Roe vs Wade overturned [To have or not to have]

[Parodite]

As per the war on the non-existent self, if we have no self that "owns" our body and no free will available, where everything just happens... why should we even discuss this? To kill or not to kill.. it doesn't matter.

There seems to be a lot of spin-off possible in the culture wars coming. Philosophies wrestling with moral questions. Bi-polar either-or extremism on various fronts. We either own everything, or nothing at all.

If a fetus is "mine" because it grows in "my" body.. then why are you not "mine" because you exist in my visual field? With a good chance you merely are a figment of my own imagination anyways? Should it be OK I kill you when I know you less then 15 weeks but shall it be murder after knowing you for 5 years? Why that arbitrary difference? To kill is not to kill the past, nor the present. You kill a future.

Believing you own your body and what grows inside of it however... is the beginning of the archetypal psycho-capitalist. First you own your body, then you own the fetus inside of you, then you possess your kids.. partner, friends, house, car etc. Don't tell me women can't be possessive. The capitalist claim of property that starts with sentences like "I have..." or "My right...".

If anyone is expected to fight for abortion rights it would be right-wing capitalists. Left-wing woke elites would be wiser. You own nothing in this life, the self is an illusion, at best you are a person-individual but without free will.

The WEF might be onto something. A glorious future trade in stem-cells harvested from aborted babies. Nature is capitalist at heart, as the failed communists proved. They ended up as fascists who own everything. To have or not to have. What doesn't have, doesn't exist.

[Doc]

As per the war on the non-existent self, if we have no self that "owns" our body and no free will available, where everything just happens... why should we even discuss this? To kill or not to kill.. it doesn't matter.

There seems to be a lot of spin-off possible in the culture wars coming. Philosophies wrestling with moral questions. Bi-polar either-or extremism on various fronts. We either own everything, or nothing at all.

If a fetus is "mine" because it grows in "my" body.. then why are you not "mine" because you exist in my visual field? With a good chance you merely are a figment of my own imagination anyways? Should it be OK I kill you when I know you less then 15 weeks but shall it be murder after knowing you for 5 years? Why that arbitrary difference? To kill is not to kill the past, nor the present. You kill a future.

Believing you own your body and what grows inside of it however... is the beginning of the archetypal psycho-capitalist. First you own your body, then you own the fetus inside of you, then you possess your kids.. partner, friends, house, car etc. Don't tell me women can't be possessive. The capitalist claim of property that starts with sentences like "I have..." or "My right...".

If anyone is expected to fight for abortion rights it would be right-wing capitalists. Left-wing woke elites would be wiser. You own nothing in this life, the self is an illusion, at best you are a person-individual but without free will.

The WEF might be onto something. A glorious future trade in stem-cells harvested from aborted babies. Nature is capitalist at heart, as the failed communists proved. They ended up as fascists who own everything. To have or not to have. What doesn't have, doesn't exist.

I think the biggest number of people against abortion (54% of the US population ) are against late term abortions. Making lawful the abortion of babies (AKA THEY WOULD LIVE OUTSIDE THE MOTHERS BODY) legal. IF they can live outside the mothers body why isn't birth given and the babies put up for adoption? There are plenty of childless couples that have to go to great lengths to find children to adopt Roe vs wade sort circuited a political process and dictated there is a "right" to abortion. Where is is no such right specified in the constitution. This ruling means that "The People" will decide what is and what is not legal. Not highly divisive SCOTUS rulings. Even RGB thought Roe VS wade was a terrible court ruling taking away the responsibility of elected representatives. Lack of responsibility of elected officials is at the root of many of the problems this country is facing. But hey not taking responsibility is how members of congress get elected over and over again while getting filthy rich. It is how it is done.

Personally my biggest objection is its eugenic nature. If your child was 5 years old and you killed it that would be murder. If you were found to have tried to kill your child it would no longer be your child. But moments before it is born if you kill it you are afforded all the safe medical procedures of modern civilization. GO figure....

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

As per the war on the non-existent self, if we have no self that "owns" our body and no free will available, where everything just happens... why should we even discuss this? To kill or not to kill.. it doesn't matter.

