It’s Official: Democrats Are Performing Better After The Abortion Ruling

Even if you disagree, you need to respect the reality that most people in America do not want to have authoritarian politicians dictating to women in such a private, personal matter. The U.S. shares that sentiment with most advanced nations. It is not El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Iraq where liberty is repressed.

You have freedom of speech to rail against reproductive freedom. You do not have the right to impose your notions in that regard upon everyone.

 

This is one of the more feeble examples of judgmental righteousness. Save us from the morality stormtroopers.

Americans have made their support of personal freedom abundantly clear.

 

We know the zygote and fetal cells belong to human life category that isn't the issue the issue is when does the fetus become a person? That's a legal and philosophical question and it can only be decided by judicial decree or the will of the people. In other words when a fetus becomes a person democracy will decide. Whatever that result is we will all have to abide by it for it will be the law.

Now then, while I, personally, find abortion as repugnant as any evangelical, where we differ is that I don't believe the state can dictate to a woman what she can do with her own body as I believe in the right of privacy and bodily autonomy. The only exception to the right of privacy and bodily autonomy is national emergencies and pandemics which may justify unusually strong action to avoid national disasters.

 

Over a billion years of genetic programing have created an individuals the irrepressible urge to procreate and have sex. This programming is the reason why all of us exist and for it we must be thankful. To hang a murder charge against that level of genetic programming would be unjust and Wait argument therefore is ridiculous

 

It’s Official: Democrats Are Performing Better After The Abortion Ruling

I'm glad the Dobbs decision makes you happy.

 

No you're not.

I'm happy we performed will on Tuesday, but I'm not happy they killed Roe.

 

I don't want the state determining answers to philosophical questions. Every time it does so harm is created. There are plenty of examples of this. Slavery being only one of them. And you point out the difference between Democracy, and what our form of government actually is. Which is a Republican form of Democracy. Not a straight one. A Republican form of Democracy puts Rights above the will of the Majority. Where as in a Democracy the Rights of People can be subsumed by the Majority at will. That is why our Founders rejected a straight Democracy and gave us a Republican form of Democracy. And also warned us of the dangers of Democracy.

Now, you talk about the Right of Bodily Autonomy. And the Right to Privacy.

The Right to Privacy does not exist when it comes to one human harming another. In other words if you kill someone the State has the power to ignore your Right to Privacy in order to find out what happened. Because ones Right to Life is more important than your Right to Privacy. Because without a Right to Life, there is no Right to Privacy... or any other Right for that matter. Including the Right to Bodily Autonomy. But that aside....

The woman voluntarily gave up her Right to Bodily Autonomy the moment she agreed to have sex knowing that she may get pregnant and create life. You can give up your Rights Voluntarily. Just ask anyone in the Military how much they can exercise some of their Rights vs as a civilian. They even agree to voluntarily give up their Right to Life by agreeing to go to war for the government.

Mind you, I was once like you. I found abortion to be repugnant also. Yet was still Pro-Choice. Until the prospect of RvW getting over turned became a possibility. Then I saw tons of liberals scream and cuss about it....while at the same time decrying about how the US was founded on racism and treated blacks as if they were not full fledged humans and was always pointing towards slavery and Jim Crow laws. I saw the irony and hypocritical stance between the two stances there. I could no longer in good conscience stay pro-choice. I agreed with liberals about how the US treated blacks in regards to slavery. It too was repugnant. I remembered reading about all the arguments slavers used to justify slavery. And I could not help but notice the similarities between pro-choice arguments...and arguments slavers used. And if I rejected one because of its repugnancy (slavery) then how could I in good conscience justify the other (pro-choice) without also being extremely hypocritical? I couldn't. So today, thanks to liberals, I am anti-abortion. Full Stop.

 

If we were to just let genetic programing rule us then why have a government at all? In nature the only rule of law is the strong dominate the weak and the strong survive while the weak die. IE: Survival of the fittest. Indeed that is a main Darwin Law. So, why do we humans buck against the law of nature? Why do we form governments that make laws that are contrary to nature? IE: Genetic programing. Because we humans recognize that in order to survive, we must over ride genetic programming. Not let ourselves kill each other. Not let rapists go free.

That urge to procreate is strong, I grant you that. But it is not impossible to resist it. In fact millions of humans do it every day. They will delay procreating until they feel that they are established enough to take care of their offspring. Its why we've made condoms and contraceptives and the Plan B pill. And yes, abortion.

 

I don't need to respect anything. Here you are saying "Save us from the morality stormtroopers" and yet you demand that I adhere to your own form of morality? Pfft. I ignore statements that demand I "respect" <insert whatever here>. Respect is earned, not given. And certainly not taken via demands.

In any case, my argument is not about morality. Its about Rights and Science. The two things that our government is supposed to actually act upon. And I find it funny that instead of actually trying to argue against the argument I made you instead sit back and mock it. That is generally an indication that you cannot come up with an argument against what I said.

