>>481690This is commonly available knowledge. Emanuel and Holder are proud and open eugenists. Most of the liberals are. Were you not paying attention in the 1990s?
>>481691That is not a credible argument unless you assume a lot of biopolitical shibboleths are automatically true, and many assumptions about political subjectivity. It makes eugenics the only possible world-system.
If you regard life as morally valuable at all, then the state not only legalizing infanticide but glorifying it and insisting "infanticide on demand" means exactly that. Anyone who is a minor, anyone who is deemed invalid, may be killed with impunity. Those are the conditions of Eugenics, and the bare minimum they will take with such a claim. It is dishonest to pretend this is not what they have done with it, and sophist's arguments only reduce to dithering and excuses. Once the dithering begins - and the eugenist philosophers admonish everyone that once it begins, eugenist victory is inevitable and a fait accompli - any legal principle suggesting anything can be different is moot. You've already placed the power of life and death in the hands of a monopoly of experts, who are not legally required to abide anything the court rules is "scientific truth". The very nature of expert testimony is that the expert is the expert, not the judge. The judge and court merely judge the facts - and here you are asserting that the experts' judgement is absolute and must override even the judge, who would inveigh on whether this act that he is judging is moral or in line with the society he serves. The expert has no obligation to society at all, and has shown his contempt for society. The judge has to at least appear fair, or the judge has to rule that the eugenic interest has untrammeled authority over private life. This is what has always been at stake - nothing less.
If the court deems fit to place reasonable restrictions on abortion - and that was the standing law, not "abortion on demand" - then you start having this argument "for real". Except, we never did. Eugenics never gives up an inch, and it won victory after victory. There is nothing whatsoever that can appeal its decisions.
The relevant decision for the court is not about whether you can say this killing is okay because biological science says it's kosher and another is not. That falls really on the doctor and the woman aborting the child. The judge's position would be entirely about the interests of the state. He has no authority to dictate private practice or personal life in that way because "the science says the abortion is kosher". The only reason this comes up is because the fetus is "life unworthy of life" or a slave. By what standard is a child free, then? You've already invoked a biopolitical argument for who is free and who is not - and this is the same argument for chattel slavery on a eugenic basis (an argument that was never upheld in the bad old days, which tells you of the eugenic creed's depravity). In the most sweeping declaration, anyone who is not granted specific status of "life worthy of life" may be killed with impunity. That is the standard of legal and political freedom - just as it was for slaves, who weren't free until they were ruled free and the papers of manumission were signed, or emancipation was forced. Also same with prisoners, and anyone who is suspect of invalidity of any sort. There is no barrier that eugenics would have to regard or that the law can erect based on ability or viability. That whole line of argument rested on where life can be said to begin for the state's interest to hold. On one hand, there is a claim that the state's interest starts purely with a biopolitical or natural claim, and on the other, the state's claim over life and death is absolute and PRECEDES conception. They can mandate sterilization against all due process and any decency once known, upheld since 1927 with thunderous applause from the creed.
Since infanticide has been justified on this basis already, I need not "prove" my claim. They kill in the open and dare you to stop them. That's what happens when the state considers this a pretext to govern life at all levels.
My solution is that the only real interest here is the conduct of the doctor and medical profession, and possibly whether the law could punish someone for intentionally killing their own unborn child / killing another's unborn child. The doctors have no sacrosanctity and their work can be policed for the good of society. The bodies of women by tradition and history really can't - there's nothing stopping a woman from killing a child if she really doesn't want to carry it, and no good rationale to say she can't. It is another for the doctor to have a stake in promoting abortion, and another still for the state to declare explicitly that infanticide is not just legal but its policy goal for population control. It is ritual sacrifice just like in Carthage.
I believe any regulation would happen at the level of medical practitioners - that any pushing of abortion or eugenics law would be watched, and those found to advance the eugenic creed would be rooted out. Other than that, the state already allowed self-inflicted infanticide and the sale of aborting drugs, and never had a firm law against abortion in history. It is difficult to enforce except by fear or shame.
Most people don't think aborting their child is no big deal, but many abortions happen. The state looked the other way for nearly all of human history, yet now they insist that a strident imposition of population control under eugenist monopoly - people who glorify ritual sacrifice and the thrill of torture - is a right and the highest freedom. That tells you what they think about society.
For all intents and purposes the Constitution was a dead letter after Buck v. Bell, if it weren't already. That was the point - eugenics was above all law. That is the only way it can be interpreted, and that went further than Dred Scott ever could.