US judge: Mississippi 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional

[txradioguy]

Artfully worded, but no, a law which prohibits abortion does not force anyone to do anything.  By definition a prohibition against abortion *prevents* someone from doing something - procuring an abortion - on the basis that abortion violates the right to life of the unborn child.  No one denies the right of a woman to "control her own body"; that she is pregnant is merely a consequence of the way she chose to exercise that right.

Of course one can respond that federal law denies the right to life of the unborn child, and in fact prohibits the states from recognizing that right, until "viability."  Fair enough, I think that is a reasonable statement of fact, if not of virtue.

I agree with you @Oceander on the FGM case; while we all acknowledge the practice is odious and should be prohibited, I think it is legitimately a federalism call reserved to the states, not the federal government, just as the prosecution for murder and the regulation of medicine are reserved to the states.

But the courts consistently bring themselves into disrepute and contempt when they override principles of federalism to manufacture rights about the control of a woman's own body in order to further a progressive agenda of sexualism, while refusing to protect the same rights for minor girls by invoking the very principle they've routinely discounted in multiple other instances.  If a woman has the *Federal Constitutional* right to control her own body, then the federal government *does* have a compelling interest in protecting this same right for minor girls.  As is, the federal courts have now asserted for years that there is a compelling federal interest in protecting a woman's right to her own body, such that the states may not interfere, and they have now denied that there is such a compelling federal interest and in fact that it should be left to the states to decide.

No recitation of the theoretical grounding of abortion law in Constitutional principle can overcome this fundamental contradiction.  The decades-long practice of sophistry by the federal courts has done great, perhaps irreparable, harm to the general respect for law in this country.

@HoustonSam one thing the pro abortion folks always leave out when they're talking about forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term is that no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place.

[Dexter]

The Constitution is not so malleable as all that.  And the test of one’s commitment to the rule of law is best measured by how one responds to things one does not like, rather than to how one responds to things one likes. 

I find it intensely grotesque that some would countenance making an adult human being a slave to a small collection of cells that cannot survive but for its parasitic relationship to that adult.

I also find it intensely grotesque that some think it’s ok to kill a near-term normally developed fetus just because it hasn’t technically been born yet.  Aborting a fetus after, say, six months of normal development, is not good. 

And for me, the litmus text, the point at which the balance of the equities switches, is the point at which, with reasonable surgical intervention, the fetus could be born prematurely but still survive without the attachment to the womb - ie, when the state can actually do something constructive and step in to take over the role of raising the fetus to normal childhood.   Perhaps that should be mandated as a quid pro quo for the right to proscribe abortions:  namely, if you’re going to outlaw it, then you’d damn well be ready to step in and take over.

If you believe in souls the practice is grotesque pretty much every time. I used to be completely pro-abortion because as a good leftist that was my responsibility. These days I don't know how I feel. I think it's silly the way we try to draw lines in the sand to determine on which day it becomes evil.

[bigheadfred]

The Constitution is not so malleable as all that.  And the test of one’s commitment to the rule of law is best measured by how one responds to things one does not like, rather than to how one responds to things one likes. 

I find it intensely grotesque that some would countenance making an adult human being a slave to a small collection of cells that cannot survive but for its parasitic relationship to that adult.

I also find it intensely grotesque that some think it’s ok to kill a near-term normally developed fetus just because it hasn’t technically been born yet.  Aborting a fetus after, say, six months of normal development, is not good. 

And for me, the litmus text, the point at which the balance of the equities switches, is the point at which, with reasonable surgical intervention, the fetus could be born prematurely but still survive without the attachment to the womb - ie, when the state can actually do something constructive and step in to take over the role of raising the fetus to normal childhood.   Perhaps that should be mandated as a quid pro quo for the right to proscribe abortions:  namely, if you’re going to outlaw it, then you’d damn well be ready to step in and take over.

My dad told me to never stick my dick into something I couldn't/wouldn't be responsible for. Put that into any context you want to.

[bigheadfred]

If you believe in souls the practice is grotesque pretty much every time. I used to be completely pro-abortion because as a good leftist that was my responsibility. These days I don't know how I feel. I think it's silly the way we try to draw lines in the sand to determine on which day it stops being evil.

There are methods, methodology, or Methamphetamine. What is silly is people who think they can draw lines in the sand that have more meaning, or are more meaningful than the ones already drawn.
I would encourage you to study Eastern thought. Tao. Hinduism. others...  More importantly, Buddhism. What the Buddha...
 said...

Can't grasp that turn to the shamistics of the Native Americans. Eastern thought is very little different. Look at the New Age Experiencers.  LSD, Shrooms. DMT. Look at it All. Then look at yourself.


http://youtu.be/SPIK9wUXogo

If I ever met you I would look you in the eye and tell you that Jesus Christ solved the "problem" of irreducibility.



Something the physics world lauded themselves on when they found the "God particle"  I would say FTW. But it is too busy. Effing it/you/us itself. Now they found the ghost particle. ha ha ha

What are they going to call the next one?

Not that it matters, in a material existence. 5 G




Peace out.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@HoustonSam one thing the pro abortion folks always leave out when they're talking about forcing a woman to carry a baby to full term is that no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place.

@Oceander is basically arguing as to federal laws it is illegal to stop someone from murder of an unborn child against the child's will (because he/she has no will nor a right to live) but unconscionable to keep others from mutilation of another against their will.  All saying it hiding behind an in-congruent states right/federal law interpretation.

What has heightened the problems like this in this country is that citizens have allowed way too many lawyers into stations of power.  It results in us doing what the law says rather than what is morally and ethically right.  The Founders certainly knew the difference with the words of the Declaration of Independence that subjected the patriots to God, a document which should be the moral guide in interpreting the Constitution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nonsense.  Why are you dodging something that is so blatantly obvious.  If a woman says “I wish to have an abortion” and the government says “no, you may not,” then the government has clearly forced her to do something, it has stopped her from doing something she wants to do.

The only way that makes any sense if you believe there is no inherent right for a child in the womb.  That is abhorrent.

If you think that cutesy rhetoric about whether stopping a woman from having an abortion is not forcing her to do something solves the issue, then I regret my otherwise high estimation of your intellect.

You should be ashamed for that type of rhetoric to @HoustonSam .  Go back and read his posts as far back as you wish.  He is always forthright, honorable and respects all opinions, even if he disagrees, without malice.

[Dexter]

There are methods, methodology, or Methamphetamine. What is silly is people who think they can draw lines in the sand that have more meaning, or are more meaningful than the ones already drawn.
I would encourage you to study Eastern thought. Tao. Hinduism. others...  More importantly, Buddhism. What the Buddha...
 said...

Can't grasp that turn to the shamistics of the Native Americans. Eastern thought is very little different. Look at the New Age Experiencers.  LSD, Shrooms. DMT. Look at it All. Then look at yourself.


http://youtu.be/SPIK9wUXogo

If I ever met you I would look you in the eye and tell you that Jesus Christ solved the "problem" of irreducibility.



Something the physics world lauded themselves on when they found the "God particle"  I would say FTW. But it is too busy. Effing it/you/us itself. Now they found the ghost particle. ha ha ha

What are they going to call the next one?

Not that it matters, in a material existence. 5 G




Peace out.

I am trying to live my life as Buddha did. I'm more spiritual today than I ever have been. I think that's a big part of why my stance on this issue has changed.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

this graphic will make you choke

[bigheadfred]

I am trying to live my life as Buddha did. I'm more spiritual today than I ever have been. I think that's a big part of why my stance on this issue has changed.

The Buddha said enlightenment only comes with acceptance. This single individual  can find this truth, and tried to convey that.

What he "discovered". What he determined. Was the Alpha and the Omega. Within and without his or himself.

This is the most simple of concepts. Yet so undeniably hard for a "man" to understand".


A simple example. I am 57. I wondered when I will be the man my father was. But the answer is simple. Be the man he was. Be the man his father was. Be the man the man his father was. BE.

And if that don't work go sit in a prison cell for five years. Or get married. Have kids. Have g kids.

Maybe do it ALL.

Then come talk to me. Promise I will show the top of the mountain. Climbing your way back to the top after I push you off rolling is on you. See if you can stop before you hit the bottom.
Maybe I'll be up there waiting for you. Maybe. You'll only find the thing you were looking for.