 

Did you perform 'will'? You lost the popular vote by nearly 5 million votes and are currently underperforming your 2018 vote by an astounding MINUS 13,242,011 votes!

2018 data here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

 

No. Individuals should have control over their own bodies and not be dictated to by politicians in personal matters. That sentiment appears to have been a significant factor in the Democratic Party's unexpected success.

Exit polls show 72 percent of women ages 18-29 voted for Democrats in House races nationwide. In a pivotal Pennsylvania Senate race, 77 percent of young women voted for embattled Democrat John Fetterman, helping to secure his victory.

“I think most young women feel that the best thing for their rights and for the future of the country is to vote Democrat,” said Elizabeth Rickert, 24, an Ohioan who voted absentee from England. “As the Republican Party becomes more extreme and moves away from the core American principles of democracy and rights for all, voting Democrat is the only path forward.”
​

The United States differs from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Iraq where dried up old geezers arrogate control of wombs..

 

Does a woman and a man choose to have sex or not? Yes or no? Is that not performing control over their bodies? Should they have control over other humans bodies also? Because that is what your argument actually leads to. Control over another humans body. After they had already controlled their own body.

Argumentum ad Populum.

 

You have registered your preference for statist authoritarianism.

Americans, and freedom lovers in other advanced nations, differ.

 

My preference is to save innocent life. If that makes me a "statist authoritarian" then so be it. Its just words to me. You can't shame me. You can't shut me up by calling me names that you consider to be the worst for the given situation. I know what I am. And there is nothing you can say to make me change my mind about myself.

You can't even answer simple questions. Questions that you know shows holes in your stance. Just remember, slavery was once widely accepted by advanced (for the times) nations. We got rid of that almost a century after our founding. This too will eventually be gotten rid of. And guess what? We'll still be advanced.

 

Freedom-loving Americans who respect a woman's right to control her own body also respect your right to rail against her right, just not for an intrusive State to arrogate her personal freedom.

Please don't expect the United States, as an advanced, enlightened, freedom-loving nation, to prohibit such personal decisions and allow your politicians and bureaucrats to dictate, as is done in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Iraq.

 

Funny how you keep talking about freedom loving American's while supporting the killing of Americans. The woman has no Right to Kill an innocent human. Just like you don't. Freedom for all. That is what a real American approves of. Not just those you approve of, as is done in China and Russia.

 

You can insist that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells justifies your politicians seizing control of a woman's body, but you must be thinking of El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Iraq, not the United States of America.

 

Are Dems doing better than before the abortion ruling? 2018 was before the abortion ruling and in that Midterms Dems got 60,572,245 votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

So far in this election they only have 47,504,039 votes.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2022/house/

Did they lose 13 million voters over their extremist, up to the instant of delivery, kill the baby policies?

Do Dems have a better answer to explain why their vote count has dropped by nearly 22%?

 

I don't know what that means. There has to be something ruling on abortion, either legislation or judicial decree, take your pick.

How so?

Not every right has been, is, or can be written in the constitution, Rights by penumbra (such as the right of privacy, such as freedom for all men and women) have to be legislated or granted by judicial decree, so your first point doesn't appear to be logical.

When I used the term 'democracy', I'm not using it in the parochial sense (as you have just used it) I use it in the broadest sense of the word, a democracy being a nation of free men and women, free speech, freedom of assembly, where each person has the vote, etc., as a opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship or totalitarian state. In essence, the terms 'Republic' and 'Democracy' , I'm using both in the broadest sense of the terms, and, as such, they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course rights should be above popular opinion. And those that are are in the constitution. However, as stated above, not all rights are in the constitution, and those that aren't, 'penumbra rights' must be legislated or granted by judicial decree, and those are subject to democratic forces, and that is true in our 'Republican form of government'. And while i appreciate your attempt to be high minded, that is, however, the actual reality.

Fragmented sentence, please restate it with subject, verb, object so that it's coherent. Okay, I'll do it for you: You mean:

Whereas, in a Democracy, the Rights of People can be be subsumed by the Majority at will.

What a difference a few commas can make, eh? I assume that is how you meant to write the sentence.

Now then, yes, but only those rights of penumbra not in the constitution, and not so easily if they are by legislation and/or judicial decree.

But, I get it, you are using the parochial sense of the term. Well, I'm not.

There is no absolute way to totally vanquish what they feared, the 'tyranny of the majority'. Now, let's get something straight, no way did they mean the opposite, either, that does not mean 'minority rule'. In fact, the only founder who ever used that term was John Adams. What it means is their justification for decentralizing power in our government. Instead of a unicameral government, they made it bicameral, and instead of an all powerful executive branch, they diffused the power amongst three branches, each putting a check on the others. the concept of the 'electoral college' alone, doesn't satisfy the 'republican form of government', the RFOG is the whole shebang, the three branches of government with a bicameral legislative body. In fact, you can easily have a Republican form of Government without an electoral college, as is the case with most western nations, all of which are representative democracies without an electoral college.

