SCOTUS Decision on Roe Leaked

[tuttle]

Not everyone, not even most believe all abortions (or even any abortions) are “murder”. That’s what you believe. So yeah, I understand how you come to your position, but you’re sharing a secular Democratic society with others with arguments against you.

First, I don't buy into the idea that a moral reality should be dependent on what the majority feels about it. Murder, regardless of what the majority thinks, is an objective evil before a Holy Judge. If ceasing that slaughter is pleasing to Him then it is righteous regardless of how they feel.

That said, if we really want to base this off of majorities, the secular Democratic society that embraces abortion finds itself to be on the fringes of the very society it lives off of like a parasite, that is, Western Civilization, and is squarely in the tiny minority on this subject.

Which brings up the question again, at what point in the past should we sever our roots? If it's ludicrous to appeal to justices in Cromwell's age, then how can we appeal to justices in Nixon's age?

[tuttle]

A majority of Americans have consistently wanted Roe to stand, myself included. Despite it’s imperfections, but it attempted to balance the rights of women and the interests society has in life and procreation. Ideally, both sides of this are important. A majority of Americans have wanted certain regulations and bans on certain abortions, myself included. Along with that, most Americans, myself included understand the suffering some women go through and know damn well that a bunch of politicians cannot be the primary decision maker from start to finish. Conservative libertarians should understand that pretty well. The only real question is when do legal rights begin for the pre born and what do they look like and what rights do women have.

Biff, show your graphic images. It’s low hanging fruit. I do not live in an idealized world and neither do you. Virtually no one believes abortion is glorious, neither do most people find joy in thinking that the meat on their dinner table was killed and gutted for their consumption. Some discomfort is a part of life. But I agree with you, late term, partial birth abortions shouldn’t be a regular part of this world, and fortunately it is the least common method to end a pregnancy.

I’ve seen my share of gore and guts. I’ve walked in on a gruesome murder scene once even. Cromwell know death too. Hanes had a low opinion of women and didn’t believe that rape could happen in a marriage. He also had a very high bar for rape in any case. Oh, and don’t forget the witch trials! More sense than liberals today? Naw, not even close. These men were straight up A holes that belong in the past.

I maintain that a woman has a right make one of the most important decisions

You are standing on an imaginary line. You know that right? Your stance that "a woman has a right to make one of the most important decisions" is legit code for "a woman has a right to end the life of her child". That's not a neutral stance. Even if you don't like it or are uncomfortable with it, or would never do such a thing. You may not be waving a flag, but you're still playing for Team Slay-the-Childer.

[Del]

A majority of Americans have consistently wanted Roe to stand, myself included. Despite it’s imperfections, but it attempted to balance the rights of women and the interests society has in life and procreation. Ideally, both sides of this are important. A majority of Americans have wanted certain regulations and bans on certain abortions, myself included. Along with that, most Americans, myself included understand the suffering some women go through and know damn well that a bunch of politicians cannot be the primary decision maker from start to finish. Conservative libertarians should understand that pretty well. The only real question is when do legal rights begin for the pre born and what do they look like and what rights do women have.

The key problem posed by Roe (and most especially, Doe and Casey) is those combined decisions did not permit states to put reasonable restrictions on abortion. Things like fully informed consent (letting the mother see an ultrasound), limits on late-term abortions, and requiring the abortion surgeon to have a relationship with a hospital in case of complications -- were considered "undue burdens."

When people hear "overturn Roe," they are disinformed to believe "ban all abortions."

The overwhelming majority of Americans will be glad to have their own states set reasonable regulations on abortion. The practice will be banned in states where voters want it banned.... just as some counties ban the sale of alcohol or the establishment of strip clubs. Regional values should rule the region.

Other states will permit and even subsidize abortions.... just as some regions allow cannabis, drugs, prostitution, and assisted suicide. Regional values should rule the region.

Overturning Roe won't change a thing in California or Maryland -- places that are seeing the most violence and protests. There is a reason for this unreasonableness. (Clue - they have mostly Democrat voters and activists.)

[Thunktank]

Not everyone, not even most believe all abortions (or even any abortions) are “murder”. That’s what you believe. So yeah, I understand how you come to your position, but you’re sharing a secular Democratic society with others with arguments against you.

First, I don't buy into the idea that a moral reality should be dependent on what the majority feels about it. Murder, regardless of what the majority thinks, is an objective evil before a Holy Judge. If ceasing that slaughter is pleasing to Him then it is righteous regardless of how they feel.

That said, if we really want to base this off of majorities, the secular Democratic society that embraces abortion finds itself to be on the fringes of the very society it lives off of like a parasite, that is, Western Civilization, and is squarely in the tiny minority on this subject.

Which brings up the question again, at what point in the past should we sever our roots? If it's ludicrous to appeal to justices in Cromwell's age, then how can we appeal to justices in Nixon's age?

