Abortion Debate After Roe: Atty Brice Battles Kelly for ‘Reasonable’ Abortion Rules

I was having a conversation with my old buddy Brice When I realized that what we were talking about in terms of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court would make a good podcast. But first, a few of the texts that we were starting off with before we shifted to a podcast. Brice texts me…

Brice: “I think Biden is a tool of the banks and Bilderberg-- Did you know that he was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee? And therefore he's responsible for Clarence Thomas and this wouldn't have happened without him so it's Biden's fault it was overturned.”

Brice continues. “I've always been sympathetic to the criticism that Roe made up a “Right” out of whole cloth, but I was ultimately persuaded that the Rights of privacy and Liberty from unreasonable government interference can reasonably be interpreted to limit the state's ability to prevent a medical procedure that cannot be proven to harm a conscious being. I always thought viability was a fair line to draw because Medical Science could always bring it back to the fetus if we created an artificial womb.”

Brice: “So that's what I thought the project should be not forcing women to go through pregnancies and then abandoning them and their children to a cruel individualistic society of scarcity once they are born. I would like to see the religious right care as much about poor people as it does about the unborn babies. Jesus only talked about one of those two classes of people.”

Kelly. “Q: When does Personhood adhere to a fetus? And how would you know when you're right?”

Brice: “I don't know the “right” answer, but I don't think forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies makes sense.”

Kelly: “False. My question trumps yours, by definition. Oops. Unintended pun. God won't Judge the slaughter of the innocent? Really! And after all your calls for justice? What does hypocrisy smell like? Vanilla extract or a burning fecal mass?”

Brice “What about pregnancies were an abortion is necessary to save the woman's life? I think it is more complicated than legal or illegal – it is not like crimes where there is a clear basis for avoiding a particular wrongful conduct.”

Kelly: “An exception that creates the rule births a travesty. We always err on the side of caution.”

Brice: “End La should be based on secular considerations not pure religiosity – I suppose if America becomes a muslim-majority women can be made to wear birka.d Can't regulate that.”

Kelly: “Question. Is the law against murder religious or secular?”

Brice: “Secular – clear state interest, and there are crazy self-defense laws that allow you to get away with murder because Jesus loves guns. But in practice religious zealots don't err on the side of caution – they fanatically allow women to die to save unborn “life” -- the trigger laws and many other abortion bans are a simplistic, egotistical, cynical, patriarchal, reactionary approach to a complicated issue that has motivated the conservative right for decades.”

Kelly: “So the Ten Commandments don't prohibit murder?”

Brice: “Now we will see if the democratic-majority can do anything about it or if the left's preoccupation with identity politics will continue to keep it from making any progress.”

Kelly: “Please answer.”

Brice: “But that is not why murder is illegal – the Bible says not to eat shrimp and shrimp are legal.”

Kelly: “Abrogated within the text. Your point falls apart such you can't even finish a debate using it. Your empire of secularism is sterile. Leads to mass murders. Ironic isn't it?!!”

Brice: “Regardless, laws are passed based on consensus not what the Bible says – just because you don't believe in separation of church and state doesn't mean you can read it out of the Constitution. And like I said this, will be a test of what people really believe in whether they can achieve it through the Democratic process – the right has proved it can change a lot 80% of Americans think should not change, so will 80% be able to mobilize to push back? We will see.

Brice: “And I believe in a well regulated militia not unfettered gun ownership.”

Brice: “When I say government should be secular a just mean that Laws should be passed in a process that is neutral in regards to religion and a irreligion”

Kelly: “Except I never stated I didn't believe in the separation of church and state a weak argument is filled with Straw Men. See above.”

Brice: “Packing the Supreme Court with religious ideology is in my opinion country to secular governance – if your view is that it is a legitimate means of governance is whatever ideological faction can accomplish is fair game, then you must be open to the idea of the left can now just do the same thing in reverse and eventually churches will be paying property taxes.”

Kelly: “Read the statistics I found in my last Canadafreepress essay. So the religious need not apply!! Only secularism contains truth!! LOL”

Brice: “That was a religion where you are welcome to participate and no one has a monopoly on the truth.”

Kelly: “The way you apply secularism it's indistinguishable from religion. You're not beating my ideas I believe you need to update your argument”

Brice: “I think that the last few decades prove you wrong since there's been a lot of science – base policy that has actually improved people's lives such as pre-K education.”

Kelly: “Separation of church and state is not jettisoning religion at the behest of humanism.”

Brice: “You're right about “Further shaking left is to the core.” That is why I'm saying this decision will be a test for the left.”

Kelly: “The point was no State Affiliated religion. Hey, let’s take this conversation into a podcast!
Brice: “Great idea!”