gehringer_2

But here is exactly where we cut to the chase "Many people believe this to be true" and the converse is that many do not. "Murder" is murder because virtually everyone agrees what it is in an ordinary situation where one adult human being takes the life of another willfully. Whatever belief system you come from really doesn't matter in that case because the common view of the matter is so nearly universal. If we are to live together in a pluralistic society, law - the sanction of the state to deprive people of life and liberty, pretty much has to keep to premises that are universally accepted to be true. If you are going to live in a pluralistic society and be a member of a non-majority belief system you must be willing to accept that there are aspects to your morality you have be willing to live in personally without imposing on the rest of society and that those issues can only be addressed in some kind of political compromise process. If you fail that test of citizenship, if your religion admits to no due to Caesar, we fall right back into the chaos exemplified currently in the MiddleEast where Shia are unwilling to live under Sharia defined by Sunni and vice versa, which has kept them in pretty continual warfare and oppression and counter oppression for 1400 years.

Right, the justices are all so hot for zoom all ONE of them used it. Back in the day on MLive Romad had a short cut notation for this kind of thing "MRD", after Mandy Rice Davies. Or: "Of course he would say that." Look at what happened 1)they did not meet together. 2) the reason leaked out or was leaked 3)Sotomayor has to deny or she looks like a petulant child, she got what she wanted from the published report 3) The Chief has to deny it because he is interested in credibility and confirmation that he has a kindergarten class is not on the to do list. So you have an inconvenient set of actions that really occurred and several convenient statements following. I will go with the probability that the action tells us far more about reality than the convenient statements.

did they meet together? Would 9 people who had some measure of comity have found a way to meet together?

well, Cohen can say that, but you are basically now creating a state citizenship that transcends the rights and privileges of your national one. I don't see how that can stand in a unitary state short of total chaos. But then again, I don't see how money can be speech or corporations can be people, or.......

look they can all deny anything they want, but when a group nine people can't accommodate each other to the point they can meet together to do their work, that is a problem by any definition, whether they or any one will accept that definition or not. That is the one objective fact of the case.

dream on. Regardless of what the intent was and which side leaked it, the one overwhelming practical result is that it just added a couple of months to the Dems prime fund raising calendar.

I wonder why he would do that when he wouldn't even admit there was a masking issue last yr?

JD Newontz. Running in Ohio.

did anyone still doubt these guys are fascist? They're not even a full step away from arguing Blut and Boden next.

Buddha can chime in but my guess is that ultimately even a conservative SCOTUS is going to be forced to rule that one state cannot bind conduct in another in that way. It's a foundational precedent that states must recognize each others sovereignty and jurisdiction. To undercut that would basically be to dissolve the Union.

never ascribe to ignorance what is more plainly simple duplicitousness. ( with my apologies to Hanlon.....)

to finish the thought though - what I will be most offended by is the hypocrisy, because you and I both know that any number of the very people who used their money, power, preaching and political connections in those states to pass those bans, will turn out to be more than happy to avail themselves of an off-shore pharmacy or ticket to Illinois when a pregnancy in their own private sphere is judged untenable.

We'll see. If states adopt rigorous abortion bans in the wake of a repeal, it will deeply offend my sense of fairness, but not my sense of political process.

kindly define the exact biological parameters if you could? Dolly was the product of an unfertilized egg. So could a human be. (and probably has been in Asia)

not necessarily. There are million of in vitros walking around out there as living breathing human. And you still have no idea what a 'life' is. Look I'm not arguing these are not hard questions - I'm really arguing that for we *really* know, all our lines are going to be arbitrary and they should be reached by a consensus based on a truly democratic process process because NO ONE, especially a minority, should have the right to demand laws for others based on their religious holdings. If your religion tells you abortion is a sin, don't get one. That's how a free democratic society has to function.

the thing is Saber, is that you are doing a lot of metaphysical hand waving here. No-one other than someone claiming religious revelation really knows what human consciousness really even is, where it comes from or where it goes. If I put a 3 week old dog embryo and 3 week old human embryo on slides in front of you, there is no way you could even tell them apart without sophisticated technology. Heck, we know know that every cell in your body actually contains a potentiality to generate a human life, how many have you murdered popping a zit? The deeper you delve into biology the more all of our neat sociological constructs fade into grey.

Seriously? What can you say, it's a lot cheaper to produce than 'the Crown'

I'm old. Most things I enjoy are bad for my health!

the position you profess is not the position of the core abortion opposition in the US, which is unquestionably absolutist. My political hope would be that at least one effect of the repeal of RvW would be to increase your (as a class type) separation politically from that core of absolutist opposition and so rebalance US politics away from the religious right somewhat. But I'm not all that optimistic because I'm not sure the loss of majority control in the national gov hasn't reached an unrecoverable tipping point.

It's really about time for Texas to ban cotton/poly blend fabrics, they're prohibited in the OT as well. Slackers.

look at the model of other pro sports. There are about 30-35 viable sports markets in the US. Thus I will predict that not more than 30-35 schools will eventually 'own' the NIL market because those markets will be the only ones that big NIL 'buyers' are ultimately interested in. The rest of the schools will be forced out of revenue sports. In my view that may turn out to be a treadmill they will find themselve happy to have been liberated from once they have a little distance from the initial shock. I have no prediction for what the 'winners' will end up looking like.

The day that the men passing anti-abortion bills actually care more about babies than women will be a cold one in hell my friend.

and it only gets worse. Because the right will increasingly have to deny the very value of democratic process in order to justify the flawed system and their continued hold on power as a minority. Funny thing, that is exactly what we are seeing isn't it? Voter suppression, and Constitutional "originalism" worship are both foundation pieces.

we are literally turning into pre-civil war Iraq, a country with a religious minority dominating a larger majority. We saw where that got Iraq in the end.

Right, the core of abortion opposition in the US is religious and therefore absolutist. Repeal of RvW by itself and establishment of a 'middle ground' regime will be no satisfaction for them. And here again we see the problem with the non-democratic character of the US National Gov. A middle ground political solution would probably have 2/3 public support nationally, but still can not pass the US Senate.