situation, especially if they try to push it into federal law.

I really can't think of a good way to deal with this problem.

On the one hand I can understand the feelings of a raped woman who is sure she can never love the abuser's baby and who is concerned she will be carrying a child with his barbaric genes.

On the other hand I can't sympathise with a woman who gets drunk and can't keep her legs closed who expects the easy way out when she literally screws up.

But in the end we certainly can't deal with all abortion procedures on an individual social/medical basis.

In the end I suppose abortion is an individual choice but this does not infer that it should be available on demand in every State. The voters and residents of a State should still control how it handles certain controversial issues. Handing the complete decision to the medical profession is probably not wise since there are moral and financial issues involved.

And it puzzle me to learn
That though a man may be in doubt of what he know,
Very quickly will he fight,
He’ll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

Oh-h-h, oh-h-h!
Sometimes I think that people going mad!
Ah-h-h, ah-h-h!
Sometimes I think that people not so bad!

But no matter what I think
I must go on living life.
As leader of my kingdom I must go forth,
Be father to my children,
And husband to each wife—
Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.

If my Lord in Heaven, Buddha, show the way,
Ev’ry day I try to live another day.
If my Lord in Heaven, Buddha, show the way,
Ev’ry day I do my best for one more day,
But…
Is a puzzlement!

The King and I - Rogers and Hammerstein.


.

GMB had a guest on yesterday who claimed one in four US women had had an abortion. This seems a very high number, but if true it's clear that they are using abortion as an alternative to contraception.

No method of contraception, except abstinence, is 100%.
And that's certainly been my personal experience.

https://www.acog.org/womens-health/info ... ol-methods

Even at a rate of 9% ineffectiveness for the pill, it only takes 3 actively sexual years until 1 in 4 women using it get pregnant.

Condoms and other mechanical barriers like the cap are even less effective.

So, the data and a bit of stats would seem to show the opposite - that the vast majority of women (and men, depending on method) are using contraceptives.

Vasectomy is pretty effective too.

The Ancient Mariner

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:14 am

No method of contraception, except abstinence, is 100%.

Having said that, it didn't work for Mary now did it.....

G~Man wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:37 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:14 am

No method of contraception, except abstinence, is 100%.

Having said that, it didn't work for Mary now did it.....

You are going to burn in Hell.
You probably already knew that.
See you there.

PP