There seems to be a lot of spin-off possible in the culture wars coming. Philosophies wrestling with moral questions. Bi-polar either-or extremism on various fronts. We either own everything, or nothing at all.

If a fetus is "mine" because it grows in "my" body.. then why are you not "mine" because you exist in my visual field? With a good chance you merely are a figment of my own imagination anyways? Should it be OK I kill you when I know you less then 15 weeks but shall it be murder after knowing you for 5 years? Why that arbitrary difference? To kill is not to kill the past, nor the present. You kill a future.

The black hole of identity. When all existence, probability, potentiality, personality and experience is compressed within a fixed point we call a self - morality, time and even a situational framework becomes irrelevant. What isn't the self, isn't. There is only continuity or dissolution......

When everything is the self, nothing is......'>.......

[Typhoon]

Opinions of the [US Supreme] Court - 2021 |
DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL.

No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022

Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act provides that “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall
not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”

Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191. Respondents—Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors—challenged the
Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortion violates this Court’s cases forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viability. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Before this Court, petitioners defend the Act on the grounds that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

[YMix]

The wokeness and the sense of self are off the scale!

[YMix]

#senseofself #blackholeofidentity #somethingsomethingcapitalism

[Nonc Hilaire]

People have dealt with abortion sensibly for millennia. No reason we can’t do that again.

The 1970’s argument was about abortion as contraception, and the social change brought about by the pill. Plan b has pretty much rended that conversation moot.

Today we have a ghoulish abortion industry that is involved in eugenics and selling baby body parts for cosmetics, research, medicine & food. Post-birth abortions are a thing now.

Nobody wants to deal with the new reality of abortion, so arguments from the last century are being replayed as political pep rallies.

[YMix]

People have dealt with abortion sensibly for millennia. No reason we can’t do that again.

This isn't even good trolling.

[Doc]

The wokeness and the sense of self are off the scale!

Hmmm What do you think about the women that made these statements ? Today women can go into any county health dept in the US and get the pill for free. They can get an abortion pill to take after they get pregnant. DO you imagine there are so many psychopathic women in the US that these stories are realistic today? That abortion is good because the aborted children would have turn out like their mothers?

Ymix given the large amount of BS being spread about this decision so let me say this to make sure you are aware of this. The SCOTUS decision does not make abortion illegal. Though it does put abortion more in line with how abortion is practiced in Europe.

Last time I checked the EU government did not declare that abortion is a human right and enforce it at a continental level. But instead individual EU states make their own laws. Just like is the case in the US now. This decision means the federal government has no say regarding women's bodies. THat it is up to the individual states. In Europe the norm is that abortions have to be done in the first dozen or so weeks after conception. IN the US politicians have claimed that abortions can happen after birth.

[YMix]

Hmmm What do you think about the women that made these statements?

Most likely, women making desperate decisions in bad circumstances. Poor women (either without any help or in danger of being abused by their own families) who throw away their newborn babies or resort to improvised abortion procedures is a pretty common occurrence in poor countries. Quite likely a common occurrence in the poorer and more religious parts of the US. Just goes unreported and everybody can pretend everything is fine.

Today women can go into any county health dept in the US and get the pill for free. They can get an abortion pill to take after they get pregnant.

So what? For various reasons, not everyone uses birth control, which is why abortion should be available.

DO you imagine there are so many psychopathic women in the US that these stories are realistic today?

Those women are not psychopaths.

That abortion is good because the aborted children would have turn out like their mothers?

Are you trying to be evil or stupid?

The SCOTUS decision does not make abortion illegal. Though it does put abortion more in line with how abortion is practiced in Europe.

"Europe"

Last time I checked the EU government did not declare that abortion is a human right and enforce it at a continental level.

It might be a good idea to do so.

This decision means the federal government has no say regarding women's bodies. That it is up to the individual states.

I fail to see why the federal government shouldn't impose a national policy on this issue.

[Typhoon]

People have dealt with abortion sensibly for millennia. No reason we can’t do that again.

