This is one of the most stunning things that I've ever read.
Not the actual news that the Supreme Court is passing around a draft and discussing overturning Roe vs Wade but that somebody violated the ethics they swore to uphold in keeping these discussions and drafts private.
How else can the court possibly conduct business and do their jobs if the media is scrutinizing their personal/private discussions?
This is outrageous. It clearly must have been a pro abortion operative with 0 scruples that thinks the objectives of their personal, political belief system should trump rules of ethics and legal commitments that they made and in violating the trust and power given to them in their current position which has allowed them to be employed in that role.
They must feel confident that they can't be identified because if we can identify them, not only would they lose their position, they will go down in history as being known for this very dishonorable act.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/abortion-draft-supreme-court-opinion-key-passages-00029470
somebody? although we do not yet know which individual its more than safe to speculate on the politics of such an individual, which side of the aisle and what that person wants.....protests, crazies standing outside the Court, lies, slander the entire Kavanaugh hearing all over again and throw in some Chief Amy lies also. Its the lefts last stand and they have no standards to keep them in line.
And the sad thing is abortion was always a states rights issue anyway and where it should be settled.
mcfarm,,
I have to agree with you on this.
Admittedly, my personal position as a scientist of the definition of life and what a human being is plays a role in being outraged but also, as somebody that cherishes ethical standards and honorable behavior by adults.
blatantly violating rules and standards intentionally for a self serving, dishonest motive that saved lives, for me, would make it easier to understand the justification by such a person.
Many people paint pro-life advocates as religious zealots And some are.However, they sincerely believe that these are human beings ….not a piece of flesh growing inside of a woman that mysteriously transforms into the species of human being when it becomes a real person the instant it crosses thru the transforming threshold of the woman’s v@gina.
Forget the definition of life from the Bible. here in the year 2022, that’s absurd anti science, anti biology.
admittedly, I would be less outraged if the act was an attempt to save lives but the objective is the complete opposite. Their distorted anti authentic biology interpretation of life is compelling them to extremely violate ethicAl standards to do something to maintain the application of Laws that science and medical experts consider killing unborn human beings.
there is no ends justifies the means argument. They did a really bad thing by everyone’s standards justified by their belief in a really bad thing as viewed by authentic biology and humanity.
BTW,
I‘m not an extremist on this position and think that it’s reasonable to ban abortion at a significant level of development…..15 weeks, for instance.
i would prefer earlier but am just trying to be reasonable.
however, it’s seems criminal to make it legal for an abortion of a baby that is potentially able to survive outside of the mothers womb.
I became pretty much anti-abortion from a personal experience when I saw my nephew’s us at 3 months after conception. I was surprised at how developed he was that soon. Then I asked myself at what point after conception is too far timewise, who determines that point, and how does that point even get determined as it isn’t black and white.
Anti-abortion side is constantly told by other side that it should be the mother’s choice and nobody else’s because it is their body and is thus none of other people’s business. They claim that the anti-abortion side is waging a war on women. But isn’t there another (separate) living human inside the mother? Also, isn’t it the father’s business also since it takes two?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-declares-right-to-abortion-fundamental-after-leak-of-draft-supreme-court-opinion/ar-AAWSDPM?ocid=AARDHP&li=BBnb7Kz well we got the response we just knew we would from the crazies on the left........"abortion is healthcare"???????
mcfarm,
With it being clear that we are headed towards the D's getting clobbered this Fall, this will be the new battle cry to unite the party and Biden knows it.
And it could work! Tens of millions of people(from both parties) have a long history of having their political realities twisted by their leaders to ignore the authentic truths and focus on some new manufactured injustice that compels them all to become outraged enough to forget all the other facts and rally(riot in some cases) for the cause!
This is the perfect set up...........now let's watch them capitalize on it!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/83933/
Right on cue, dishonest D leader, AOC is doing her part to apply the brainwashing principle that I just explained on the previous page.
Get the D's fired up with total bs!
