Midwest Chick's Place

(A.K.A. Non-Original Rants)

–Co-opting good stuff from all over the ‘Net and maybe some original thoughts—ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, she asked….

I am kind of sad.  A friend of mine, a millennial, but wise for her years, asked me what I thought about the Roe v Wade brouhaha.  Now I could have parroted the party line or sugar coated what I thought (realizing she’s had fifteen more years of indoctrination that I did), but I did not do either.

As I’ve said in other posts, and what I told her (this was all via text in true millennial fashion, by the way), is that the Roe v Wade decision was a 10th Amendment issue that never should have happened.  That even Ruth Bader Ginsberg knew they were on thin ice. That reversing it would not take us back to the stone age.

I got back something along the lines of  ‘I count on you for perspective’.

And that’s been pretty much it.  I’ve reached out a couple of times and either get no answer or a one line response or emoji.

Did I figure that would be the result?  Yep.  But I feel that I should give honest opinions when asked.

Pretty much all of my friends know that they shouldn’t ask a question if they don’t want an honest answer.

And I know the saying that people come into our lives for a reason and stay for a day, month, season, years, or your entire life. 

Still a downer though.

Midwest Chick's avatar

Posted by:

Midwest Chick

22 responses to “Well, she asked….”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Court decision or not, I will always oppose abortion.I have always wanted Roe overturned because it was BAD LAW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If a court could come up with a valid legal and lawful decision to support abortion, I would still oppose abortion, but accept the legal decision.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have been saying the decision was bad since the get-go. The correct decision would have been to return it to the States. Additionally, abortion was a procedure decided on by a woman and her Dr. as medically necessary and was “legal” in every state, just not as a public form of birth control.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Highlander:Yes, that is part of the scam of Liberals. They take words and change the meanings.In Roe V. Wade, the court used Griswold v. Connecticut as the rational to expand abortion as “health care” and contraception.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    While I have a preliminary opinion on abortion itself, I've tried to keep that to myself for my adult life.But I do discuss legal aspects. The Roe v. Wade Court made it a federal issue by invoking the 14th amendment. 10th amendment advocates are simply arguing that the decision should be up to a little state instead of the big state.I think it should be handled as a NINTH Amendment issue; an individual right to an individual decision about their individual body.[Aside; And since it would be individual decision, paying for it would be up to the individual.]And there it should stay unless and until there is an objective (preferablly scientific) test of when, from fertilized ovum to fetus to birth, the line is drawn to definitively say, “This is a person.” At that line, homicide/manslaughter statutes would apply.No; I don't know where that line is. Am I a person? I think so. But is a live tissue sample from me, living and culturable, a person (hey, for the pro-life folks, that sample has human DNA; and it theoretically can be cloned into a complete person)? Pending a major scientific breakthrough, I have to say it isn't.Unless someone comes up with instrumental detection of “soul” (as opposed to whatever animals use for a “life force”), we may have to settle for something else. Some would use “it can feel pain.”That's reaction to external stimuli. Plenty of things most sane people would consider non-living react to external stimuli, including bimetallic strip thermostats.Heartbeat? Better maybe, but I'm unsure that's sufficient.Closer: Dreaming. Is the tissue culture/fetus/baby's nervous system developed enough for EEG detection of a dream state? But dogs and cats obviously dream, too.Until we can define and detect “person,” I keep my moral opinions on the subject private.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Matthew and Highlander–The Supremes always knew it was a thin argument. The thinking behind it (cannot call it logic) was spurious at best. Expanding the definition into contraception ignore the meaning of the word (but yes, it' what liberals do). Keeping it on a federal level was legislating from the bench, which they knew they were doing and that they knew was crossing the line. Like Roberts declaring Obamacare to be tax in spite of all information to the contrary.Carl–I hadn't looked at it from a Nineth Amendment view. I understand where you are going though.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Carl:Your argument fails immediately because you can't define the terms of abortion without determining what “life” is. Under your idea, a baby can be aborted from day one up until it's 3 inches away from being out of the birth canal.All life starts with conception.Not all conceptions lead to life, but all life starts with conception.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Matthew–Carl did post his comment on his blog as well. If y'all would like to discuss further, maybe go over there?

    Like

    Reply
  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Matthew W, I don't know what you read, but it clearly wasn't anything I wrote. My only “argument” was that the subject should be addressed under the 9th amendment rather than the 10th. The remainder was a description of the problem of defining “person,” not an argument, pro or con, for terminating pregancy.(Just for fun: You criticize me for failing to define “life,” while the crux of my description of the issue is “person.” That's what sane people in this reality call a strawman argument. Even better you go on to claim “life” begins at conception, without… defining “life.” You might want to consider live tissue samples like unfertilized ova and sperm; then, with just a little mental effort, you might figure out why I specify “person,” not “life.”)

