So, if the national black population is ~13% and California’s black population is ~5.8%, in the interest of diversity inclusion and equity should we not prohibit federal funds to California until such time as their black population approaches the national average? It seems only reasonable since California has prohibited its own state funds to be used in certain locations.

Just asking . . . .

With this observation Greenwald also reveals the hypocrisy of the left. The so-called right to abortion is created from a “penumbra” of whole cloth while the right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the second amendment. That actual notation, however, has never impeded the the left from pursuing laws restricting that right while demanding no restriction on an invented “penumbral” right.

The hypocrisy of the left! I know, . . . my shocked face is borrowed from Sarah Hoyt.

Tin foil hats.

The article by Greenwald is not a philosophical discussion and it is not about abortion itself, the pros and cons and moral underpinnings. It solely deals with the LEGAL issues in the case.

You are discussing something else entirely. The questions you are discussing are certainly of interest, but they have nothing to do with the topic of Greenwald’s article.

Nor do you have to read Greenwald’s article in order to understand the passage you quoted and what he’s referring to. I excerpted that part in my post.

I’m unfamiliar with Greenwald’s position on abortion and I haven’t read the article. So, I’ll take your word for it being his summation of the advocates for abortion.

I also realize that there has been no legal determination that abortion is murder. Legality of course does not determine truth. The truth of the issue determines the appropriate moral stance on abortion. We cannot know the full truth but reason and science can get us closer to the truth.

At the fetal stage, it is a human being under development, not any other species. We also know that the fetus is developing into a unique individual. So the question is reduced to is a human being in its fetal stage of development… a person?

Many on the left are claiming that even until a baby reaches the stage of self awareness, it is not a person and by that standard it would not be murder to end that life. Evidenced most recently by a Mass. State bill that would legally permit early infanticide.

So when does a person become a person? Upon that question all rests for a right to life is a persons’ most fundamental right.

If we accept the premise that we have souls, then when the soul enters the body becomes the determinant. Since we do not know and cannot prove when that occurs there is no logical basis for assuming that it does not occur at conception. In which case, capriciously ending that soul’s life is in fact murder.

If in fact we do not have souls, then we are simply somewhat unique biological computers and abortion is at base no different from having a hangnail removed.

The corollary to that reality would be that the “self-evident” truths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are but an illusion. As life is reduced to might makes right, whether by the mob, totalitarians, a dictator or authoritarian oligarchs. Since absent divinely ordained rights, only mankinds’ personal opinion defines ‘rights’.

Which by the way is exactly the position of the World Economic Forum. Schwab speaks of the merging of our digital, biological and physical realities. While WEF advisor Harari speaks of “hackable humans” and what will need to be done with the “useless people”… once machine intelligence eliminates most manual labor jobs.

“We will become Gods” – Yuval Noah Harari