The Supreme Court just overturned the 1973 decision that has led to millions upon millions of legal abortions. And something about it feels very weird.
I agree. I think a lot of violence and discord are on the way, no doubt about it. For half a century people got used to the idea of abortion being moral and a woman's right to choose. Had this decision been made 50 years ago we'd be better off, the culture was different then. Today's society will not accept this decision quietly or peacefully, I hope conservatives and Christians understand that.
You may not speak for the majority but you articulate what a lot of us are thinking on this and other matters. I hate abortion but I feel very uneasy about this decision and what's coming as a consequence.
I do agree with those who have speculated that the leak may have backfired on the leaker. The pro-life side had time to prepare, secure crisis pregnancy centers, etc., and the pro-abortion side already made themselves look like idiots and the response has been, yeah, kinda underwhelming compared to 2020's Summer of Rage. I'm still keeping my Glock close, but leaking changed nothing of the decision, and the DNC couldn't even fundraise off of it as much as they hoped to.
With you 100%. Worse will be unleashed. Read somewhere 50% of all abortions are done by pill. That means the actual abortion facilities may be used for infanticide under the worst circumstances.
It might feel like an anticlimax because it was not wrought by any collective repentance, any social reform of morals and manners; in other words, it was more a nakedly political act than a moral one. But that's fine. A victory is still a victory, even a political one. What it was, was a Trump era decision. Trump blew open western politics by just allowing certain sentiments to be expressed, by making a good number of the population — who had felt silenced and cowed and increasingly vilified under the Obama regime — re-enfranchised. But Trump wasn't a moral man. He wasn't any kind of reformer. He was just a gadfly on the back of the neoliberal orthodoxy, someone who could convincingly out official hypocrisies. What Trump and the Dobbs decision have done is lit the signal for an all out culture war over the next 20-30 yrs. The Supreme Court's decision wasn't to take either side in this culture war, but merely to allow it to happen by giving the Christian / Conservative right a level playing field — or at least the room to make a stand on, which the liberals wanted to deny then altogether by making them criminal traitors of the state. The Supreme Court has revived the genius of the US Constitution. You can now decide whether you want to live in a pro-abort blue state, or a pro-life red state. That is a clear line in the sand for the culture war. It's a call to arms. The left wanted to simply squash and silence its enemies. Trump's court has torpedoed that dictatorial move, or at least seriously undermined it. Now Americans have greater freedom to PROVE that pro-life culture is more humane, more just, more moral. This isn't even a proper beginning of Western social reform. But it IS an opening for such a platform to assert itself more definitely. The Supreme Court didn't even positively take a pro-life stand. They didn't even choose a side. But because they've ALLOWED the POSSIBILITY of the pro-life population finally gaining the political legitimacy to which they have a constitutional right, the left perceive it as them choosing the pro-life side. It is a major victory, not because any battle has been won, but because the Court has said, "hey, if this side has guns, why should the other side be forced to fight unarmed"? Christian America is being rearmed in the culture war.
Steve, was that Hilary White quote in a private email to you? If not, can you link to where it is from? I assume there is more to it, and I'd like to see it. I can see where you and she are on the money, the demons can have moved on to better prey (sex reassignment surgeries are now increasing at a rate of about 20% a year, and most think this is a good thing).
The only counterfactual I have is that the states where the people who want abortion mostly live are not going to outlaw the practice. Therefore, they have little immediate reason to get worked up about it. I do think the Dobbs ruling has a good chance of calming down the country.
I don't know if it is quite right to say there was no momentum. The issue has been on the back burner for a time compared to more front-and-center controversies, but from the Scalia death to the Ginsburg death (and with the Kavanaugh controversy in between), everyone knew those Supreme Court seats held the fate of Roe in their hands.
"Life at fertilization is the OVERWHELMING scientific consensus" was news to me.
So, I pull up the paper "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'" and look at the actual question they asked, which was "Do you agree that ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’?"
That question obviously turns on the definition of "life".
Biologically, fertilization is the point at which a human's life begins, if you define "life" as "the existence of a human being", that is, at what point do you have something that (if you squint), kind of has everything it needs to be called "a human", vs., say "a platypus".
