• =?UTF-8?Q?The_Dishonesty_And_Desperation_Of_=e2=80=9cPro-Choice?= =?UTF

    From Michael Ejercito@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 9 21:39:45 2022
    XPost: talk.abortion, alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: soc.culture.usa

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/08/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-i-anything-but-the-issues

    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of “Pro-Choice” Advocates In The Wake Of
    The Dobbs Leak, Part I: Anything But The Issues
    MAY 8, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    Another one of the ironic boons from the despicable Supreme Court leak
    of Justice Alito’s draft majority opinion portending that Roe v. Wade is about to be overruled is how vividly it has exposed the intellectually dishonest and unethical nature of “pro choice” arguments. This comes as
    no surprise to anyone who has been following the abortion debate
    diligently, but in their fury and panic, abortion advocates are
    revealing just how weak their case is. They are also revealing that
    those who are willing to sacrifice nascent human lives for other
    objectives tend to have no compunction about using rationalizations, ad
    hominem attacks, classic logical fallacies and fearmongering as well as outright lies, when they finally have to defend their positions.

    The reappearance of the costumes from “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a neat symbol of the whole phenomenon. (How many of such protesters haven’t
    read Roe, the Alito draft, or Margaret Atwood’s novel? My guess: most of them.) To be fair, prominent Democrats like this guy endorsed the hysteria:



    That delusion was apiece with the suggestion that women could force men
    to support abortion on demand by going on a sex strike. Similarly
    ducking the issues are the illegal demonstrations at the homes of
    Justices before it is even known who voted to end Roe, and President
    Biden’s moronic declaration in response to the leak that “this MAGA
    crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed
    in American history—-in recent American history.”

    Since Roe v. Wade has been almost unanimously regarded in legal and
    academic circles as a badly reasoned opinion (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    conceded it was a botch), the epitome of flagrant judicial activism and legislation by judges, those trying to defend the decision now have had
    to resort to distractions, diversions, straw men and fictional slippery
    slopes. “Next those fascists will ban inter-racial marriage and Brown v. Board of Education!” more than a few Democratic officials and pundits
    have proclaimed, apparently forgetting that just a few weeks ago they
    were demanding that Justice Thomas, the dean of the Court’s
    conservatives, recuse himself because of the activities of his very
    white wife.


    Others have blamed the Catholic Church and argued that the maybe-ruling
    is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of church and state
    because four of the five assumed majority members, plus Chief Justice
    Roberts, are Catholics. The reversal would “deepen America’s divide” warned the New York Times. Heh. “Can’t have that!” sayeth the
    publication that didn’t concern itself with such division when it was covering a false case that President Trump had conspired with Russia to
    steal the 2016 election, or when their favorite political party was
    illicitly impeaching Trump twice.

    The Obamas, predictably, despite their legal education, resorted to the
    facile claim that no Roe would “relegate the most intensely personal
    decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues. “Whims!” The Obamas, of all people, now don’t think that politicians respond to the will of the people? When did “personal decisions” become off-limits for the law? Deciding to rob banks is a personal decision.
    Raping a date is the result of a personal decision. Killing an abusive
    spouse is a personal opinion, just like ending the life you are carrying because it will disrupt your plans is a personal decision.

    I have seen opinion pieces that defend Roe on the basis that abortion
    slows climate change. Many defenders have argued in print and on the
    MSNBC/CNN echo chambers that the motive behind a reversal is racism
    (though a disproportionate number of the human lives ended by abortion
    are black). Another tack is that retiring the contrived Constitutional
    right is hypocritical, since Republicans don’t support more federal assistance for children who are allowed to be born. The Times ran one
    op-ed that argued that fewer abortions would be bad for the economy.

    Levi Strauss was among several companies that chose market-pleasing virtue-signaling over honest debate when it defended Roe as a “critical factor to the workplace gains and contributions women have made over the
    past 50 years,” and argued that “restricting or criminalizing access” to rubbing out unborn children in the womb “will jeopardize that progress.” Legalizing the murder of men would also presumably add to workplace
    gains for women: this is the same unethical “the ends justify the means” rationalization that pro-abortion activists and feminists have been
    using for decades to avoid trying to balance the competing interests
    that have makes the issue so difficult. (It’s easy, though, if you
    pretend one of the interests doesn’t exist or matter.)

    Today Maureen Dowd resolutely refuses to acknowledge one of those
    interests, attributing the potential reversal of Roe to–get this—“priggishness.” Yes, it’s all about discouraging sex: Dowd’s hook
    is that the Court will be rejecting the sexual mores of Marilyn
    Monroe—I’m not kidding!— and thus is “yanking away the right of women to
    control their own bodies, strapping us into a time machine hurtling backward.”

    “Spoken like the brave former fetus she is” was how Fox’s Laura Ingraham characterized similar remarks from another furious abortion activist
    last week.

    Some of the other detours from legitimate debate include:

    Abortion can be good for the aborted child: “People who don’t want to be pregnant aren’t always capable of or willing to provide a healthy
    gestational environment—and that could be terrible for the children they eventually give birth to. Sometimes women abort because it is the more compassionate option. They know that alcoholism, addiction issues,
    mental health problems, or other circumstances will prevent them from adequately nourishing a fetus or protecting it from harm during
    gestation….If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot
    more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues.
    Some may say, “Hey, they were born, that’s all that matters.” But is setting up a person for a lifetime of suffering really a moral or humane choice?”
    Tell it to Christy Brown. The pro-abortion pundit who wrote that, you’ll notice, avoided using the word “women.” “People who don’t want to be pregnant,” she writes. You know, I’m pretty sure men who don’t want to
    be pregnant don’t have a problem achieving that objective

    Eliminating Roe will make miscarriages “more traumatic.”
    Reversing Roe will “grow the government.” I especially like this one, because the vast majority of pro-abortion politicians want to increase
    the size of government.
    There are many more. Send the ones you encounter into the comments.

    I’ll end Part I by noting that Justice Alito, in his draft, states
    directly that the decision to reverse Roe implies no opposition to
    either the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion position. Of course, one
    has to actually read the opinion to know that.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/09/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-2-reason-should-be-ashamed-of-itself/


    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of “Pro-Choice” Advocates In The Wake Of
    The Dobbs Leak, Part 2: Reason Should Be Ashamed Of Itself
    MAY 9, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    It is not a great surprise to see that the libertarian magazine Reason
    opposes abortion restrictions; one would assume so, given the
    libertarian creed. (Libertarians Ron Paul, a former House member, and
    his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), however, both oppose abortion, and take
    the position that life begins at conception.) However, if the
    publication is going to declare that Justice Alito’s draft opinion in
    Dobbs is badly reasoned (and a publication named “Reason” should be
    careful when it makes such a claim if it wants to maintain a reputation
    for integrity) it has an obligation to rebut that reasoning competently
    and fairly.

    Thus when I saw the headline on Reason’s website, “Alito’s Draft Opinion That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning,” I clicked on
    it eagerly. Legitimate legal analyses of the draft have been in short
    supply, with even supposedly respectable legal scholars from the
    pro-abortion camp resorting to hysterical pronouncements rather than dispassionate argument.

    Inexcusably, the author of the article under the clickbait headline
    doesn’t come close to making the case that the Justice’s draft fits that hyperbolic description. Worse, it is quickly apparent that she wouldn’t
    know a “disaster of legal reasoning” if, to quote Matt Hooper in “Jaws,”
    one swam up “and bit [her] in the ass.” As I read her mess, I thought, “Elizabeth Nolan Brown can’t possibly be a lawyer.” Indeed she isn’t. Her graduate degree is in theater.