The 1970’s argument was about abortion as contraception, and the social change brought about by the pill. Plan b has pretty much rended that conversation moot.

I suppose. One issue may be the price point.
Another is human folly and the lack of knowledge and/or personal responsibility.

Today we have a ghoulish abortion industry that is involved in eugenics and selling baby body parts for cosmetics, research, medicine & food.

I've read this claim several times now, some actual evidence, of the non-activist type, to back it up would be welcome.

Post-birth abortions are a thing now.

I'm no expert in US criminal law, but I think that would classified as murder.

Nobody wants to deal with the new reality of abortion, so arguments from the last century are being replayed as political pep rallies.

It certainly is a "hot button" issue in the US.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Evidence has been posted several times. Was there a problem?

Also: https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily- ... ld-proceed

https://www.professionalbeauty.com.au/a ... s-outrage/

[Doc]

Hmmm What do you think about the women that made these statements?

Most likely, women making desperate decisions in bad circumstances. Poor women (either without any help or in danger of being abused by their own families) who throw away their newborn babies or resort to improvised abortion procedures is a pretty common occurrence in poor countries. Quite likely a common occurrence in the poorer and more religious parts of the US. Just goes unreported and everybody can pretend everything is fine.

Today women can go into any county health dept in the US and get the pill for free. They can get an abortion pill to take after they get pregnant.

So what? For various reasons, not everyone uses birth control, which is why abortion should be available.

DO you imagine there are so many psychopathic women in the US that these stories are realistic today?

Those women are not psychopaths.

I disagree with that.

That abortion is good because the aborted children would have turn out like their mothers?

Are you trying to be evil or stupid?

Just telling you my impression of such arguments. I do not agree that these children would grow up to be psychopaths. No ones children are "nits that turn into lice" Though I do have an old acquaintance that insists that abortion is a proper expression of Darwinism.

If someone is about to give birth of a baby and decides they don't want it under Roe VS Wade that baby rather than be born a full grown baby can be killed. A large majority of Americans disagree with that. TO get a majority to agree with abortion you have to restrict it to the first trimester.

The SCOTUS decision does not make abortion illegal. Though it does put abortion more in line with how abortion is practiced in Europe.

"Europe"

Last time I checked the EU government did not declare that abortion is a human right and enforce it at a continental level.

It might be a good idea to do so.

No idea about that perhaps you can point me to some information on it. What I do know is that in countries in the EU is that abortions are done in the first dozen or so weeks of pregnancy. So if the EU government says it is the law that abortion is an absolute right as Roe VS wade did in the US then the EU government is not enforcing its own laws.

This decision means the federal government has no say regarding women's bodies. That it is up to the individual states.

I fail to see why the federal government shouldn't impose a national policy on this issue.

Because in the US government is limited to rights specifically spelled out in the constitution and bill of rights. All other rights are "reserved for the States or the people"

[Doc]

Hmmm What do you think about the women that made these statements?

Most likely, women making desperate decisions in bad circumstances. Poor women (either without any help or in danger of being abused by their own families) who throw away their newborn babies or resort to improvised abortion procedures is a pretty common occurrence in poor countries. Quite likely a common occurrence in the poorer and more religious parts of the US. Just goes unreported and everybody can pretend everything is fine.

Today women can go into any county health dept in the US and get the pill for free. They can get an abortion pill to take after they get pregnant.

So what? For various reasons, not everyone uses birth control, which is why abortion should be available.

DO you imagine there are so many psychopathic women in the US that these stories are realistic today?

Those women are not psychopaths.

I disagree with that.

That abortion is good because the aborted children would have turn out like their mothers?

Are you trying to be evil or stupid?

Just telling you my impression of such arguments. I do not agree that these children would grow up to be psychopaths. No ones children are "nits that turn into lice" Though I do have an old acquaintance that insists that abortion is a proper expression of Darwinism.

If someone is about to give birth of a baby and decides they don't want it under Roe VS Wade that baby rather than be born a full grown baby can be killed. A large majority of Americans disagree with that. TO get a majority to agree with abortion you have to restrict it to the first trimester.

