reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Typical hyperbolic misinformation terror tactic from the communist NYT. I haven’t heard of any state in the US suggesting “no exceptions” - just another lie.

So what you propose (along with the other global totalitarians) is that if a democratic government chooses to disallow abortion then democracy must be extinguished in favor of global authoritarianism - fascistic dictatorship.

It isn’t the Republicans (“GOP”) in the US proposing to turn the US into a one party communist China puppet. The Republicans (on the most part) insist on democratic open debating and voting - not dictating, canceling, silencing, and misinformation history propaganda.

It is the Democrat party (the socialists/communists/progressives) who are attempting to -

  • remove the filibuster (allowing themselves a simple majority dictatorship - void of having to debate)
  • add Washington DC as a state so as to grant more communist Senate seats
  • pack SCOTUS with enough justices to make it an activist dictatorship for the communist party
  • federalize voting throughout the nation to allow for one party control of voting (removing democracy)
  • remove national borders for pro-socialist freeloaders (bankrupting the nation)
  • remove civil rights for US citizens
  • remove any ability for US citizens to defend themselves.
  • promote criminal violence throughout the nation - especially against political opponents
  • terminally indebt the US to foreign communist servitude
  • completely defund and disable the US military
  • cripple US energy independence - servitude to Russia
  • minimize food production capability - servitude to China
  • politicize disease control - servitude to China
  • disable manufacturing - servitude to China

But ------ as long as they get to inspire mass slaughter of minority infants ------ it’s all worth it.

Why is it so important for you to whine about it one way or another?

I’m upset if anyone is upset.

Since you are a sociopath, you wouldn’t understand that.

You can’t detect threat. If anyone’s life is fucked up for any reason, mine is forever.

Obsrvr. Let’s be honest here. Do you think you’re doing any good in existence?

You’re like a dog. I have to take you on walks and have to pick up your poop for you for things you don’t understand.

But I asked “Why?”

That’s like BLM calling all white people racist. :laughing:

If you knew what “good” is - you wouldn’t have to ask that.

There is some truth to that. Figuratively speaking, you ARE a foetus. I agree with that. Your brain, for example, is equal to that of a foetus. But literally speaking, you are no longer a foetus. You’re a grown up man – a manbaby, perhaps – but you are certainly NOT a baby. The person you should be asking is not you in the present (the 40 years old self with a brain of a foetus) but you back when you were in your mother’s womb (the real foetus.) Foetuses do not consent to being aborted. You aborting them – or encouraging their abortion – is you violating their consent, even though they are completely innocent.

Does that mean people are allowed to kill you or otherwise do anything they want with your physical body?

People do it all the time.

It’s my moms choice. Not my choice.

Kill me? You’re not my mom.

So only your mom is allowed to kill you and noone else? Doesn’t matter what you have to say about it?

The person who loves you enough to never kill you through all space and time in the matter stream ; who brought you here…

You have no idea what will happen to you if you fuck with that spirit.

Most people are smart enough to know not to fuck with that. If my mother in higher dimensions still decided to keep me… meaning she could go back and abort me at will.

If someone else kills me.

They aborted me against my mothers will.

You do not want that kind of wrath.

[b]Just for the record…

obsrvr524 is what I call a “fulminating fanatic objectivist.” And, as often as not, a “pinhead”.

As I noted previously of his ilk…

In my view, he’s not really here to defend his own “arrogant and dogmatic” authoritarian dogmas. He’s here to spit on those who dare not to share them.

He exudes what I call the “psychology of objectivism” on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

Now that I spend more time over at the PN forum, I don’t read his posts. Yes, I used to toy with him over and again as a cat might toy with a mouse. But those days are over.

On the other hand, if he is willing to give it a go, we can explore “conflicting goods” more along the lines of Gib and I here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=197767

Huffing and puffing sure. But also an attempt to actually try to understand how the other thinks. Particularly with respect to the manner in which I construe value judgments as the embodiment of dasein[/b]

Note to others:

If perchance you do read his posts here and come upon a point he makes that you think might be of interest to me, by all means, pass it along.

Maureen Dowd in the NYT:

[b]'Samuel Alito’s antediluvian draft opinion is the Puritans’ greatest victory since they expelled Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

'Alito is a familiar type in American literature: the holier-than-thou preacher, so overzealous in his attempts to rein in female sexuality and slap on a scarlet letter that one suspects he must be hiding some dark yearnings of his own.

