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.