The SCOTUS decision does not make abortion illegal. Though it does put abortion more in line with how abortion is practiced in Europe.

"Europe"

Last time I checked the EU government did not declare that abortion is a human right and enforce it at a continental level.

It might be a good idea to do so.

No idea about that perhaps you can point me to some information on it. What I do know is that in countries in the EU is that abortions are done in the first dozen or so weeks of pregnancy. So if the EU government says it is the law that abortion is an absolute right as Roe VS wade did in the US then the EU government is not enforcing its own laws.

This decision means the federal government has no say regarding women's bodies. That it is up to the individual states.

I fail to see why the federal government shouldn't impose a national policy on this issue.

Because in the US government is limited to rights specifically spelled out in the constitution and bill of rights. All other rights are "reserved for the States or the people" That is literally the way the US constitution was intentionally set up.

[Typhoon]

Evidence has been posted several times. Was there a problem?

Also: https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

This paper presents a medical ethics argument of "post-birth abortion" as opposed to current practice.
So it's not evidence.

Such actions would currently lead to charges of murder - infanticide, would they not?

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily- ... ld-proceed

Has this bill

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp60 ... HB2491+pdf

been passed into law?

If no, then it's not evidence.

Also I'm not going to read the entire bill, but it does not seem to state what is claimed, see lines 68 to 72.

As for the comments by that US governor, there is evidence of the usual selective editing by activists:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN27D2HL

https://www.professionalbeauty.com.au/a ... s-outrage/

A black market case. People will engage in illicit and illegal activities in all part of the economy.

I don't recall what has been posted before, but if the above is representative, then rather far from convincing.

[Doc]

Evidence has been posted several times. Was there a problem?

Also: https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

This paper presents a medical ethics argument of "post-birth abortion" as opposed to current practice.
So it's not evidence.

Such actions would currently lead to charges of murder - infanticide, would they not?

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily- ... ld-proceed

Has this bill

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp60 ... HB2491+pdf

been passed into law?

If no, then it's not evidence.

Also I'm not going to read the entire bill, but it does not seem to state what is claimed, see lines 68 to 72.

As for the comments by that US governor, there is evidence of the usual selective editing by activists:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN27D2HL

Fact Check sites are in no way legitimate sources of truthful information.

AND we have a video record of exactly what he said
https://youtu.be/E6WD_3H0wKU?t=2323

HE is talking about euthanasian of babies born disabled.

To which I would give the irrefutable retorts:
1) Steven Hawking had there been a test for MS before he was born would likely have been aborted at any stage of pregnancy
2)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBCfxhyEDB0
wBCfxhyEDB0
3)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaRO5-V1uK0
VaRO5-V1uK0
"My parents were told by the doctors that I would only live 48 hours. Now those doctors are all dead and I am the only doctor remaining"

And the bill was passed a year later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m-RpUy58B0
4m-RpUy58B0
It is rather Ironic, given his love of wearing black face and the practice of euthanizing new born babies in the old south who had white mothers and black fathers as dramatized in the movie "Mandingo" .

https://www.professionalbeauty.com.au/a ... s-outrage/

A black market case. People will engage in illicit and illegal activities in all part of the economy.

I don't recall what has been posted before, but if the above is representative, then rather far from convincing.

Though those that practice things like the highly illegal selling of body do not get charged and are still held up as paragons of virtue for operating their for profits businesses.

[Typhoon]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Any audio or video can, and too often is, edited these days by activists attempting to score points.

The US can tear itself to pieces over this issue.

Not my hill to die on.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Post-birth abortions are a thing now.

I'm no expert in US criminal law, but I think that would classified as murder.

Let's get down to the brass tack here:

The 90s and 00s saw a number of legislatures pass statues attempting to protect the children of botched abortions as well as bans on viable 8+ months practices-- called partial-birth abortion by one set of activists to the chagrin of the other set.

Over the last decade or so, there has been push back to re-open these avenues of killing the child-- though of course the very word 'killing' in any of these cases would be argued over on semantic and technical grounds.

So what to call allowing a child to expire without care, after entering this world, is part and parcel of the controversy itself and is argued over as 'murder or not murder' by one's sensibility.

