Will there ever be any limits to defining "abortion?"

 There was a time in America when the killing of an unborn child was considered both a sin and a crime. Today, it is considered a simple "option" by any women who sees the results of her enjoyment of sex as "an imposition." That view was not acceptable then. But it is now. On that basis alone, may I suggest that what I now suggest may seem extreme and unacceptable now, but may very well be public policy in less than 20 years:

Since a child is not viable and able to live on its own even after birth and the mother is seen as responsible for it until it reaches its majority (with a few select exceptions), it would be consistent that, just as an unborn with a defect may now be terminated, why should not a child that develops an illness, has mental deficiencies, or is diagnosed as a dangerous psychopath be able to be killed by the mother,... at her sole discretion? After all, isn't that the power that women who currently become pregnant have right now in states that legalize abortion while the child is still in the womb... even if only the feet remain there? If there is to be equal protection under the law, that there should also be equal NONPROTECTION under those very same laws?

Make a note of this and be prepared to revisit it in the light of developments in the next two decades. Logic applies and, as separate but equal as a concept fell in the last century, so will the current protection wrongly granted to minors when denied to those in the womb.

A secondary challenge is that almost all who favor allowing the killing of children in the womb simultaneously oppose the killing (the "death" penalty) for those convicted of murdering others. That is clearly illogical. These are usually the same people who repeat the mantra, "follow the science," which recognizes the humanity and viability of children in the womb. That relegates the "non-personhood" argument and artificial and denigrating term "fetus" to the curb. Science says that the "fetus" IS a human being and shows that it senses and recoils from pain and danger.

An argument that says a child with no record of any action or choice may be legally killed by the "mother" but denies society the right to kill a person that has murdered and/or raped and or caused the death of another intentionally is just beyond defense. None has ever been presented... at least not to me. If there is one, I'd like to hear or read it so I can "understand" the argument.

Simply saying that one person's existence being a "complication" or "burden" to another has never been seen as a defense to a charge of the second murdering the first... and simply creating a definition that claims to state a difference is spurious at best.

No one has ever responded to these arguments with either logic or reason. All that comes forth are personal insults, gestures, and obscene language or simply walking away without offering any response. Understandable... but sad.

The Supreme Court has done all of us a favor. They put the question of killing babies in the hands of secular legislatures throughout the country, where it belongs. Why? Because although I see abortion as murder, it is the right of the majority in each state to decide on the character of aborting babies, and when. The will of the majority of the people should rule. I do not suggest that makes the act right, but if a citizenry decides to legalize abortion, it should clearly be the decision of that very group, state by state. And that decision, and its ultimate consequences, should be clearly on the heads of each voter and each state legislator. (And I understand and sympathize with their angst at having that burden cast upon them. It was easier when any blame or consequences rested on the Supreme Court rather than on them. But that was wrong, and now they have both the right and the obligation to rule.)

ALL Social Media should be labeled as "disinformation!"

 The ongoing discussion about censorship in social media is a false flag.  Whether it is put out there by a coordinated group or person is immaterial.  The fact is that virtually everything in print today can be argued or accused by someone to be a lie, wrong, mistaken, or otherwise not to be believed or trusted.  And THAT is the purpose of the "disinformation."  It is designed to cause the thought or comment to be dismissed without consideration.  It is simply a "soft sell" censorship, aiming to cause all readers or listeners to dismiss the subject comment or thought without any serious (or, actually, ANY) consideration or allow it to affect thought, belief, and/or action by the reader or listener.

This is simply a cancellation of the Constitution's promise and premise of "Free Speech," which is predicated on no preempting of thought, comment or plea prior to the reading or hearing of that by the public.  The whole benefit of "free speech" is to allow differing points of view a public forum, in the belief that the clear light of day exposes falsehoods as discussion follows.  To prevent that is to invite indoctrination and dictatorial control.

Just who or what takes that control is immaterial to the individual.  It is the loss of the ability, much less the right, to judge what and why any action is being taken, denied, approved, or financed that destroys a society, a republic, a democracy, or any government.  And that removes civil existence as a norm.  It also removes any sense of individual freedom as being "protected" or enforced by governance.

It is wrong to accept any claim that allowing, codifying, or denying any statement (verbal, broadcast, printed, et. al.) is simply a desire to prevent lying or creative facts.  That, in any form, is a recipe for loss of the right to confront all assertions publicly and invites, if not guarantees, dictatorial rule by some entity.  That can be a "created" public attitude, government censorship, or anything in-between.  Only free discourse and argument in the public square ensures that any honest set of beliefs can be adopted by a people.  It does not ensure that the decision will be an "absolute right" decision... just that it will be one made by a majority that decides for at least that moment that the result is desirable and intended.

Why our Federal Government ignores what the Voters want!

 In 1790, The United States of America first census declared a population of Three Million, Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Fourteen people (3,929,214).  The 1791 House of Representatives had a membership of Sixty-nine (69).

Each Member of the 1791 House of Representatives represented (and was elected by) approximately Fifty-six Thousand, Four hundred Ninety-five (56,495) people. 

In 2020, The United States of America census declared a population of approximately Three Hundred Twenty-five Million, Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventy-eight (325,719,178) people.  The 2020 House of Representative numbered Four Hundred Sixty-five (465) members.

Each Member of the 2020 House of Representatives represented (really?) (and was elected by) approximately Seven Hundred Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-one (700,471) people.

Does any sane, logical, thinking individual seriously consider that any one of us presents a significant impact on "our" House of Representative official with an impact of 1/700,471th on his or her holding office?  Does any one of you believe that they really care?

Perspective:

• To reach the same level of representation that existed in 1791, the House of Representatives would have to grow to 5,720 members.  That is NOT workable in Washington, BUT it would work if:
• Each state's delegation remained in their State's Capitol 

•  Total voting was transmitted and tabulated in Washington electronically, with each state's result counting as a weighted total (just as is done with the Presidential election tabulation).
• As a comparison, if today's level of representation were to have applied to the United States of 1791, the House of Representatives would have consisted of Six (6) members, and four (4) states would have had NO representation. 

The responsibility for our current government's failure to represent the "people" can be broadly cast in many directions, but a major degree is directly attributable to President Lincoln and his Congress.  Why?

His refusal to accept the separation of the southern States of the Republic into a new one started us on the road to being badly governed! 

Many of the Founding Fathers discussed and recognized that the responsiveness of a Democratic Republic was dependent on limiting the size of government; as government grew in size, it became less representative and responsive while becoming more and more dictatorial and controlling.  Many of them expressed a vision of the "United" states giving birth to additional, limited sized, Republics as the area and the population to be governed grew, each becoming allied with the originals for the purpose of common defense, but each maintaining a responsiveness to and for the segment of population they governed in a manner that maintained control in the people, not the government.

If that vision had survived the emotional, moral and financial challenge that brought on our "civil" war, we would today likely be an amalgam of five (5) Republics, each with its own Capitol, its own Supreme Court, it's own Congress, and each contributing to the cost and maintenance of a common Military governed by  5 member panel representing each of the Republics, and overseeing the necessary financial support of that defense.

Alas, that did not happen.  So today we (the individual "people") are ignored by an elected and bureaucratic cadre of what is (not inappropriately) often labeled the "Deep State," they members of which are dedicated to preserving and growing their own power, security and financial well-being.

I have no solution (other than to imagine that we are in the throughs of the same decline and obliteration suffered by the Greeks...and the Romans...and all the other once successful efforts to "do it better" than the last).  But if we are self-destructing, at least our last thoughts can include the knowledge of where we erred.