I tend to agree. However, I find the Supreme Court's overruling of Roe v Wade to be a very poor choice, both for women & for Republicans.
First of all, to uphold my reasoning, their is no Abolition of Slavery in our Constitution, yet we managed to abolish that nightmare, none the less.
The right to bodily autonomy is absolutely foundational and comes before any other human right. That's what makes Slavery wrong, it's also what makes forced medical experimentation wrong, and additionally it is why the original Roe v Wade decision was correct, in my personal view.
During the 1st trimester a women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. France sees this so clearly that they have now put it in their Constitution. We should as well, and stop all this political posturing, fighting and brouhaha that prevents us from facing our genuine issues- endless wars & warmongering, crushing debt, selling our kids future out from under them, plus sickness, death & disease as a business model.
Those are the issues we need to face, but those playing politics will always pull either the "race card," or the "abortion denial" card to fan the flames of the naive to choose their vote on a basically meaningless topic because nothing is really going to change all that much anyway. That said, on demand second and third trimester abortions, as allowed in Oregon and other "insane in my view" jurisdictions, are are horror, imho, and no sane society should legalize or accept such behavior.
Why that needs to explained, or is "debatable" to some, is beyond me.
Politicians never fail to shoot themselves or their supporters' ideals when they don't need to take action on an issue. They always want to act like they're "doing something," even when doing nothing is the better alternative. It's similar to the HIppocratic Oath: First, do no harm. The problem is that too many equate "doing nothing" with "not wanting to solve problems".
But who wants to solve imaginary problems? Your typical politician. Which is why many commit unforced errors in adopting positions on issues that shouldn't matter.
Here's a puzzle: Calvin Coolidge ("Silent Cal") was famous for saying things like, "Don't just do something! Stand there!" The puzzle (in my mind) is: How did a politician who had built up a brand of studied, almost Zen, non-intervention ever have success in politics?
The only explanation I can come to is that times were different then. The "recession" that happened a few years after one of the most evil Presidents (Woodrow Wilson) occurred in 1920-1921, since the war machine stopped spending. The federal government, under the stewardship of Harding and Coolidge, did the right thing: Nothing. By doing nothing, the nation was lifted out of a recession that not many people knew was even happening.
But I guess Coolidge's success may have been the demise of that theory of governance, because every politician that was faced with similar problems in the future, did exactly the opposite. They all did something, and they usually did something wrong. It's bad enough to do the wrong thing. But those crackpot politicians didn't just do the wrong thing; they often did the exact opposite of the right thing.
The best tribute I ever read about the actions of Harding as President was, "He got elected. And then he died. And almost no one was worse off than before."
I tend to agree. However, I find the Supreme Court's overruling of Roe v Wade to be a very poor choice, both for women & for Republicans.
First of all, to uphold my reasoning, their is no Abolition of Slavery in our Constitution, yet we managed to abolish that nightmare, none the less.
The right to bodily autonomy is absolutely foundational and comes before any other human right. That's what makes Slavery wrong, it's also what makes forced medical experimentation wrong, and additionally it is why the original Roe v Wade decision was correct, in my personal view.
During the 1st trimester a women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. France sees this so clearly that they have now put it in their Constitution. We should as well, and stop all this political posturing, fighting and brouhaha that prevents us from facing our genuine issues- endless wars & warmongering, crushing debt, selling our kids future out from under them, plus sickness, death & disease as a business model.
Those are the issues we need to face, but those playing politics will always pull either the "race card," or the "abortion denial" card to fan the flames of the naive to choose their vote on a basically meaningless topic because nothing is really going to change all that much anyway. That said, on demand second and third trimester abortions, as allowed in Oregon and other "insane in my view" jurisdictions, are are horror, imho, and no sane society should legalize or accept such behavior.
Why that needs to explained, or is "debatable" to some, is beyond me.
Politicians never fail to shoot themselves or their supporters' ideals when they don't need to take action on an issue. They always want to act like they're "doing something," even when doing nothing is the better alternative. It's similar to the HIppocratic Oath: First, do no harm. The problem is that too many equate "doing nothing" with "not wanting to solve problems".
But who wants to solve imaginary problems? Your typical politician. Which is why many commit unforced errors in adopting positions on issues that shouldn't matter.
Here's a puzzle: Calvin Coolidge ("Silent Cal") was famous for saying things like, "Don't just do something! Stand there!" The puzzle (in my mind) is: How did a politician who had built up a brand of studied, almost Zen, non-intervention ever have success in politics?
The only explanation I can come to is that times were different then. The "recession" that happened a few years after one of the most evil Presidents (Woodrow Wilson) occurred in 1920-1921, since the war machine stopped spending. The federal government, under the stewardship of Harding and Coolidge, did the right thing: Nothing. By doing nothing, the nation was lifted out of a recession that not many people knew was even happening.
But I guess Coolidge's success may have been the demise of that theory of governance, because every politician that was faced with similar problems in the future, did exactly the opposite. They all did something, and they usually did something wrong. It's bad enough to do the wrong thing. But those crackpot politicians didn't just do the wrong thing; they often did the exact opposite of the right thing.
The best tribute I ever read about the actions of Harding as President was, "He got elected. And then he died. And almost no one was worse off than before."