drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Can there be an abortion debate?

Let me start where i feel it is mostly safe to start. Roe v. Wade, like the dred scott decision, is the law of the land until some better argument, as overturned Plessey v. Fergesun, or the ARMED AGGRESSION of Bayonet Wielding Bible Burning Blue Bellies impose some constitutional amendment rammed through the process by disenfranchising those who took up arms against the TYRANNY of the godless Lincoln and his radical left wing extremists in the GOP.

That being said, we can start with the simple position that Roe v. Wade IS the current status quo ante. Thus when we discuss this matter, those seeking to change the status quo ante face the need to accept that the onus of proof is upon them that their arguments prevail.

What we can also add here is that we really have a whole slew of issues, to which, forgive me the indelicacies, the mere termination of an unwanted pregnancy, is but one of the far lesser issues in the discussion. I can and do appreciate that for many that is the alleged central point of the WHINING - but if we are to have an actual rational debate, we will need to address how to prioritize the issues.

I should likewise point out that I did not support the ERA ( equal rights ammendment ) as a good idea for constitutional law - since I feel that the currently existing constitution covers all of the core things that the ERA was alleged to solve. I should also make it clear that I do not have any of the somewhat interesting civilian parasitisms about the role of women in combat, as the mother of my children also served in the United States Armed Forces - and as such made far better a declaration about the fundamental nature of equal rights than all of the various poseur posturing put forth by the fine folks trying to finese the point.

So let us skip past the false dichotomy of "boys v. nonPerkin" and accept that part of the 'abortion debate' is merely more of the defeatist rumour mongering of the draft dodger culture. Let us assume, given the current payouts from Congress, that the nation is in some fiscal equivolent of hostile fire pay zone events, and so the questions SHOULD be aligned with does this help defeat the enemies of the state or not.

There are CRITICAL issues that need to be addressed about how society views, and values, males and nonPerkin, but that need not be resolved in the specifics of the abortion debate, even more so, the matter of keeping, expanding, or over turning 'roe v. wade'. Are nonPerkin merely the part of the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Infotainment-Complex involved in the production of light infantry units?

If so, then I think we find a very obvious clear and compelling interest for the state to mandate an increase in the production of light infantry units, to keep up with the current operational tempo. Alternatively we may wish to wonder why the state would need to control the means of production of light infrntry units? Isn't that merely the fast track to NationalSocialistMraxianistPhalangism of all forms of production? I mean, would we want to live in a state that nationalized not only GM and the rest of the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Infotainment-Complex but also all of the wombs!

Roe v. Wade, as is, offers up a compromise, in that it attempts to establish that there is a state interest with regards to public health, and thus to protecting it's citizens from dangerous medical practices and quackery. But the court limits the length to which it can go in declaring that it has a compelling interest. This has protected americans from the creeping socialism that would nationalize all of the wombs. It seems clear that this did not prevent the nationalization of various other facets of america.

Some will argue, most interestingly, that there exists this 'higher calling' argument - namely that some higher calling majikally endows the state with majikal powers that provide a compelling state interests. Before people make the leap to merely the wingNuts of the left or right, let us recall that a part of what drove the rise of the so called 'pro-life movement' was the really screwie post Roe rhetoric about the role of nonPerkin in america. So it is not at all surprising that we have seen the counter point of really screwie posturing about the role of nonPerkin in america from the anti-roe folks.

Along the way, let us resolve which, if any, are valid higher calling arguments. We may at that point ask which if any of these mandate that there is a clear and compelling state interest that needs to be advanced. OR is this higher calling argument, in the frameworkd of a federalist system, better resolved at some lower level of government, IF there is any form of compelling state interest.

It is easy to chide the religious wingNuts for falling into the trap they have set themselves, namely that their skyGod mandates Foo, and thus the Public Health Issue, that forms the clear and compelling state interest, is the prevention of the SkyGod from raining Big Balls Of Burning BlubberFat farted out of the many pours of the Great Sphinkter Being!

I think there is a National Security issue there, since if we are not willing to make blood sacrifices to the great skyGod, then when all of those Great Balls Of Fire come down upon us, there will be much aggravated depreciation of property values, and with it the concommittant revenue stream! So clearly appeasing the skyGod is of National Security Interests! And who can argue against the wrath of the skyGod! and the need for the blood sacrifices! For is it not written in the Majikal Roles.

On the b-side of that debate is the liberal majikal belief in various forms of 'natural law' - and hence why there has been such a reliance upon the court system to establish as a matter at law, that which is more appropriate to some other venue. I was amused to watch Inherit the Wind (1960) after reading Roughgarden's Genial Gene since I think we do better at arguing the merits of the science in a scientific forum. We DO have the obligation as citizens of the republic ( also watched Les Misérables - great films ) to debate when a scientific theory is causing grave social conflicts. Did the creating of the 'teenager myth' really solve the problems of Angles with dirty faces - or were we all duped by the EVIL Pat O'Brien advancing more of the same old failed Papist Propaganda?

We can then get into the discussion about whether or not escalatory theory is always irrational - and thus that we should exclude and prevent all forms of armed operations from the civil discourse. Since we have far better ways in our society to arrive at compromise, even if we religiously believe that all of life is a constant armed struggle. Whether that is the armed struggle between good and evil, in a strictly religiously mythological sense, or in the broader ideologically mythical sense.

Why gosh, we may want to learn a bit from the gay community, that there may be limits to what can reasonably be gained from a Judge "I am the law" Dredd approach to social change. Some have argued that if there had been no roe v. wade, then the progression that was being made in the various state legislatures would have secured the same access to safe medical abortions as are at least available now. While at the same time NOT complicating matters by putting up the strange debates about radical judicial advocates.

That path might have arrived at the better solution space as well - namely the prevention of unwanted pregnancies - by all of the old fashion ways, like not getting pregnant in an unwanted manner. Granted, such a solution might not have prevented persons from engaging in various forms of 'fooling around' - including but not limited to Treasuries, Bond Markets, and other forms of... oh well, what ever it is that democrats do...

As such we need to resolve whether the real angst point is the termination of unwanted pregnancies? or the fact that some people act like democrats! Why we might even be able to resolve if these are even the primary issues to be debated! Not to mention IF reasoning is even an option in this process.

So until we sort out if the phrase "an abortion debate" can be translated into meaningful semantic components, we may not even be able to engage in what it is that any of the sides arrive at the discussion to discuss.
Tags: abortion
Subscribe

  • The asymetric problem

    A friend of my recently raised the fear point - what happens when some stateless actor up and does a nuke strike on some american friendly space. { I…

  • Which family values?

    A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a…

  • Speaking of Fighting Against the Obamanite Tyranical Government

    95 killed on Iraq's deadliest day since U.S. handover One has to wonder which side the AstroTurfers are on? do they support the HORROR of the…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments