Supreme Court and abortion

[Grace]

That actually isn't true. Abortion rates have fallen among all groups within the US and have actually fallen fastest within the black community. Although they are still higher than among the white community. Mostly this is thought to be related to poverty. I won't bother you with charts and graphs to make the point. You can look them up yourself.

As I said, abortion rates are still the highest in the black community according to population percentages. Black women accounted for 38 % of reported abortions, population estimates show that black Americans make up just 14 percent of the population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7436774/

[Ken]

That actually isn't true. Abortion rates have fallen among all groups within the US and have actually fallen fastest within the black community. Although they are still higher than among the white community. Mostly this is thought to be related to poverty. I won't bother you with charts and graphs to make the point. You can look them up yourself.

As I said, abortion rates are still the highest in the black community. Margaret Sanger's goal to exterminate Negros is being realized to an extent.

Not really considering that the Black population in the US is growing over twice as fast as the White population (but not as fast as the Hispanic or Asian populations).

I’m no defender of Margaret Sanger. She sounds like a horrible racist. I’m just trying to set the record straight with respect to the actual statistics. Abortions are actually falling in the US within every racial and ethnic group and falling fastest within the Black population. They just started from a higher point.

[temporal1]

Abortion rates have declined, except within the black community and presently black women have highest abortion rates.
That means that "black lives really don't matter" for the pro choice crowd.

Add to that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had a vision for black people and that vision is being realized.
At one point she said, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”.

I don’t have a source, but i recall reading, PP was about to “die a natural death” until gov stepped in to prop it up (promote it). i find this credible.

As far as abortion stats go, DIY pills play havoc, i can’t imagine how accurate numbers can be recorded. Numbers of pills prescribed+purchased, certainly are recorded. $$$. But, impossible to track if they were ingested - by whom, if pregnancy was confirmed, at all.

Claims abortion numbers declining are - not convincing. Sex traffickers, sexual predators, LOVE these products+services.
Teens+children are at risk. These pills have been put in food+drink of unknowing women! These questions have been addressed on MN in the past.

If abortions are so significantly declining (highly questionable) why the fuss about RvW?
While the Illinois economy has been gutted, brand-new abortion facilities have been built near state lines - near dense populations. The governor is proud of expanded for profit abortion facilities, gambling, and recreational drugs. WHATAGUY.

Bottom line. It’s about MONEY. the public treasury AND gov legal protections to access those funds.
if no potential big profits, no one would “CARE” about women and their pesky children. that is, no politician, no lobbyists, no media.

Grace,
another example of how black lives do not matter to lib organized blocs is how efficiently black on black violent crime is ignored.
between that+for profit abortion, wow. elephants in the room.

credit must be given for remarkably effective propaganda campaigns.

if what i read is correct, it was early gov meddling in a disgusting, racist organization with M Sanger leading, that opened the door to today’s widespread misery. government has the ability to sustain that which otherwise is unsustainable. desireable in some regards. in this instance, disastrous.

[temporal1]

Over at the Times, Michelle Goldberg thinks abortion ought to be a fundamental human right because she had two wanted pregnancies and they really wreaked havoc on her body and imagine if she were poor and had been unable to receive the requisite cosmetic surgeries that were absolutely necessary for her sense of well-being:

These are also experiences that many women will never recover from. I have two very wanted kids, but both pregnancies changed my body for the worse, and I don’t mean just cosmetically. Luckily I’ve been able to spend thousands of dollars on physical therapy and bodywork to deal with the muscle and joint injuries that come from a weakened abdomen. Obviously not everyone can do that. And the injuries I’m describing are on the very mild side. Julie Rikelman, who argued against the Mississippi law, said it was 75 times more dangerous to give birth in Mississippi than to have a pre-viability abortion.

Shared this on another thread - Ross Douthat has written what I consider an excellent piece in Tuesday's NY Times framing some of the ethical and legal arguments against abortion. If you can get behind the NYTimes paywall, here it is.
If you are outside of the paywall, here is an excerpt:

At the core of our legal system, you will find a promise that human beings should be protected from lethal violence.
That promise is made in different ways by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; it’s there in English common law, the Ten Commandments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We dispute how the promise should be enforced, what penalties should be involved if it is broken and what crimes might deprive someone of the right to life. But the existence of the basic right, and a fundamental duty not to kill, is pretty close to bedrock.

There is no way to seriously deny that abortion is a form of killing.
At a less advanced stage of scientific understanding, it was possible to believe that the embryo or fetus was somehow inert or vegetative until so-called quickening, months into pregnancy. But we now know the embryo is not merely a cell with potential, like a sperm or ovum, or a constituent part of human tissue, like a skin cell. Rather, a distinct human organism comes into existence at conception, and every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.

We know from embryology, in other words, not Scripture or philosophy, that abortion kills a unique member of the species Homo sapiens, an act that in almost every other context is forbidden by the law.

