Comments on: SCOTUS on the abortion pill

By: n.n

n.n — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:36:43 +0000

The religious (i.e. behavior protocol or model) argument of social conservatives is based on the ancient and modern performance of human rites for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress and profit.

Keep women affordable, available, reusable, taxable, and the “burden” of evidence sequestered in darkness.

That said, six weeks until legal viability (i.e. coherent nervous system activity) in all 50 states. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #NoContortionistsFetes #BabyLM

By: n.n

n.n — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:27:36 +0000

The concern of the plaintiffs is the medical care and forward-looking viability of the mother, first, and the child, second. The abortion cocktail has two actions: starve and evict the child, where one or both may be defective and cause, but not limited to: hemorrhaging, ectopic pregnancy. Consult with your gynecologist before any attempted abortion.

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:30:36 +0000

Blackmun made up this right to murder out of whole cloth, for reasons as wàs the thanatos cult this death wish among the west

Have we forgotten the dalkon shield or thalidomide the possible malfeasance of parties is rather vast

And we seque to chimera and abomination obergefell because they hate biology and sanity and bobs your uncle

By: Mike Plaiss

Mike Plaiss — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:56:56 +0000

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-mifepristone-starbucks-v-mckinney-nlrb-aa4b8e9b?st=rps5ylrsbyfng8j&reflink=article_copyURL_share

By: R2L

R2L — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 04:15:35 +0000

OBH, I agree with you in general, but it seems to me most discussions of “natural law” end up sneaking in concepts of God, revelation, absolute instead of relative, soul, and other semi-religious and “self evident” (essentially axiomatic) ideas. At least most versions are oriented to our Western Judeo-Christian history. Natural law is seldom addressed from the perspective of evolutionary psychology and our evolved mental states (or companion neuroscience). Also, of course civil law was derived from studies of Roman Law, and development of cannon law when the pope became supreme ruler over souls (1057AD?), and the success of cannon law led secular leaders to adjust it for non-religious uses in turn. These ideas were more widely spread with the creation of universities starting around 1188 and later, then the printing press, etc. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment brought us to our current state of a republican constitutional democracy (at least in theory).

How do we move the law to a position where it will give standing to the potential person gestating in the womb? I gather, following PM Thatcher, we have to win the argument first, and then we can obtain the votes. Given the divide in our country on several ideological fronts and issues, that will not be easy.

By: om

om — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 03:50:58 +0000

And where exactly does the law come from if I may so boldly ask? Something about a culture and society IIRC, some being better than others nontheless.

Standing has proven to be quite flexible in the last four years so this case may have been particularly weak and yet it went all the way up the chain.

Put not your faith in kings, or chariots, or judges(?). There is a Biblical citation to that effect.

By: ObloodyHell

ObloodyHell — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:09:39 +0000

Not a big fan of this kind of challenges. They key on -- rely on -- far too much upon religious interpretations to justify their actions. Religion is not, and should never be, a basis for The Law. And if you try and say it should, grasp this: You are opening the door for Islam to demand Sharia Law be the law they operate under. No. HELL NO If you cannot justify a position simply by the notions of "natural law", rather than using Jesus and the Bible for cause, then you are not only wrong, you're being STUPID to support it being LAW. This doesn't mean you cannot use peer pressure to push behavior in a given direction. It just means you should not be using LAW to do the job.

By: om

om — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:12:04 +0000

Good to know we are standing on the promises of Christ our savior.

Not the courts.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:48:15 +0000

Plaintiffs probably need to find a woman who used the drug and was injured for standing to sue. Shouldn’t be hard to find.