And before we get a rebuttal that "allowing a child (of a botched abortion) to expire is clearly in violation of a number of laws, let's go back to that Virigina bill which didn't pass but whose author is representative of the position:

While the tweet would fall under your rubric for "activism", here it straight from the mouth of the bill's author:



A woman in the midst of dilating could procure an abortion.

Now the real thrust of the bill was to eliminate the need for three doctors signing off on a third-trimester abortion in favor of just one. It does not take all that much understanding to read between the lines of why there is a need to just have one professional sign off on a procedure.

It was to allow men like Kermit Gosnell to function unimpeded. Of course, most are not actual monsters or sloppy like Gosnell but the heart of the matter is that courts and the law will, time and time again, defer to the authority of a medical expert on medical matters (for good reason); especially when there is only one in the room.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Nonc posted on May 4th, in the prior thread of this topic another activist video of a planned parenthood meeting a video where a Doctor Schutt-Aine describes what she does to a child who she fears is about to "come to the umbilicus":

she calls for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix while cutting off their legs so as not to trigger the PBAs (partial-birth abortion laws).

It's almost like there are a host of technicalities and legalities of which everyone is aware of to avoid triggering criminal law, but we are gaslighted on as never taking place or never the intention of the provider(s) of the procedure.

(the doctor appears at about the 1:25 minute mark of the video)

[Zack Morris]

This was a bad ruling by an illegitimate court. It will one day be rectified (assuming the slide to authoritarianism is reversed).

Until then, consider that women are now the majority of college graduates in the USA and earn more than young men in prosperous cities. Where are these young women going to choose to live and generate wealth?

[Parodite]

Courts, laws, consitutions.. are not divine revelations. They are as legitimate or illegitimate as you believe them to be. Yes/no/only when a/b/c then abortion is allowed, but not after x/y/z weeks... is just opinion. Matter of taste, i.e. culture for the most part. Should it be your business if your neighbor kills his teenage daughter and decides to eat her for lunch? Or eat the meat of a killed enemy as in cannibalism? Don't eat holy cows in India but by all means let the lowest casts of people perish in the streets! Deem the unbelievers doomed for Hell or eternal death and have the army of Allah/JHWH kill them all? Punishing criminals in public squares by boiling them in molted tar was not too long ago simple entertainment for the masses. Lust for power and bloodlust are real and a culture regulates it as it sees fit. And then there is the always yummi taste of revenge.

[Doc]

This was a bad ruling by an illegitimate court. It will one day be rectified (assuming the slide to authoritarianism is reversed).

Until then, consider that women are now the majority of college graduates in the USA and earn more than young men in prosperous cities. Where are these young women going to choose to live and generate wealth?

There is nothing illegitimate about the supreme court Zack because they made a ruling you don't like. The slide to authoritarianism is your side. You have pretty much implicitly acknowledge this in a number of ways. Mostly you have made it plain you do not care about the rights of people you disagree with. You in this very post paint women with a huge wide one size fits all brush. Do you know how much a coal miner makes ? $96k per year. And that number is from several years ago. Some of them are women. So what would you do without electricity to run your city. Which I believe has a deficit of intern power generation?

And demographics.. What Happened? You were so sure that demographics were on your side. Yet Democrats are losing ever more influence in local and state elections. South Texas home to a large majority of Mexican Americans is voting Red these days. The Democrats have lost their lock on the Hispanic vote nation wide. 1% of under 18 to 29 year olds strongly approve of what Joe Biden is doing. Only 18% somewhat approve. 81% disapprove. Strong support for BIden among women is 12% 35% percent of them over all 64% of women disapprove of the job Biden is doing.

poll2022.jpg (110.54 KiB) Viewed 2010 times

Democrats are a dead party walking to their doom.

The members of the supreme court were duly nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Justice Kagan was nominated on the basis of Justice Scalia asking Obama to nominate her saying he knew Obama had to nominate someone from the left side of the political spectrum but he should nominate Kagan because she was the most qualified person to be nominated that he knew. SO is Kagan illegitimate because a conservative SCOTUS justice recommended her?
How does that make them "illegitimate"? Because you sez so? Really?