[bigheadfred]

I am trying to live my life as Buddha did. I'm more spiritual today than I ever have been. I think that's a big part of why my stance on this issue has changed.

The Buddha said enlightenment only comes with acceptance. This single individual  can find this truth, and tried to convey that.

What he "discovered". What he determined. Was the Alpha and the Omega. Within and without his or himself.

This is the most simple of concepts. Yet so undeniably hard for a "man" to understand".


A simple example. I am 57. I wondered when I will be the man my father was. But the answer is simple. Be the man he was. Be the man his father was. Be the man the man his father was. BE.

And if that don't work go sit in a prison cell for five years. Or get married. Have kids. Have g kids.

Maybe do it ALL.

Then come talk to me. Promise I will show the top of the mountain. Climbing your way back to the top after I push you off rolling is on you. See if you can stop before you hit the bottom.
Maybe I'll be up there waiting for you. Maybe. You'll only find the thing you were looking for.

[Dexter]

Be the man he was.

You will never be the man your father was because you are not your father. Figure out who you are and be that man instead. You deserve your own identity.

[bigheadfred]

Synchronicity.


Posted twice with no errors.

[bigheadfred]

You will never be the man your father was because you are not your father. Figure out who you are and be that man instead. You deserve your own identity.

See? You mis understand.

There is no thing called civilization. Unless there was something that made that happen , or called it into existence, or made it happen.

You will never be "dexter" until you realize you are "dexter". I am not my father, or his. That isn't the point. The point is that there is a light to show the way.

What ever the lie is. They have have been telling ii for thousands of generations. Not years. Generations. I know who I am . They know who I am. It is your turn. In the end, serve one.

[HoustonSam]

I don’t see the need to play cutesy games of rhetoric.  Whether it is forcing someone to do something they do not want to do, or preventing someone from doing something they want to do, the principle is the same: the government has interfered with that individual’s liberty and properry interests, and it is that interference that is in question.

@Oceander you introduced the position in 88 above, directed toward @IsailedawayfromFR, that the government is Constitutionally forbidden from requiring people to do something.  I pointed out that this is a subjective standard, so then you equivocated with me in 94 above on whether a prohibition against abortion prevents a woman from doing something or requires her to do something.  I am quite happy to let readers decide for themselves which of us is engaging in cutesy games of rhetoric.

Perhaps I would be fairer to your position in 88 if I re-stated it as : the government is Constitutionally forbidden from *requiring* people to take a positive action.  I'm sure you will agree that laws do *prevent* people from taking specific positive actions.  Personally I find this position compelling and I would gladly join you in it.  Leaving aside that it would prevent the government from compelling the bakers to bake the cake, I also must point out that procuring an abortion *is* a positive action, hence *could* be regulated according to this standard, while not procuring an abortion is *not* a positive action, hence the government would compel nothing in forbidding abortion.  Frankly I think you're on losing ground with the position you took in 88, not only regarding this issue, but regarding other issues we've debated as well.

Having said that, I'll readily agree with you that the key question is how much government can interfere in people's liberty, and on what grounds can government do so.

[HoustonSam]

You should be ashamed for that type of rhetoric to @HoustonSam .  Go back and read his posts as far back as you wish.  He is always forthright, honorable and respects all opinions, even if he disagrees, without malice.

Thank you @IsailedawayfromFR for your kind assessment of my occasional comments on TBR.  I aspire more or less to the standard with which you credit me, with a key exception -  while I try to respect all people and to refrain from malice in all cases, I do *not* respect all opinions.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thank you @IsailedawayfromFR for your kind assessment of my occasional comments on TBR.  I aspire more or less to the standard with which you credit me, with a key exception -  while I try to respect all people and to refrain from malice in all cases, I do *not* respect all opinions.

I misspoke.  I wished to say you respect the author of an opinion, even if you disagree. @HoustonSam

Wish I could more readily follow your lead there, but it is a tough act to follow.

[bigheadfred]

Jumping in here. @Oceander . @HoustonSam  @IsailedawayfromFR
\\
Points well taken. And the cordiality even more. @Dexter