'That was certainly the case with Clarence Thomas, another of the justices wanting to turn America into Saudi Arabia. (Saudi Arabia at least allows abortions if the woman’s physical or mental health is at risk.) Thomas — married to the off-the-wall right-wing activist Ginni — got on the court with the help of Republican senators who smeared Anita Hill as a pervy liar when they knew all along that Thomas was the pervy liar. The senators claimed Thomas could not possibly have been talking about porn in the office, as Hill said, even though they knew from his D.C. video store visits that he was indeed a connoisseur of so-called “freak-of-nature” porn, especially the movies of Bad Mama Jama, a porn star so sadly obese she could barely move.

'Newt Gingrich pursued Bill Clinton like Javert, even as he was having an affair with a young political aide (whom he later married). And prissy Ken Starr hounded Monica Lewinsky, producing a seven-volume report that read like a panting bodice-ripper, full of lurid passages about breasts, stains and genitalia. The Pharisaic Holy Roller, who sang hymns while he jogged, became fixated on Bill Clinton’s sex life in a warped way.

'The 1999 version of Donald Trump, when he was still a fan of the Clintons and boasting that he was “pro-choice in every respect,” was appalled. “Starr’s a freak,” he told me back then. “I bet he’s got something in his closet.” It was no surprise last year when Judi Hershman, who worked with Starr on P.R. through that shameful period, wrote that she had an affair with Rev. Ken Dimmesdale.

'Like Reagan, Trump was a Democrat who turned conservative, latching onto the Christian evangelical electorate. As Carl Hulse reported in “Confirmation Bias,” Trump soothed conservatives uneasy with his lax morality by promising to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, chosen from a Federalist Society-approved list. The libertine who transgressed with women traded off their rights to nail down a base.

'Now pervy Matt Gaetz tweets: “How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are overeducated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no Bumble matches?” This is a man under investigation over whether he had sex with a 17-year-old and was a sex trafficker.

'And let’s not even start on Madison Cawthorn’s fantasies of drug-fueled orgies.

'This week’s stunning reversal on women’s rights is the apotheosis of the last 40 years, through Reagan, Schlafly, Meese, Rehnquist and Scalia, climaxing in Mitch McConnell, who made a Faustian bargain to support chuckleheaded Trump to get a conservative court. Because of McConnell’s machinations blocking Merrick Garland and ramming through Amy Coney Barrett, Trump was able to name three anti-abortion conservatives to the court, all of whom prevaricated under oath before the Senate about their intentions on Roe.

'When will the Democrats stop being betas? As an emotional Gavin Newsom said at Planned Parenthood’s L.A. headquarters, “Where the hell’s my party? Where’s the Democratic Party? Why aren’t we standing up more firmly, more resolutely?”

'The founding fathers would be less surprised that there’s a popular musical about Alexander Hamilton than they would be that, in an age of space travel, the internet, Netflix and in vitro fertilization, the majority of the court is relying on a literal interpretation of a document conceived in the agrarian 1780s.

'They would be devastated that the court is just another hack institution with partisan leaks. Alito helped open the door to dark money and helped gut the Voting Rights Act; but he wants to ban abortion largely because, he says, the Constitution doesn’t expressly allow it. That’s so fatuous. The Constitution doesn’t mention an awful lot of things that the court involves itself with. But while it expressly prohibits state-sanctioned religion, this court seems ready to let some rebel public school football coach convene a prayer session after games. These rogue justices are always ready to twist the Constitution to their purposes.

'They are strict constructionists all right, strictly interested in constructing a society that comports with their rigid, religiously driven worldview. It is outrageous that five unelected, unaccountable and relatively unknown political operatives masquerading as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives.

‘Chief Justice Roberts has been trying to protect the court’s reputation by working to split the difference on some of these explosive decisions. He may be doing that in this case. But he has lost control of a lost-its-marbles majority. To borrow an image from the great Mary McGrory, Roberts seems like a small man trying to walk a large dog. At this point, he can’t even see the end of the leash.’[/b]

Yes, my own political prejudices “here and now” are more or less aligned with hers. Though I do recognize them as basically subjective prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

On the other hand, while the points she raises have validity in my view, let’s not forget that there are those who oppose abortion simply because they believe that in the womb the unborn zygote, embryo, fetus is in fact a human being. And abortion is the killing of this human being.

I believe this myself. But I also believe that forcing women to give birth would negate any real possibility of political equality between men and women out in the real world.

So, I take my own existential leap of faith to the pro-choice side.

That’s what being “fractured and fragmented” is all about. You know, for all practical purposes.

