When does life of a human begin?

Which then elicits the next set of questions…

How do you value that life?

Who speaks for that life?

Do you prohibit the continuation of that life and why?

Who takes responsibility for that life?

The answer should be simple enough, but it always takes on too many facets of interest from many sectors. Things have become so warped now that there are states contemplating infanticide post-birth because they still can’t decide the value of human life.

To me, I see the likes of Klaus Schwab and his highest mentor…Yuval Noah Harari….who claims that “There are no gods, no nations, no money and no human rights, except in our collective imagination.”

Wow!

Who is “our” collective?

A collective that HE envisions, I’m sure.

NO…HUMAN…RIGHTS

When does human life begin?

Who decides and why?

Simply put, if you wanted to make abortion of any sort legal nationwide you would have to pass a new amendment to the Constitution abridging the rights of states to make laws outside of federal purview. Saying that the Constitution says something that it clearly doesn’t is not sufficient. The false Roe opinion was much easier to obtain at the time than a new amendment requiring affirmation by 3/4 of the states. The Supreme Court overstepped their authority, and that authority needs to be returned to the states where it belongs.

IMO, government needs to GTFO of people’s personal lives and decisions. If it doesn’t hurt society then don’t touch it. On that vein, I’d be happy if they legalized all drugs… as long as the druggie had no dependents, were sterilized, and never allowed any public welfare from that point on.

Legalized abortion in the 70’s led to crime dropping by half by the mid 90’s. Not all children are wanted. Steven Levitt proved that in 2001, and Abel Francois again proved it in 2014. The alternative is back alley abortions and girls bleeding to death. Talk to people in their 70s and they likely knew someone that happened to.

Dumb people have a tough time coming up with original complicated legal ease. Self included.

As a side note, this one is going to cost us more money from the “Constitutional Defense Fund”, since I have zero doubts everyone will ignore the legal advice already provided by the AG’s office. Politicians can pander all they want, but when it starts to hit my wallet, they surely should be punished.

For instance, a hyper-technical reading of the oath to “uphold the laws of the state of Idaho” would bar a legislature and governor from repealing any existing state law. That’s obviously not what it means!

Nor, surely, does it mean that the governor of Idaho has to put on his SCOTUS hat and make correct predictions of future rulings on constitutional law. The oath shouldn’t require, for instance, that Little accurately predict the fate of Roe when signing state legislation.

Finally, the oath has to mean something slightly different for the governor (an executive) than it does for a senator (a legislator). That’s because the executive is also responsible for enforcing the law whereas the legislature is responsible for making it. “Uphold” has different implications the guy in charge of the ISP than it does for a policy maker.

I think in the end the oath is most important for its symbolism, because although vague in the foregoing details it is still a public commitment to the rule of law. When measuring a violation, what matters most is probably how an official describes their actions rather than what the actions actually are. A statement like, “This is unconstitutional and will be struck down but I’m signing it anyway” would be an oath violation because it is blatant in its disrespect of the law. But a statement like, “I fear this is unconstitutional and unwise and I sign it reluctantly” still demonstrates respect for the rule of law — it probably leaves him safely in the gray area, and on the safe side of the oath.