I generally prefer not to have to think about abortion at all. It's one of those things that I sort of catergorise as unpleasant but probably plays a role. Unfortumately, when New Jersey legislated for abortion at 9 months I realised that this is yet another of the issues that can't be ignored as the cultural marxists just can't help pushing and pushing and pushing. As such, I'm glad that the American Supreme court did some pushing back.
There is something odd about how the left have adopted abortion as a core value. The elevation of a culture of death. Very strange.
I have to take exception with your sentence that said women who want an abortion can get one. True for wealthy women. Not at all true for women who live at or below the poverty line, have a job that they cannot take time off from, have never traveled out of state, etc.
The idea that the federal government should not be the arbiter of when an abortion should or should not occur is also flawed. Do you really think 50 states can do a better job of making that determination. And if you do, then it follows that states should be able to make their own gun regulations as opposed to the most recent SC decision.
A woman who wants an abortion early in pregnancy can do so. A 5 second search reveals: Abortion pills, also called medication abortion, can be used to end a pregnancy up to 10 weeks from the first day of your last period. The most effective process involves taking two different FDA-approved medications: mifepristone and misoprostol. How much do abortion pills cost? Abortion pills can cost anywhere from $40 to $600.
After ten weeks it gets a bit harder. I am sure that Planned Parenthood will continue to operate in every state and be able to provide advice. You can invent situations in which it would be impossible, but you have to work hard.
Big difference on guns. 2nd amendment to the Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about abortion, privacy or medicine.
They are not going to be able to legally get a medical abortion under the SC current interpretation. States are not allowed to deliver prescription drugs across state lines. I stand by my statement. In states where abortion is banned, the poor will be the only ones that suffer.
And you miss my interpretation on guns. Either you make an argument on a state's ability to restrict all rights or no rights. The SC is picking and choosing whether the right must be regulated by the federal government or the state. In the case of the right to bodily autonomy (i.e. abortion) they have said the states should make the decision. In the case of guns (ala the most recent decision concerning NY), they have said the state cannot make their own decision. Very inconsistent.
I didn't say "legally" get an abortion. I said get one. For sixty years I and everybody I know has known how to get marijuana.
The FLCCC said they could get ivermectin to anybody who wanted it, state laws notwithstanding. Living overseas, I never tried, but I believe them. Why would abortion drugs be different?
Once a position has hardened, it will be continued by creating suitable supporting situations. Counter factuals don't matter.
Abortion is a matter of the rights of three people. I trust once it becomes less useful as a political wedge issue nationally, the peoples will sort out the best way to protect those rights.
"Worried that these limitations to the powers of the federal government were not clearly enough stated in the original Constitution, the First Congress adopted the Tenth Amendment, which clearly states that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. "
That's the point. The Constitution mentions the right to bear arms. It does not mention anything medical. Inconsistent by design.
Thanks for the article Graham...On one hand I personally think abortion is a grotesque procedure....even within the first trimester...on the other hand, the numbers of spiteful mutants born if they aren't aborted will have tremendous impacts on Western Civilization (most women getting abortions are leftists and black women). I would consider it a "necessary evil".
A professor Stephen K Sanderson has written a very un-PC book "Race and Evolution: The Causes and Consequences of Race Differences". Might be worth your time to read and do a YouTube video on it (might not show any groundbreaking research but summarises "race realism" quite well from a US perspective)!
You make my point for me. States will be as ineffective controlling abortifacients as they were/are at controlling illegal drugs or (my favorites) hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Abortion will be available.
I generally prefer not to have to think about abortion at all. It's one of those things that I sort of catergorise as unpleasant but probably plays a role. Unfortumately, when New Jersey legislated for abortion at 9 months I realised that this is yet another of the issues that can't be ignored as the cultural marxists just can't help pushing and pushing and pushing. As such, I'm glad that the American Supreme court did some pushing back.
There is something odd about how the left have adopted abortion as a core value. The elevation of a culture of death. Very strange.
"... this would seem to put me on the side of the conservatives .... [but after other points] ... So am I a liberal?"
My thought after reading you set of positions stated here is that might be considered a libertarian. What do you think about that?
A pragmatist. Government screws up whatever it touches.
I have to take exception with your sentence that said women who want an abortion can get one. True for wealthy women. Not at all true for women who live at or below the poverty line, have a job that they cannot take time off from, have never traveled out of state, etc.
The idea that the federal government should not be the arbiter of when an abortion should or should not occur is also flawed. Do you really think 50 states can do a better job of making that determination. And if you do, then it follows that states should be able to make their own gun regulations as opposed to the most recent SC decision.
A woman who wants an abortion early in pregnancy can do so. A 5 second search reveals: Abortion pills, also called medication abortion, can be used to end a pregnancy up to 10 weeks from the first day of your last period. The most effective process involves taking two different FDA-approved medications: mifepristone and misoprostol. How much do abortion pills cost? Abortion pills can cost anywhere from $40 to $600.
After ten weeks it gets a bit harder. I am sure that Planned Parenthood will continue to operate in every state and be able to provide advice. You can invent situations in which it would be impossible, but you have to work hard.
Big difference on guns. 2nd amendment to the Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about abortion, privacy or medicine.
They are not going to be able to legally get a medical abortion under the SC current interpretation. States are not allowed to deliver prescription drugs across state lines. I stand by my statement. In states where abortion is banned, the poor will be the only ones that suffer.
And you miss my interpretation on guns. Either you make an argument on a state's ability to restrict all rights or no rights. The SC is picking and choosing whether the right must be regulated by the federal government or the state. In the case of the right to bodily autonomy (i.e. abortion) they have said the states should make the decision. In the case of guns (ala the most recent decision concerning NY), they have said the state cannot make their own decision. Very inconsistent.
I didn't say "legally" get an abortion. I said get one. For sixty years I and everybody I know has known how to get marijuana.
The FLCCC said they could get ivermectin to anybody who wanted it, state laws notwithstanding. Living overseas, I never tried, but I believe them. Why would abortion drugs be different?
Once a position has hardened, it will be continued by creating suitable supporting situations. Counter factuals don't matter.
Abortion is a matter of the rights of three people. I trust once it becomes less useful as a political wedge issue nationally, the peoples will sort out the best way to protect those rights.
"Worried that these limitations to the powers of the federal government were not clearly enough stated in the original Constitution, the First Congress adopted the Tenth Amendment, which clearly states that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. "
That's the point. The Constitution mentions the right to bear arms. It does not mention anything medical. Inconsistent by design.
Thanks for the article Graham...On one hand I personally think abortion is a grotesque procedure....even within the first trimester...on the other hand, the numbers of spiteful mutants born if they aren't aborted will have tremendous impacts on Western Civilization (most women getting abortions are leftists and black women). I would consider it a "necessary evil".
A professor Stephen K Sanderson has written a very un-PC book "Race and Evolution: The Causes and Consequences of Race Differences". Might be worth your time to read and do a YouTube video on it (might not show any groundbreaking research but summarises "race realism" quite well from a US perspective)!
54% of abortions are now medical abortions, hardly a grotesque procedure.
You make my point for me. States will be as ineffective controlling abortifacients as they were/are at controlling illegal drugs or (my favorites) hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Abortion will be available.