If you define "life" as "the ability to reproduce", or "organic matter", or "first brain activity", or "when the young adult leaves home for college", you are going to get different answers.
The paper notes this at the end of the abstract where it says:
"While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy."
BIOLOGICALLY CLASSIFIED.
In other words, the paper was honest, it's the reporting around it that's dishonest. The paper asks a question of a group of scientists who share a very specific understanding of the word "life". Other folks then report to a much larger group, with a wildly different definition of the word "life", that all those biologists agree with them.
I think Hilary probably is right. Roe has done its dirty work, and it isn't needed anymore.
Alito's opinion was a marvelous legal deconstruction of the abortion-rights premise. But it purposely chose to limit itself to the right to life issue. Thomas, concurring, brought up the larger context -- the Court's sponsorship of 60 years of sexual "revolution". Alito didn't go there because I think, to him, vindication of the right to life and its indefatigable advocates is paramount.
But I think you are right, Steve, that this a weird moment.
Weirder still, you are avowing agnosticism. God bless you and your family.
I am a paying subscriber to both the Skojecfile and Chris Hedges. The latest post from Hedges was explaining how he thinks overturning Roe is the institution of Christian fascism. Oh, boy; I love and respect Chris, but, man, did he ever get that one wrong! I couldn't read past the first sentence. But his father, a Presbyterian minister, was pro-gay rights back in the day when even Presbyterians would fire ministers for that. So, that's the milieu he grew up in.
You know, it's funny, but a day after writing that comment, I was scrolling through consortiumnews, I believe it was, and there was Chris Hedges' latest post. So, I thought, "Okay, I'll read it." What struck me was his experiences in academic settings with faculty members trundling under to this Christian Fascism. Hmm. Whenever people are talking about their own experiences, I listen, especially if I have never experienced it or heard about it before.
So, I just don't know. I like Roe being overturned, but I am positive the corporate-backed right-wingers would never support Medicare4All, mass unionization of workers, etc. Guess I'll just pray and wait to see what happens.
I agree. I think a lot of violence and discord are on the way, no doubt about it. For half a century people got used to the idea of abortion being moral and a woman's right to choose. Had this decision been made 50 years ago we'd be better off, the culture was different then. Today's society will not accept this decision quietly or peacefully, I hope conservatives and Christians understand that.
You may not speak for the majority but you articulate what a lot of us are thinking on this and other matters. I hate abortion but I feel very uneasy about this decision and what's coming as a consequence.
I do agree with those who have speculated that the leak may have backfired on the leaker. The pro-life side had time to prepare, secure crisis pregnancy centers, etc., and the pro-abortion side already made themselves look like idiots and the response has been, yeah, kinda underwhelming compared to 2020's Summer of Rage. I'm still keeping my Glock close, but leaking changed nothing of the decision, and the DNC couldn't even fundraise off of it as much as they hoped to.
I think Roberts "masterminded" the leak. And he ended up being odd man out.
I would guess a member of Sotomayor’s staff.
With you 100%. Worse will be unleashed. Read somewhere 50% of all abortions are done by pill. That means the actual abortion facilities may be used for infanticide under the worst circumstances.
you were right - it was a hallow victory. the people were already poisoned.
It might feel like an anticlimax because it was not wrought by any collective repentance, any social reform of morals and manners; in other words, it was more a nakedly political act than a moral one. But that's fine. A victory is still a victory, even a political one. What it was, was a Trump era decision. Trump blew open western politics by just allowing certain sentiments to be expressed, by making a good number of the population — who had felt silenced and cowed and increasingly vilified under the Obama regime — re-enfranchised. But Trump wasn't a moral man. He wasn't any kind of reformer. He was just a gadfly on the back of the neoliberal orthodoxy, someone who could convincingly out official hypocrisies. What Trump and the Dobbs decision have done is lit the signal for an all out culture war over the next 20-30 yrs. The Supreme Court's decision wasn't to take either side in this culture war, but merely to allow it to happen by giving the Christian / Conservative right a level playing field — or at least the room to make a stand on, which the liberals wanted to deny then altogether by making them criminal traitors of the state. The Supreme Court has revived the genius of the US Constitution. You can now decide whether you want to live in a pro-abort blue state, or a pro-life red state. That is a clear line in the sand for the culture war. It's a call to arms. The left wanted to simply squash and silence its enemies. Trump's court has torpedoed that dictatorial move, or at least seriously undermined it. Now Americans have greater freedom to PROVE that pro-life culture is more humane, more just, more moral. This isn't even a proper beginning of Western social reform. But it IS an opening for such a platform to assert itself more definitely. The Supreme Court didn't even positively take a pro-life stand. They didn't even choose a side. But because they've ALLOWED the POSSIBILITY of the pro-life population finally gaining the political legitimacy to which they have a constitutional right, the left perceive it as them choosing the pro-life side. It is a major victory, not because any battle has been won, but because the Court has said, "hey, if this side has guns, why should the other side be forced to fight unarmed"? Christian America is being rearmed in the culture war.
Steve, was that Hilary White quote in a private email to you? If not, can you link to where it is from? I assume there is more to it, and I'd like to see it. I can see where you and she are on the money, the demons can have moved on to better prey (sex reassignment surgeries are now increasing at a rate of about 20% a year, and most think this is a good thing).
The only counterfactual I have is that the states where the people who want abortion mostly live are not going to outlaw the practice. Therefore, they have little immediate reason to get worked up about it. I do think the Dobbs ruling has a good chance of calming down the country.
I don't know if it is quite right to say there was no momentum. The issue has been on the back burner for a time compared to more front-and-center controversies, but from the Scalia death to the Ginsburg death (and with the Kavanaugh controversy in between), everyone knew those Supreme Court seats held the fate of Roe in their hands.
"Life at fertilization is the OVERWHELMING scientific consensus" was news to me.
So, I pull up the paper "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'" and look at the actual question they asked, which was "Do you agree that ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’?"
That question obviously turns on the definition of "life".
Biologically, fertilization is the point at which a human's life begins, if you define "life" as "the existence of a human being", that is, at what point do you have something that (if you squint), kind of has everything it needs to be called "a human", vs., say "a platypus".
If you define "life" as "the ability to reproduce", or "organic matter", or "first brain activity", or "when the young adult leaves home for college", you are going to get different answers.
The paper notes this at the end of the abstract where it says:
"While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy."
BIOLOGICALLY CLASSIFIED.
In other words, the paper was honest, it's the reporting around it that's dishonest. The paper asks a question of a group of scientists who share a very specific understanding of the word "life". Other folks then report to a much larger group, with a wildly different definition of the word "life", that all those biologists agree with them.
That's cheating.
I think you are very right: https://spectator.org/dobbs-and-joseph-sobran/ The Supreme Court in Roe, he concluded, “seriously distorted the moral compass of an entire nation.”
I think Hilary probably is right. Roe has done its dirty work, and it isn't needed anymore.
Alito's opinion was a marvelous legal deconstruction of the abortion-rights premise. But it purposely chose to limit itself to the right to life issue. Thomas, concurring, brought up the larger context -- the Court's sponsorship of 60 years of sexual "revolution". Alito didn't go there because I think, to him, vindication of the right to life and its indefatigable advocates is paramount.
But I think you are right, Steve, that this a weird moment.
Weirder still, you are avowing agnosticism. God bless you and your family.
I am a paying subscriber to both the Skojecfile and Chris Hedges. The latest post from Hedges was explaining how he thinks overturning Roe is the institution of Christian fascism. Oh, boy; I love and respect Chris, but, man, did he ever get that one wrong! I couldn't read past the first sentence. But his father, a Presbyterian minister, was pro-gay rights back in the day when even Presbyterians would fire ministers for that. So, that's the milieu he grew up in.
You know, it's funny, but a day after writing that comment, I was scrolling through consortiumnews, I believe it was, and there was Chris Hedges' latest post. So, I thought, "Okay, I'll read it." What struck me was his experiences in academic settings with faculty members trundling under to this Christian Fascism. Hmm. Whenever people are talking about their own experiences, I listen, especially if I have never experienced it or heard about it before.
So, I just don't know. I like Roe being overturned, but I am positive the corporate-backed right-wingers would never support Medicare4All, mass unionization of workers, etc. Guess I'll just pray and wait to see what happens.