tantric superman

It's not logic. It's lexical semantics. But the debate, at least in Roe, is whether the fetus is a "person" under the Constitution. Barring a statue with the term "human" being involved in the specific case, it's irrelevant. Much like the discussion of viability above, this activist court could find that because of science and medical developments, or whatever the fuck they come up with, that the fetus is a person. We can talk about definitions all day, but when Roe is overruled, this court is simply saying to the pregnant female: "The fetus is a person too. So fuck you, whore." Something that you can imagine Judge Brett, Judge Sam and Judge Clarence champing at the bit to say.

I'd like to think me and Judge Brett could to to Juarez, have some cabrito and a shit load of meskin beer, and talk calmly about penumbras. But not too much beer cause then he'll start singing ZZ Top and talking about putas.

A fetus isn't a kid. Even a goat fetus isn't a kid.

There are all humans. An human egg is human.

Not sure what you mean "other procedures on the same basis", unless those other procedures are other methods of terminating a pregnancy/the life of the fetus.

While I think it's important to understand the sex and race and Christian bias in the court, the language of the legal decisions is going to generally be neutral on those areas. I don't see the value in arguing that an anti-abortion position is necessarily religious based or sexist or racist gets you anywhere. In fact, it's just the opposite. It hurts one's own arguments to attack Christianity and white devils and men when the focused enemy is the elimination of women's reproductive liberty.

Pretty much has always been the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

It's all so depressing. We are in a period of social unrest and climate change and we are making it more difficult for people to make private decisions on how to negotiate the difficulties.

Sure, but I was answering the question as to how you eliminate reproduction from the penumbra of privacy rights without having to eliminate all the privacy rights. I would think the vast majority of anti-abortion folks have always felt that there is no fundamental right to an abortion. That was the argument in the 70s and it remains so today.

Just google scholarship, but I don't think that is correct. This puts the first "pro-life" movement as started by physicians. https://www.commentary.org/articles/peter-skerry/abortion-in-america-by-james-c-mohr-the-ambivalence-of-abortion-by-linda-bird-francke/ This system of legal but quiet abortions fell apart in the mid-nineteenth century. The first “right-to-life” movement was not led by grassroots activists, but rather physicians, anxious about their professional status. Before then, physicians had been a largely unregulated bunch, without the institutional or cultural authority to corner the market on healing. In the early nineteenth century, a variety of other healers competed with physicians for business, especially the business of women’s reproductive healthcare. While many physicians believed that scientific medicine would benefit their patients, some, in order to hurt lay healers’ business, sought governmental licensing and regulation to weed out the competition. Physicians used anti-abortion laws, pushed in state legislatures, to increase their own stature and undermine their opponents.[1] Of course, many would have narrated this story very differently. Some physicians claimed that this campaign was a product of superior medical knowledge. Many argued that women (and rag-tag group of healers who offered abortion) did not have adequate embryonic knowledge to determine when life began. But historians have noted that this medical insight was not a result of any advancements in embryonic knowledge. In fact, there were none during these campaigns.[2] Instead, the fetus was merely a stand-in for a broader cultural project. Here, the movement tapped into concerns over women’s increasing education, autonomy, and the extension of rights, as it reasserted women’s connection to and limitation by their own reproductive anatomy. Women’s bodies, not their words or actions, confessed to doctors the “naturalness” of uninterrupted reproduction and the “truth” about fetal life.[3] Bodily processes could “speak for themselves,” though they did need doctors to translate. This effort largely succeeded. By 1900 every state had a law forbidding abortion at any stage, whether through the use of drugs or procedures. Almost all the laws passed during this time included a therapeutic exception, where licensed physicians could provide abortions at their own discretion as long as the abortion preserved the life of the mother. While this loophole allowed many women to obtain abortions, it also made doctors the ultimate arbiters of the morality and legality of abortions. These laws also created a large black market for women who could not access or obtain abortions through medical channels. https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/#fn1

Religion might explain why certain groups are anti-abortion, but to me there is a powerful secular argument for the value of the fetus. I think a woman's constitutional right trumps that value, but Roe v. Wade isn't trying to weigh a religious value against a non-religious value. It was trying to weigh two different non-religious interests.