This means that the affirmative case for abortion rights is inherently exceptionalist, demanding a suspension of a principle that prevails in practically every other case. This does not automatically tell against it; exceptions as well as rules are part of law. But it means that there is a burden of proof on the pro-choice side to explain why in this case taking another human life is acceptable, indeed a protected right itself.

It’s pitiful such proof is needed, when, throughout human history, without modern science, even remote pagan peoples managed to figure out, humans produce humans.

It’s a reflection of the power of money/corporate profits to do/say ANYTHING, to protect their profits.
With no moral compass, there are no boundaries. Word games and human law are all they have, they have LOADS of both.

ordinary people are blinded by questions of morality, which gives ample cover for the amoral to run their games.
just like clockwork.

God is not fooled.

[temporal1]

One of the fascinating things about the left is that they want to criminalise self defence (outlaw guns for self defence; prosecute people who engage in self defence for murder, and so on) yet they also think it's a sacred human right to murder an unborn child right up until seconds before it is born.

It is probably the most enduring argument for the moral illegitimacy of the left.

There can be hope - that human life can be again respected+valued.
That the value of traditional FAMILY UNITS will return to God’s plan. As Neto describes, traditional family units exist - esp to provide for +protect children. It’s fundamental, God’s design, no advanced scholarship required.

That females, women, teens, children, will regain their historical roles as gatekeepers of morality; i.e., understanding the high price of reproduction, the life-changing natural+desireable result of pregnancy, human life, is to be protected and valued. Recreational fornication becomes too costly. CHOICE is important! choices made prior to conception, and rightly so. Lots of choices.

That women, teens, children are not just objects of carnal instincts, to be used and discarded. At taxpayer expense.

Experiments were tried and failed.
Gov has no business funding+promoting fornication and destruction of traditional families.

[temporal1]

J. Roberts .. but also does not want the Supreme Court to arouse the potential backlash ..

what is the point of law/courts if mob rule ultimately controls? other than expensive, time consuming optics.
not regarding this case, alone.

What was wrongfully established by the same Court amid much backlash, should be overturned by the same Court, backlash or no. Liberals can save their whining. They've enjoyed 50 years of abortion that was not made legal by vote or legislature, but by decree. So they can just have a seat.

i agree with this, and i believe there is more.

conservatives are complicit in many ways, esp for their history of accepting rulings they disagreed with, trying to respond in civil ways, trusting good will overcome evil, and, not least, denial. trusting those on the other side are operating in good faith.

what results???
unfortunately, what has unfolded is not compromise, mutual respect, or anything like these noble goals.
what has unfolded is, libs, going fairly unquestioned over decades, have become emboldened, and, honestly, instead of appreciating tremendous, often painful, compromise granted, they have grown to see their views as “RIGHT” ever expecting MORE, and, most recently, labeling opponents as deplorables, enemies, terrorists - they are so deeply self-assured.

recently, in another thread on a recent Salvation Army blip, Sudsy described how it usually goes, very well.
that is, altho the SA might support something he seriously opposes, he does not allow “trifles” to interfere with his support.

Page 2: Salvation Army and CRT
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4350&start=10

conservatives have adjusted to such trifles as for profit corporate abortion, SSM, now comes CRT - to the extent libs now feel 100% ENTITLED to just pick whatever agenda and run with it throughout the country, on taxpayer time+money.
they are mortified when confronted with valid questions. dumbfounded. outraged. the language! no boundaries.

they did not get there by themselves. ^^^^^

so, yes, libs need to recognize there are valid others not always in agreement, and effort needs to be made to acknowledge the fact. that attempting to bully them out of the way, thru social media, peer pressure, tweaking human law to their favor,
isn’t the slam-dunk they desire+imagine.

This recent SA incident is a great example of how timely response is better than allowing matters to fester+grow.
Conservative-leaners have room for improvement on their part in this.

Voting for “trifles” while denying+justifying, is not bearing good fruit. A lot of voting is done with pocketbooks.

Sudsy’s response is just a good example of how this unfolds. The SA example is a quick example of how folks in disagreement might respond quickly, to advert worsening problems. Silence does NOT always mean agreement! It’s OFTEN mistaken for it.

Another current example is parents+taxpayers showing up at school board meetings. They should have been there all along.
It would have averted current drama. They belong there. Better late than never.

i don’t see voicing opinions as politics, per se.
possibly, early intervention/speaking up, could PREVENT “trifles” from becoming big political battles. i’m for that!

[temporal1]

2021 / OP:

So the Supreme Court yesterday decided to not intervene in the heartbeat bill Texas had instituted.

What this means is that abortion is now illegal in the state of Texas from the time a heartbeat can be detected (at about 6 weeks).