K: another insane defense by Ob… but hay, don’t take my word for it…
for example, how is, to take one of the items on this list “minimize food production”
where is the proof for this one item…what does it even mean? so, Observe,
where is the proof for this one aspect of your list?
or how about “disable manufacturing” where is your evidence?
try to explain this without lying… or better yet, where is your link?
let us see this evidence for ourselves… of course, as is the conservative
lies, he will suddenly say some nonsense, like you are not smart enough to
understand my “evidence” thus showing us he has no evidence of any kind
for any of his hyperbolic and frankly insane beliefs…so, unlike
Ob or UR, when I write something I want and in fact, encourage
you, the reader, to research what I say…look it up…don’t take my word…
research it yourself…has UR or Observe ever, EVER ask you to
look up anything they have written? Nope… and they never will…
because they just make up shit or they just repeat the crap they
hear on Faux News…

so, dear reader, feel free to research what Ob has written here…
just take one aspect or one lie and research that… see if there
is any truth in it…I pointed out two possibilities, but hay, if they
don’t float your boat, research another aspect of Ob insanities…

Kropotkin

iambiguous: Michelle Goldberg in the NYT:

'Very soon, if the Supreme Court really discards Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision partly upholding it, we will have two wildly different abortion regimes in this country. About half of states are expected to mostly prohibit abortion; according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 11 states there won’t even be exemptions for rape and incest. A bill moving through the Louisiana Legislature would allow prosecutors to charge those having abortions with homicide.

Ob: Typical hyperbolic misinformation terror tactic from the communist NYT. I haven’t heard of any state in the US suggesting “no exceptions” - just another lie.

From the Atlantic:

“In the past few years, though, the anti-abortion movement has moved in a different direction. In 2019, Alabama legislators passed an abortion ban that lacked rape and incest exceptions. Nine other states—Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas—have passed similar laws. Courts blocked all the laws but Texas’s; if Roe is overturned, it will be a felony for any Texas doctor to perform an abortion for a woman who was raped or impregnated by a family member. In March, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed an early-abortion ban without rape or incest exemptions.”

K: And more evidence that OB simply lies… each of these are easily
researched… so do so, don’t take my word for it,
research this and see how casually Ob lies to ILP

Kropotkin

From PN:

But my question was once the Supremes overturn Roe, can a Republican Congress and Presidency down the road – a re-elected Trump? – pass legislation that does make all [or almost all] abortions illegal? The states be damned? The Supremes are then there to deflect any court challenges.

And please, as Maureen Dowd notes here – nytimes.com/2022/05/07/opin … anism.html – what is construed to be or not to be a “federal issue” or “Constitutional” is always far more about political prejudices than “the rule of law”.

In fact I excerpted most of her argument on this thread.

How on earth is the Congress and a re-elected Trump making all [or almost all] abortions illegal not a “federal matter”? Although, sure, I may not be understanding the “technical” issues here correctly.

And, of course, as with the fiercely Christian majority now accounting for the majority of the Court here and now [hypocrites or not], with abortion they are wholly in sync with your own Christian dogma.

Right?

But, okay, you tell me where, in regard to abortion, you yourself draw the line here between the Bible and the Constitution.

Right, keep telling yourself that. It’s all about the law. The fact that Trump and his MAGA minions in Congress put Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on the Court? What on earth does that have to do with politics?!!!

Then I invite you to do as you say - research it.

Of course that assumes that you know how to research anything. I am sure that you do not. Researching is NOT merely repeating the propaganda of political rags such as The Atlantic.

Spreading you disinformation obtained from propaganda media - is NOT “research”.

So go ahead - learn how to actually research - then research what you consistently lie about.

K: And once again, OB refuses to list his sources for his insane rant about
democrats… I wonder why? Ok, OB your turn, what sources did you use
to compile your list? easy enough question… complain about my research,
great, show us your research…what sources did you use?

Kropotkin

The GOP favors keeping Congress a debate arena for coming up with any new laws - the socialist party does not (and is currently trying to make Congress a one party dictatorship). If the GOP has the majority - there will be debate on all issues and universal abortion could not possibly get passed the Senate.

Your (and their) argument is that those OTHER blokes might do something BAD - so lets do something bad to prevent them from ever having the chance. You don’t see the irony and anti-democracy in that?

“Let’s pack SCOTUS with anti-constitutional liberals so they can’t pack the court with pro-constitutional conservatives - and then we’ll call it ‘Protecting Democracy’”.

I am not the one insisting on you doing your research - I know that you won’t. But if you are going to try to use political propaganda rags while insisting on others doing research - I will wait for you to catch up and do some yourself.

iambiguous: Michelle Goldberg in the NYT:

'Very soon, if the Supreme Court really discards Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision partly upholding it, we will have two wildly different abortion regimes in this country. About half of states are expected to mostly prohibit abortion; according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 11 states there won’t even be exemptions for rape and incest. A bill moving through the Louisiana Legislature would allow prosecutors to charge those having abortions with homicide.
[/quote]
OB: Typical hyperbolic misinformation terror tactic from the communist NYT. I haven’t heard of any state in the US suggesting “no exceptions” - just another lie.

K: From wiki which OB used recently to bolster his argument;

The most recent act relating to the abortion in Alabama is “The Alabama Human Life Protection Act” also known as the Human Life Protection Act. Formally, the act has the name of House Bill 314. The bill was drafted by the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition.[45] The bill responsible for banning abortions at every stage of pregnancy and criminalizing the procedure for doctors (except in the case of medical emergency) was introduced into the Lower House on April 2, 2019. The bill passed the Lower House on April 30th,[8] the Senate on May 14,[9] and was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey on May 16, 2019.[10]

Formerly, abortion cases involving incest or rape were allowed. With the introduction of the Human Life Protection Act, these cases were no longer an exception. Additionally, cases in which mothers faced a mental illness would be insufficient to provide an exception.[1] These restrictions identified the bill as one of the most aggressive anti-abortion laws in American history.[1] Although the bill was approved by Alabama legislators, Governor Kay Ivey recognized that its aggressiveness would most likely not be approved in the federal court due to the Roe v. Wade.[1] Despite this realization, Alabama legislators hoped the introduction of the bill could weaken pre-existing abortion protections.

K: thus Ob is wrong… flat out wrong…

here is Alabama attempting to put in an abortion law with no exceptions…

I can produce other states if OB wishes to lie some more…

Kropotkin

Obviously women don’t matter when it comes to the views of the religious right who prefer the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, of the woman.

If they cared they would be concentrating on the massive problem of rape rather than enforcing girls to carry the bastard children of their rapists to full term.

1 in 6 women have been raped in the USA, but the reporting rates is low, because the arrest rate is pitifully low and the conviction rate is pathetic.
Around half a million women are raped in the US annually, the real figure is unknown.

Removing a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy is a disgrace, in this climate.

OB: Typical hyperbolic misinformation terror tactic from the communist NYT. I haven’t heard of any state in the US suggesting “no exceptions” - just another lie.

K: From wiki which OB used recently to bolster his argument;

The most recent act relating to the abortion in Alabama is “The Alabama Human Life Protection Act” also known as the Human Life Protection Act. Formally, the act has the name of House Bill 314. The bill was drafted by the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition.[45] The bill responsible for banning abortions at every stage of pregnancy and criminalizing the procedure for doctors (except in the case of medical emergency) was introduced into the Lower House on April 2, 2019. The bill passed the Lower House on April 30th,[8] the Senate on May 14,[9] and was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey on May 16, 2019.[10]

Formerly, abortion cases involving incest or rape were allowed. With the introduction of the Human Life Protection Act, these cases were no longer an exception. Additionally, cases in which mothers faced a mental illness would be insufficient to provide an exception.[1] These restrictions identified the bill as one of the most aggressive anti-abortion laws in American history.[1] Although the bill was approved by Alabama legislators, Governor Kay Ivey recognized that its aggressiveness would most likely not be approved in the federal court due to the Roe v. Wade.[1] Despite this realization, Alabama legislators hoped the introduction of the bill could weaken pre-existing abortion protections.

K: thus Ob is wrong… flat out wrong…

here is Alabama attempting to put in an abortion law with no exceptions…

I can produce other states if OB wishes to lie some more…

another wiki report about exceptions in Abortion laws:

In 2022, the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a bill to make being convicted of performing an abortion a felony and be punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine, with the exception only in the case that the woman’s life is in danger. However, a criminal charge would not be brought upon a woman seeking or receiving an abortion.[28] On April 12, 2022, Governor Kevin Stitt signed the bill, saying “I promised Oklahomans that I would sign every pro-life bill that hits my desk, and that’s what we’re doing here today.” The bill has not gone into effect yet, but if the bill is not struck down by the effective date, then the bill will go into effect on August 25, 2022, 90 days after the legislature adjourns.[29][30]

no exceptions for rape or incest

Kropotkin

K: remember pro-life for an conservative is situational based…
for the conservative has no problem with capital punishment
nor with police killing blacks or minorities without any due process…
they are situational pro-life… when it is convenient for them

if IQ45 suddenly did an about face and decided for abortions
today… the right would be falling all over themselves reversing
anti-abortion laws…they are well dressed sheep…

Kropotkin