The majority doesn’t necessarily determine what rights are, sure enough. The only reason I brought that up was to point out how out of step the Supreme Court is being, again. Cultural norms do however have something to do with “morality” indirectly, whereas ethics actually help determine them. I couldn’t care less about your “Holy Judge.” Not sure exactly what that is. Pretty sure it hasn’t sat in a courtroom let alone passed a judgment in this country though.

And I see you asked me a specific question. You asked: “at what point should we sever our roots?” In simple terms, we dispense with “roots” that violate our evolved sense and knowledge of justice. Humans have learned things over time, we forget things too. Some things are good let go. We have developed a broader understanding of justice for more people. The sense of justice Hanes and Cromwell had are wanting. They were often cruel and petty toward entire groups of people. There’s a reason why our courts have moved away from Hanes for a while now, that is until Alito dusts him off. I’m curious to learn more about how and why he did it.

[Thunktank]

A majority of Americans have consistently wanted Roe to stand, myself included. Despite it’s imperfections, but it attempted to balance the rights of women and the interests society has in life and procreation. Ideally, both sides of this are important. A majority of Americans have wanted certain regulations and bans on certain abortions, myself included. Along with that, most Americans, myself included understand the suffering some women go through and know damn well that a bunch of politicians cannot be the primary decision maker from start to finish. Conservative libertarians should understand that pretty well. The only real question is when do legal rights begin for the pre born and what do they look like and what rights do women have.

Biff, show your graphic images. It’s low hanging fruit. I do not live in an idealized world and neither do you. Virtually no one believes abortion is glorious, neither do most people find joy in thinking that the meat on their dinner table was killed and gutted for their consumption. Some discomfort is a part of life. But I agree with you, late term, partial birth abortions shouldn’t be a regular part of this world, and fortunately it is the least common method to end a pregnancy.

I’ve seen my share of gore and guts. I’ve walked in on a gruesome murder scene once even. Cromwell know death too. Hanes had a low opinion of women and didn’t believe that rape could happen in a marriage. He also had a very high bar for rape in any case. Oh, and don’t forget the witch trials! More sense than liberals today? Naw, not even close. These men were straight up A holes that belong in the past.

I maintain that a woman has a right make one of the most important decisions

You are standing on an imaginary line. You know that right?

Perhaps your standing in complete misunderstanding of my position. But I’m wondering if perhaps your Holy Judge is imaginary.

Your stance that "a woman has a right to make one of the most important decisions" is legit code for "a woman has a right to end the life of her child". That's not a neutral stance. Even if you don't like it or are uncomfortable with it, or would never do such a thing. You may not be waving a flag, but you're still playing for Team Slay-the-Childer.

I do not subscribe to the belief that a woman who has an abortion is murdering her child. That’s what YOU believe a woman who has an abortion does. Though I’m not sure you REALLY do, because I don’t recall you ever suggesting a woman who has an abortion should be tried for murder then receive the death penalty or life in prison as you have supported the death penalty for murder in the past I believe, not sure if you still do. It turns out that few “pro-lifers” do, support such criminal proceedings because I think they know deep down that a fertilized egg at conception just isn’t the same as a three year old child, or even a breathing baby. It may be of great value, and hold great hope, but it really isn’t the same thing. But hey, we can talk about Holy Judges we don’t see that informs you that women are murdering babies all the time.

Tuttle, in this thread you have picked at “clown land” while calling several OC Republicans bad conservatives and afraid of losing gay wedding invites. You have suggested that if we still took more advice from Sir Hale there might be fewer witches hexing, and you claim that I support “murder.”

I like witches just fine. They never hexed me! Most of them have this weird invisible duality God and Goddess or something. Twice as much fun as monotheists in my mind anyway.

[Hugo Drax]

https://youtu.be/Unx3dpZja00

[tuttle]

I couldn’t care less about your “Holy Judge.” Not sure exactly what that is.

“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

Pretty sure it hasn’t sat in a courtroom let alone passed a judgment in this country though.

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

And I see you asked me a specific question. You asked: “at what point should we sever our roots?” In simple terms, we dispense with “roots” that violate our evolved sense and knowledge of justice. Humans have learned things over time, we forget things too. Some things are good let go. We have developed a broader understanding of justice for more people. The sense of justice Hanes and Cromwell had are wanting. They were often cruel and petty toward entire groups of people. There’s a reason why our courts have moved away from Hanes for a while now, that is until Alito dusts him off. I’m curious to learn more about how and why he did it.

Who or what then becomes the arbiter of our 'evolved sense and knowledge of justice'? If our sense and knowledge of justice keeps evolving, how do we determine what is right and wrong? What is considered right for the majority's evolved sense today could theoretically be a horrible evil the following year. Who or what gets to determine which things are good to let go?

[tuttle]

Your stance that "a woman has a right to make one of the most important decisions" is legit code for "a woman has a right to end the life of her child". That's not a neutral stance. Even if you don't like it or are uncomfortable with it, or would never do such a thing. You may not be waving a flag, but you're still playing for Team Slay-the-Childer.