Her specialty in the past and I presented numerous examples
https://thehill.com/news/house/3474994-ocasio-cortez-supreme-court-isnt-just-coming-for-abortion/
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday warned progressives that the Supreme Court “isn’t just coming for abortion” after a leak of a Supreme Court draft ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
“As we’ve warned, SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion — they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on which includes gay marriage + civil rights,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
metmike: As somebody that has strongly supported civil rights since I was growing up in Detroit in the 1960's and the LBGT community for most of my adult life, I find her comments to be offensive because they intentionally are trying to alarm people with views similar to mine about something that is NOT a major threat and is much different than this.
The chance of the Supreme Court reversing landmark civil rights decisions is almost 0. Anybody that really thinks that is either totally ill informed and/or extremely tunnel visioned and or intentionally posturing with that view for political agenda.
People like AOC in Congress is exactly what messes up our country the most.
1. Very dishonest and conniving
2. Doesn't just use fake news but totally manufactures it. Is the author of creative, convincing fake news, sensationalized DISinformation.
3. Rarely uses authentic facts
4. Is off the charts divisive and extreme
5. Her fake stuff at the Southern Border and about the world ending in 12 years because of the Climate Crisis are classic AOC theater.
It's a massive breach of trust, most likely perpetrated by a clerk.
Clerking on the SCOTUS is a golden key to a successful law carreer. Thousands of the best of the best compete and only a few, 36, roughly four per justice make the cut.
They will find the leak and that clerk can kiss his/her legal career goodbye. Of course, they'll be a darling of the liberal circuit. Talk shows, maybe some book deals. But that will fade in time, and the individual will be left with memories of their moment of fame.
What a waste of years of serous effort. All to leak a document that would be public knowledge is a short while.
One of the craziest elements to this is that the Supreme Court is likely NOT going to make abortion illegal for everybody.
They basically are just saying that Roe vs Wade is a mistake and now we should just leave it up to the states to decide what their abortion laws should be.
This obviously is a huge problem for poor women living in Mississippi for instance that can't afford to travel to a blue state to get her abortion.
However, the way that I actually look at it is not its discriminating against poor people..........it's actually allowing rich, white women to continue to kill unborn babies.
If you want fairness, then don't let the rich white women kill unborn babies.
Are we defining morality and what's right based on wealth?
If it's biologically/morally wrong to have an abortion..........why is it discrimminating against poor woman by not letting them do something wrong?
My Dad spent 2+ decades, almost every Saturday with a prayer group in Detroit that he organized in front of an abortion clinic on Schaefer Ave. I joined him many dozens of times. We got it shut down.
Almost every single woman going there was black and appeared to be poor.
We totally looked at it as the exact opposite of them having the right to a cheap, paid by the government abortion.
To us, we were trying to save the lives of poor, black unborn babies and we had several stories that suggested some WERE saved.
Now that some of them are probably in their 30's, I'll bet that if we asked them if they think their mom should have gotten the abortion or not what the answer would be in the majority of cases.
Yes, some probably grew up in messed up homes being raised in poor, single parent families, who didn't have a rich white persons advantages.
You want to give a child the most important advantage of all?
Let them at least have a chance to have a life!
The issue with Roe v Wade from a constitutional standpoint (which is supposed to be the only standpoint the SCOTUS has), is that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion. As the document clearly states, if it's not specifically listed, it's outside of the responsibilty of the fed. Read the 10tn amendment. It's pretty clear. Roe V Wade was clearly judicial activism, legislating from the bench. Probably one of the best examples in the history of the court. There is no way it could stand with even a slight majority of conservative justices.
To give the fed jurisdiction, you'll need an amendment. I don't think that we'll ever see 2/3 of both the house and the senate and 3/4 of the states ratify it.
So, it returns to the states where it belongs.
From a moral perspective, I'm torn.
On one hand, I believe life begins at conception and I also believe murder is wrong. I can't possibly support abortion based on that.
On the other hand, I think some choices belong to a doctor and patient. Abortion may be one of those things.
But with some caveats. If the pregancy is a threat to the mothers health. Certainly in a case of rape. I'd probably come up with others if I cared to spend the time.
I can accept a time limit I suppose, But what limit? 15 weeks? 30? Probably somewhere in between, assuming there aren't mitigating factors like the above mentioned.
Obviously, it's a difficult subject and one in which I find myself mixed. So, before I cnotinue rambling, I'll leave it at that.
I used to believe in a woman's right to an abortion full stop.
I've moderated to a view closer to viability outside the womb.
The pro life argument in defense of the unborn is sincere and who else will advocate for that unborn. But I think the argument that those opposed to abortion are in fact taking control of a woman's body is ALSO true. Both things are true.
Overturning Roe v Wade could result in a man raping a woman, impregnating her, and forcing her to have his child. She has no legal recourse.
I think the states recently passing laws outlawing abortion after 6 weeks (heart beat) is ridiculous. The weeks of pregnancy are measured from a woman's last menstrual cycle. So at 6 weeks many women might not even know they are pregnant, particularly if their cycles are irregular or they don't keep close tabs on their periods. Under such a law a woman would not even have the chance to make the decision until it is too late.
MM, you stated "The chance of the Supreme Court reversing landmark civil rights decisions is almost 0." I think that is a misguided opinion on 2 counts. The origin of that opinion is a legal interpretation of Alito's writing that was leaked. It wasn't just that he was challenging Roe v Wade. Also, if Roe was settled law for 50 years as Kavanaugh testified in his confirmation hearings that would make him a LIAR. Gay marriage, a more recent ruling surely is more vulnerable.
But my biggest beef of all this is what my mother, (RIP) used to say. Republicans care about life from conception all the way until they are born. Then they don't care anymore. Tax cuts for the wealthy? YES! Money for childcare? NOOOOOOO!!!!
joj,
I'm extremely happy that you chimed in, being the only liberal side.
I hear you loud and clear on your biggest beef and that's why I pick and choose what I think is the best agenda for both parties and reject the bad agenda.
I was just telling my wife last night something else, exactly what you stated. That at the very least, if an unborn baby has the chance to live outside the womb, you can't justify killing them
This is an issue with some of the most extremes and very few that are happy in the middle.
More people are convinced that life begins at conception added to those that think its a woman's right to choose because its part of her body, adding up to a larger number than those that can agree in the middle somewhere.
So most in both groups will never get 100% of what they truly want when the laws come down to something in the middle.
I recognize what my upbringing has caused my bias to be but see fairness in a middle ground, not because it's the policy that saves the most babies lives but its the policy/law that has the best chance for adherence/acceptance..........and that, in fact may save the most babies lives.
Another analogy.
When speed limits are set, you get the most adherence by setting a reasonable speed limit. The objective, of course is to save lives. We could actually do that by just lowering the speed limits everywhere by 10 mph below where they are, right?
No, then you would have drivers that think/know this is unreasonable and they completely disregard that and other speed limits.
You will always have some that think that way but you want to have the law be reasonable enough to have maximum adherence. This not only saves lives but it also has other benefits to drivers and law enforcement.
Same too if you make the abortion laws TOO strict. More people will ignore them. More people will break laws to get an illegal abortion at facilities that are bound to be riskier.
At 15 weeks, for instance a woman has known she was pregnant for ....we assume 2 months or so and plenty of time to decide what to do in order to follow the law and be safe.
At 8 weeks, there really is not enough time.
Great points Tim, thanks much!
Tim,
I think 15 weeks is already much too long. Have you seen on ultrasound at how well developed the fetus is at just 12 weeks?
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-12.aspx
I forgot to add this great post below, earlier. The main reason to not have 2 threads on the exact same topic going at the same time is that it cuts our exchange opportunities in half, not the other way around.
If we have 3 people having a conversation on one Roe vs Wade thread and 4 on another at the same time, it means several people might not be reading and conversing with the other ones.
It also threatens to separate threads based on opinions. If we have 1 thread on the subject thats leaning right and the other leaning the other way, posters will gravitate to the one that lines up with their belief system and not read thoughts from the other side.
This is exactly what I am trying to avoid here and its challenging, knowing the strong political leanings of most at MarketForum.
This particular thread makes me extremely proud of everybody for their top notch clear and very respectful communication, even while there is some disagreement on specifics and certainly we had input from all sides.
Thanks for that!
Mark Levine appears to agree with me
Started by TimNew - May 3, 2022, 11:35 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/83965/
If this post above was the one that kicked off this topic and had several comments on already...........that's the one we should go with.
There are no rules on this of course but we do it to maximize reading and exchanges related to everyones thoughts.
Just what were those catch words used so many years ago by the left? Safe, rare, and legal? Well boys how did turn out.....infanticide anyone. Millions upon millions of defenseless left dead in the wake? Seems the left always tries the back door with most issues. They care little about the supreme court or out 3 separate but equal branches of government. And just think, if Roe is over turned what will happen? Goes right back to the states where it belongs. Not to mention years ago it was semi settled {things never are really settled, just waiting to be changed} it was decided by a few white men. Atleast now it has women and a black judge as deciding members. So what's next? Gee can we expect another "summer of love" by the left? Do not be surprised folks, anything, yes ANYTHING to take the focus off of that disaster Biden/Harris.
Well then mcfarm,
You know exactly what your objective should be now.
Keep the focus on Biden/Harris and their performance and give the voters somebody that can do better.........that is honest, without extreme negative baggage and preferably not divisive but that's probably me just thinking wishfully (-:
https://www.msn.com/?cobrand=acer13.msn.com&ocid=AARDHP&pc=MAARJS more evidence from the left and what they will stoop to. Just look at those young faces with their indoctrinated little minds all protesting that one f their own should of never been born
There wasn't a story at that link for me mcfarm, Maybe you could try to send a different link.
On an entertainment level. I mentioned that Dad organized a prayer group for over 2 decades in front of an abortion clinic in Detroit. I can't remember ever seeing a white woman go in there but there probably were a few that I forgot.
So my sister got him a big, 3 foot poster, blown up from her daughters baby pictures to show a cute baby for the pregnant women going in there to see.
Her husband has red hair and is Scottish, she's white so the baby had really white skin and big blue eyes.
Beautiful baby but most of the women going in probably thought "that ain't my baby!!"
Then my daughter married a wonderful black man with dark black skin and they had a terrific photog take pictures and part of her package included putting angel wings on their daughter, born in 2006. WOW!
She could be a model today because shes drop dead gorgeous but she obviously had lots of features that made her look like what those woman could easily imagine their baby looked like.
So I had a 4 foot laminated poster made of her as a gift for my dad to use for the last decade that he was out there in front of the abortion clinic with his prayer group. I joined him numerous times a year when I was in.
The democrats reaction to this the last day, has reminded me of why, starting in the mid 80's but especially in the late 80's onward, after observing my wife's pregnancies......of why I distanced myself from the party that everybody in our family supported for numerous decades.
Becoming much stronger and stronger prolife, to the point of it being the biggest issue for me made me change parties and most of our family 2.
Both my parents switched and 4 of the kids, partly to mainly because of being strongly pro life. 2 siblings are still D's and 1 emphatically so.
He's been getting the NYT daily since he was in law school at the Univ of MI in the mid 80's! He was valedictorian of his class!! So I guess the smartest of us stayed with the democrats (-:
Actually, there's book smarts that help you to get good grades at school and other smarts that come from applying oneself in the actual world..... critical thinking and skill at discernment of authenticity.........which is a profound challenge in todays world of convincing DISinformation telling us what we want to hear/read, so that we don't have to use our brains to figure it out ourselves......like in the old days.
Whoops, sorry to get carried away.
Assuming this is how it turns out, and I suspect it is, it will change some voters minds going into November.
I don't expect it will have a significant impact on the out come.
Committed pro-choice are already a lock for dems.
Committed pro-life are already a lock for pubs.
I suspect you’re right Tim.
This might cause some dems to forget Biden and rally behind the party ideals which is the objective right now.
in this particular case, those ideals contrast with mine, combined with this being used for that purpose…..to further the agenda and not being condemned is a double turn off For me.
And I can see why this is so extremely divisive.
I'm clearly biased but always…..ALWAYS! try to see the other sides point of view and try to use that to learn something.