From the time Obama got into office Democrats have consistently lost power in local elections and at the state level. As Obama said "Elections have consequences."

So are all elections that don't go your way "Illegitimate" as well? Should those stupid "racists" in the fly over states have their right to vote taken away?

What was it that MLLK said? “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin .”?

No he said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

So was what he said "illegitimate" as well?

Most of the American left is full of something stinky. It turns out that most of the people that claim to be "progressives" are actually fascists with "Chinese characteristics". As even real progressives are running away from the Democrat Party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lCzwDXrGZ4

0lCzwDXrGZ4

Maybe it has something to do with the high rate of Mental illness among the American left of large cities?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/an ... tal-health

What Your Politics Say About Your Mental Health

[Parodite]

To me it seems the question is: when becomes your business my business? Should your business become my business?

When enough people agree on something, it probably solidifies into law at one point. Like don't steel, kill etc. This does not mean however that we care much if other people get robbed or killed, it's just that we don't want these things to happen to ourselves. This is what for the most part "shared values" means. As in traffic: we behave rather responsibly most of the time not because we are empathically concerned with others on the road, but because we want to avoid getting hurt ourselves. That is why the natural focus arises when you drive your car, as it should. Empathy, concern for others at the wrong moment might in fact put others and yourself at risk. Being selfish at the same time when we share the road is good for everybody.

Pro-choice and pro-life fanatics are very much alike IMO. They claim to be empathically concerned with the well being of millions of women and unborn babies that they in fact don't give a damn about, except in the abstract or as virtue signaling to peers in a cultural tribe that you still belong there as the right type of gang member.

One could argue it is part of modern life, with eyes and ears everywhere in the world and reality on instant display on millions of TVs and computer screens. We can truly empathise, enjoy good news, be horrfied by what happens to millions of other people in the world. However... we don't have immdiate, sensory close contact with 99,9999% of those fellow human beings, while we are biologically configured to care about others only on a tribal level. Other tribes are a source of indifference, of suspicion, of conflict, partners in trade at best or as temporary allies in wars against a common enemy.

Some see it as a virtue and even necessity to grow beyond our tribal and/or national biological reflexes (a nation state being an extended tribal territory of sorts), but I beg to differ. Post-tribal, trans-national ideologies, universalist religious or secular value systems look attractive on the surface but in practice cause massive misery and conflict. The same type of conflict that has always been there on the tribal level and is locally regulated gets now amplified, operating on much larger scales where "regulation" is less immediate and obvious. Goes hand in hand with technological development: sticks and stones kept the fights local, tribal. Airplanes, bombs and rockets made them global. Occasional local bloodlust now means carpet bombings and genocides.

Care for others and the selfishness that regulates traffic on roads remains what it always has been: a local reality. Only trade and wars went global.

My point being; those who claim to truly care about far away others are deluding themselves and each other. One can temporarily be in a mode of "serious sympathy" and even shed some empathic tears watching horror on TV, but our reservoirs of tears are probably also finite. When you spill it all in front of a screen for far away people, venting your frustration and agression on twitter whatever... probably all that makes you human has by then been wasted in la-la-land, leaving you depleted in the local here-now. Which does not boost the desire to produce babies nor help dealing with our local realities of which yes/no/when abortion is one.

[Nonc Hilaire]

On the post-birth abortion bills:

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/maryl ... ter-birth/

Abortion in this century is primarily about the expanding commerce in human body parts.

Early abortions and abortifacients are discouraged. They are safer for the woman, but do not provide the valuable bodies.

[Parodite]

On the post-birth abortion bills:

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/maryl ... ter-birth/

Abortion in this century is primarily about the expanding commerce in human body parts.

Early abortions and abortifacients are discouraged. They are safer for the woman, but do not provide the valuable bodies.

So there are folks pushing the limits and try make sure people can get away with the murder by starvation of infants up to 28 days after birth. Check.

Now the trade in body parts; I would welcome links with proof and/or reasons for serious concern.