    Oh. One of those.


    Why would Reason allow a non-lawyer to author a piece with that
    headline? Good question. Since Brown has no authority (or the skills) to
    make such a case, she resorts to appeals to other authorities. (Appeal
    to authority is a classic logical fallacy.) The scholarly authorities
    she chooses are a colleague at Reason (more on him shortly), and two unqualified commentators. University of Maryland history professor Holly
    Brewer didn’t analyze Alito’s opinion (though she probably could have
    done a better job than Brown, a low bar), but just cherry-picked one
    small part of it, the Justice’s argument that there is no historical justification for determining that abortion is one of the “unenumerated rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment. The other authority not on Reason’s staff is Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank TechFreedom. Mirabile dictu, he’s also not a lawyer, but he’s a good
    social justice warrior, so he plays the race card. “The more we
    privilege deep roots in history, the more weight we have to give to some terribly illiberal ideas,” says Kuznicki. “Rights for white people have deeper roots than rights for black people, and no amount of time can
    change that.”

    So Kuznicki would invalidate all legal history as a component of legal
    analysis because of slavery. How CRT of him!

    Then Brown cites political “authorities,” and reduces her argument to a joke: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who despite being a former law professor,
    has made no substantive arguments to counter Alito, just her usual
    demagoguery; Sen. Bernie Sanders (also not a lawyer), who embraces so
    many crazy positions that his opposition to the draft opinion would be
    the equivalent of an endorsement; Senator Amy Klobuchar, whose
    contribution to the debate is to predict a dire backlash at the polls,
    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who is an ignoramus and couldn’t comprehend Alito’s draft if there were a Cliff Notes version, and Senator Susan Collins,
    who had no substantive contribution to make but claimed that Justices
    Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett lied in their hearings if they voted to
    overturn Roe (which is itself a lie; as many have pointed out including
    Ethics Alarms, all of the Justices carefully avoided making any such assurances, only saying that Roe was “the law of the land” and thay they respected precedent), and most risible of all, Kamala Harris, who said
    the Republicans”want to take us back to a time before Roe v. Wade, back
    to a time before Obergefell v. Hodges, back to a time before Griswold v. Connecticut.” That’s some legal reasoning there, Madam Vice-President.
    At least “Reason” thinks so.

    Clarification: I meant “most risible of all” of the politicians Brown
    cited to support her proposition. She also cited esteemed legal
    authority Whoopi Goldberg.

    If Brown had gone to law school, she would have learned that when you
    include ostentatiously lame authorities—or, as in this instance,
    ridiculous ones— in your memo, brief or oral argument, the judge will conclude that you don’t have a case.

    Now let’s examine the only relevant authority Brown uses to show that Alito’s draft is “a disaster of legal reasoning.” This one is Damon
    Root, who is a legitimate legal scholar and fully capable of performing
    a critical analysis of Alito’s reasoning. He didn’t do one, though; I assume that like me, he prefers to devote the time and energy necessary
    to the actual opinion and not a leaked draft. The only qualified legal authority, then, that Brown cites for her proposition that Alito’s
    reasoning is a “disaster” doesn’t claim that Alito’s reasoning is a “disaster” at all. Huh!

    What Root does argue, in an earlier Reason article titled “What the
    Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About Unenumerated Rights” is put
    this way:

    The author of the leaked draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, makes the standard conservative argument against abortion rights. “The
    Constitution makes no reference to abortion,” Alito writes, “and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including
    the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held
    to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but
    any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'” Alito continues: “The right to an abortion does not fall within this category.”

    But there is at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at
    issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category. Namely, the right
    to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to
    bodily integrity.

    “May very well fall into this category”? “May justly be seen as a subset of the right to bodily integrity”? “At least one”? If Alito’s reasoning is such a disaster, why is Root so equivocal? I know why: his argument
    is also weak, and he knows it.

    “Bodily integrity”? How does that translate into a right to have a
    medical procedure that removes another living organism from one’s body?
    Root doesn’t explain that himself—he also pivots to an appeal to
    authority. Yup: Brown’s claim that Alito’s legal reasoning is a disaster hands off its argument to Root, who also hands off the argument, this
    time to a Prof. Sheldon Gelman—it’s an appeal to authority that appeals
    to authority!

    Root also quotes Gelman to the effect that “the right to bodily
    integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta.” Wait—didn’t Brown use as another authority the guy who said historical references to rights
    were inevitably racist? How can Brown use both opinions to criticize
    Alito’s draft? Well, she can’t, or shouldn’t, but she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

    Now Root’s sole authority for the “bodily integrity” theory is a 28-year-old law review article by the afore-mentioned Prof. Gelman. As
    it happens, I had read this thing when it was first published. Try to
    read it yourself: I dare you. It is almost a parody of scholarly
    Authentic Frontier Gibberish in which the high weeds of philosophical nit-picking obliterate any useful observations.

    However, I can summarize the portion that Root is relying on simply: “life,” as in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” means more than just the right to live, but also the right to live a productive and
    free life. The Magna Carta forbade the king from cutting off the legs
    and arms of citizens as a breach of a basic right: a man without a limb
    was still alive, but his life was much diminished. That’s the right to “bodily integrity.” Thus, Gelman argues, abortion is included among the “unenumerated rights” mentioned in the Ninth Amendment, because the
    burden of having an unwanted child permanently and materially diminishes
    the woman’s life—you know, just like losing a leg.

    Interesting. But isn’t it strange, indeed hypocritical, to argue for the right to abortion based on an expanded interpretation of the right to
    life when abortion by definition involves ending a life?

    Here’s Gelman’s answer:

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, and that a conflict, therefore,
    exists between the woman’s and the fetus’ rights of life. No
    Justice has ever endorsed that argument, and the considerations
    cited in Roe-for example, that abortion is not generally
    regarded as murder and that fetuses are not counted in the
    census, counsel strongly against it.

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, might one? The fiction that
    fetuses don’t have lives is central to the one-life-only fiction
    inherent in the “pro-choice” euphemism, but if it hadn’t been thoroughly debunked by 1994, and I’d be shocked if it hadn’t, it certainly is now. Furthermore, the two arguments Gelman cites from Roe are infamous—talk
    about including weak authorities in your brief! It is not unusual for
    someone who kills a child in the womb to be prosecuted for murder, when
    the means of killing isn’t an abortion. 38 states recognize the fetus
    or “unborn child” as a crime victim, with the crime being homicide or feticide. The census argument is too silly to even debate. Whoever
    decided that counting the unborn in the census was not likely to be
    thinking about whether a fetus was alive of not. That the unborn aren’t included in the census proves nothing regarding whether they are alive
    or not.

    Yes, Gelman’s law review article is a disaster of legal reasoning.
    Brown’s article is a disaster of journalism and punditry, and Reason
    should hide its metaphorical head in a bag for publishing it.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HeartDoc Andrew@21:1/5 to Michael Ejercito on Tue May 10 07:20:10 2022
    XPost: talk.abortion, alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: soc.culture.usa

    Michael Ejercito wrote:

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/08/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-i-anything-but-the-issues

    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of Pro-Choice Advocates In The Wake Of
    The Dobbs Leak, Part I: Anything But The Issues
    MAY 8, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    Another one of the ironic boons from the despicable Supreme Court leak
    of Justice Alitos draft majority opinion portending that Roe v. Wade is >about to be overruled is how vividly it has exposed the intellectually >dishonest and unethical nature of pro choice arguments. This comes as
    no surprise to anyone who has been following the abortion debate
    diligently, but in their fury and panic, abortion advocates are
    revealing just how weak their case is. They are also revealing that
    those who are willing to sacrifice nascent human lives for other
    objectives tend to have no compunction about using rationalizations, ad >hominem attacks, classic logical fallacies and fearmongering as well as >outright lies, when they finally have to defend their positions.