I do not subscribe to the belief that a woman who has an abortion is murdering her child. That’s what YOU believe a woman who has an abortion does. Though I’m not sure you REALLY do, because I don’t recall you ever suggesting a woman who has an abortion should be tried for murder then receive the death penalty or life in prison as you have supported the death penalty for murder in the past I believe, not sure if you still do. It turns out that few “pro-lifers” do, support such criminal proceedings because I think they know deep down that a fertilized egg at conception just isn’t the same as a three year old child, or even a breathing baby. It may be of great value, and hold great hope, but it really isn’t the same thing. But hey, we can talk about Holy Judges we don’t see that informs you that women are murdering babies all the time.

I didn't say your stance was that a woman who has an abortion is murdering her child. I specifically said it is 'a woman has a right to end the life of her child." Is that not your stance?

As for me, I think all murderers should be punished by the civil powers, including mothers who kill their children. In the past I have argued that the pro-life movement has been undermined by an argument that extends the movement beyond abortion. There are pro-lifers who say you can't be pro-life unless you are against the death penalty and a host of other issues. I contend this type of argument is being made to assuage your gay republican friends.

Tuttle, in this thread you have picked at “clown land” while calling several OC Republicans bad conservatives and afraid of losing gay wedding invites. You have suggested that if we still took more advice from Sir Hale there might be fewer witches hexing, and you claim that I support “murder.”

[Del]

Keep this in mind: Overturning Roe is a compromise decision, restrained and limited.

- 1973Roe claims that the 14th Amendment casts shadows that empower every mother to abort her child.
- Pro-lifers wanted the Court to overturn Roe AND decide that a pre-born child is a natural person, whose life would be fully protected under the law by the 14th Amendment.

This draft decision overturns Roe, but it restores states to legislate their own practices.

If this Court were truly extreme, dominated by activist Conservative justices, then it could have rendered every pro-abortion law unconstitutional -- just as Roe and Doe and Casey rendered every pro-life protection unconstitutional.

There’s a reason why our courts have moved away from Hanes for a while now, that is until Alito dusts him off.

Here's the reason why modern Courts have disregarded stare decisis, and it is not a good one:

In the last half-century, modernist government has moved away from many democratic practices.
Congress handed most of their duty over to the Executive.
Controversial laws that should have been legislated were imposed by the Court.

And then stare decisis was fully aborted by Roe v. Wade. (Of course, the pro-abortion lobby immediately turned around demanded that Roe must be honored as sacred precedent.)

[I don't want to get political, because conservatives, liberals, and leftists have all abused the modernist license to impose whatever we want right now and disregard the past.]

I’m curious to learn more about how and why he did it.

To restore stare decisis to its proper place in American judiciary, of course!

Alito establishes that nowhere in legislated law or judicial precedent (going way back to English Common Law) was there are a "right to abortion" in the minds and hearts of Americans when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1864.

In Alito's 90-some page draft, he devoted 30 pages to listing the laws against abortion that were current in every state in 1864. And for states that were admitted after 1864, he listed every law against abortion that was current in that state when it was admitted.

And then he listed all of the Court precedents that applied to abortion, going deep into history and English Common Law.

This is the legal analysis that should have been done in 1973. We are doing it now.

By 1973, some states had passed legislation to permit and regulate abortion. This is the proper way for a society to change its culture, for good or for ill. The draft decision seeks restore the decision process to its proper place, in state legislatures and popular referendum elections.

When Roe v Wade and subsequent cases squinted and stretched to invent a "Constitution Right" to abortion -- utterly disregarding proper stare decisis -- it created a complex crisis (social, political, and judicial) which has been with us for 49 years. It is time to fix this, at least in the judiciary.

And it is time to banish the arrogant modernist foolishness that disregards centuries of human wisdom "because it's old."

In this Court, if you want to win a legal case then you have to make a compelling legal argument based on precedent. Emotional arguments won't fly anymore, like "but we want it so badly!"

This court is saying, "Go to your legislatures, and make your laws there."

[Thunktank]

You know, maybe you fellows need to learn to listen for a change. Well except for the imaginary voice in your heads that is. I never said, we shouldn’t ever listen to voices of the past. I said, paraphrased, that we may disregard some of those voices when what they said is complete garbage.

I don’t believe in a Holy Judge who would support the hanging of witches just because they’re witches or merely accused of being one, the destruction of Catholics or even those who would falsely accuse OC Republicans for being gay when they aren’t. So go ahead and call to criminally charge women for “murdering their babies” after they get dumped by their horny boyfriends or worse, raped. Go ahead there fellows, pretend you’re better than I. I don’t celebrate abortion. I hope for a world with happy and hopeful people. A world were abortions are rare and the desire for abortion is rarer. A society that cares deeply for everyone and tries to make sure we all have enough to live a good life, even witches and gays.

You fellows seem to defend hateful men and want to further their bigotry in the name of God. The same sort of evil we see coming from Russia today. A war in which an evil zealot bishop and his wannabe emperor wage a bloody war against what they say is a decedent and liberal west. Just nasty little men they are. Like I said, I don’t know your Holy Judge or Putin’s/Kirill’s. You all prop up the past, especially the wrong parts.