Tag: #privacy

OPINION: ‘Eff the Supreme Court

  By , , , , , , , , , ,

OPINION: ‘Eff the Supreme Court

I have something to say about the SCROTUS and it is not nice.

OPINION: ‘Eff the Supreme Court

Editor: I think this quote is a perfect response to the Supreme Court justices that want to enforce constitutional originalism on 21st century Americans. 

“WHEN PEOPLE START ACTING AS THOUGH THE PAST IS THE SAME AS THE PRESENT AND CONTEXT DOESN’T MATTER, THINGS START TO GET DANGEROUS.” TREVOR K. MCNEIL 2020

By D. S. Mitchell

Written on a Sign

I don’t know about you, but my outrage grows. In a recent abortion protest, I saw a young girl carrying a sign inscribed, “I hate it here.”  If you are a follower of Calamity News and Politics, you may have noticed an increased tension, and quite honestly, unbridled rage coming from this corner of the progressive community. I too have had several recent moments of, “I hate it here.”

Targeted Killings

The radical right sees no contradiction in banning abortion, for love of life, yet fuel rhetoric that has likely led to the  murder of at least 10 pro-choice physicians. The radical right tell us the Second Amendment is sacred. Sometime between my birth and today, the sanctity of the Second Amendment has taken on ridiculous, and unintended proportions.

Group Killings

Originally the Second Amendment described, “a well regulated militia.” Mind you, this was before the U.S. had a military. Out of that simple concept, it is now every Americans right, maybe duty, to load your AR-15, strap it with a bandolier of 30 shot magazines and go walk around town, terrorizing and murdering people who are just shopping for groceries, celebrating at a concert, attending class, and now a 4th of July parade. Mass murderers love it when we gather in groups.

I Said

Fuck the NRA, fuck the U.S. Senate, fuck the Second Amendment, and most of all fuck this illegitimate court. This has become a human rights issue-a public safety issue, a fucking right-to-life issue. Every American should have the reasonable expectation to go out for a walk, go the local Starbucks safely; it should not be a flip of the coin, situation.

Worse Than Roberts

John Robert’s has been Chief Justice since 2005.  He was nominated by George Bush the Younger and in my mind, Robert’s has been the spearpoint of a ruthless and relentless right-wing attack on democracy. During his tenure, the court has turned back democracy by 75 years, and privacy rights by 50. Even with Robert’s terrible record on gun control, voting rights, gerrymandering, campaign finance, abortion, and every other personal freedom imaginable, there are more dangerous and radical justices than John Roberts, and that clique is now apparently running the court.  Where as Robert’s style is to just keep chipping away at a law until over several years it vanishes into history, barely noticed. This new blatantly political court is ready to upend the apple cart, the hell with the consequences, in essence giving majority America the big middle finger salute.

Let it Go Alito, This Ain’t 1776

So, this now 6-3 ‘originalist’ court thinks it can push back all Progressive reforms since 1930. These folks are willing to snatch away Medicare and Medicaid, and the ACA of course, will fall. Gut the EPA. Ban abortions, nationwide. When you see an institution disregard established law and take up the task of writing new laws, just because they can; says to me that we are in a dangerous place. It seems apparent that swift action is necessary.

What I Think

This Thomas-Alito court seems hell bent on destroying any shred of validity this court ever had. The most recent public confidence polls show the court to be deeply unpopular.  The approval level of the court among all voters is at a jaw dropping 25%. Talk about Biden’s underwater numbers. As laws become more oppressive, affecting larger swaths of the population; enforcement may fail, in fact, it most likely will. As larger numbers of citizens commit the unenforceable crimes, police and prosecutors begin to ignore them. The overturning of Roe is so unpopular 70% of the country is in full revolt.

Anywhere, Anytime

The lawmakers just passed the first gun safety act in thirty years. My cynical side says, “a little is better than nothing.” My realistic side says, “not nearly enough.” As I said previously, the Second Amendment guarantees do not supersede those of LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  Yet, the radical ‘originalist’ court refuses to face the reality of a heavily weaponized country that needs some serious restrictions on gun access, not an open season on all of us, anywhere, at anytime.

Conclusion

When extreme decisions are pronounced without the support and acceptance of the population, those decisions become unenforceable. The court has no army, no police force to back up its decisions, the only thing the court has is its standing in the eyes of the country’s citizenry, and that includes law enforcement. It is time to enlarge the court, install term limits, and codify a standard of ethics these justices must adhere to. Right now, this radical right-wing abomination calling itself the “Supreme” court of the United States,  ain’t looking so “Supreme.”

 

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

  By

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

Abortion is a difficult decision.

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

Abortion is a highly emotional issue that is once again on the front pages of newspapers across the country as conservative states enact more and more restrictive laws directed at a woman’s right to choose. 

By Ezekiel Gracee

Talking Past One Another

Too often in the abortion debate, proponents for each side just seem to be talking past each other, as opposed to actually engaging. The reason? A failure to define the question(s). In this emotionally charged discussion it is important to try to step back, and attempt to place some of the stated arguments into a single conceptual framework concerning the moral permissibility of abortion.

Two Central Questions

There are two central questions at the heart of the debate over the morality of abortion.

  • The first is, who or what constitutes a “moral person”? (That is, a “person”, within the context of moral decision making, defined, depending on your theory of morality, variously as an entity deserving of rights, membership in society, or entry into the utilitarian calculus.)
  • The second is, how do we balance the right of self-determination and autonomy of one moral person against the right to life of another, when the two are in conflict? Obviously this question, weighing the rights of the mother and the fetus against each other, is only relevant if we answer the previous question by saying that the fetus is a moral person.

The argument that abortion is impermissible, to my knowledge, necessarily entails the following answers. (1) The embryo/fetus does constitute a moral person and (2) the right of any moral person to live outweighs the right to self-determination, autonomy, or privacy, of the mother.

Permissibility

The argument that abortion is permissible, on the other hand, can take two routes. The first route is asserting that the embryo/fetus is not a moral person, and thus abortion is prima facie permissible. The second route is to concede the first point; the fetus is a moral person, but challenge on the second point, arguing that the right to self-determination of the mother supersedes the rights of the fetus when they conflict.

Both of these questions are difficult.  The first is, I think, the most interesting. It’s also one that is often avoided by pro-choice people. Prima facie, it looks easy. During our daily life, we generally equate the concept of “moral personhood” with simply looking like a fully formed human being.

The common argument is that a fertilized egg is rendered a moral person via its potential to develop into something that looks like an obvious person. Whether this argument holds water is a whole other can of worms. (I personally think it’s weak.) It is nonetheless one of the arguments used to explain why a fertilized egg has the “moral person” status, which as I said above, is essential to the anti-abortion (ProLife) argument.

The second major question — how we balance the right of self-determination against the right to life — is also a doozy. I think this is an argument that’s often not grappled with as strongly as it deserves to be, especially by political conservatives who generally value autonomy and self-determination extremely high among the “pantheon of rights”.

My Take 

Having outlined how I view the whole debate, it is suffice to say that abortion stands as permissible based on the second — that self-determination trumps life.