In Roe, the Court found two government interests that were sufficiently "compelling" to permit states to impose some limitations on pregnant women's right to choose to have an abortion: first, protecting the mother's health, and second, protecting the life of the fetus. The secular aspect doesn't affect it one way or the other. The state already has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus which led to the third trimester limitations in Roe. Doesn't seem too difficult for the court to simply say that this compelling interest is already recognized, and similar compelling interests don't exist when it comes to birth control, sodomy or interracial marriage.

Don't I solve that simply by stating that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn fetus. The state doesn't have a compelling interest in stopping sodomy, birth control, or the mongrelization of the races because there is no life (with a full set of chromosomes) affected by that decision. You can discuss how all societies criminalize murder and you don't have to make a stretch that protecting fetuses is a compelling interest. At least that's the way I'd approach it if I didn't give a fuck about women or their rights and I had a fucked up view of what the Constitution means.

I don't really know your posting history, but the Biden statement I posted was Biden essentially saying Trump is a distraction -- he didn't bite on the distraction. You then claimed Biden thought about him/spoke about him all the time, and your proof didn't support that. Now you are saying that other Dems blame him all the time, which wasn't remotely what this was about. If you are gong to move the goalposts instead of defending you position, at least be clever about it.

I'll admit, even though I try not to think about Trump, if someone asks me who the most moronic asshole who was ever elected by a majority or minority of US voters, I think of Trump.

I'm standing by our President and following the old man's advice.

Correct answer. Although it was Bill Paxton's flick, first time I remember Billy Bob.

I'm flabbergasted that people laugh.

Oh, Zrytec before a hot date. I used it rarely but it always works.

Get some good saline spray as someone said, just to rinse all the shit out at the end and beginning of the day. I got some Xlear Nasal Spray with Xylitol at sprouts and it worked pretty well. My brother has bad allergies and he's all about the nettie pot flushing shit out once a day. Because I'm not supposed to get near cortisone I picked up some NasalCrom spray. It works a bit differently than other sprays and worked really well for me. I just used it once a day in the morning and you have to start a few days before it takes effect. Worth checking out. .https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-14037/nasalcrom-nasal/details

So for work I'm issued a Lenovo L14. Since the pandemic, I'm working from home. All I do is plug in a monitor (HDMI) and open the laptop and there are my two screens. Gotta have the two different (extended) screens for the editing/drafting I do. Before the pandemic I had an old school docking station for a prior Lenovo model. The kind you click in. This L14 won't do that, so I am looking for a relatively cheap docking station for work. At work, I don't want to use the laptop. I want to use dual (extended, not duplicated) monitors and a separate mouse and keyboard. When I am at work I plug into the ethernet. I'm pretty sure it's a standard USB C interface. There is so much shit out there on the market -- anyone here use a good generic one that's cheap? My monitors are pretty old (VGA and DVI) so I am expecting I will need a converter or just a new monitor.

That was fun. Jimbo seems like a dick. A dick who talks like a stupid dick.

By the way, anyone with an idea how to improve my sage stuffing, let me know. I'm thinking adding either sausage or ground up tamales.

It's represented (and in fact boils down to) the cultural issue that exists, and is crazily overinflated, between those who were raised on gun culture (primarily hunting) and their over-expansive view of the 2nd Amendment and those who weren't raised on gun culture (primarily hunting) who have and under-expansive view of the 2nd Amendment. We figure out a way to engage in that debate intelligently, we can engage in all the other crap. It's the same kind of moronic "us v. them" shit that caused the Catholics and Protestants to hate each other. There needs to be some wing of the progressives/Dems that need to start championing shooting and eating venison as a tool to fight climate change. Fucking Beto should have figured that out long ago. Venison Can Save America

Forgot the sage. Had to get it early this morning. What a wonderful country we live in where you can go into the grocery store in the AM on there is everything you need, etc. We live in a rich gotdamn country. And that's better than living in a poor ass country. Need to be grateful today, and not take it for granted the rest of the year. (the tamale stuffing was better than my sage stuffing.)