Right To Choose: Republicans Need To Abort Brett Kavanaugh Nomination

The last time I put digital pen to digital paper to talk about Brett Kavanaugh, I not-so-gently suggested that just about the last thing America needs is to put someone on the bench who apparently doubts the precedent on Roe v. Wade. I'm not a fan of the notion that government should be in the business of telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies based on what, at the end of the day, is a rationale based on the purported “sanctity” of life. That appeal to

Get the best daily market and macroeconomic commentary anywhere for less than $7 per month.

Subscribe today

Already have an account? log in

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

17 thoughts on “Right To Choose: Republicans Need To Abort Brett Kavanaugh Nomination

  1. Confirming Kavanaugh would put TWO men on the Supreme Court against whom credible claims of sexual assault have been made. How are women to take that?

  2. Who is to say what is real or what is fiction, especially when the subject is decades or centuries old. H’s rationalization against murder contrasted to his implied rationalization for abortion is problematic. Either life is important or it isn’t. But, frankly, I would prefer H stick to his expertise of enlightening us on economic complexities.

    1. I am to say. The Bible isn’t real. For instance, dinosaurs invalidate the Old Testament timeline and Jesus didn’t walk on water because people don’t walk on water. That’s not the way reality works. And as far as your “frankly” comment goes, might I remind you that “frankly”, I am a university-trained political scientist, which gives me a claim on an informed opinion. Perhaps you too are a trained political scientist, but I doubt it. So “frankly”, I don’t care what you would “prefer.”

      1. Perhaps you are short on sleep or you missed a meal. As dynamic as you are, I’m sure this occasionally happens. A university trained political scientist pedigree definitely gives you as much latitude to opine as a university trained scientist and engineer. You made a correct statement of fact – people do not walk on water. Aside from that, frankly, you seem to be struggling to interpret biblical language or to differentiate opinion from fact on this matter. So, I will continue to extract value from your usual brilliant commentary on financial matters, and will, frankly, ignore your opinions on all other matters.

  3. Interesting that Trinity theology is nominally absent from the Bible, but stands at the core of Christian thought and that a superficial look at Hindu Buddhist and Sufi mystical thought reveals absolutely identical transcendental categories. That is no accident.

    1. Yes, a person may become more educated or wiser after 30 more years of life but they are the same person.
      There is evidence he lied under oath in prior hearings, presented by Mr. Booker (I believe it was Booker).

      So, has he changed much in the last 30 years? Well, he is still a liar and not suitable for the Supreme Court.

      If an investigation of prior criminal behavior is actually proven, he should be impeached and no longer a judge. That would be an appropriate punishment for what happened to Ms Ford and whatever else we don’t know about…yet.

  4. H, the pure contractualist position that you seem to espouse would imply to me that the U.S. is unconstrained morally in its treatment of people outside the U.S. The threat of retaliation would constrain our actions against powerful countries, and reputational costs (if we have any reputation left) might constrain others, but would you really argue that there is no moral constraint on torturing or nuking people in other (weak) countries?

    1. To be clear, I’m certainly with you with regard to the whole religion thing. I just think there’s more room for a Kantian moral outlook than you seem to allow—woven together with contractualism, not in place of it..

  5. I see a significant weakness in the assertion of no ‘societal harm’ from a woman’s decision to have an abortion, on the basis that we can’t know whether the aborted fetus would have matured into a societal asset or a societal liability.

    It seems to me that we have a reasonable expectation that (far) more often than not, an aborted fetus would have matured into a person who is societal asset rather than a net societal liability. And so on that basis, it could readily be claimed that, more often than not, there IS likely to be at least some amount of societal harm from abortions.

    But please note that I do NOT assert that such societal harm trumps a woman’s personal sovereignty. And I quite like the line of thinking that “if one is opposed to abortion, one should just not have one” (rather than imposing on others, by state force, obeisance to one’s opinion).

    1. Your first paragraph is flawed in that you see the woman more or less as a machine to produce humans who may or may not become accepted and productive members in our society.

      Your second paragraph assumes higher possibility of a newborn person being an asset as opposed to a liability.

      So, the societal harm would be related to failure to thrive, failure to be assisted properly with physical and mental healthcare, proper nutrition, a residence not under a bridge or street, a job to provide pride in being productive.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints