If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions

The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is “needed”. (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother’s needs are valid, so the only abortion that is “unneeded” is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)

The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.

The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn’t asked for your help; she doesn’t want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What “help” are you going to force on her against her will?

About last point: I choose to presume consent

I’ll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don’t get to make that “choice”.

The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.

#You may never infer consent from silence.

If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.

The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.

Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned.

The military is strictly limited on what kind of operations it is allowed to perform. The commander and operators of Seal Team 6 would be prosecuted if they obeyed an unlawful order, even if it came from their Commander in Chief. The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act. The President does not have the power to violate his political rival’s right to due process. A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an “unofficial act”. The courts are free to rule accordingly.

The dissents are reading far more into the majority opinion than is actually there. I suggest you read the majority opinion a little more closely.

When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune

In all three of those cases, the question as to whether those actions are required or permitted under the law is put to a judge, and that judge is free to rule that they are not. The trial judge is free to rule that they are “unofficial” acts, and deny that immunity.

This ruling is terrible for Trump.

If he were legitimately convinced that the electoral college process was improper, it is his duty to pressure Pence not to certify. He can’t be criminally charged simply for pressuring Pence not to certify.

However, that same act of pressuring Pence can be considered a component of election fraud. He cannot be charged for merely pressuring Pence, but the act of pressuring Pence can be used as evidence of that wider fraud. The trial court is free to decide that the wider fraud is not an official act.

The immunity the court is talking about means they can’t be charged with murder for sending troops to war. Such an act is not “above the law”. The law specifically authorizes the president to perform such an act.

The legal remedy for a president who improperly sending troops to war is impeachment, not a criminal charge.

The president’s immunity extends only to those acts that he is specifically authorized by law to perform. Those are “official” acts. The acts that Trump is accused of are well outside the scope of his former office. The trial court is going to burn his ass. SCOTUS didn’t save him.

I don’t know why everybody is so upset about this ruling.

The trial court said he didn’t have absolute immunity. He said he did, and appealed. The appeals court said “no, you don’t have absolute immunity” and sent it back to thr trial court. He appealed again. SCOTUS could have reversed the trial court and appelate court. They did not. They upheld the appellate court decision, and said “no, you do not have absolute immunity. You only have immunity for official acts. Shove your appeal up your ass, we’re sending this back to the trial court.”

They ruled against him, folks.

The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the “exception” you are looking for.

They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said “No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren’t going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass.”

Talking to the VP about not confirming is protected. Lying to the VP about the reason why he should not confirm is not protected.

Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime

Knowingly making a false statement to the VP would, indeed, be a criminal fraud, but the passage you cited does not contemplate such an act.

Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted

That, too, is not contemplated in the passage you cited.

What part of that statement is about attacking Congress or subverting the electoral college?

It is certainly within the president’s and vice president’s responsibilities to determine whether to certify the count. They have to be able to say “no, this should not be certified”.

Saying “no” can still be used as evidence of another crime, it’s just not a crime in and of itself.

However, the mental jump to then switching the logic around that any woman looking for abortion was raped is simply illogical

I agree, but I didn’t say that they were raped. I said you could presume they were raped. You are perfectly capable of making and choosing to make that presumption.

I think that yes, women would have to admit to being a victim to receive medical help. There’s simply hardly any other way.

There most certainly is another way. You are under no obligation to ask. You don’t need to create an obligation for her to tell. Even if you did ask and she did tell, she could have some reason for lying and claiming it was consensual when it actually wasn’t, so you can ignore any answer she gives.

The “other way” is to allow you to presume that she meets whatever criteria you believe necessary to justify and permit abortion. If you need to believe she was raped, presume she was raped. If you need her life to be in danger, go right ahead and presume her life is in danger.

One last point: You are under zero obligation to presume that her sexual encounters were consensual. If you choose to presume consent, I’d like to know your rationale for doing so. And I’d like to know how fairly you will be treating a rape victim seeking an abortion if you presume consent that was not granted.

Where are you getting that? That question wasn’t put to SCOTUS.

Trump was charged. Trump claimed he had “absolute immunity”, and didn’t have to face charges. Court rules against him in this issue; he appealed. Appellate court ruled against him, sending the case back to the trial court. He appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said he doesn’t have absolute immunity, and that the limit of his immunity is on his “official acts”. SCOTUS then sent the case back to the trial court. The trial court will have to determine whether his actions were “official” or “unofficial”.

Ok. So she has been raped.

Is she obligated to report that rape? Is she obligated to accuse someone? Is she obligated to prove she has been raped? Is she obligated to cooperate with an investigation into her rape? Is she obligated to even claim she had been raped?

The answers are “No, No, No, No, and No”. Since she is not and should never be under any sort of obligation to do any of these things, you don’t know and can’t know that she was raped. Yet, by your argument, as a victim, she is entitled to an abortion.

With your philosophy, you could presume that any particular woman seeking an abortion has been raped, and is simply not reporting it for whatever reason. She is entitled to her abortion.

If it is a person, then yes, it could be considered a rapist, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will. If it is not a person, it is merely an unexpected growth, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will.

The ridiculousness of the former scenario tells us that, for purposes of deciding whether the mother is entitled to remove it, the fetus should not be considered a person.

It’s not me choosing to put you in this guillotine. It’s the whole of society.

Wetting is a rather complex topic. Basically, yes.

Not all solids can be wetted. Wax, for example: water beads up on a waxed surface; it does not actually wet the surface.

Not all “wetting” involves water. Soldering and brazing involve “wetting” base materials with a molten filler metal. Dripping molten metal on the base material does not necessarily “wet” it either: the molten filler can “bead” just like water on wax. When it solidifies, the filler metal is not bonded to the unwetted base metal.

It’s actually a pretty simple question, and has a simple, straightforward answer. The fetus does not become alive until its survival needs can be feasibly met by someone or something other than the mother. Until it is biologically capable of surviving the death of the mother, it is alive only as a part of the mother’s body.

An infant does require considerable support. It will die if neglected. But, the support an infant requires can be provided by any caregiver. Dad, grandma, or an older sibling can feed an infant. Doctors can provide it with IV nutrition.

Nobody but mom can “feed” an immature fetus.

I assert that flies in the face with the 2a - a well organized regulated militia is INHERENTLY NOT: the unorganized militia

My argument is not in conflict with your assertion. I don’t need to rebut it. Quite the contrary, your assertion supports my position.

The only constitutionally valid conclusion we can draw from your assertion is that the unorganized class of the militia is not adequately regulated.

Since I am calling for additional regulation in the form of mandated training, I can accept your assertion. I can have you expand on your point, and ask what additional regulations you believe are necessary and appropriate to impose upon the whole of the people, the unorganized militia.

You cannot prohibit or prevent the unorganized militia from keeping or bearing arms. Congress does not have that power. But, you do have the power to regulate the unorganized militia. What additional regulations do you want to impose upon yourself and all of us?

I want mandated training on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force.