Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

It's getting to the point where I'm going to have to go.

You're misconstruing (intentionally?). I'm talking about PERSONAL issues that don't actually affect anyone but them. What does it matter, for example, if someone is gay? I was responding to a callous reference to abortion being for the reckless. Obviously, when things affect others, it is up for debate. If taxes were actually paying for abortions, for example, it goes beyond the personal at that point and it'd be reasonable to say: I don't agree with this so I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to be complicit or whatever. But just the right to an abortion, for example? People need to fuck off. ESPECIALLY, dudes.

 

An odd thing it is! Although it is also somewhat paralleled by the Jewish American community. Both groups sort of defy the trends of other groups today, that is to connect with political philosophy by character attributes. Logical thinkers connect with Conservative Constitutional libertarian ideas where as the Feeling decision makers connect more with the Progressive liberal agenda.

In the total population, we are split nearly 50 50 with women slightly more on the feeling side and men slightly more the other way. It also seems it takes longer in life for a person, and even more for some people to fully develop their Logical thinking character. But real studies of this split by differing demographic groups has not been done , as far as I know . As near as I can tell, there does seem to be some differences here.

The Jews as a group maybe more, percentage wise inclined to be of the logical thinking type and defy the political association. Some here on S2 spoke up about this question when I asked, earlier this year. The group experience was the reason given for bucking the trend. At least as I remember it.

Black people on the other hand, as a group seem to have a higher percentage of the Feeling character which would support them associating with the Progressive liberal politics but not likely in the 90% as the group votes. Perhaps it is social shaming and valuing expressions of feeling that help push this along, even up a hill of logic.

 

A fetus' heart begins beating around 8 weeks.

 

It would be just as easy to say you like to govern babies' lives.

 

Ridiculous example.

 

Just to be accurate, Chris, there’s a fetal heartbeat at six weeks. More than half of babies born at 24 weeks (16 weeks premature) survive. Ninety percent of babies born at 26-27 weeks survive. I have two healthy, wonderful grandsons who were born at 32 weeks. We also had the family agony of having to deal with terminating one unsurvivable twin in order to give the healthy one the chance of living. Lumping all abortions and all fetuses throughout the entire nine months together is disingenuous.

 

With that being said, there are tons of people who need transplants, so a beating, disembodied heart does hold a high level of importance.

 

>>>On the issue of abortion, I can not let emotional issues be the deciding point for what I support. The above are all emotional statements on the issue. It is not an issue that requires a single position for the nation. The Constitutions is silent on the issue . The Roe Vs Wade ruling sited stuff in the 9th amendment that is just not there. Rights yet defined are not rights to be invented by judges.

I can not find it in my heart to be pleased with abortion. On the other hand, I can not find it in my heart to force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want. Creating a human being is a multi step process, that only begins in the mother womb, it takes care and nurturing long after birth before society can count on another human being. We have no way to force this to happen. So I can not condemn a woman for her choice, nor do I have the will to force her to make my choice, or yours.

Exactly the issue at hand. Our Constitution is one of the greatest assets of this Nation. We should all appreciate it and desire to follow it. Improve it when we must, but be guided by it until shown the way to improve it.

We would be fine without convoluted rulings like Roe V wade, probably better off than hassle over it, like the past 45 years. What we need is sound decisions following the Constitution in the future.
Perhaps Congress could craft an amendment that would please 38 states on when abortion is legal, leaving the states individual room to open the restrictions as they see fit. A wise Justice might even make the suggestion.

 

The notion of a woman having total right to choose what to do with her body sounds right until we realize that there are legal limitations on personal decisions imposed by society all the time. We don’t have the legal right to commit suicide or harm ourselves. IMO, once a baby (fetus if you prefer) is survivable, society has the right to set limitations on terminating a pregnancy. That notion is actually consistent with Roe vs. Wade.

 

Well, now we get to watch the clock on Ruth....when she goes out toes up, if it is within one year of the next term, we may have to wait till after the election, as has been historically. Still think Trump takes 2020 and gets another SCJ.