    The reappearance of the costumes from The Handmaidens Tale is a neat >symbol of the whole phenomenon. (How many of such protesters havent
    read Roe, the Alito draft, or Margaret Atwoods novel? My guess: most of >them.) To be fair, prominent Democrats like this guy endorsed the hysteria:



    That delusion was apiece with the suggestion that women could force men
    to support abortion on demand by going on a sex strike. Similarly
    ducking the issues are the illegal demonstrations at the homes of
    Justices before it is even known who voted to end Roe, and President
    Bidens moronic declaration in response to the leak that this MAGA
    crowd is really the most extreme political organization thats existed
    in American history-in recent American history.

    Since Roe v. Wade has been almost unanimously regarded in legal and
    academic circles as a badly reasoned opinion (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg >conceded it was a botch), the epitome of flagrant judicial activism and >legislation by judges, those trying to defend the decision now have had
    to resort to distractions, diversions, straw men and fictional slippery >slopes. Next those fascists will ban inter-racial marriage and Brown v. >Board of Education! more than a few Democratic officials and pundits
    have proclaimed, apparently forgetting that just a few weeks ago they
    were demanding that Justice Thomas, the dean of the Courts
    conservatives, recuse himself because of the activities of his very
    white wife.


    Others have blamed the Catholic Church and argued that the maybe-ruling
    is a violation of the Constitutions separation of church and state
    because four of the five assumed majority members, plus Chief Justice >Roberts, are Catholics. The reversal would deepen Americas divide
    warned the New York Times. Heh. Cant have that! sayeth the
    publication that didnt concern itself with such division when it was >covering a false case that President Trump had conspired with Russia to
    steal the 2016 election, or when their favorite political party was
    illicitly impeaching Trump twice.

    The Obamas, predictably, despite their legal education, resorted to the >facile claim that no Roe would relegate the most intensely personal
    decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues. >Whims! The Obamas, of all people, now dont think that politicians
    respond to the will of the people? When did personal decisions become >off-limits for the law? Deciding to rob banks is a personal decision.
    Raping a date is the result of a personal decision. Killing an abusive
    spouse is a personal opinion, just like ending the life you are carrying >because it will disrupt your plans is a personal decision.

    I have seen opinion pieces that defend Roe on the basis that abortion
    slows climate change. Many defenders have argued in print and on the >MSNBC/CNN echo chambers that the motive behind a reversal is racism
    (though a disproportionate number of the human lives ended by abortion
    are black). Another tack is that retiring the contrived Constitutional
    right is hypocritical, since Republicans dont support more federal >assistance for children who are allowed to be born. The Times ran one
    op-ed that argued that fewer abortions would be bad for the economy.

    Levi Strauss was among several companies that chose market-pleasing >virtue-signaling over honest debate when it defended Roe as a critical >factor to the workplace gains and contributions women have made over the
    past 50 years, and argued that restricting or criminalizing access to >rubbing out unborn children in the womb will jeopardize that progress. >Legalizing the murder of men would also presumably add to workplace
    gains for women: this is the same unethical the ends justify the means >rationalization that pro-abortion activists and feminists have been
    using for decades to avoid trying to balance the competing interests
    that have makes the issue so difficult. (Its easy, though, if you
    pretend one of the interests doesnt exist or matter.)

    Today Maureen Dowd resolutely refuses to acknowledge one of those
    interests, attributing the potential reversal of Roe toget >thispriggishness. Yes, its all about discouraging sex: Dowds hook
    is that the Court will be rejecting the sexual mores of Marilyn
    MonroeIm not kidding! and thus is yanking away the right of women to >control their own bodies, strapping us into a time machine hurtling >backward.

    Spoken like the brave former fetus she is was how Foxs Laura Ingraham >characterized similar remarks from another furious abortion activist
    last week.

    Some of the other detours from legitimate debate include:

    Abortion can be good for the aborted child: People who dont want to be >pregnant arent always capable of or willing to provide a healthy
    gestational environmentand that could be terrible for the children they >eventually give birth to. Sometimes women abort because it is the more >compassionate option. They know that alcoholism, addiction issues,
    mental health problems, or other circumstances will prevent them from >adequately nourishing a fetus or protecting it from harm during
    gestation.If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot
    more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues.
    Some may say, Hey, they were born, thats all that matters. But is
    setting up a person for a lifetime of suffering really a moral or humane >choice?
    Tell it to Christy Brown. The pro-abortion pundit who wrote that, youll >notice, avoided using the word women. People who dont want to be >pregnant, she writes. You know, Im pretty sure men who dont want to
    be pregnant dont have a problem achieving that objective

    Eliminating Roe will make miscarriages more traumatic.
    Reversing Roe will grow the government. I especially like this one,
    because the vast majority of pro-abortion politicians want to increase
    the size of government.
    There are many more. Send the ones you encounter into the comments.

    Ill end Part I by noting that Justice Alito, in his draft, states
    directly that the decision to reverse Roe implies no opposition to
    either the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion position. Of course, one
    has to actually read the opinion to know that.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/09/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-2-reason-should-be-ashamed-of-itself/


    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of Pro-Choice Advocates In The Wake Of
    The Dobbs Leak, Part 2: Reason Should Be Ashamed Of Itself
    MAY 9, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    It is not a great surprise to see that the libertarian magazine Reason >opposes abortion restrictions; one would assume so, given the
    libertarian creed. (Libertarians Ron Paul, a former House member, and
    his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), however, both oppose abortion, and take
    the position that life begins at conception.) However, if the
    publication is going to declare that Justice Alitos draft opinion in
    Dobbs is badly reasoned (and a publication named Reason should be
    careful when it makes such a claim if it wants to maintain a reputation
    for integrity) it has an obligation to rebut that reasoning competently
    and fairly.

    Thus when I saw the headline on Reasons website, Alitos Draft Opinion
    That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning, I clicked on
    it eagerly. Legitimate legal analyses of the draft have been in short
    supply, with even supposedly respectable legal scholars from the
    pro-abortion camp resorting to hysterical pronouncements rather than >dispassionate argument.

    Inexcusably, the author of the article under the clickbait headline
    doesnt come close to making the case that the Justices draft fits that >hyperbolic description. Worse, it is quickly apparent that she wouldnt
    know a disaster of legal reasoning if, to quote Matt Hooper in Jaws,
    one swam up and bit [her] in the ass. As I read her mess, I thought, >Elizabeth Nolan Brown cant possibly be a lawyer. Indeed she isnt.
    Her graduate degree is in theater.

    Oh. One of those.


    Why would Reason allow a non-lawyer to author a piece with that
    headline? Good question. Since Brown has no authority (or the skills) to
    make such a case, she resorts to appeals to other authorities. (Appeal
    to authority is a classic logical fallacy.) The scholarly authorities
    she chooses are a colleague at Reason (more on him shortly), and two >unqualified commentators. University of Maryland history professor Holly >Brewer didnt analyze Alitos opinion (though she probably could have
    done a better job than Brown, a low bar), but just cherry-picked one
    small part of it, the Justices argument that there is no historical >justification for determining that abortion is one of the unenumerated >rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. The other authority not on
    Reasons staff is Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank >TechFreedom. Mirabile dictu, hes also not a lawyer, but hes a good
    social justice warrior, so he plays the race card. The more we
    privilege deep roots in history, the more weight we have to give to some >terribly illiberal ideas, says Kuznicki. Rights for white people have >deeper roots than rights for black people, and no amount of time can
    change that.