Since you're first statement isn't really accurate given political reality with respect to penumbra rights, and your above statement appears to be predicated on this inaccuracy, what are you implying? Some rights are subject to the will of the people, which are those not in the constitution and granted by legislation and/or judicial decree.

What Madison and Hamilton were worried about were 'factions' gaining control.

Madison defined it as follows:

"a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

The statement is problematic on it's face. It has to do with this part of the sentence: ".....adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".

I have been studying that sentence for many years. For many years, I accepted it's wisdom. However, that acceptance began to wane. You see, 'interests of the community'. Who is the arbiter of what the 'interests of the community' are?

Don't you see? The only answer to the question is democracy will decide, and that is, and always will be, the majority. Now, we can diffuse the power of the majority with a bicameral government, which we have done (the founders/framers have done). However, the fact remains: In a democracy, any democracy, a direct democracy, or an indirect democracy, the majority will always prevail (or, at least, it is meant to prevail. More on that, below).

why? It cannot be any other way. If you are worried about the 'tyranny of the majority', then what, are you saying then we should grant the minority the winners of any democratic vote? Well, if that is true, then we will have the tyranny of the minority. So, is the tyranny of the minority better than the tyranny of the majority? The very idea is absurd on it's face. We can't vanquish democracy isofar majority rules, we can only diffuse it's weight and force, and we have done that with the bicameral legislature and the three equal branches of government.

The founders and framers NEVER NEVER NEVER intended on 'minority rule'.

Proof?

...the fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. ---Federalist #22

See:
Meaning of a Republican form of government:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-1-3/ALDE_00013637/

James Madison emphasizes popular sovereignty and majoritarian control as among the distinctive characters of the republican form [of government]

For scholarly examinations of this issue, see, for example, W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution ch. 1 (1972); Deborah Jones Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 22–25 (198 (finding widespread agreement among scholars that the core of republican government is one in which the people control their rulers); Akhil Reed Amar, The Central Meaning of a Republican Government: Popular Sovereignty, Majority Rule, and the Denominator Problem, 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 749, 786 (1994) (concluding that the central meaning of the republican government in the Founding Era was popular sovereignty, majority rule, and the people’s right to alter or abolish [the government]); Robert G. Natelson, A Republic, Not a Democracy—Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 807, 814–15 (2002) (surveying historical sources to conclude that republican form of government, as used in the Guarantee Clause, had three core features: majority rule, the absence of monarchy, and the rule of law).

What they intended was to diffuse the tendency of majorities to tyrannize minorities, and they achieved that with a bicameral legislature and three equal branches of government but they never intended on minority rule.

If someone murders another, that is not an act if privacy, that is a crime committed outside the realm of privacy. Therefore, your point is moot,

If you are implying a fetus is a 'person' and thus 'subject to constitutional protection', SCOTUS has abandoned ruling on the matter, and thus far, is leaving it up to states.

You entire premise rises or falls on when does a fetus become a 'person' subject to constitutional rights?

The constitution simply does not address the issue. It will be either for states, or the SCOTUS, to decide. Once, it was decided in Roe, but Alito and the current court reversed it, and that contributed to Republican's poor performance last Tuesday.

In your opinion, though I disagree, but that is not the law of the land. It is now a matter for states to rule upon, and more and more states are granting 'right of privacy' extending to abortion, or some variant of Roe's parameters.

Okay.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, you are saying being 'pro choice' is hypocritical?

How does rejecting slavery and accepting abortion as a woman's right equal being hypocritical?

I ask because you have not actually given the reason. You hinted that the arguments for slavery and the arguments for abortion are similar.

In what way? I think I know.

You forget, the premise of what you are about to express will hinge on 'when a fetus becomes a person'.

You see, only if you decide that a fetus is a person, does your assertion become logical.

And therein is the crux of the argument: when is a fetus a person?

And that takes us right back to the issue that the decision as to when a fetus becomes a person is a philosophical one, and that can only be decided by judicial degree, or legislated.

Therefore, your reason for abandoning liberalism are not founded in fact, but founded on your philosophical leaning. You never were a liberal, you are a right of center person and all you did was accept it. However, it is possible to be a liberal and be anti-abortion. The opinion on when a fetus is a person does not belong on either side of the political spectrum, one is either for or against.

I am anti-abortion, but I understand that my feeling on the matter shouldn't override a woman's bodily autonomy. I was satisfied with Roe and for Roe, I've decided that I'm against abortion past the third trimester, that makes perfect sense

 

No, it is not impossible to resist it, but it is unjust to hang a murder charge on a woman who has an abortion. I mean, sure, you can pontificate about how they should be behave, but sex is going to happen owing to the billions of years of genetic programming, and that is life.

If that is how your party feels about it, you'll lose elections.