Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

You know, all we want is to be able to choose what we want to do with our health care provider, with no interference from anyone. It is no ones business. Not yours even yours Ken.

No, just because I don’t play your version of this game in no way allows you to label me as ‘uncaring’ or unwilling to help anyone or any children. You simply have no logical basis to arrive at that conclusion, you’re simply desperate to affix some ‘terrible’ label to make yourself feel better. If your positions sound “crass” in your ears maybe YOU should consider why you hold them!

What an incredibly crass thing to write. I'll say again, in all your writings and opinions you never one say what you support in the way of protecting or nurturing a baby, which leads me to now understand that you simply don't care.

Well, like all items not defined or protected by the constitution (10th amendment) it will be decided by the states (“or the people themselves “). Have you ever heard of federalism? Don’t worry, you’ll be able to kill all the babies you want, up to any age here in Washington.

History of abortions in the US.

https://jezebel.com/abortion-american-h ... 1849079359

Oh, you extreme leftists do like your projection and gaslighting!

Total deflection here.
"Does a special needs child “totally dependent on the mother” get to be put to death if the mother no longer wants it? Will society take an interest and have a say so if there will be any consequences for that action? I don’t think you’ve thought these arguments through very well but I’m sure you’ll just say I’m stupid and not actually explain what reasoning, principle or moral you’re using to justify this comment."
Yep, you know the facts about Covid, since you've had it twice or you indicated that.
They are finding that some after effects of Covid do cause loss of brain matter. I won't call you stupid, because I don't think that is the word for you.
Hey, you have strong beliefs. Others on here do too. Allow those beliefs. I'm not going to try to change your mind and you won't mine. But the US is all about freedom to choose, IMO, and that is being eroded.
But you are self righteous and angry at everyone else on here.

So many fallacies PAL! One minute you demand the court’s be followed (settled law on Roe) when you agree, the next ‘question the courts, they’re rogue!’

Many times women don’t even know they’ve lost their child but I assure you no one is forcing them to carry a dead baby! I know about loosing a child first hand and the medical procedure needed after.

A woman (and man) need to exercise their “options” before getting to the point of killing a healthy innocent child.

Does a special needs child “totally dependent on the mother” get to be put to death if the mother no longer wants it? Will society take an interest and have a say so if there will be any consequences for that action? I don’t think you’ve thought these arguments through very well but I’m sure you’ll just say I’m stupid and not actually explain what reasoning, principle or moral you’re using to justify this comment.

I explained to you, Thomas is referring to a court that will follow constitutional law not bring legislation from the bench. Only lawmakers can pass laws (as long as they’re constitutional). You radical leftists have been getting the courts to make legislation you couldn’t get the congress to pass for so long you don’t even remember how our system is designed! If you find that “menacing” I think that’s your problem, not a legal doctrine.

My ‘science’ on Covid is pretty backed by actual results, your side has had to make up and change your ‘data’ when reality smacks you in the face and your predictions don’t come to pass. But keep grasping those straws.

Again, we don't know what this Court will do. Look at Texas, banning all abortions. Ohio, no abortion for a 10 yr. old rape victum.
They may not watch a woman die, but she might die slowly. Some women have had to carry a dead fetus for a number of weeks.
Sure these may be few and far between instances, but a woman needs to have options.
A zygote, totally dependent on the mother, part of the mother, not separate.
Invasion of privacy is what this is.
Why did Thomas bring up the question of contraception? Just to be menacing? To Lord it over? This too is a privacy issue. No Court should have any say and neither should anyone with their opinions that are like concrete.
So now you are hot on science Ken. You sure aren't when it comes to Covid.

The article lies right out of the gate, the decision was 6-3.

Sure, let's all cheer taking away rights from American citizens, what could possibly go wrong with going back to the Dark Ages?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... sness.html

Justice Thomas has indicated the court may look into decisions wrongly decided (not constitutional) you guys only ever look at your desired outcomes and not whether there is legal (or moral) principles for justification.

Nobody will ‘force’ a woman to carry a dead fetus or watch her die to save the baby, you’re so ridiculous when you use those ‘justifications’, that’s absurd.

I’m in support of holding men fully accountable for their actions (or in-action) that result in pregnancy many, many choices and controls are available.

It’s not a “cell” (science please!) it’s completely separate DNA that is a completely separate life from it’s mother or father and, once again constitutional rights are not ‘bestowed’ by the majority. So whether or not I’m in the “minority” is irrelevant!

Well, we've got to be prepared. I don't think we are freaking out. Clarence Thomas has indicated he would like to look at contraception. And people are transferrring frozen embryos to states of choice.
With this ultra conservative, wayward court, no one knows what they will do next. They want to mess who determines the votes in each state.
Late term abortions are usually not decided on a whim. By the time the pregnancy gets that far, it is usually a case of a fetus that has died, or the life of the mother is at stake. The majority of people do not take that lightly. But it should be an option for certain cases.
Men are involved in bringing a separate DNA life into existance. You say many controls can be exercised to prevent that. Sometimes those controls fail.
You are in the minority when it comes to believing a cell has constitutional rights.

Yes, yours are, Trump got ya!

Your last gasps are pretty chaotic.

“I doubt very much”, well that doesn’t matter much except to you! I assure you it is life and innocent and should have constitutional rights! If women want body control don’t bring another, separate DNA life into existence, many, many controls can be exercised to prevent that.

PAL, most are against late term abortions, so get your facts straight and thankfully we live in a republic so the ‘majority’ doesn’t get to vote on our rights, no ‘democracy’ decides basic constitutional protections either! You guys don’t have the majorities you think, that’s why you’re all freaking out.

From what I understand Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court case. It involved the Constitutional right to privacy. That is in the Constitution. Hence Roe v Wade upheld privacy. But not anymore. But there is a force, a force of women united, so watch out world.

Abortion myths:
https://prochoice.org/wp-content/upload ... rtions.pdf

Majority of Americans are Pro Choice. What part of that do you not get Ken? Most normal people. Who is that? The majority? Then the majority has been found to support abortion.
You are in the minority. Get that?

Your answer about the loss of an innocent life is equal to 'guns don't kill people' from the NRA. Both are deflections. Just as I know that another unarmed man won't shoot me, I know that abortion is about access even more fundamental than the right to bear arms. It's history goes back throughout this Country's beginnings and beyond. No one can say that abortion is singularly about taking an innocent life, full stop, that's simply a talking point that attempts to politically detonate what is a much larger and problematic situation that needs comprehensive policies, including recognition of civil rights. Your argument reminds me of someone saying they went to 6th grade so they consider themselves educated but then can't understand why they can't get a job.

Not once have I read where you've proposed or even supported any policies that protect and nurture children.

That is assuming we all agree the "life" in question is "human" and "innocent".

I doubt very much that a cute little blastocyst is human and since it cannot be self-aware it is doubtful from a philosophical perspective that it can be innocent.

And most normal people with a functioning brain know the difference between all your ‘examples’ is the death of another innocent human life! No ‘privacy’ protects that.

Abortion was not uncommon and legal since the beginning. This decision is “ahistorical”, but you didn’t bother to listen, did you? I didn’t expect you to understand the concept of ‘right’, anyway.
It’s pretty basic, though, as an un-enumerated right, like the right to move around the country and other rights of privacy.
Most 10th graders could explain it to you….

No, as the decision said, there was never a ‘right’ to an abortion, just like there was never a ‘right’ to a slave and the court rightly reversed a previous wrong decision and that has happened before (thank God).

So…you may read Heather Cox Richardsons daily screed…..but her podcast is good, too.

“Now and Then” is her weekly podcast. Along with Yale History prof., Joanne Freeman, they pretty much cover the history and politics of the US from the founding until early 20th century.

I don’t listen regularly, but this is a good one!
They are talking 2 weeks ago on the same day the Roe v Wade reversal decision came out…..and what it means:
- this is the FIRST loss of a constitutional right in US history,
- this period now mirrors the 1850s in a lot of ways,
- the combination of supreme court decisions on ‘guns, religion and abortion’ are unprecedented, and represent a dangerous place.

About 35 minutes…

Processing Roe’s Reversal in Real Time
Now & Then

Heather and Joanne react to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. How did we get here? What does the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs signal for the future of women’s reproductive rights and broader civil rights in America? What kind of unique perspective do women historians bring to understanding this moment?
Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/n ... 0567694095


jim