    So Kuznicki would invalidate all legal history as a component of legal >analysis because of slavery. How CRT of him!

    Then Brown cites political authorities, and reduces her argument to a
    joke: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who despite being a former law professor,
    has made no substantive arguments to counter Alito, just her usual >demagoguery; Sen. Bernie Sanders (also not a lawyer), who embraces so
    many crazy positions that his opposition to the draft opinion would be
    the equivalent of an endorsement; Senator Amy Klobuchar, whose
    contribution to the debate is to predict a dire backlash at the polls,
    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who is an ignoramus and couldnt comprehend Alitos
    draft if there were a Cliff Notes version, and Senator Susan Collins,
    who had no substantive contribution to make but claimed that Justices >Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett lied in their hearings if they voted to >overturn Roe (which is itself a lie; as many have pointed out including >Ethics Alarms, all of the Justices carefully avoided making any such >assurances, only saying that Roe was the law of the land and thay they >respected precedent), and most risible of all, Kamala Harris, who said
    the Republicanswant to take us back to a time before Roe v. Wade, back
    to a time before Obergefell v. Hodges, back to a time before Griswold v. >Connecticut. Thats some legal reasoning there, Madam Vice-President.
    At least Reason thinks so.

    Clarification: I meant most risible of all of the politicians Brown
    cited to support her proposition. She also cited esteemed legal
    authority Whoopi Goldberg.

    If Brown had gone to law school, she would have learned that when you
    include ostentatiously lame authoritiesor, as in this instance,
    ridiculous ones in your memo, brief or oral argument, the judge will >conclude that you dont have a case.

    Now lets examine the only relevant authority Brown uses to show that
    Alitos draft is a disaster of legal reasoning. This one is Damon
    Root, who is a legitimate legal scholar and fully capable of performing
    a critical analysis of Alitos reasoning. He didnt do one, though; I
    assume that like me, he prefers to devote the time and energy necessary
    to the actual opinion and not a leaked draft. The only qualified legal >authority, then, that Brown cites for her proposition that Alitos
    reasoning is a disaster doesnt claim that Alitos reasoning is a >disaster at all. Huh!

    What Root does argue, in an earlier Reason article titled What the
    Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About Unenumerated Rights is put
    this way:

    The author of the leaked draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, makes the >standard conservative argument against abortion rights. The
    Constitution makes no reference to abortion, Alito writes, and no such >right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including
    the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly relythe Due >Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held
    to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but
    any such right must be deeply rooted in this Nations history and
    tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' Alito >continues: The right to an abortion does not fall within this category.

    But there is at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at
    issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category. Namely, the right
    to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to >bodily integrity.

    May very well fall into this category? May justly be seen as a subset
    of the right to bodily integrity? At least one? If Alitos reasoning
    is such a disaster, why is Root so equivocal? I know why: his argument
    is also weak, and he knows it.

    Bodily integrity? How does that translate into a right to have a
    medical procedure that removes another living organism from ones body?
    Root doesnt explain that himselfhe also pivots to an appeal to
    authority. Yup: Browns claim that Alitos legal reasoning is a disaster >hands off its argument to Root, who also hands off the argument, this
    time to a Prof. Sheldon Gelmanits an appeal to authority that appeals
    to authority!

    Root also quotes Gelman to the effect that the right to bodily
    integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta. Waitdidnt Brown use
    as another authority the guy who said historical references to rights
    were inevitably racist? How can Brown use both opinions to criticize
    Alitos draft? Well, she cant, or shouldnt, but she doesnt know what
    shes talking about.

    Now Roots sole authority for the bodily integrity theory is a
    28-year-old law review article by the afore-mentioned Prof. Gelman. As
    it happens, I had read this thing when it was first published. Try to
    read it yourself: I dare you. It is almost a parody of scholarly
    Authentic Frontier Gibberish in which the high weeds of philosophical >nit-picking obliterate any useful observations.

    However, I can summarize the portion that Root is relying on simply:
    life, as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, means more
    than just the right to live, but also the right to live a productive and
    free life. The Magna Carta forbade the king from cutting off the legs
    and arms of citizens as a breach of a basic right: a man without a limb
    was still alive, but his life was much diminished. Thats the right to >bodily integrity. Thus, Gelman argues, abortion is included among the >unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment, because the
    burden of having an unwanted child permanently and materially diminishes
    the womans lifeyou know, just like losing a leg.

    Interesting. But isnt it strange, indeed hypocritical, to argue for the >right to abortion based on an expanded interpretation of the right to
    life when abortion by definition involves ending a life?

    Heres Gelmans answer:

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, and that a conflict, therefore, >exists between the womans and the fetus rights of life. No
    Justice has ever endorsed that argument, and the considerations
    cited in Roe-for example, that abortion is not generally
    regarded as murder and that fetuses are not counted in the
    census, counsel strongly against it.

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, might one? The fiction that
    fetuses dont have lives is central to the one-life-only fiction
    inherent in the pro-choice euphemism, but if it hadnt been thoroughly >debunked by 1994, and Id be shocked if it hadnt, it certainly is now. >Furthermore, the two arguments Gelman cites from Roe are infamoustalk
    about including weak authorities in your brief! It is not unusual for
    someone who kills a child in the womb to be prosecuted for murder, when
    the means of killing isnt an abortion. 38 states recognize the fetus
    or unborn child as a crime victim, with the crime being homicide or >feticide. The census argument is too silly to even debate. Whoever
    decided that counting the unborn in the census was not likely to be
    thinking about whether a fetus was alive of not. That the unborn arent >included in the census proves nothing regarding whether they are alive
    or not.

    Yes, Gelmans law review article is a disaster of legal reasoning.
    Browns article is a disaster of journalism and punditry, and Reason
    should hide its metaphorical head in a bag for publishing it.

    Tragically, abortions continue to be the terrible consequence of http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) people misbehaving
    terribly like http://bit.ly/h_angry DJT.

    Suggested further reading:
    https://tinyurl.com/Psalm0201

    The only healthy way to stop abortions is to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) to be http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) instead.

    Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and
    hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

    So how are you ?







    ...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

    HeartDoc Andrew <><
    --
    Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
    2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
    and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
    http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
    which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Ejercito@21:1/5 to HeartDoc Andrew on Tue May 10 08:38:14 2022
    XPost: talk.abortion, alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: soc.culture.usa

    HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
    Michael Ejercito wrote:

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/08/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-i-anything-but-the-issues

    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of “Pro-Choice” Advocates In The Wake Of >> The Dobbs Leak, Part I: Anything But The Issues
    MAY 8, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    Another one of the ironic boons from the despicable Supreme Court leak
    of Justice Alito’s draft majority opinion portending that Roe v. Wade is >> about to be overruled is how vividly it has exposed the intellectually
    dishonest and unethical nature of “pro choice” arguments. This comes as >> no surprise to anyone who has been following the abortion debate
    diligently, but in their fury and panic, abortion advocates are
    revealing just how weak their case is. They are also revealing that
    those who are willing to sacrifice nascent human lives for other
    objectives tend to have no compunction about using rationalizations, ad
    hominem attacks, classic logical fallacies and fearmongering as well as
    outright lies, when they finally have to defend their positions.

    The reappearance of the costumes from “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a neat
    symbol of the whole phenomenon. (How many of such protesters haven’t
    read Roe, the Alito draft, or Margaret Atwood’s novel? My guess: most of >> them.) To be fair, prominent Democrats like this guy endorsed the hysteria: >>


    That delusion was apiece with the suggestion that women could force men
    to support abortion on demand by going on a sex strike. Similarly
    ducking the issues are the illegal demonstrations at the homes of
    Justices before it is even known who voted to end Roe, and President
    Biden’s moronic declaration in response to the leak that “this MAGA
    crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed
    in American history—-in recent American history.”

    Since Roe v. Wade has been almost unanimously regarded in legal and
    academic circles as a badly reasoned opinion (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    conceded it was a botch), the epitome of flagrant judicial activism and
    legislation by judges, those trying to defend the decision now have had
    to resort to distractions, diversions, straw men and fictional slippery
    slopes. “Next those fascists will ban inter-racial marriage and Brown v. >> Board of Education!” more than a few Democratic officials and pundits
    have proclaimed, apparently forgetting that just a few weeks ago they
    were demanding that Justice Thomas, the dean of the Court’s
    conservatives, recuse himself because of the activities of his very
    white wife.


    Others have blamed the Catholic Church and argued that the maybe-ruling
    is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of church and state
    because four of the five assumed majority members, plus Chief Justice
    Roberts, are Catholics. The reversal would “deepen America’s divide” >> warned the New York Times. Heh. “Can’t have that!” sayeth the
    publication that didn’t concern itself with such division when it was
    covering a false case that President Trump had conspired with Russia to
    steal the 2016 election, or when their favorite political party was
    illicitly impeaching Trump twice.

    The Obamas, predictably, despite their legal education, resorted to the
    facile claim that no Roe would “relegate the most intensely personal
    decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues.
    “Whims!” The Obamas, of all people, now don’t think that politicians >> respond to the will of the people? When did “personal decisions” become >> off-limits for the law? Deciding to rob banks is a personal decision.
    Raping a date is the result of a personal decision. Killing an abusive
    spouse is a personal opinion, just like ending the life you are carrying
    because it will disrupt your plans is a personal decision.

    I have seen opinion pieces that defend Roe on the basis that abortion
    slows climate change. Many defenders have argued in print and on the
    MSNBC/CNN echo chambers that the motive behind a reversal is racism
    (though a disproportionate number of the human lives ended by abortion
    are black). Another tack is that retiring the contrived Constitutional
    right is hypocritical, since Republicans don’t support more federal
    assistance for children who are allowed to be born. The Times ran one
    op-ed that argued that fewer abortions would be bad for the economy.

    Levi Strauss was among several companies that chose market-pleasing
    virtue-signaling over honest debate when it defended Roe as a “critical
    factor to the workplace gains and contributions women have made over the
    past 50 years,” and argued that “restricting or criminalizing access” to
    rubbing out unborn children in the womb “will jeopardize that progress.” >> Legalizing the murder of men would also presumably add to workplace
    gains for women: this is the same unethical “the ends justify the means” >> rationalization that pro-abortion activists and feminists have been
    using for decades to avoid trying to balance the competing interests
    that have makes the issue so difficult. (It’s easy, though, if you
    pretend one of the interests doesn’t exist or matter.)

    Today Maureen Dowd resolutely refuses to acknowledge one of those
    interests, attributing the potential reversal of Roe to–get
    this—“priggishness.” Yes, it’s all about discouraging sex: Dowd’s hook
    is that the Court will be rejecting the sexual mores of Marilyn
    Monroe—I’m not kidding!— and thus is “yanking away the right of women to
    control their own bodies, strapping us into a time machine hurtling
    backward.”

    “Spoken like the brave former fetus she is” was how Fox’s Laura Ingraham
    characterized similar remarks from another furious abortion activist
    last week.

    Some of the other detours from legitimate debate include:

    Abortion can be good for the aborted child: “People who don’t want to be >> pregnant aren’t always capable of or willing to provide a healthy
    gestational environment—and that could be terrible for the children they >> eventually give birth to. Sometimes women abort because it is the more
    compassionate option. They know that alcoholism, addiction issues,
    mental health problems, or other circumstances will prevent them from
    adequately nourishing a fetus or protecting it from harm during
    gestation….If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot
    more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues.
    Some may say, “Hey, they were born, that’s all that matters.” But is >> setting up a person for a lifetime of suffering really a moral or humane
    choice?”
    Tell it to Christy Brown. The pro-abortion pundit who wrote that, you’ll >> notice, avoided using the word “women.” “People who don’t want to be >> pregnant,” she writes. You know, I’m pretty sure men who don’t want to >> be pregnant don’t have a problem achieving that objective

    Eliminating Roe will make miscarriages “more traumatic.”
    Reversing Roe will “grow the government.” I especially like this one,
    because the vast majority of pro-abortion politicians want to increase
    the size of government.
    There are many more. Send the ones you encounter into the comments.

    I’ll end Part I by noting that Justice Alito, in his draft, states
    directly that the decision to reverse Roe implies no opposition to
    either the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion position. Of course, one
    has to actually read the opinion to know that.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/09/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-2-reason-should-be-ashamed-of-itself/


    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of “Pro-Choice” Advocates In The Wake Of >> The Dobbs Leak, Part 2: Reason Should Be Ashamed Of Itself
    MAY 9, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    It is not a great surprise to see that the libertarian magazine Reason
    opposes abortion restrictions; one would assume so, given the
    libertarian creed. (Libertarians Ron Paul, a former House member, and
    his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), however, both oppose abortion, and take
    the position that life begins at conception.) However, if the
    publication is going to declare that Justice Alito’s draft opinion in
    Dobbs is badly reasoned (and a publication named “Reason” should be
    careful when it makes such a claim if it wants to maintain a reputation
    for integrity) it has an obligation to rebut that reasoning competently
    and fairly.

    Thus when I saw the headline on Reason’s website, “Alito’s Draft Opinion
    That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning,” I clicked on
    it eagerly. Legitimate legal analyses of the draft have been in short
    supply, with even supposedly respectable legal scholars from the
    pro-abortion camp resorting to hysterical pronouncements rather than
    dispassionate argument.

    Inexcusably, the author of the article under the clickbait headline
    doesn’t come close to making the case that the Justice’s draft fits that >> hyperbolic description. Worse, it is quickly apparent that she wouldn’t
    know a “disaster of legal reasoning” if, to quote Matt Hooper in “Jaws,”
    one swam up “and bit [her] in the ass.” As I read her mess, I thought, >> “Elizabeth Nolan Brown can’t possibly be a lawyer.” Indeed she isn’t.
    Her graduate degree is in theater.

    Oh. One of those.


    Why would Reason allow a non-lawyer to author a piece with that
    headline? Good question. Since Brown has no authority (or the skills) to
    make such a case, she resorts to appeals to other authorities. (Appeal
    to authority is a classic logical fallacy.) The scholarly authorities
    she chooses are a colleague at Reason (more on him shortly), and two
    unqualified commentators. University of Maryland history professor Holly
    Brewer didn’t analyze Alito’s opinion (though she probably could have
    done a better job than Brown, a low bar), but just cherry-picked one
    small part of it, the Justice’s argument that there is no historical
    justification for determining that abortion is one of the “unenumerated
    rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment. The other authority not on
    Reason’s staff is Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank
    TechFreedom. Mirabile dictu, he’s also not a lawyer, but he’s a good
    social justice warrior, so he plays the race card. “The more we
    privilege deep roots in history, the more weight we have to give to some
    terribly illiberal ideas,” says Kuznicki. “Rights for white people have >> deeper roots than rights for black people, and no amount of time can
    change that.”

    So Kuznicki would invalidate all legal history as a component of legal
    analysis because of slavery. How CRT of him!

    Then Brown cites political “authorities,” and reduces her argument to a >> joke: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who despite being a former law professor,
    has made no substantive arguments to counter Alito, just her usual
    demagoguery; Sen. Bernie Sanders (also not a lawyer), who embraces so
    many crazy positions that his opposition to the draft opinion would be
    the equivalent of an endorsement; Senator Amy Klobuchar, whose
    contribution to the debate is to predict a dire backlash at the polls,
    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who is an ignoramus and couldn’t comprehend Alito’s >> draft if there were a Cliff Notes version, and Senator Susan Collins,
    who had no substantive contribution to make but claimed that Justices
    Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett lied in their hearings if they voted to
    overturn Roe (which is itself a lie; as many have pointed out including
    Ethics Alarms, all of the Justices carefully avoided making any such
    assurances, only saying that Roe was “the law of the land” and thay they >> respected precedent), and most risible of all, Kamala Harris, who said
    the Republicans”want to take us back to a time before Roe v. Wade, back
    to a time before Obergefell v. Hodges, back to a time before Griswold v.
    Connecticut.” That’s some legal reasoning there, Madam Vice-President. >> At least “Reason” thinks so.

    Clarification: I meant “most risible of all” of the politicians Brown
    cited to support her proposition. She also cited esteemed legal
    authority Whoopi Goldberg.

    If Brown had gone to law school, she would have learned that when you
    include ostentatiously lame authorities—or, as in this instance,
    ridiculous ones— in your memo, brief or oral argument, the judge will
    conclude that you don’t have a case.

    Now let’s examine the only relevant authority Brown uses to show that
    Alito’s draft is “a disaster of legal reasoning.” This one is Damon
    Root, who is a legitimate legal scholar and fully capable of performing
    a critical analysis of Alito’s reasoning. He didn’t do one, though; I
    assume that like me, he prefers to devote the time and energy necessary
    to the actual opinion and not a leaked draft. The only qualified legal
    authority, then, that Brown cites for her proposition that Alito’s
    reasoning is a “disaster” doesn’t claim that Alito’s reasoning is a >> “disaster” at all. Huh!

    What Root does argue, in an earlier Reason article titled “What the
    Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About Unenumerated Rights” is put
    this way:

    The author of the leaked draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, makes the
    standard conservative argument against abortion rights. “The
    Constitution makes no reference to abortion,” Alito writes, “and no such >> right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including
    the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due >> Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held
    to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but
    any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and
    tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'” Alito
    continues: “The right to an abortion does not fall within this category.”

    But there is at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at
    issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category. Namely, the right
    to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to
    bodily integrity.

    “May very well fall into this category”? “May justly be seen as a subset
    of the right to bodily integrity”? “At least one”? If Alito’s reasoning
    is such a disaster, why is Root so equivocal? I know why: his argument
    is also weak, and he knows it.

    “Bodily integrity”? How does that translate into a right to have a
    medical procedure that removes another living organism from one’s body?
    Root doesn’t explain that himself—he also pivots to an appeal to
    authority. Yup: Brown’s claim that Alito’s legal reasoning is a disaster >> hands off its argument to Root, who also hands off the argument, this
    time to a Prof. Sheldon Gelman—it’s an appeal to authority that appeals >> to authority!

    Root also quotes Gelman to the effect that “the right to bodily
    integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta.” Wait—didn’t Brown use
    as another authority the guy who said historical references to rights
    were inevitably racist? How can Brown use both opinions to criticize
    Alito’s draft? Well, she can’t, or shouldn’t, but she doesn’t know what
    she’s talking about.

    Now Root’s sole authority for the “bodily integrity” theory is a
    28-year-old law review article by the afore-mentioned Prof. Gelman. As
    it happens, I had read this thing when it was first published. Try to
    read it yourself: I dare you. It is almost a parody of scholarly
    Authentic Frontier Gibberish in which the high weeds of philosophical
    nit-picking obliterate any useful observations.

    However, I can summarize the portion that Root is relying on simply:
    “life,” as in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” means more
    than just the right to live, but also the right to live a productive and
    free life. The Magna Carta forbade the king from cutting off the legs
    and arms of citizens as a breach of a basic right: a man without a limb
    was still alive, but his life was much diminished. That’s the right to
    “bodily integrity.” Thus, Gelman argues, abortion is included among the >> “unenumerated rights” mentioned in the Ninth Amendment, because the
    burden of having an unwanted child permanently and materially diminishes
    the woman’s life—you know, just like losing a leg.

    Interesting. But isn’t it strange, indeed hypocritical, to argue for the >> right to abortion based on an expanded interpretation of the right to
    life when abortion by definition involves ending a life?

    Here’s Gelman’s answer:

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, and that a conflict, therefore,
    exists between the woman’s and the fetus’ rights of life. No
    Justice has ever endorsed that argument, and the considerations
    cited in Roe-for example, that abortion is not generally
    regarded as murder and that fetuses are not counted in the
    census, counsel strongly against it.

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, might one? The fiction that
    fetuses don’t have lives is central to the one-life-only fiction
    inherent in the “pro-choice” euphemism, but if it hadn’t been thoroughly
    debunked by 1994, and I’d be shocked if it hadn’t, it certainly is now. >> Furthermore, the two arguments Gelman cites from Roe are infamous—talk
    about including weak authorities in your brief! It is not unusual for
    someone who kills a child in the womb to be prosecuted for murder, when
    the means of killing isn’t an abortion. 38 states recognize the fetus
    or “unborn child” as a crime victim, with the crime being homicide or
    feticide. The census argument is too silly to even debate. Whoever
    decided that counting the unborn in the census was not likely to be
    thinking about whether a fetus was alive of not. That the unborn aren’t
    included in the census proves nothing regarding whether they are alive
    or not.

    Yes, Gelman’s law review article is a disaster of legal reasoning.
    Brown’s article is a disaster of journalism and punditry, and Reason
    should hide its metaphorical head in a bag for publishing it.

    Tragically, abortions continue to be the terrible consequence of http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) people misbehaving
    terribly like http://bit.ly/h_angry DJT.

    Suggested further reading:
    https://tinyurl.com/Psalm0201

    The only healthy way to stop abortions is to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) to be http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) instead.

    Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and
    hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

    So how are you ?


    I am wonderfully hungry!


    Michael

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HeartDoc Andrew@21:1/5 to Michael Ejercito on Tue May 10 12:04:41 2022
    XPost: talk.abortion, alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.israel
    XPost: soc.culture.usa

    Michael Ejercito wrote:
    HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    Michael Ejercito wrote:

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/08/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-i-anything-but-the-issues

    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of Pro-Choice Advocates In The Wake Of
    The Dobbs Leak, Part I: Anything But The Issues
    MAY 8, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    Another one of the ironic boons from the despicable Supreme Court leak
    of Justice Alitos draft majority opinion portending that Roe v. Wade is >>> about to be overruled is how vividly it has exposed the intellectually
    dishonest and unethical nature of pro choice arguments. This comes as
    no surprise to anyone who has been following the abortion debate
    diligently, but in their fury and panic, abortion advocates are
    revealing just how weak their case is. They are also revealing that
    those who are willing to sacrifice nascent human lives for other
    objectives tend to have no compunction about using rationalizations, ad
    hominem attacks, classic logical fallacies and fearmongering as well as
    outright lies, when they finally have to defend their positions.

    The reappearance of the costumes from The Handmaidens Tale is a neat
    symbol of the whole phenomenon. (How many of such protesters havent
    read Roe, the Alito draft, or Margaret Atwoods novel? My guess: most of >>> them.) To be fair, prominent Democrats like this guy endorsed the hysteria: >>>


    That delusion was apiece with the suggestion that women could force men
    to support abortion on demand by going on a sex strike. Similarly
    ducking the issues are the illegal demonstrations at the homes of
    Justices before it is even known who voted to end Roe, and President
    Bidens moronic declaration in response to the leak that this MAGA
    crowd is really the most extreme political organization thats existed
    in American history-in recent American history.

    Since Roe v. Wade has been almost unanimously regarded in legal and
    academic circles as a badly reasoned opinion (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    conceded it was a botch), the epitome of flagrant judicial activism and
    legislation by judges, those trying to defend the decision now have had
    to resort to distractions, diversions, straw men and fictional slippery
    slopes. Next those fascists will ban inter-racial marriage and Brown v. >>> Board of Education! more than a few Democratic officials and pundits
    have proclaimed, apparently forgetting that just a few weeks ago they
    were demanding that Justice Thomas, the dean of the Courts
    conservatives, recuse himself because of the activities of his very
    white wife.


    Others have blamed the Catholic Church and argued that the maybe-ruling
    is a violation of the Constitutions separation of church and state
    because four of the five assumed majority members, plus Chief Justice
    Roberts, are Catholics. The reversal would deepen Americas divide
    warned the New York Times. Heh. Cant have that! sayeth the
    publication that didnt concern itself with such division when it was
    covering a false case that President Trump had conspired with Russia to
    steal the 2016 election, or when their favorite political party was
    illicitly impeaching Trump twice.

    The Obamas, predictably, despite their legal education, resorted to the
    facile claim that no Roe would relegate the most intensely personal
    decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues.
    Whims! The Obamas, of all people, now dont think that politicians
    respond to the will of the people? When did personal decisions become
    off-limits for the law? Deciding to rob banks is a personal decision.
    Raping a date is the result of a personal decision. Killing an abusive
    spouse is a personal opinion, just like ending the life you are carrying >>> because it will disrupt your plans is a personal decision.

    I have seen opinion pieces that defend Roe on the basis that abortion
    slows climate change. Many defenders have argued in print and on the
    MSNBC/CNN echo chambers that the motive behind a reversal is racism
    (though a disproportionate number of the human lives ended by abortion
    are black). Another tack is that retiring the contrived Constitutional
    right is hypocritical, since Republicans dont support more federal
    assistance for children who are allowed to be born. The Times ran one
    op-ed that argued that fewer abortions would be bad for the economy.

    Levi Strauss was among several companies that chose market-pleasing
    virtue-signaling over honest debate when it defended Roe as a critical
    factor to the workplace gains and contributions women have made over the >>> past 50 years, and argued that restricting or criminalizing access to >>> rubbing out unborn children in the womb will jeopardize that progress. >>> Legalizing the murder of men would also presumably add to workplace
    gains for women: this is the same unethical the ends justify the means >>> rationalization that pro-abortion activists and feminists have been
    using for decades to avoid trying to balance the competing interests
    that have makes the issue so difficult. (Its easy, though, if you
    pretend one of the interests doesnt exist or matter.)

    Today Maureen Dowd resolutely refuses to acknowledge one of those
    interests, attributing the potential reversal of Roe toget
    thispriggishness. Yes, its all about discouraging sex: Dowds hook
    is that the Court will be rejecting the sexual mores of Marilyn
    MonroeIm not kidding! and thus is yanking away the right of women to >>> control their own bodies, strapping us into a time machine hurtling
    backward.

    Spoken like the brave former fetus she is was how Foxs Laura Ingraham >>> characterized similar remarks from another furious abortion activist
    last week.

    Some of the other detours from legitimate debate include:

    Abortion can be good for the aborted child: People who dont want to be >>> pregnant arent always capable of or willing to provide a healthy
    gestational environmentand that could be terrible for the children they >>> eventually give birth to. Sometimes women abort because it is the more
    compassionate option. They know that alcoholism, addiction issues,
    mental health problems, or other circumstances will prevent them from
    adequately nourishing a fetus or protecting it from harm during
    gestation.If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot
    more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues.
    Some may say, Hey, they were born, thats all that matters. But is
    setting up a person for a lifetime of suffering really a moral or humane >>> choice?
    Tell it to Christy Brown. The pro-abortion pundit who wrote that, youll >>> notice, avoided using the word women. People who dont want to be
    pregnant, she writes. You know, Im pretty sure men who dont want to
    be pregnant dont have a problem achieving that objective

    Eliminating Roe will make miscarriages more traumatic.
    Reversing Roe will grow the government. I especially like this one,
    because the vast majority of pro-abortion politicians want to increase
    the size of government.
    There are many more. Send the ones you encounter into the comments.

    Ill end Part I by noting that Justice Alito, in his draft, states
    directly that the decision to reverse Roe implies no opposition to
    either the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion position. Of course, one
    has to actually read the opinion to know that.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/05/09/the-dishonesty-and-desperation-of-pro-choice-advocates-in-the-wake-of-the-dobbs-leak-part-2-reason-should-be-ashamed-of-itself/


    The Dishonesty And Desperation Of Pro-Choice Advocates In The Wake Of
    The Dobbs Leak, Part 2: Reason Should Be Ashamed Of Itself
    MAY 9, 2022 / JACK MARSHALL


    It is not a great surprise to see that the libertarian magazine Reason
    opposes abortion restrictions; one would assume so, given the
    libertarian creed. (Libertarians Ron Paul, a former House member, and
    his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), however, both oppose abortion, and take
    the position that life begins at conception.) However, if the
    publication is going to declare that Justice Alitos draft opinion in
    Dobbs is badly reasoned (and a publication named Reason should be
    careful when it makes such a claim if it wants to maintain a reputation
    for integrity) it has an obligation to rebut that reasoning competently
    and fairly.

    Thus when I saw the headline on Reasons website, Alitos Draft Opinion >>> That Would Overturn Roe Is a Disaster of Legal Reasoning, I clicked on
    it eagerly. Legitimate legal analyses of the draft have been in short
    supply, with even supposedly respectable legal scholars from the
    pro-abortion camp resorting to hysterical pronouncements rather than
    dispassionate argument.

    Inexcusably, the author of the article under the clickbait headline
    doesnt come close to making the case that the Justices draft fits that >>> hyperbolic description. Worse, it is quickly apparent that she wouldnt
    know a disaster of legal reasoning if, to quote Matt Hooper in Jaws, >>> one swam up and bit [her] in the ass. As I read her mess, I thought,
    Elizabeth Nolan Brown cant possibly be a lawyer. Indeed she isnt.
    Her graduate degree is in theater.

    Oh. One of those.


    Why would Reason allow a non-lawyer to author a piece with that
    headline? Good question. Since Brown has no authority (or the skills) to >>> make such a case, she resorts to appeals to other authorities. (Appeal
    to authority is a classic logical fallacy.) The scholarly authorities
    she chooses are a colleague at Reason (more on him shortly), and two
    unqualified commentators. University of Maryland history professor Holly >>> Brewer didnt analyze Alitos opinion (though she probably could have
    done a better job than Brown, a low bar), but just cherry-picked one
    small part of it, the Justices argument that there is no historical
    justification for determining that abortion is one of the unenumerated
    rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. The other authority not on
    Reasons staff is Jason Kuznicki, editor in chief of the think tank
    TechFreedom. Mirabile dictu, hes also not a lawyer, but hes a good
    social justice warrior, so he plays the race card. The more we
    privilege deep roots in history, the more weight we have to give to some >>> terribly illiberal ideas, says Kuznicki. Rights for white people have
    deeper roots than rights for black people, and no amount of time can
    change that.

    So Kuznicki would invalidate all legal history as a component of legal
    analysis because of slavery. How CRT of him!

    Then Brown cites political authorities, and reduces her argument to a
    joke: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who despite being a former law professor,
    has made no substantive arguments to counter Alito, just her usual
    demagoguery; Sen. Bernie Sanders (also not a lawyer), who embraces so
    many crazy positions that his opposition to the draft opinion would be
    the equivalent of an endorsement; Senator Amy Klobuchar, whose
    contribution to the debate is to predict a dire backlash at the polls,
    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who is an ignoramus and couldnt comprehend Alitos
    draft if there were a Cliff Notes version, and Senator Susan Collins,
    who had no substantive contribution to make but claimed that Justices
    Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett lied in their hearings if they voted to
    overturn Roe (which is itself a lie; as many have pointed out including
    Ethics Alarms, all of the Justices carefully avoided making any such
    assurances, only saying that Roe was the law of the land and thay they >>> respected precedent), and most risible of all, Kamala Harris, who said
    the Republicanswant to take us back to a time before Roe v. Wade, back
    to a time before Obergefell v. Hodges, back to a time before Griswold v. >>> Connecticut. Thats some legal reasoning there, Madam Vice-President.
    At least Reason thinks so.

    Clarification: I meant most risible of all of the politicians Brown
    cited to support her proposition. She also cited esteemed legal
    authority Whoopi Goldberg.

    If Brown had gone to law school, she would have learned that when you
    include ostentatiously lame authoritiesor, as in this instance,
    ridiculous ones in your memo, brief or oral argument, the judge will
    conclude that you dont have a case.

    Now lets examine the only relevant authority Brown uses to show that
    Alitos draft is a disaster of legal reasoning. This one is Damon
    Root, who is a legitimate legal scholar and fully capable of performing
    a critical analysis of Alitos reasoning. He didnt do one, though; I
    assume that like me, he prefers to devote the time and energy necessary
    to the actual opinion and not a leaked draft. The only qualified legal
    authority, then, that Brown cites for her proposition that Alitos
    reasoning is a disaster doesnt claim that Alitos reasoning is a
    disaster at all. Huh!

    What Root does argue, in an earlier Reason article titled What the
    Leaked Abortion Opinion Gets Wrong About Unenumerated Rights is put
    this way:

    The author of the leaked draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, makes the
    standard conservative argument against abortion rights. The
    Constitution makes no reference to abortion, Alito writes, and no such >>> right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including >>> the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly relythe Due >>> Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held >>> to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but >>> any such right must be deeply rooted in this Nations history and
    tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' Alito
    continues: The right to an abortion does not fall within this category. >>>
    But there is at least one big way in which the unenumerated right at
    issue in Dobbs may very well fall into this category. Namely, the right
    to terminate a pregnancy may be justly seen as a subset of the right to
    bodily integrity.

    May very well fall into this category? May justly be seen as a subset >>> of the right to bodily integrity? At least one? If Alitos reasoning
    is such a disaster, why is Root so equivocal? I know why: his argument
    is also weak, and he knows it.

    Bodily integrity? How does that translate into a right to have a
    medical procedure that removes another living organism from ones body?
    Root doesnt explain that himselfhe also pivots to an appeal to
    authority. Yup: Browns claim that Alitos legal reasoning is a disaster >>> hands off its argument to Root, who also hands off the argument, this
    time to a Prof. Sheldon Gelmanits an appeal to authority that appeals
    to authority!

    Root also quotes Gelman to the effect that the right to bodily
    integrity may be traced back to the Magna Carta. Waitdidnt Brown use
    as another authority the guy who said historical references to rights
    were inevitably racist? How can Brown use both opinions to criticize
    Alitos draft? Well, she cant, or shouldnt, but she doesnt know what
    shes talking about.

    Now Roots sole authority for the bodily integrity theory is a
    28-year-old law review article by the afore-mentioned Prof. Gelman. As
    it happens, I had read this thing when it was first published. Try to
    read it yourself: I dare you. It is almost a parody of scholarly
    Authentic Frontier Gibberish in which the high weeds of philosophical
    nit-picking obliterate any useful observations.

    However, I can summarize the portion that Root is relying on simply:
    life, as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, means more
    than just the right to live, but also the right to live a productive and >>> free life. The Magna Carta forbade the king from cutting off the legs
    and arms of citizens as a breach of a basic right: a man without a limb
    was still alive, but his life was much diminished. Thats the right to
    bodily integrity. Thus, Gelman argues, abortion is included among the
    unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment, because the
    burden of having an unwanted child permanently and materially diminishes >>> the womans lifeyou know, just like losing a leg.

    Interesting. But isnt it strange, indeed hypocritical, to argue for the >>> right to abortion based on an expanded interpretation of the right to
    life when abortion by definition involves ending a life?

    Heres Gelmans answer:

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, and that a conflict, therefore, >>> exists between the womans and the fetus rights of life. No
    Justice has ever endorsed that argument, and the considerations
    cited in Roe-for example, that abortion is not generally
    regarded as murder and that fetuses are not counted in the
    census, counsel strongly against it.

    One might argue that fetuses have lives, might one? The fiction that
    fetuses dont have lives is central to the one-life-only fiction
    inherent in the pro-choice euphemism, but if it hadnt been thoroughly >>> debunked by 1994, and Id be shocked if it hadnt, it certainly is now.
    Furthermore, the two arguments Gelman cites from Roe are infamoustalk
    about including weak authorities in your brief! It is not unusual for
    someone who kills a child in the womb to be prosecuted for murder, when
    the means of killing isnt an abortion. 38 states recognize the fetus
    or unborn child as a crime victim, with the crime being homicide or
    feticide. The census argument is too silly to even debate. Whoever
    decided that counting the unborn in the census was not likely to be
    thinking about whether a fetus was alive of not. That the unborn arent
    included in the census proves nothing regarding whether they are alive
    or not.

    Yes, Gelmans law review article is a disaster of legal reasoning.
    Browns article is a disaster of journalism and punditry, and Reason
    should hide its metaphorical head in a bag for publishing it.

    Tragically, abortions continue to be the terrible consequence of
    http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) people misbehaving
    terribly like http://bit.ly/h_angry DJT.

    Suggested further reading:
    https://tinyurl.com/Psalm0201

    The only healthy way to stop abortions is to
    http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) to be
    http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) instead.

    Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and
    hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

    So how are you ?


    I am wonderfully hungry!


    While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
    8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
    17:37 means no COVID just as circling eagles don't have COVID) and
    pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in
    Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit
    (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to always
    say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including
    especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12
    as shown by http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
    the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

    Laus DEO !

    Suggested further reading: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ

    Shorter link:
    http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test

    Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
    diabetics and other heart disease patients:

    http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
    ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
    (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
    removing the http://tinyurl.com/HeartVAT from around the heart

    ...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

    HeartDoc Andrew <><
    --
    Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
    2024 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President: http://WonderfullyHungry.org
    and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
    http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
    which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)