One step in the right direction!
Now the state legislatures need to move quickly to ease the regulations and expense on adoption as I expect there will be a lot of babies born that would have previously not been. Praise God for the Supreme Court!

2022 / SCOTUS NOMINEE: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich blasts Biden's SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson,
saying that she needs to first figure out what a woman is
on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.' #FoxNews #Levin

They begin with Iran/Putin, at or near 1.20 min mark, they discuss SCOTUS nominee, KBJ:


It’s easy to focus on KBJ’s inability to define a woman (even tho being clearly recognized as a woman is decidedly part of the reason she is nominated) - but, as attractive and well-spoken as she is - her position+rulings on other highly contentious cases and interests are as dubious, if not moreso. Including late-term abortion. [It’s hard/impossible to rank them.]

SHE-LOOKS-THE-PART.
She comes across as a woman anyone would be happy to engage with in any scenario. No criticism on appearance.
She would be very hard to reject.

Is the U.S. finally at a place where outward appearances will not prevail?? It’s a step toward maturity+wisdom.
SCOTUS should not be reduced to hollywood type-casting techniques.

SCOTUS Justices
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx

The Supreme Court as composed October 27, 2020 to present.

Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States,
and there have been 103 Associate Justices in the Court’s history.

It’s sad that biden/the DNC decided to choose a person they 100% knew would be deeply divisive.
Sad. Not surprising.

[temporal1]

Inability to define “baby.”

This quote is from a Slate article by Jeremy Stahl that is highly biased against Ted Cruz,* so, quoting just this paragraph, which reflects how insidious the move is to undermine language, thought; to formally plunge the world into a continual state of Left-relativism.

.. Cruz brought up Jackson’s position on the board of the private Georgetown Day School, where books like Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped (For Kids) and Antiracist Baby are taught, to ask Jackson whether she agreed that “babies are racist.”
Behind Cruz were propped blown-up images of the picture book Antiracist Baby, replete with cartoon drawings of

children in diapers.

i continue to believe:
1) women are not small men.
2) children are not small adults.

3) now adding: babies are not “children in diapers.”

Jesus did not come to introduce academic “mental gymnastics” as any sort of high achievement for mankind to pursue.
Jesus had important words about children (back when it was universally recognized, babies .. become children).

“Universal” means, humankind recognized many realities without belief in One God, or Christianity.
Christianity is often targeted as being much more exceptional than it is. (Because that particular presumption is convenient for the Left political agenda.) Christians are vulnerable to falling for it.

.. Jesus’ chosen ones are children, not lawyers or scholars. How many can meet Jesus’ requirement?

Matthew 18:3
https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-3.htm

2Jesus invited a little child to stand among them.

3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.…

Even animals know to protect+nourish their young. It’s not confusing. Jesus is not confusing.

*As Robert sometimes points out:
Too often, QUESTIONS POSED GO UNANSWERED, instead, personal attacks on those questioning dominate.

KBJ is masterful at NOT answering -
deferring to the “audience”/mob mentality to, 1) protect her refusal to answer AND 2) to attack questions.

This is the present expectation of politicians and political activists. They are trained in this.
Worse is ahead. No matter what a pretty face they put on it.

[temporal1]

Rope-a-dope

noun.
a method of tiring out a boxing opponent by pretending to be trapped on the ropes while the opponent expends energy on punches that are blocked. (as modifier)rope-a-dope strategy.

Deer in headlights

When people are in a state of extreme surprise, fear or confusion, we say they are like deer caught in headlights.
They seem so frightened that they can not think clearly. They do not know what to do, so they do not do anything.

Sometimes we shorten the phrase and simply say, “like a deer in headlights.”

It’s an common mistake to presume silence means, “no opinion,” or no knowledge, or no intent.
People tend to quickly fill in silence - with anything they want, and are often sadly mistaken.

A powerful tool of manipulators.

It’s safe to presume KBJ knows herself and her mind very well. And courtroom theatrics.

[JimFoxvog]

One of the fascinating things about the left is that they want to criminalise self defence (outlaw guns for self defence; prosecute people who engage in self defence for murder, and so on) yet they also think it's a sacred human right to murder an unborn child right up until seconds before it is born.

It is probably the most enduring argument for the moral illegitimacy of the left

My brother is "pro-choice" and will agree to call his stance "pro-abortion rights" but not "pro-abortion" and would consider himself on the left.

He does not consider the fetus to be a person with rights until it is born and recognizes that there are many views on this matter. As there are a multiplicity of views, he believes it should be up to the mother (my term--his would be "pregnant person") to make the choice on whether to bear a child or not. I don't see this as morally illegitimate, but as a mistake.

As an aside, I think there are few that would prosecute those who act in real self-defense for murder. Folks can argue about in what situations lethal self-defense is justified. My brother is in favor of sending money to Ukraine for their self-defense.