I just sincerely tried that and thought of a viable baby being aborted, then going back before that into the 2nd trimester(weeks 12-26) to try to imagine when this is acceptable and it made me cringe /crawl in my skin and was so repugnant that the real challenge….for me anyway….is to not hate people that would justify extinguishing the lives of the most vulnerable human beings by calling him or her part of the mothers body that she has a right to kill.
I'd forgotten how passionate my feelings became on this issue as I evolved, using biology, and compassion for my discernment tools…independent of religion.
This is actually profound if you understand the mindset of people with a strong pro life view.
People that are committed to stopping abortions often see the abortionists and pro choice advocates as the mortal enemy/evil, killing the unborn. The most natural emotion they feel is hatred.
Analogy: We see the atrocities that Putin is committing in Ukaine, killing thousands of innocent people, including children and taking away everything they had. We see the real people on our tv's and computers and our hearts cry out to them. There has got to be, at least hundreds of millions of people in the world that really HATE Putin because of this.
Now, apply that same mindset to a very passionate pro lifer who sees the most vulnerable human beings of all getting killed by the millions. They are not just statistics to a pro lifer. Like I said, every time I imagine a baby being aborted in my mind, even before 15 weeks, for instance.......I see the same thing that you see, watching an innocent child from the Ukraine getting killed because of Putin.
Yeah, it can be a big challenge to NOT hate the outspoken advocates for abortions(especially politicians) and those actually doing the killing.
I think everyone is entitled to a well informed opinion.
The vast majority of opinions I am seeing on assorted social media from those who oppose this ruling are screaming from the roof tops that the SCOTUS has OUTLAWED abortion!!!
Umm, that's really not at all what happened.
And next, using the same logic, they'll OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE!!!
But once again, that will not happen.
The argument for both is rooted in the 10th. That which is not specifically listed in the constitution as a fed responsibility is relegated to the states or the individual.
Abortion and marriage are not listed. They are relgated to the states.
I'll close with this. Most of our biggest problems are a direct result of the government going well beyind the limitations set forth in the constitution.
Further, if we had a true federal system, as the founders envisioned, each state would have a great deal more power. Each could act as an experiment in local government and the rest of the states could learn from the good or the bad results of those experiements. People would have more freedom to choose under what type of local government they wanted to live.
We are seeing a limited example of this from California. California is pretty close to the government the left wants for the rest of us. But 2-300K are leaving Ca per year. They lost a congressional seat in the last census. These folks are looking for a government that allows them to live more as they want. The cesspools that cities like San Fran and LA have become are not to their liking.
Too bad many of them vote for the same government in the states to which they flee.
One last question...
I keep hearing people on the left saying that if you aren't a woman, you don't have a say.
Setting aside the fact that there are/were sitting female justices involved in the courts recent decision to follow the paremeters of the constitution... Which is kinda their job description.....
If I identify as a woman, does that allow me a say in this? Or, is this a case where biology actually matters?
That's an interesting point Tim.
By some counts, 170,000 are transgender(.5% of 339 million).
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender-population-by-state
Genetic men who are now women, can never become pregnant.
Genetic women, who are now men are extraordinarily unlikely to become pregnant.
(As mentioned previously, I support the transgender community)
So according to this belief.........transgender people on both sides are NOT included in this right because their bodies are unable to sustain a baby.
Is this discrimination of transgender people (-:
On a MUCH more serious note,
The only way this rational can be justified is if you define the human, unborn baby as a piece of flesh belonging to the woman.
This would be like...(I know how you love my analogies) in a town with strict laws about dogs crapping in places other than the owners property, having all the dog owners get together and try to pass an ordinance that defines the dog crap as fertilizer that's being gifted to any vegetation where their dogs poop, so they don't have to clean it up(-:
We can manufacture whatever definition we want for political agenda but the authentic principles of biology and testimony of objective obstetricians/science tell us that there's a living human being growing in there.
Leftist ideoplogy has a long history of defining oppostion, (In this case, an unborn child) as subhuman to justify whatever acts they deem necasary.