    Like

    Reply
  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sorry, MC. Your plea to take it elsewhere wasn't yet visible when I wrote my comment to Matthew.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Carl and Matthew–All good. From where I am, I'm doubting that you're going to come to a meeting of minds on Life, but both of you are polite. But maybe continuing this discussion in a different venue or off-line might be more productive. Remember too, words on a screen lack nuance–we can try to drill down as much as possible, but for something like this, it's difficult. You'll note that I am carefully sticking to the legal ramifications of overturning Roe v Wade.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I haven't gotten into it with anyone for one reason: why bother? People who don't like abortion like it being kicked back to the states, people who want it 'at need'(whatever that may mean) are having fits blaming the Supremes for 'banning abortion'. Not jumping into that mess unless I have to.And pointing out what others have above, that this was going to come sooner or later(including Ruth Ginsberg talking about it) isn't going to go over with the one side, at all.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Court decision or not, I will always oppose abortion.I have always wanted Roe overturned because it was BAD LAW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If a court could come up with a valid legal and lawful decision to support abortion, I would still oppose abortion, but accept the legal decision.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have been saying the decision was bad since the get-go. The correct decision would have been to return it to the States. Additionally, abortion was a procedure decided on by a woman and her Dr. as medically necessary and was “legal” in every state, just not as a public form of birth control.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Highlander:Yes, that is part of the scam of Liberals. They take words and change the meanings.In Roe V. Wade, the court used Griswold v. Connecticut as the rational to expand abortion as “health care” and contraception.

    Like

    Reply
  15. Avatar
    Anonymous

    While I have a preliminary opinion on abortion itself, I've tried to keep that to myself for my adult life.But I do discuss legal aspects. The Roe v. Wade Court made it a federal issue by invoking the 14th amendment. 10th amendment advocates are simply arguing that the decision should be up to a little state instead of the big state.I think it should be handled as a NINTH Amendment issue; an individual right to an individual decision about their individual body.[Aside; And since it would be individual decision, paying for it would be up to the individual.]And there it should stay unless and until there is an objective (preferablly scientific) test of when, from fertilized ovum to fetus to birth, the line is drawn to definitively say, “This is a person.” At that line, homicide/manslaughter statutes would apply.No; I don't know where that line is. Am I a person? I think so. But is a live tissue sample from me, living and culturable, a person (hey, for the pro-life folks, that sample has human DNA; and it theoretically can be cloned into a complete person)? Pending a major scientific breakthrough, I have to say it isn't.Unless someone comes up with instrumental detection of “soul” (as opposed to whatever animals use for a “life force”), we may have to settle for something else. Some would use “it can feel pain.”That's reaction to external stimuli. Plenty of things most sane people would consider non-living react to external stimuli, including bimetallic strip thermostats.Heartbeat? Better maybe, but I'm unsure that's sufficient.Closer: Dreaming. Is the tissue culture/fetus/baby's nervous system developed enough for EEG detection of a dream state? But dogs and cats obviously dream, too.Until we can define and detect “person,” I keep my moral opinions on the subject private.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Matthew and Highlander–The Supremes always knew it was a thin argument. The thinking behind it (cannot call it logic) was spurious at best. Expanding the definition into contraception ignore the meaning of the word (but yes, it' what liberals do). Keeping it on a federal level was legislating from the bench, which they knew they were doing and that they knew was crossing the line. Like Roberts declaring Obamacare to be tax in spite of all information to the contrary.Carl–I hadn't looked at it from a Nineth Amendment view. I understand where you are going though.

    Like

    Reply
  17. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Carl:Your argument fails immediately because you can't define the terms of abortion without determining what “life” is. Under your idea, a baby can be aborted from day one up until it's 3 inches away from being out of the birth canal.All life starts with conception.Not all conceptions lead to life, but all life starts with conception.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Matthew–Carl did post his comment on his blog as well. If y'all would like to discuss further, maybe go over there?

    Like

    Reply
  19. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Matthew W, I don't know what you read, but it clearly wasn't anything I wrote. My only “argument” was that the subject should be addressed under the 9th amendment rather than the 10th. The remainder was a description of the problem of defining “person,” not an argument, pro or con, for terminating pregancy.(Just for fun: You criticize me for failing to define “life,” while the crux of my description of the issue is “person.” That's what sane people in this reality call a strawman argument. Even better you go on to claim “life” begins at conception, without… defining “life.” You might want to consider live tissue samples like unfertilized ova and sperm; then, with just a little mental effort, you might figure out why I specify “person,” not “life.”)

    Like

    Reply
  20. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sorry, MC. Your plea to take it elsewhere wasn't yet visible when I wrote my comment to Matthew.

    Like

    Reply
  21. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Carl and Matthew–All good. From where I am, I'm doubting that you're going to come to a meeting of minds on Life, but both of you are polite. But maybe continuing this discussion in a different venue or off-line might be more productive. Remember too, words on a screen lack nuance–we can try to drill down as much as possible, but for something like this, it's difficult. You'll note that I am carefully sticking to the legal ramifications of overturning Roe v Wade.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I haven't gotten into it with anyone for one reason: why bother? People who don't like abortion like it being kicked back to the states, people who want it 'at need'(whatever that may mean) are having fits blaming the Supremes for 'banning abortion'. Not jumping into that mess unless I have to.And pointing out what others have above, that this was going to come sooner or later(including Ruth Ginsberg talking about it) isn't going to go over with the one side, at all.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *