“Peaceful Protests” are about to start again – now that the Supreme Court has issued its decision vacating the federal “right” to an abortion, found by a previous Supreme Court in a “right” to privacy nowhere described in the federal Constitution.
It does not mean that those who wish to end the lives of their developing babies aren’t still free to do so – in states where the practice will still be legal. Rather, it means the majority of this court found the “constitutional” reasoning of the court that originally decided Roe v. Wade to be without constitutional substance.
That, of course, is not the way the flying monkeys of the media are explaining it – the straight truth being something the media always distorts whenever it doesn’t serve to advance the agenda of the Left, which has become synonymous with the media.
Instead, the media has conveyed the idea that women who want to end the lives of their developing babies will no longer be “free” to do so. And Leftists in politics said similar, for example, the governor of New York, who said:
“Today the Supreme Court rolled back the rights of millions of Americans, disregarding their interests and — more importantly — their lives. Access to abortion is a fundamental human right, and it remains safe, accessible, and legal in New York.”
And then said the Martha’s Vineyard-dwellling ex-president, who recently also had 2,500 gallons of “climate changing” fossil fuel stored up for his comfort, after having derided the rest of us for the size of our “carbon footprints”:
“Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.”
Does Barry mean that he also opposes the way millions of Americans were forced to shutter their businesses? To wear Face Diapers? To face the loss of their jobs if they declined to accept being Jabbed? Are not such things also the fruit of having “personal decisions” (made by) the “whims of politicians and ideologues”?
Well, yes – of course. But Leftists such as Barry and Kathy Hochul – the governess of New York – are only opposed to “personal decisions” being (made by) the “whims of politicians and ideologues” when those decisions are those they disagree with.
And when Leftists disagree, they also do something else.
As for example, threatening to kill one of the justices who ruled to overturn the federal law creating out of nothing a federal “right” to end the life of a developing baby. The media was remarkably silent about that act of murderous violence. Almost as silent as it is about the millions of acts of murderous violence visited upon developing babies. 
Now we can expect – we can assume – that there will be more violence. For the Left cannot abide losing an argument or even mere disagreement. One must agree with – one must submit to – everything the Left demands you believe, or else.
The “or else” always being the hovering threat of . . . violence. Like the summer of violence the Left characterized as “mostly peaceful” – staged and ready before it even began. As if it had been . . . planned.
Pallets – of bricks – mysteriously appeared in cities all over the country, as if they had been brought there for a purpose. And – of course – there was a purpose. But it wasn’t to build a wall. 
How many pallets of bricks has the Left placed in cities around the country – ready for what happened today?
Not having got their way – the court having ruled that there is nothing in the federal Constitution articulating a federal “right” to destroy a developing child by dint of the fact that it is a matter of “privacy” and the woman’s “right” (imagine that same logic used to defend OJ’s “right” to “privacy” as regards what he did to his ex-wife, whom he regarded as inconvenient).
Of course, the Left doesn’t see such parallels because – at core – the Left only sees what it wants to see. And is enraged when others do not see eye to eye – even when it is over the same thing. Observe that the Left now opposes the freedom of speech it once unctuously defended as a natural right (which it is, unlike some other “rights” the Left claims to see). It opposes Free Speech now – because as opposed to then, when the Left was out of power – it is now the Left that is in power.
And power is the one right the Left always defends – so long as the Left wields it.
. . .
Got a question about cars, bikes or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me directly at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
This is why they do not allow women to command armies. If a majority of women think this is the best way to get their point across, they are sadly mistaken. No woman has ever won a battle (much less a war) by doing this. Actually, if they would take this old broad’s advice, they would actually win a whole lot more by doing the complete opposite. Only the dumbest of women withhold sex thinking that he is going to see things her way.
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2022/06/26/women-call-sex-strike-against-men-retaliation-overturning-roe-wade/
There are 166 million men in the USSA, but we are going to penalize them for the four that voted yes to return Roe back to the states!?!? I don’t disagree with the way that the majority of the Supreme Court voted I just so don’t see why the other 165,996,000 should be blacklisted.
I think I will skip this strike. I actually like my husband.
“Only the dumbest of women withhold sex thinking that he is going to see things her way.”
Not really. There’s plenty of simps and white knights out there willing to bend the knee to these disgusting broads.
That may very well be.
But most the women who do this probably weren’t having all that much sex with men in the first place, for a lot of reasons.
Nothing will really change as a result of them not doing what they weren’t going to be doing anyway. No awareness will be raised. Lysistrata, this is not.
These leftists hate children….here is one elbowing a child for a photo op…..
Children: abort them, mandate (forced) 72 poisonous vaccinations for them, elbow them…..
GOP Congresswoman Livid After Pelosi Elbow-Checks Daughter At Ceremony
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gop-congresswoman-livid-after-pelosi-elbow-checks-daughter-ceremony
If the leftist/satanists can’t have their human sacrifices they get really pissed…
The first environmentalist was Hitler. He also promoted being vegan even though he ate meat.
gates and the other nwo/ccp/wef/.0001% witches want you to eat fake meat and insects, no more meat for you. they eats steak.
The holocaust itself was carried out under a green cover because Nazi racism was largely rooted in the Social Darwinism of German Romanticism that laid the ecological foundations for what today is otherwise known as environmentalism.
the anti-Christian bias of the environmental movement in America now
parallels the anti-Semitic bias in Germany during the 1800’s. “Nazi Oaks” describes why the holocaust is best understood as a modernized form of human sacrifice carried out under biological/ecological camouflage that is rooted in the sacrificial oak imagery of ancient paganism.
Unbeknownst to many, the highway to modern environmentalism passed through Nazi Germany. By 1935, the Third Reich was the greenest regime on the planet.
It was also a sinister eco-imperial plan designed to Germanize the landscape by removing populations of people who were unsuited to their environment, and by turning it into a beautiful natural park for the future health of the German race.
removing populations of people who were unsuited to their environment: today that is you, they call you an invasive species, you will be exterminated with injections etc., but they will say they are helping you……
these satanists have decided that the useless eaters on the bottom are an invasive species, the plan? end goal 7 billion cull. how? one sneaky way, poisonous injections. the billionaires at the top see themselves as a different species than the useless eaters, so they don’t need to be culled.
Climate change just like covid is purely political and religious, based on fake science. Climate change, the new GAIA cult religion, like it’s brother covid, a big favorite of the communist, reset, one world government, satanic cult freaks, chasing you with the nazi needle to exterminate you.
This cull is a modernized form of human sacrifice carried out under biological/ecological camouflage that is rooted in the sacrificial oak imagery of ancient paganism.
then the world will be a beautiful natural park for the future health of the billionaire elites.
who is behind the great reset?
at the top the controllers the elite nobility in the background, always hiding, nobody talks about them, the control group.
Prince Charles hired Klaus Schwab, an engineer, to “found” and run the World Economic Forum at Davos in 1971. Davos is nothing more than the well deserved whipping boy for the British Crown and the rest of the European aristocracy if and when the whole thing goes South and ends in tears. The American corollary is the Aspen Institute.
another elite example……..Prince Phillip, late husband of Queen Elizabeth II said ….“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
The government/medical system/church is a huge satanic cult now…
If they don’t kill you before you are born, you are doomed anyways, babies are mandated to have 72 vaccines now. Then if you live long enough they will mandate/force you to get bioweapon shots…..lol
“Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.” Says Barry.
How long did it take to outlaw slavery in the US? I dare say it was more than 50 years. By Barry’s logic, we should bring it back.
Indeed, murder is always the most intently personal decision.
Attacking the essential freedom of millions of Americans appears to be the sole function of FedGov. I can’t remember the last time it ruled in favor of suppressing actual crimes. Don’t have to look to hard to find it ruling in opposition to freedom.
I’m a bit astonished over the hypocrisy shown here as well as by the Left. Everyone on this Site seemed to be rightly angered about the State’s Governors pissing on people’s Constitutional Rights and Privacy during the Scamdemic yet some now seem to be saying, “Sovereignty over your own body doesn’t count if you’re knocked-up”. Forcing people to submit to Government Will during what has pretty much been proven to be a Bullshit Crisis was bad but forcing people to submit to Government Will by making them have a kid is OK.
Since those Black Robed Kangaroos have kicked Abortion back to the States because it wasn’t addressed in the Constitution and at least some Fundamental Rights need to be decided by the States, maybe they should revisit Jim Crow Laws as well. After all, motor coaches weren’t mentioned in the Constitution either so why not allow States to decide if Negros should be only allowed to sit in the back of buses.
Deciding what a person does with his own body is his business – not the business of Government, society or someone quoting from a theatrical prop. If the Supreme Court were really concerned about Constitutional Law, they would strike down all Regulations because the first sentence after the Preamble to the Constitution says, “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives” – not some politician’s Butt Buddy.
It’s been estimated, the Right SCOTUS took away from the people on Friday will reduce abortions by only about 14% but still, that could mean stores, in the near future, could be facing shortages of coat hangers and bleach. Good job you elite Washington DC whores.
Well said.
If life is indeed sacred, then why does it it cease to be so when these kids are born?
Why are they allowed to be raised by single (often incompetent) mothers, with poor nutrition, schooling and in unsafe environments?
Hi Escher,
“If life is indeed sacred, then why does it it cease to be so when these kids are born?”
I think these are separate questions. I also don’t think anyone is arguing that a child’s life – that any innocent person’s life – isn’t sacred. Regardless of age.
To defend a child’s right to not be killed is not the same as denying the “right” of the state to force other people to provide materially for that child. It is also a false argument, in that there will always be people who are willing (i.e, who freely decide) to materially help kids in need of help.
And even if not – as an intellectual exercise – would that justify killing kids in need of help?
Escher,
These children are not “allowed” to have single mothers, and the resultant malnutrition, and poor schooling, they are PAID by the government to be single mothers. The poor schooling is a product of the state, not something merely allowed. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
Doug, the different between mask mandates/jabs and abortion is that “my body, my choice” no longer applies when someone is carrying an innocent life inside their womb. Another body is now involved.
Hi Doug,
There is a moral as well as a legal aspect to this business. The Court – as I understand it – addressed the legal rather than the moral question and I think it did so correctly in that there is no language in the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) articulating a federal right to abortion. It therefore remanded the matter to the states.
But – what of abortion as a moral matter?
It seems to me the answer depends on whether you accept or deny that it is acceptable to end the life of another person. For it seems to me undeniable that life begins at conception, as a matter of biology. The degree of life seems to me immaterial – as far as the moral question at hand. If we are to countenance gradations in life as the basis for saying it’s moral to end another’s life then I think we establish a dangerous precedent that cheapens all life – and I submit that’s exactly what has happened since Roe was originally decided. I myself did not accept this relationship for many years but have changed my mind because the logic seems to me hard to deny.
This is not the same as the “mask” thing at all. You – and I – have every right to not wear a “mask” (or to wear one, if we wish) because it is “our body” and so our rightful choice. It is impossible to establish direct causation between my not wearing a “mask” and some other person getting sick. Especially if I myself am not sick. But it is undeniable that abortion, by definition, ends the life of another.
As far as Jim Crow:
These are vicious laws – precisely because they are laws. What I mean is that while it is disgusting for a store owner to refuse service to a black person – or an “unmasked” person – I will defend their right to do so because they have a right to both free association and to their own property. I believe a massive error – and danger – occurred when “civil rights” laws were passed. There are no such things. All people have rights, period. There are no categories of rights, in the moral sense (there are legal rights, a different matter).
As a moral matter, I regard abortion the same as infanticide or the euthanasia of the elderly – and so on. As distinct from a person choosing to end their own life, which they have every moral right to do – that being their choice (and their body).
Whether abortion ought to be legally countenanced is another matter. Or rather, it is the same matter as whether it is morally legitimate for the state to outlaw murder, which amounts to the same thing.
I understand there are “hard cases” – and agree that these often make bad law.
But it seems to me that, in probably 95-plus percent of the cases, the “choice” at hand is whether to have unprotected sex. Having chosen to have it, if a pregnancy ensues, it seems to me straightforward that the right choice (morally) is not to kill the developing child who did nothing to justify being killed other than not being wanted.
Eric, Doug misses the point he makes regarding Jim Crow. Governments were the last stronghold of racially prejudiced treatment. By the time the Civil Rights Act was written, most Americans were already done with overt racism, whatever their private notions, or subtle acts. Not so the state. In fact, POTUS Eisenhower proposed a similar civil rights act in the early ’50s, and it was destroyed in the Senate, by none other than LBJ. The champion of the Great Society.
“the answer depends on whether you accept or deny that it is acceptable to end the life of another person.”
C’mon eric, you can do better than this. That’s classic begging-the-question. The moral question obviously hinges on whether the fetus is a person with morally cognizable rights—not on whether it’s ok to kill a person. (Both sides of the debate obviously agree that it’s not ok to kill a person. The disagreement is on the meaning of the term “person,” not on the propriety of murder.)
I’m not taking sides on the (real) question of whether a fetus is a person for moral purposes, but I think it’s important that the moral disputants are at least agreeing on what the question is. Your loaded question is quite cringeworthy in its effect of short-circuiting any good-faith debate.
“For it seems to me undeniable that life begins at conception, as a matter of biology.”
This is another unfortunate argument-stopping formulation. Sure, biological life starts at conception…but it doesn’t follow that moral interests in continuation of that life vest at conception. Different people with different empirical, spiritual, and cosmological intuitions can reasonably disagree about when morally-cognizable rights vest.
Again, I’m not even disagreeing with your evident belief that moral rights vest at conception. To the contrary, I credit that as one conclusion as valid as any number of other different conclusions.
“it seems to me straightforward that the right choice (morally) is not to kill the developing child who did nothing to justify being killed other than not being wanted.”
I have the luxury of having a vastly different perspective on this question, since in my mind, a great moral harm was done in the conception of an unconsenting fetus. To me, it’s immoral to conceive—and to birth—a new soul into the material realm without obtaining informed consent. “Informed” means, the soul would need to be shown a full accounting of all that is in store for it: all miseries, discomforts, unsatisfied wants, frustrated preferences, pain, suffering, existential dread, terror, exploitation, coercion, skunked beer, bunk weed, bad TeeVee, boredom, old age, decrepitude, bodily disintegration, and agonizing death. And then the soul would need to give express, provable consent to conception, in order for the conception to be morally defensible.
Of course, murder is also immoral, since it too is without informed consent. So the real question of whether abortion is murder turns on whether the fetus’s right not to exist has been empirically displaced by some vested right to continue existing.
That’s a question of high complexity, open to much debate based on biological and cognitive-scientific particularities that are beyong the scope of this argument about what the argument is…
RE: “I’m not taking sides on the (real) question of whether a fetus is a person for moral purposes…”
I thought of that bit while I reading this:
“The problem is that contemporary man is the son of the Revolution, unconsciously indoctrinated into “political correctness,” to relativism, to the idea that there is no objective truth and that all ideas are equally acceptable. This disease of thought is the first cause of the success of the adversaries, because many people ally themselves with accepting their principles without understanding that it is precisely those ideas that have made it possible to transform our society [in such a destructive way].” …
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-freemasonry-is-using-the-who-and-the-bergoglian-church-to-advance-its-global-coup/
Anyway, often when I read your comments, I think of Rich Strike winning The Kentucky Derby, did you see the race?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEAOlT–hlo
…’Cause, ‘The End’, which our technocratic overlords are attempting, isn’t yet set in stone.
Time will tell, eh?
“To me, it’s immoral to conceive—and to birth—a new soul into the material realm without obtaining informed consent.” FP
How would you, or any human obtain this informed consent? What if the creator of this world had yours, and everyone else’s informed consent before coming to this earth? If it weren’t for souls’ consent in the heaven’s, what would be the object of sending man to this earth?
Hey ancap: “How would you, or any human obtain this informed consent?”
You can’t! That’s my whole point. I don’t think there’s been a morally defensible conception in history. Usually, the victims simply “enjoy” the outcome, so it’s a kind of no-harm-no-foul situation, despite the lack of informed consent. For those of us who feel aggrieved by the outcome, however…there’s no recourse except to wallow in self-righteous indignation.
“What if the creator of this world had yours, and everyone else’s informed consent before coming to this earth?”
Well, I personally know that I never gave informed consent, and I have never heard anyone claim that he did either. Indeed, I agree with you that it was impossible either to inform a not-yet-extant mind of the future, or for the not-yet-extant mind to voice consent. Therefore, our parents should best have just left us out of this mess. We wouldn’t have missed it for a moment.
Yet, most people just sort of accept, endure, and (for some reason) choose to be “grateful” for this infernal existence. It’s weird. I really just can’t even relate, and I never could.
“If it weren’t for souls’ consent in the heaven’s, what would be the object of sending man to this earth?”
I didn’t really follow this last question. I gather that you are assuming a lot of metaphysical things that I don’t assume. I don’t believe in “heavens” or in a “creator of the world” or in a “substrate-independent soul”. We were all just excreted from the muck. I just think humans are responsible for creating their own progeny, and that our present existence is the outcome of a very long chain of folly by our biological ancestors, who are mostly lucky enough to be dead now.
“I regarded the dead as fortunate,
because they had already died
and thus were happier than the living
who were still alive.
“But happier than both of these
is the one yet unborn
who has not witnessed the evil deeds
that are done under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3
If we were all just “excreted from the muck”, there would be no objective purpose for man to come to earth.
You’re assuming we sprang from muck, I’m assuming a creator that had an objective reason for the exercise we call life.
ancap: “I’m assuming a creator that had an objective reason for the exercise we call life.”
If that is true, then the “creator” is infinitely more culpable than all the procreator-humans in history. Whereas any given procreator is resonsible only for his own progeny’s toil and sorrows, a hypothetical “creator” would be criminally, monstrously responsible for the grant total of all sorrows.
Whatever its “objective reason” might be, such a reason would be manifestly sinister.
Hi FP,
in Re: “I’m not taking sides on the (real) question of whether a fetus is a person for moral purposes, but I think it’s important that the moral disputants are at least agreeing on what the question is. Your loaded question is quite cringeworthy in its effect of short-circuiting any good-faith debate.”
I’d argue that “person” is synonymous with “human being” – and that all human beings have the same inherent rights, including the right to not have violence done to them absent their having done any violence to warrant its defensive application.
What is the basis for my so arguing? Well, it seems to me that at conception, a biological human being has been created. It is not part of the woman’s body, such as an extremity or organ. It does not have her DNA, though it shares part of hers. It has its own, unique DNA – the very definition, arguably, of “person.”
Of course, it has not developed fully. At first, it has no awareness (that we can discern) but it will develop that, along with the necessary organs. As more time passes, it will develop further until there is no denying that it is morphologically and biologically a human person. But I consider it undeniable – as a matter of biological fact – that human life begins at conception. And I argue from there that to dismiss such life – such personhood – is to cheapen life, generally.
I won’t here get into whether it is ever justifiable to end any life – which begs the question of who shall decide the answer to that question. I merely state what seems to me to be obviously true and for that reason I must accept the truth of it.
“Arguable” yes; but “undeniable” no.
It’s not obvious at all that a fertilized egg is a “human being.” Or a blastomere. Or an embryo. Or a fetus…until some certain point.
Put any of those biological phenomena in a line-up with a five-year-old kid, a teenager, a grown-up, and an elder, and I think you’d agree it’s the one that “doesn’t belong”. Colloquially, I might say “compare a blastomere to a human” and you would understand exactly what I meant. This is because any (arguable) equivalence between the two is not obvious, but is rather based on an enormous amount of embryological knowledge and a big, non-obvious value judgment on your part. Again, I’m not saying your moral position is necessarily wrong, but it is disingenuous to say it is “obvious.”
Not only does a blastomere lack the morphological features of a human, but it also lacks sentience and consciousness, let alone sapience—all of which are arguably the important features distinguishing a “human being”.
I have heard this “unique DNA” thing a lot in the last few days, and I find it a weak and even baffling argument. Who cares about “unique DNA”? Every single weed and worm on the planet has “unique DNA”. There’s nothing sacred about “unique DNA”. People can reasonably disagree on whether a blastomere is a “human,” but if it is, it is because of the DNA that it SHARES with humanity, not the DNA that differs from that of the rest of humanity. Weird argument.
Freelance,
I share your sentiments here. I could culture my cheek cells or something, and they would have my “unique DNA”, and be alive and growing, but would they be considered “a human”? I’m sure the potential to grow into a “complete human being” or some such would be argued as “personhood”, but that is just a matter of the proper cell signaling protocol.
Many people say that conception is obviously the beginning of life. And would that be fertilization or implantation?.. But really, I’m not so sure it’s obvious, either, just easy.
Hi FP.
In re: “To me, it’s immoral to conceive—and to birth—a new soul into the material realm without obtaining informed consent. “Informed” means, the soul would need to be shown a full accounting of all that is in store for it: all miseries, discomforts, unsatisfied wants, frustrated preferences, pain, suffering, existential dread, terror, exploitation, coercion, skunked beer, bunk weed, bad TeeVee, boredom, old age, decrepitude, bodily disintegration, and agonizing death. And then the soul would need to give express, provable consent to conception, in order for the conception to be morally defensible.”
Well, the proposition is interesting – but if applied, none of us would be here. You may respond – precisely! To which I’d reply: Many of us are grateful to be here, even given all the woes you adduce. I’d add, further, that notwithstanding your personally regarding this veil of tears as insufferably awful that even you aren’t in a hurry to leave it!
At this point, the only thing keeping me tuned in is my morbid hope that I get to see the emergence of Yahweh on Earth as a cybernetic tentacle-leviathan, as the grovelling masses cower and tremble before It.
Very well said Eric.
Thanks, Owen!
Sometimes, the coffee hits me just right…
Doug,
Your entire post presumes that a baby in the womb has no rights at all. “Forcing people to submit to Government Will by making them have a kid is OK” denies personal responsibility for creating that kid. All a woman has to do is keep her thighs firmly clamped together, or avoid the situation entirely. Problem solved. Of course that flies in the face of the general licentiousness of current culture.
Regarding Jim Crow, you do realize don’t you that black women get abortions at a much higher rate than any other demographic? Are you ignorant of what the goal of Margarette Sanger’s promotion of abortion was. to reduce the black population? It was an entirely eugenicist movement, deeply prejudiced against blacks.
Hi Doug,
Bleach and coat hangers? Is this 1933? Women, today have so many options open to them to avoid unwanted pregnancies…birth control pills, diaphragms, IUDs, Depo-Prevera, men can use condoms, etc. Any woman (or man) who is having consensual sex has absolutely no excuse to create a baby except irresponsibility or by godly intervention. If a woman is on BC pills and a guy is wearing a condom what are the chances that a baby is created? About .00001%.
This country spends more time and money on terminating a problem than ever preventing it.
Do I believe abortion should be outlawed? No, but it should be used in the rarest of circumstances. I am not even against the morning after pill if women wish to use it.
One, abortion has not been banned in this country. Two, the majority of the states will not alter (or make very little change to their current laws on the books) leaving the majority of women more than sufficient time to make a decision on terminating a pregnancy. Three, the states that have restricted abortion have done so by voter amendments (e.g. Alabama, Tennessee, etc.).
The judges made no decision on the ethical merits of abortion, but followed the Constitution and allowed these decisions to be sent back to the states to decide. If the constituents are unhappy with the laws enacted by their state representatives they will let them know in the voting booth.
It’s a child, not a “choice”, ASSHOLE. Obviously you’re not a father or you would understand the issue in its simplest terms, fellow Doug. You SHAME our given name.
All the SCOTUS did was to eliminate a TERRIBLE ruling that somehow stood for almost a half-century, made out of whole cloth, and based on what even then was a very questionable understanding of fetal medicine. The issue is remanded back to the several states where it belongs. Your analogy about motor coaches and Plessy v. Ferguson is not only ignorant but disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. But there is a common fact between Roe and Plessy…the Court more or less legislated from the bench rather than ruled on the law…in the case of Plessy, coming up with the “Separate but Equal” standard as it pertain to providing accommodation in a state or federally-licensed rail or motor carriage. Hence why, in the “1941” movie, Frank McRae, covered in flour, could jeer John Candy, covered in coal dust, saying, “Get to the BACK of the tank!”
IDK what California will do, whether its the 1967 law signed by then-governor Reagan, which, against his misgivings, his signed that allowed therapeutic abortions in the once-Golden State. If that law’s in effect now that Roe is thankfully history, I’m basically fine with it, but IDK if there’s a provision that calls for the woman seeking such a procedure to get clearance from a family court. If so, NO. I think that law does leave it a private matter between the pregnant patient and her obstetrician, and despite that likely Dr. Goldstein will abuse it to hornswoggle killing the unborn under circumstances not medically justified, it’s a risk that should be taken. Else unborn child are as deserving of their lives as you and/or I.
Will states VARY re: Abortion? I’m certain of it. That’s the nature of having a FEDERAL Government, the creature and SERVANT of the several states, and not a NATIONAL government, which rules the subservient states or prefectures.
Methinks the only thing we “Dougs” agree upon is much less Federal regulation, which the SCOTUS actually effected not only with Abortion but also with striking down NY’s Sullivan Law. A victory for the Second Amendment and the natural right of Americans to be ARMED. Lock and Load…
Abortion involves not only the body of the mother, but the body of the fetus gestating inside the mother.
At what point does that fetus attain rights as a human being? That is the important question, IMHO.
Hi Myles,
I will raise you. At what point does the father attain rights as a parent? Without sperm and an egg there is no child. I know feminists everywhere will disagree with me, but if is on the hook for 18 years if the mother chooses to have it shouldn’t he have a voice if he wishes to not terminate it?
Hi RG.
That’s a very good point. The egg is her property. The sperm are his property. But the combination is neither egg nor sperm. In the absence of a contract, perhaps possession
is 9/10’s of the law? As I’ve mentioned, this area requires much more research and clear,
rational thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
Hi Myles.
I consider that the central most critical point of this issue. This is not a life issue. As the apex predators of this world, we naturally take life to sustain our own. What needs clear definition is what it means to be a human. The mother is by definition human. Thus she has human rights. She is an actual human. The fetus is a potential human. Until it has reached a certain point of development. Then they cease being an it, and become a they.
But what is that point? I’d say development of the brain. The brain is the very central core of what it means to be human. Unfortunately we currently lack the detailed internal data to answer that question. One of the reasons for that is the hysteria on both sides of this issue.
But simply having a brain doesn’t make one a human. Look at apes for example. They have complex brains, but they are not humans.
One of my favorite authors L. Neil Smith was fond of saying; “there are two classes, and only two classes. People and property. And people may not always have to be humans”.
We need much more research and clear, rational thought about this subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
Hi BJ,
And if the brain doesn’t develop, unbeknownst to the mother and the child is born? We could argue the same case in reverse, if one’s brain deteriorates to a vegetative state where the human being is no longer capable of making a decision or to care for themselves. Is that a justifiable excuse for murder?
If we were to look at the animal kingdom for an example (or even early Nordic tribes) we would find that a weak animal (including an infant) would be killed by the parent if it was disfigured, maimed, or deformed. My aunt ended up rescuing a blind kitten whose mother left it to die. The animal kingdom is a harsh environment, but the difference between human and any other type of animal is one of conscience. Once us humans lose that we are no better than the fauna surrounding us.
“if one’s brain deteriorates to a vegetative state …Is that a justifiable excuse for murder?”
This is the same bad-faith use of loaded language as EP falls into below. “Murder” means wrongful killing. What you describe sounds very much like a Mercy Killing, which, yes indeed, can be justifiable homicide. Why not?
It seems intolerably cruel, not to mention wasteful and foolish, to artificially sustain a vegetable-brain indefinitely, just like the “Nordic tribes” you weirdly mention understood that it was cruel, wasteful, and foolish (even disastrous) to feed and raise a hopeless sack of senseless suffering that is a poor, deformed infant.
What you describe as “conscience” looks a lot to me like effeminate softness and sentimentality that leads to bad, counterproductive decision-making.
Hi RG.
I hope you remembered rule two in regards to that loaded question… 🙂
Once again, good questions. First, murder only applies to people. Second, its a legal term for an unjustified taking of a human life. As I stated, we need much more research and clear thought to determine this question.
Also keep in mind what Thomas Sowell said; “There are no solutions. Only trade offs”.
I’m quite aware of our past history. I take it you are familiar with the common tribal practice of the elderly throwing themselves off cliffs to reduce the burden on the tribe? Brutal times spawn brutal trade offs. I’m hoping we never return to that.
Since the brain is the seat of what makes us human, if its absent (destroyed/never developed) then we aren’t dealing with a human. But as with all such things its context and details. Humanity is more than simply utility. A beloved grandparent who is no longer competent should in my view be taken care of. The family/tribal bonds should be honored.
In the case of no development, its tragic, but its not human.
RG, the main difference between us, and the rest of the life forms in this world, is our brain and how we use it. It gives us choices. It also allows us to understand consequences and future cast. The choices we make determine if we are humans, or monsters. Hard times
are coming. Its up to all of us to make choices that do not strip our humanity from us.
The world has more than enough monsters as it is.
Hi BJ,
In re: “Since the brain is the seat of what makes us human, if its absent (destroyed/never developed) then we aren’t dealing with a human.”
I visited my mom on Thursday because it was her birthday. She resides in what is styled a “memory care” facility; i.e., a place for people with dementia (literally, the loss of mind). Her awareness extends – just barely – to recognizing me as someone familiar. She cannot recall much else. She doesn’t recognize her granddaughter (my niece) at all. It is probable – inevitable – that she will eventually not even recognize me; I will be a stranger to her. Yet, she is my mom and a human being. She will be so until the day she passes. I will continue to visit her, even after she no longer has any idea who I am. I cannot conceive of regarding her as less than human simply because she is afflicted. She is, however, helpless – and for that reason I consider that she is deserving of care rather than dismissal.
Just like a child that cannot care for itself.
Hi Eric.
I’m sorry to hear about your mother. Did you miss my remark about beloved grandparent that I would care for? Also the part about family/tribal bonds that should be honored? I’ve also said that this subject needs much more research and clear thinking. What I would do personally is in line with my principles and perspective. But I do not seek to force those on others. No matter how strongly I may feel about them. That is what both sides in this
issue are missing. In times to come, perhaps we will have better answers to this and other problems. Until then we will all have to do as we see best.
Thanks, BJ –
The issue is – as you’ve noted – not an easy one. It is however one that no decent human being ought to celebrate, as some of the extreme, abortion-is-wonderful people have been doing. That disgusts me.
I have sympathy for a woman who has been raped; for an underage girl who made a mistake. But that is not what most of this conversation is really about. It’s about using abortion as birth control. It is about encouraging women – and men – to be feckless with life.
We all know it, too.
I would say that – as regards most abortions – there was a choice, all right. A choice to have unprotected sex. And then the choice to not accept responsibility for the consequences.
This is a despicability as well as a degradation. Especially as regards women. It implies they are too immature, too foolish, to be careful about sex. And it encourages men to be just as irresponsible.
Hi Eric.
I actually do agree with many of your points. Personal responsibility is always to be encouraged. Remember for every action in action there is a consequence? I firmly believe that. The lack of personal responsibility underlies our current dire situation.
That having been said, I should have directed your attention to another part of my original post. Did you notice how I phrased my definition? I stated that if the brain had been destroyed or never developed. In other words brain death. Brain death is rather different from damaged. As we gain more understanding of such matters, perhaps that damage can be repaired or prevented.
Believe me, I would be among the last to celebrate such a practice as abortion. But serious questions require serious consideration. That can hardly be achieved if both sides are in a hysterical rage.
One final thought. I find it interesting that this comes about, just as the Latest Thing™ (Ukraine) is fading out. Almost as if those behind the last two plus years needs something (anything) to distract the general population from what is going on. What are your thoughts on the matter?
There is no right to abortion ever. A human is a human whether conceived 1/2 second ago or 120 years ago. Once pregnant, the woman is obligated to bring the pregnancy to term, regardless of whether she wanted to get pregnant or not. At that point it is not about her body for a couple reasons. 1. The child has no say in the matter, but it’s the one getting murdered. 2. The uterus is distinct from a heart or kidney or even a conjoined person who will die if you separate him. The uterus serves no purpose to the woman, its existence is all for the baby. She can live without it, the baby can’t. In that sense she has no right of control over it (at least while it’s occupied).
Given that the baby is a human, can’t consent to the abortion, and morally OWNS the uterus until birth, the woman has no say and no right on whether to get an abortion. In addition, there is no right to privacy regarding abortion. She has as much right as to privacy as any other murder case.
I should find some these pallets of free bricks near me. I could really use them for landscaping purposes.
Jim Stone had the best insight on the timing of the abortion ruling change – after having vaxxed and sterilized most of the slaves (particularly the Left – fools who fell for the hoax) – the population is essentially infertile and sterilized from breeding, so what need of Roe v Wade to cull the population?
Now they can use the overturn to stoke the Left-Right divide in the ongoing collapse.
48 years.
That’s the time it took for this despicable ruling to be overturned. Nearly HALF a century! Why is government so slow to fix it’s mistakes? Well, because it IS government.
Even if you support abortion, you should be appalled by Roe v Wade. It’s government at it’s worst. Like Dred Scott which helped lead to civil war. Even that ruling was stuck down quicker when the 13th amendment came to be. Only after hundreds of thousands were killed by the civil war which could have been easily avoided had people just stuck with what the constitution actually said.
It’s things like this that should PROVE to people that government should never have this kind of power over us. Its a strike for freedom, which supporters of Roe are blind to see. They think freedom has been LOST!! They are wrong.
Of course other lost freedoms are even older now (like the federal income tax).
The government should be restricted, not the people.
Dred Scott simply affirmed that a free state had to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act as much as, say, South Carolina had to allow collection of tariffs at Charleston (Nullification Crisis of 1832), therefore, Dred Scott had to be return to his legal master. To our modern sensitivities, it seems odious, but the nature of the rule of law is you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you find acceptable and/or convenient. The failure of “free” states to uphold that law is part of what led to the War of Federal Aggression (aka “Civil War”) or War to prevent Confederate Independence. Not THE only one, of course, and in part, I also blame Confederate hotheads for not giving Northern entreaties like the Corwin Amendment serious consideration that would have averted the crisis, and probably led to eventual emancipation by, say, 1900 or World War I at the latest. Instead, we got not only a terrible, bloody war, but also were left with a crushing Federal tyranny that’s morphed into a cancerous Leviathan.
“Even if you support abortion, you should be appalled by Roe v Wade.”
Strong agree, richb.
As a legal practitioner myself, the only interest I have in this case is the small, limited, partial correction to the proper role of the judiciary that it represents. Therefore, I am relieved by the decision as a matter of principle (even though frankly I expect its real-world consequences to be mostly tragic).
Soros should begin distributing AK-47’s assembled in Afghanistan up there at the Khyber Pass.
A no-brainer there. However, the elites have no brains and therefore not a lick of sense. They just want you to obey. Like When? Idiots.
“I am free of all prejudice, I hate everyone equally.” – WC Fields
Today is June 25th. On this date in 1876, General George Custer met his doom, much to his surprise. Crazy Horse turned him into a human pincushion. The Crazy Horse Monument dwarfs Mount Rushmore.
The Cheyenne, Dakota, Lakota Sioux were not all that happy being driven from their native lands in Minnesota and westward. A series of treaties not to intercept travel through Indian lands was broken, the US gov had to do something. Custer happened to be on the receiving end with fatal consequences. Jack Crabb warned him.
The Centennial year for the new Republic was not celebrated joyously.
Now you know the rest of the story.
Here is how it was scripted in Little Big Man:
Jack Crabb : General, you go down there.
General Custer : You’re advising me to go into the Coulee?
Jack Crabb : Yes sir.
General Custer : There are no Indians there, I suppose.
Jack Crabb : I didn’t say that. There are thousands of Indians down there. And when they get done with you, there won’t be nothing left but a greasy spot. This ain’t the Washite River, General, and them ain’t helpless women and children waiting for you. They’re Cheyenne brave, and Sioux. You go down there, General, if you’ve got the nerve.
General Custer : Still trying to outsmart me, aren’t you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don’t want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really *don’t* want me to go down there!
Little Big Man
That’s the way it goes moving west.
Think Ukraine in 2022 CE.
There’s a redskin waitin out there- waitin to take my hair.
A coward I’ve been called, but I dont wanna wind up dead or bald!
Please Mr Custer, I don’t wanna go!
I believe Yellow Hair’s body was actually never found.
Makes sense to me that the leftists want to agonize over taking away their alleged “right” to destroy innocent life.
However, in the big picture, their “agony” is, as usual, crocodile tears. They are actually all for removing an individual’s right to bodily autonomy – whether it is the life of an innocent, unborn child, or the right to say NO to forced poisons.
Why you keep posting pics of poor ol’ OJ in your articles?
Once again, The Juice is getting dragged into something he had nothin’ to do with.
With all this bad publicity, he may never be able to finalize his branding rights with Ford for the “OJ Model” Bronco.
Wouldn’t it be great if Ford released an OJ Simpson Edition full-size Ford Bronco? If they cut OJ in on the profits, I bet he’s be OK with it!
Am I the only one to have noticed that it is the fattest, ugliest, freakiest, most neurotic, and lesbian women who seem to be the most enraged about abortion?
In other words, the women least likely to actually get pregnant? I mean… Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor are pro-abortion, Melania Trump is pro life.
I am trying to comprehend why they have blood smeared all over the faces while marching.
Personally, it makes me sad how the moral integrity of people have sunk so low. Rome was destroyed from within. The USSA is following in lockstep.
I agree, RG –
It’s appalling that these people revel in the destruction of life. This goes so far beyond the question of abortion, itself. To regard the latter as an occasion for celebration is . . . I haven’t even got the words for it.
I get that in some circumstances, for some people, abortion might be (or seem to be) the least-bad option (note: that still makes it a bad option). I’m not necessarily in favor of making it illegal, but I certainly don’t think it should be celebrated. Also (even if it were illegal) I can’t see how it could be prosecuted without digging into people’s medical records, which as far as I’m concerned ought to be completely off-limits to the government.
It’s a problematic issue. I can see where both sides make some valid points, and we here both sides get really, really shrill about it (and sometimes hypocritical). I’d really rather not touch it with a ten foot pole. Life is messy. Some things are hard. This one of them. Instead of wrestling with it, or accepting that there might be multiple semi-correct answers and no correct one, it gets used mostly to score cheap political points, and/or as a convenient distraction.
We just had a big gun ruling AND a big abortion ruling. What is really going on, that they don’t want us to be noticing right now?
“What is really going on, that they don’t want us to be noticing right now?”
I think they want civil war. The elite want to reduce the world’s population. They make no bones about it. SARS-CoV-2, experimental “vaccines”, famine, war, whatever it takes.
I leave them in the hands of the Lord. And, as Seth Mac Farlane put it in his “Brian Griffin” persona: “God is…PISSED”!
Blood? Maybe too many repeat binge watching sessions of “The Handmaids Tale” and “Game of Thrones”?
Hint: most of these skanks howling about “choice” and wearing the “Handmaid’s Tale” garb will never look 1/100th as good as the late Natasha Richardson did on her worst day. Indeed, many will actually be THANKFUL that some male will actually mount them, making the issue even a possibility!
I’ve noticed that too X, it would take more than beer goggles to even consider having sex with those harpies 😆
Well, in addition to all those issues, these are the “all sex is rape” people.
So, in addition to having to endure all of the other stuff, the dude would pretty much have to report himself to jail afterwards to top it all off.
Darwin will take care of them, eventually.
Ok so that brings up a couple more points (stay with me here)
1) If all sex is rape, why don’t there seem to be very many lesbian rapists?
2) Since rape justifies abortion even in red states, and all sex is supposedly rape, I don’t see what the problem is? Like, if both of those things are true, how did anything actually change?
You obviously haven’t kept up. Only heterosexual sex is rape, specifically heterosexual men raping women by having sex with them, especially white heterosexual men. Homosexuals obviously don’t commit rape, since they are an oppressed minority. Especially lesbians, since they are a doubly oppressed group, by virtue of being both homosexual and female. Never mind the high rate of domestic violence among lesbian couples.
OK so let me get this straight:
Lesbian rape is not rape, unless it involves a dildo?
“Rape”, or sexual assault, doesn’t require penetration. Hence why, if I were empaneled on a jury trying a rape/sexual assault case, and the defendant was offering a reasonable plea bargain, but chose instead to put the victim through reliving the experience again in open court, then I’d find him guilty as appropriate, and if given discretion in recommending sentence, as harsh as the law allows.
Honestly, for rapists, as long as the facts are definite w/o reasonable doubt that rape occurred, the only fitting punishment is to have their genitals cut off, sans anesthesia, run through a meat grinder, and force-fed to them, and then disembowled and left to bleed out and die of blood loss and shock.
I like your thinking, Doug. 👍
In case it wasn’t completely obvious, I was being sarcastic. This ridiculous idea that all heterosexual sex was rape committed by the man was promulgated by some of the radical feminists, based on the idea that women could not really voluntarily consent to sex with men. As far as I know, none of these radical feminists ever extended this idea to lesbians raping other women, or gay men raping other men. This is similar to the absurd claim that only white people can be racist, since racism stems from power and only white people have power. As such, it is claimed that black people cannot be racist.
Come on man. Pelosi and the party need an election issue to draw the believers back. They sure can’t run on their misery index record.
Just wait until they stop junkyard dog barking long enough to realize the Supremes also ordered MA to pay rural religious charter schools’ tuition. Grab them bricks and light those torches comrades, they stole your democracy.
And so the protests begin. Teargas used in Arizona. Protestors blocking the freeway in downtown LA. All because the Supremes diminished the power of the Central State.
Jane’s Revenge has boasted about how they want to endanger those that run Crisis Pregnancy Centers and churches. When will they follow through on their promises?
Questions I have range from, How do these people have the time to march, protest and riot? Don’t they have to go to work in the morning? To, what guy would Do It with these universally ugly as a mud fence, venomous attitude, female dregs?
Ending Federal GovCo overreach on this is great. However, now that this ruling has come down, will the courts end Federal Drug Laws which are equally pernicious? I’m fairly certain The Right would pitch a fit should that come to pass. However, I doubt they would riot over the ruling. The Supreme Court would never rule that way because there is too much money to be made by keeping Some Drugs illegal. After all, how would the CIA keep the off-the-books money flowing? How would the Bush Family support themselves without cocaine and heroin money filling their coffers? You can’t make nearly as much in the soon to be outlawed oil industry. Although, maybe putting petroleum on the black market is part of their plan.
I’ll stop rambling now…
Just did a word search on the court’s 213-page opinion. Not once does the word “Tenth” (as in Tenth Amendment) appear. Instead the discussion centers around the Fourteenth Amendment and the substantive due process doctrine arising from it.
Here’s the sting in the tail, courtesy of RINO “Justice” Roberts, at page 125:
“On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the states or Congress.”
Wait … whut?
If the Constitution — a grant of limited powers to the fedgov — is silent on abortion, how then can Congress legislate on the subject when it lacks any authority to do so?
Without referencing the Tenth Amendment, RINO Roberts has just stuck another dagger into its belly.
His open invitation to Clowngress to butt in ensures years of partisan battles to dictate abortion policy by top-down fedgov statute, rendering nugatory an exhaustive list in the opinion of state abortion laws in the 1800s.
Thus a seemingly pro-federalism opinion is actually anything but.
Abort the fedgov.
Whoops … the quote (page 125) is from Kavanaugh, not Roberts. Sorry.
Roberts is a disgusting, insincere, two-faced country-club go-along-to-get-along Republican weasel devoid of any principles. He’s Mitt Romney in robes.
“…He’s Mitt Romney in robes.” Now you’re just being NASTY.
I hope every LDS voter, in “Yeh-Taw” and elsewhere, is hep to this toothy, phoney-baloney glad-handing politician. We were WARNED to “beware of those who come as SHEEP, but inside, are RAVENOUS WOLVES”.
RINOs and other Bush appointees like Roberts never gave a shit about ANY of the Constitution, which the “Chimp” himself refers to as a “scrap of paper”.
What a great way to end the week. Awww, da wittle witches of molech don’t have federal affirmation of their ability comission a contract killing on their baby! They’ll just have to get creative I suppose. It sure won’t end abortions, but at least federal funding of child sacrifice will have one less branch.
I don’t anticipate the violence and destruction that we saw with BLM. More like insufferable whining and protests, lots of vagina hats and disgusting whore tweets.
This is a net positive at any rate It very well may keep leftist retards from swarming into more right wing areas and turning them purple then to blue. Balkanization is inevitable, coming sooner than I ever expected, and not at all a bad thing.
100% agree Switchblade. At this point the country needs a clean break between the normals and “the Element” (as Eric calls them). And hopefully the Roe decision–assuming it stands–will dissuade the libtards from moving South and bringing their satanic ideological baggage with them.
Good stuff from, Jon Rappoport:
“I’m writing this a few minutes after the Supreme Court decision, so I’m not making reference to widespread violence. Yet.
[…] They see it as the bastard child of nasty Constitutionalists who refuse to acknowledge the glorious dreams of absolute tyranny.
Decentralization and the powers of the states are the silver bullet in the heart of the werewolf. […]
[The obeyers & covidians are saying] “No state should be able to stand in for the federal government. And that is what this Supreme Court decision is promoting.” […]
If you don’t think this war is important, you’re not thinking.
Federal power versus powers of the states. […]
Our future depends on DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER. Along all lines.
Stay tuned.”
https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/abortion-now-comes-the-war
I wonder what kind of craziness I’ll wake up to tomorrow?
We had state sovereignty before the founders scrapped it in a coup called a convention, inserted the constitution, trashed the Articles. They said it was a republic if you could keep it but they ‘voted’ the constitution in on a 9-3 vote bribing a couple of states at that. Under the Articles 9-3 would have failed but they ignored the supreme law of the land. Yes it was a constitutional convention so I guess anything goes,,, in this case what went eventually was our morality and freedoms. So now we are the indispensable nation, starting wars like California brush fires, broke and totally lawless pirating tankers on the high seas and stealing grain and oil from Syria, Ukraine and arguing among ourselves if it’s a right to kill unborn humans. I only wish the founders were here to live what they created in that convention.
In short, there is no such thing as ‘good government’.
Helot,
I’m not sure how much I agree with Rappoport in general, but I certainly agree with decentralization of power!
An ectopic pregnancy does endanger the life of the pregnant woman and an abortion is usually necessary to save the woman’s life. The fertilized egg implants outside the womb, chemical abortions work when an ectopic pregnancy occurs, medical advances do exist. Fecund young women in America become pregnant to then have an abortion, kind of a sport for them.
You’ll never solve the abortion conundrum. My mother told me of a woman in the neighborhood back in the 1950’s that routinely performed abortions. In the early fifties there were 1.5 million abortions per year in the United States. All illegal.
The Soviet state legalized abortion in 1928, the statistics accumulated well into the 1960’s. The numbers were off the charts compared to the US. The Party leaders were nailing women right and left, didn’t want to be responsible for raising a child when the communist doctrinaire prevailed. Didn’t have time for a helpless newborn, didn’t fit the agenda. The only reason abortion became legal in the Soviet sphere.
https://www.medievalists.net/2012/07/brothels-baths-and-babes-prostitution-in-the-byzantine-holy-land/
Greek aristocrats had a wife for children, a concubine and a prostitute for the desired pleasures. When the Christians gained control, it was corporal punishments for such behavior.
Houses of prostitution in the Holy Land aborted male newborns post-birth, male newborn baby bones were discovered in the drains, the baby girls were raised to be prostitutes. Lenos and Lenas ran the show.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Farmers would send their 12 year-old daughters to a near-by village to be forced to live a life of prostitution. What you call going all Byzantium. Prostitution of all kinds was legal, which meant it was also taxed.
The Puritans were the first to advocate women’s rights.
The decadence begins slowly, the prurient/puritanical is always there hiding in plain sight.
Every civilization has such problems.
Drumph,
“Greek aristocrats had a wife for children, a concubine and a prostitute for the desired pleasures.”
See, I always said the Greeks had a lot of things right! 😉
It occurred to me in the 18 years I got stuck with the bill, it is truly ironic that somehow a woman has a “right” to kill her unborn, but a man does not have the right to give it up?
But I’m pretty literal that way. It’s silly to question the narrative, since the media wouldn’t lie about EVERYTHING, and the communist politicians said there was this huge problem with deadbeat dads after they promised benefits far more generous than working would provide to single women bearing children.
Too, I always thought rights were inimical to all God’s children, but apparently women have them and men don’t. Who knew?
It’s worse than most people realize. Recall Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who received three life sentences for killing late-term fetuses after they survived abortion. The women who hired him to kill those fetuses weren’t even named, much less charged.
If there’s one thing that’s even sweeter than baiting malicious bigots into spewing their bile, it’s watching liberal morons screaming, crying, and throwing tantrums when they don’t get their way. As disappointing as Trump was, the post-election trauma it delivered upon the Left was sweet music.
RG is 100% correct, this ruling doesn’t “outlaw abortion” which is not a federal issue to begin with. It sends the issue back to the states where it belongs. However the unfettered murder of the unborn on any whim is the most holy sacrament of the Leftist religion and anything that can be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as potentially restricting that “right” brings out their screaming rage and hatred until they are apoplectic.
Of course this ruling may give pause to the contingent of bigoted smegheads who pop in here when they realize that it is black babies that have been disproportionately aborted under Roe v. Wade and now this may change. More “muds” on the way to displace the White Christian race! 🙂
Jason, I’ve stopped being afraid of the label “Anti-Semite” to tell the TRUTH about the WORST of your tribe. What maybe you fail to realize is that its YOU and the majority of Jews like you who unfairly pay for THEIR sins…they DON’T. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, b/c I’d rather assume that any person, Jew or Gentile, or whatever, is good until proven otherwise and should be given benefit of doubt. No more than what I asked for myself.
As for black babies being aborted, well, wasn’t that the motive of the Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger? I don’t particularly give a damn if they’ve been aborted wholesale, as they tend to congregate in areas where abortion has been promoted, likely that continues. Even this proper ruling only establishes the proper role of the several states to regulate abortion, it doesn’t guarantee the outcome in any one of them. IDK if the 1967 CA law re: Therapeutic Abortion signed by Ronald Reagan is the one now in effect, or if the legislature further “liberalized” it, I can imagine if not, they WILL. Maybe “Yew-Tah” restricts it further, they were identified as one of the “trigger” states. I want to save WHITE, GENTILE babies, but I can only do that to the extent I have influence over any young lady in question…and that ain’t a lot. There are some things that have to be left in the marketplace of ideas and let the parties’ free agency determine the outcome.
Douglas, I’m flattered but am actually not a tribe member. I hail from New York City of the 1950s and 1960s and have spent a great deal of my life around Jews and various other non-Christian and non-white peoples. If I were actually one of the folks that the malicious bigots around here seem to think are the world’s superior Master Race (the logical conclusion from their what they claim Joooos have done) I would have standing to really jump down their throats. (I think to join them, if they would have me, would require a rather painful operation.)
However I do not have such standing so as it is I have my fun with those guys since the positions they tend to take and “proofs” they offer are even more ludicrous than those of the flat earthers. It is also remarkably easy to strip off their paper-thin veneer of civility and reasonableness and goad them into spewing unthinking raw hatred. (A fun hobby of mine for years.) These poltroons actually believe that without those wascally, wiley Jooos around none of what we see unfolding around us would be happening.
Balderdash. Human nature is the same no matter what the race or religion. We all share the same drives. There is no one ethnicity that has a lock on evil, nor any that are pure as the driven snow. There are plenty in the tribe of regular white guys ready, willing, and able to do whatever manner of perfidy and deviltry that can be imagined and we have seen them do so throughout history.
In any event, you are certainly correct that this ruling simply puts the abortion issue back to the states where it has always belonged. It is not and has never been a legitimate federal issue. (The people who want to make abortion a federal issue tend to be those who want everything to be a federal issue, with centralized control over all aspects of our lives.)
Amen x Four.
So Margarette Sanger’s war on black babies is no longer Federally supported. It took the SCOTUS fifty years to read the Constitution? Which is only about 6 pages, depending on font and page size, and written in plain English. Which makes sense, when we see how they treat 2A, which only has one relevant line. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Which every single gun law does. So now we face the likelihood of violence ensuing, and FedGov would prefer you not be able to defend against it? Perhaps the two issues are thus interconnected. The FedGov saw this coming, and preferred people not shooting back at the “peaceful riots”. You’re mentally unstable if you do. Red Flag for you sucker.
Notice how the Clowngress quickly passed the new infringements today, the same day as the Roe decision was handed down. I saw where Rand Paul said they were given a blank piece of paper to vote for.
Hi John
sanger the racist leftist hero, a fabian leftist
with KKK connections
Margaret Sanger, the women’s rights activist and founder of Planned Parenthood—the largest abortion provider in America—is a hero to the modern Left. And little wonder, given her outsized role in the founding and promotion of the modern abortion industry.
Abortion: it guarantees a good supply of body parts and tissues that are sold, making the medical industry lots of money.
Which raises the question: why would Planned Parenthood, which has gone so far beyond Sanger in its promotion of abortion, eugenics, and population control, still hold her up as a leader of the movement? Isn’t she a bit behind the times?
Then there was her notorious speech before a branch of the New Jersey Ku Klux Klan, a well-documented event despite the content being nearly forgotten. In that speech, Sanger warned that America must “keep the doors of Immigration closed” to genetic undesirables.
Then there’s Sanger’s opinion of non-whites, which, if uttered now, would (rightly) cause a conniption among Americans. She considered Australia’s Aborigines compulsive rapists and “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development.”
Many Americans black and white are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939 after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).
The aim of the program was to restrict many believe exterminate the black population. Under the pretense of better health and family planning, Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s crème de la crèmethose prominent, well educated and well-to-do into executing her scheme.
The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: We have become victims of genocide by our own hands, cried Hunter at the Say So march.
One of the parents in the group was shocked when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic, she said. [They are worse than] the Klan … because they’re so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface, it’s as ugly as apartheid.
The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else, said Hunter. leftists are directly attacking blacks. (leftists: abortion ok, but bodily choice for refusing deadly experimental injections not ok, they always pick death, leftists are pro death), Blacks, unlike liberals, were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery, they tried to hold onto their children.
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class” and “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
sanger who is connected to kkk. kkk was founded by democrats.
The current situation:
The most vaccine hesitant are blacks, indigenous and highly educated people. they are chasing them around with his nazi needle, forced injection.
that is very interesting this gives insight into what liberal/leftists really think about blacks/aboriginal/first nation people. leftists love sanger she is a leftist hero
The bottom line is, these satanists have decided that the useless eaters on the bottom are an invasive species, the plan? end goal 7 billion cull. how? One sneaky way, poisonous injections.
The billionaires at the top see themselves as a different species than the useless eaters, so they don’t need to be culled. it is called eugenics. the end.
Pregnancy is 100% preventable -unless you are sharing a hotel room with Hollywood scumbags like Bill Cosby, and I’m pretty sure if a woman were to be knocked up by Bill he’d pay for the airfare to a pro-abortion state.
The whole issue is about keeping doctors off the hook for performing abortions, not the woman having an abortion. She just ordered the hit.
RK: This basic fact seems to be lost on almost everybody. If you want to absolutely avoid getting pregnant, don’t have vaginal intercourse. That’s all there is to it. There are still many other (perhaps more enjoyable) ways to obtain sexual gratification.
Save the situation of rape, the woman is entirely in control of eliminating the risk of pregnancy (i.e. she has a “choice”). It seems to me the real issue is the desire for a second “choice” which then snuffs out a life for the sake of convenience because the first choice was disregarded.
The issue of unwanted pregnancy which existed in the 1950’s has long since ceased to be such urgent issue, (excepting for rape and medical emergencies such as ectopic pregnancy) what with readily available pre and post intercourse options. Ie the various contraceptives, morning after pill etc. as for late term abortions done for non medical reasons I have never understood the logic for these as most women are well aware they are pregnant in the first few months. Planned Parenthood would have done better if they had morphed away from the abortion focus to expanding their mission to emphasize contraception availability and pre and pregnancy wellness programs. Instead the Left made abortion an idealistic idea representing women’s freedom, instead of a logical method of solving the problem of unwanted pregnancy and they thus ended up painting themselves into a corner with ever more ridiculous arguments supporting unrestricted abortions as if this were the only solution. Meanwhile medical technology enabled the saving of younger and younger preemies. Which has ended in their inevitable immoral argument for post birth abortions.
Amen, RS.
We could significantly decrease abortions if the focus was on using preventative techniques so a pregnancy would not result with a couple having a roll in the hay.
Amen, RG –
The primary “choice” at issue is whether to have sex. Then, whether to have it without birth control. Having chosen to have sex – and without birth control – I cannot understand the argument that the consequences of those choices ought to be born by those who didn’t make them but will never be born, as a result of the “choice” the pro-abortion crowd crows about.
And HALF of the victims of this “choice” or “woman’s right” are unborn GIRLS themselves. I have daughters, grand-daughters, nieces, and sisters. And the SOB that dares harm any one of them, he’d better hope the police get him before I do. How could I feel any less protective just because a “little goil” is still in utero?
You’re talking about mostly young people, or certainly immature people, who fail to exercise self-control in the first place.
For example, I have very little sympathy with some joker, accused of “Statutory (G)Rape”, claiming, “She told me she was over eighteen!”. Yeah, moron, maybe she did, she LIED, it’s what skeevy little skanks DO. You FAILED to perform what’s known as “due diligence”, that is, before you decided to have a little roll in the hay with her, you didn’t even get to know her better and her family, to ascertain at least if she was a LEGAL target for your lust. If I’m the judge, I’ll consider it as a mitigating factor, but your ass is GUILTY, period.
It’s fun watching all these demonic whores seethe.
Ahhh, ya gotta love western women!
Rather than building families and raising kids in a well kept home, now they celebrate their independence and strength by working for the corporate borg, breaking up families with no-fault divorce and killing their own children.
Now, I just saw an article where some dude decapitated his pregnant girlfriend and he’s being charged with two counts of murder but if this woman walked into a government funded abortionarium murder is somehow her right? F*ck these sick bishes.
It reminds me of an expert troll that posted signs in the Boston area that said “Islam is RIGHT about women” and some Karen called the cops about a piece of paper. Kinda proved that guys point.
I personally would have also added:
“End women’s sufferage! Repeal the 19th!”
As most of them seem to share the same brain (at the same time) they’d probably cheer that one on as “empowering” and “brave”. Haha!
Women exist to make babies. Period.
Men exist to provide. Period.
We’re creating hell on earth by ignoring these facts of nature.
Feminism works against what God intended for us and what’s in our nature. They’re deranged and EVIL, period.
Stop the suffraging!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhn-AkKi8Qc
Oh, that is sad. It sure doesn’t win my gender any points. I am can only assume that they were all publicly educated. Glad to see that Jimmy Kimmel was actually funny once.
Eric: This is such a solid analysis of this ruling and the left’s reaction.
“How many pallets of bricks has the Left placed in cities around the country – ready for what happened today?”
Sad to see that so many people are still falling for this. I’m going to ask you guys to use your brains for a minute. I know you can do this because you’re pretty smart. If it was a political party that put those bricks there,then why don’t they react the same way the right-wing politicians largely did when those bricks are used?
Why don’t we have all politicians in unison,along with the media, decrying the “terrible tragedy of leftwing extremism”?
What would it cost Nancy Pelosi to condemn antifa? Nothing.
Furthermore,how do we explain the fact that these goons are rarely identified,scarcely arrested,and almost always let go with no charges or insanely reduced charges?
Isn’t that the sort of treatment that FEDS and confidential informants usually get when they get roped into a criminal situation? Why no conspiracy charges for antifa?
Why is it that “anarcho-communists” have beliefs that seem to line up exactly with those of the federal government? Why are the “number 1 threats” (“white supremacists”) the same to both the government and antifa?
Why are antifa,supposedly anarcho-communist, willing to engage in violent assault and even murder on behalf of the same agenda that the CEO of Coca-Cola or Bill Gates have?
Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weird?
The reason is because they are funded,trained,and ARMED by the federal government (specifically,I believe, the State Department which is the same department responsible for color revolutions in foreign countries) to engage in police work that it would be illegal for the federal government to engage in directly. The policing of lawful First Amendment-protected speech and assembly by ordinary Americans.
I’m not asking you to take my word. I’m asking you to think about it and consider the possibility. Do some research and see what you turn up.
Thank you Orange Jeebus. One of the few things you kept your word on.
Yes, Save me, JEBUS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb0c1b4KXVo
Not to worry for those who seek an abortion in a state which has now made illegal that practice.
I predict a burgeoning, clandestine RU-484 trade, much like the marijuana trade is today in states where it is still illegal. There also be abortion-tourism. No need to begin throwing bricks, yet.
Also, just remember that birth-control is cheap, and you can stock up on Plan-B in case of accidents. 😉
Hi BaDnOn,
Bricks will be thrown…lots of them. There is an anger in about every individual I talk to…political party, religion, or class be damned. Most people are walking around with a chip on their shoulder. They want an excuse to fight. This ruling gives some the excuse they need to leave a path of destruction a mile wide.
Raider Girl,
I believe you’re correct, there. Same thing that happened in 2020 when everything was shut down. Everyone was flash powder, and just needed a spark to explode.
RG,
After 2.5 years of having our economic, social, and mental health under assault over a virus that at its worst presented an average age of death nearly identical to average life span, and now national economic failure piled on top, of course people are on edge, as in their toes hanging over it. Mobs abound.
Hi RG.
Very good points. But also keep in mind the many millions are on various big pharma mind drugs. Many of which make people more aggressive and even psychotic. Not that the typical Prog needs any assistance in that regard… 🙂
Also keep in mind that the Usual Suspects actually want as much chaos and violence are they can provoke. When ever you see these types of things, always ask yourself; Who benefits? The entire fabric of western civilization has been under attack for decades. Who stands to benefit from that? When you look at the economic, social, political systems they are all under attack. Again, who benefits? Some may focus on the WEF (World Economic Forum) but they are a decoy. Look at who recruited their founder in the early 70’s.
Then look at who the real owners of the federal reserve and many other central banks are.
The same groups who own BlackRock and Vanguard. Put all of that together, and you have an idea of who is behind this chaos.
It looks like we are in for more of last years “mostly peaceful protests”. Everyone be careful.
I have never seen so many people cry over their inability to make killing a baby easier. If there is a God, I hope he is taking notes and names. I am watching this on TV and man, we are surrounded by nuts. I cannot believe this is the issue that many people (mainly young women) would fall on their sword for.
This does not make abortion illegal only that it goes back to the states, rightly so. The federal government should have very little, to any power. Laws (if needed) should be made at a local level rather than a one size fits all approach.
I am happy to see the Tenth Amendment is still out there. Kudos to the six judges who had enough balls to interpret the laws as written. Unfortunately, these judges have targets on their backs. I sincerely wish each of them and their families safety and security in the days, months, and years ahead. I don’t believe the opposition will be so kind. It may be a good night to stay in and hunker down. I don’t have a good feeling on what is about to happen.
‘This does not make abortion illegal, only that it goes back to the states.’ — Raider Girl
You wouldn’t know that listening to Nancy Pelosi:
‘Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions.’
Actually, no, Nancy. California has permissive abortion laws. In your district, no one’s access to abortion will change one whit owing to the Supreme Court’s decision.
But in her hubris, Nancy thinks she should dictate one-size-fits-all policy to other states.
Ironically, her husband Paul Pelosi is facing jail for DUI, after testing at a BAC of 0.082 — just over the federally-dictated 0.08 limit.
If not for the fedgov shoving aside the states, California might still have its older DUI threshold of 0.10, or even 0.15.
Don’t expect this federally-imposed misfortune to influence a doctrinaire dictator like Nancy Pelosi, even when it’s biting her own family in the ass.
Jim,
From what I heard regarding Paul Pelosi, someone hit HIM in a Jeep. Also, 0.082 isn’t shit. If I were Nancy Pelosi’s husband, you could bet my blood alcohol content would regularly be much higher than THAT.
BaDnOn,
Fuck yeah — as Mister Jim ‘Eunuch’ Pelosi, I’d be on a 24-hour vodka IV drip.
My veterinarian says it’s okay.
Hahaha, Jim… You know, Steve-O, of Jackass fame, did that once. I think he put 6 shooters in his arm. Excellent way to spend an evening.
Yeah, I’d be sniffing glue. Or mainlining Fentanyl- but that sick bastard thought it was a good idea to marry that.
Hi Ernie.
If you think that’s bad, imagine marrying She who would be Queen. I almost pity poor old slick Willy. (almost).
Yes, but apparently he’s also at fault with another vehicle, and the driver suffered injury. That’s what’s called a “wobbler”, i.e., even w/o priors, it can be charged as a FELONY.
You can believe the hag was doing everything to sweep this sordid little tale under the rug. Bitch.
That’s a more important outcome than whether abortions are curtailed or not. Too long the Congress, and the President, with his “Executive Orders”, have run roughshod over the several States and the People, ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Abortion is a matter RESERVED for the states to decide for themselves. Now on to getting Uncle Sam out of so many things he’s gotten his grubby paws on.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
Overturning Roe v Wade is an unusual example of the Supreme Court nixing fedgov overreach, in an area where the constitution gave it not the slightest authority to intrude.
Effectively, this decision is first and foremost about federalism.
But unfortunately — even incredibly — the eight-page syllabus [summary] affirming Mississippi’s abortion law does not cite Amendment X, reserving to the states and people the powers not delegated to the fedgov by the constitution.
Thus Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization seems to be a standalone case, not a wrecking bar to dismantle the rest of the US fedgov’s numberless, lawless encroachments on state sovereignty.
Abort the fedgov.
Jim,
An eight page syllabus, which is longer than the Constitution they are defending.
That’s how bad it’s gotten. Around 1810 or so, the first edition of the United States Codes was published…and it was about 1-1/2″ thick. Now, in print, it’d probably fill 125 pallets on three semi trailers.