The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Alito 5 Must Stay the Course
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In February, five Supreme Court Justices voted in camera to overturn Roe v. Wade and send the issue of abortion back to the states, where it resided until 1973.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett had all signed on to the majority opinion overturning Roe that had been drafted by Justice Samuel Alito.

The right-to-life movement was only weeks away from a stunning victory in its half-century struggle to overturn Roe.

This suggests that the leak to Politico of the Alito draft was the work of a saboteur seeking to derail the course of the court by the media explosion he or she knew it would ignite.

Whoever leaked Alito’s draft, it was a violation of an oath, an unethical act and a betrayal that ought to see the perpetrator fired in disgrace and disbarred permanently from the practice of law.

But the crucial issue now is for the Alito Five, even if unwedded to the exact language of the Alito opinion, to stay the course until the ruling comes down in late June.

For, on the substance of the abortion issue, Alito’s opinion is dead on:

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe … enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

“We hold that Roe … must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

Indeed, at the time of Roe, January 1973, the U.S. had a long history of punishing “abortionists,” and the laws under which they were prosecuted were “spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being.”

The nation remains divided, and the issue is best decided in this democracy, Alito argues, not by unelected justices on the Supreme Court but by democratically elected representatives of the American people.

Pro-abortion Democrats say a woman’s “right to choose” must remain paramount and sacrosanct. But the “right to choose” what?

As President Joe Biden just described it bluntly this week, it is the right to choose to “abort a child.”

But at what point in a pregnancy does the pre-born child’s right to life supersede a woman’s right to abort that child. And who decides?

A New York Times front-page map this week shows that if Roe is overturned, states with liberalized abortion laws such as Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, New York and most of New England would not be significantly affected.

It is the Republican states, the Trump states, the Mountain West and the South, where the overturning of Roe will free up Christians and social conservatives to write the regulations and restrictions that were abolished and outlawed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe.

These states are where the post-Roe abortion wars will be fought.

But is this not how a democratic republic is supposed to work?

Remarkable, is it not? Those who do not cease to talk about right-wing threats to “our democracy” are today the loudest and most insistent that abortion not be sent back to the states for the people and their democratically chosen representatives to decide.

While Democrats see their base energized today, we are six months away from the election. And if the Alito draft becomes law, pro-choice Democrats will have to sustain their outrage and fight political battles in virtually all the red states.

Pro-life Republicans and conservatives should stand with the Alito Five and what they have done and what, hopefully, they are about to do.

For this is what a vast slice of the party and the conservative movement has fought for, worked for, marched for and prayed for, for half a century.

If Roe is overturned, it is never coming back. It is gone for good. No Supreme Court will ever reinstate it. It will be on the ash heap of history, as President Ronald Reagan used to say.

If Biden, Nancy Pelosi’s House and Chuck Schumer’s Senate majority want to make abortion the issue of 2022 by passing a federal law codifying Roe v. Wade, if they want to die on that hill, it’s their call.

Democrats claim 60% of the nation wants Roe preserved and only 1 in 5 Americans wants Roe overturned.

Why, then, do they not pass that law codifying Roe at the national level and rely upon Roe’s supporters to produce pro-choice laws in the states where they do not today exist?

If the Alito draft opinion survives and Roe is overturned, pro-lifers will have many people to thank.

Foremost among these are President Donald Trump, who elevated to the Supreme Court three of the five justices who voted with Alito, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, who saw to it that these three alone would make it.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion, Roe vs. Wade, Supreme Court 
Hide 131 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. meamjojo says:

    You people are stupid. By far, the biggest partakers of abortions are black woman. Criminalize abortions and there will be many more blacks collecting welfare and growing their population here.
    —————
    Abortion statistics by state: Maps, trigger laws, and possible bans
    If the court adopts the initial draft opinion, the retreat on abortion rights would be sweeping.
    Abortion statistics by state: Maps, trigger laws, and possible bans
    By Dan Goldberg
    05/03/2022 09:35 PM EDT

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/03/bortion-statistics-by-state-map-00029740

  2. Absolutely! Anything that contributes to a Second Civil War in the USA, which will stop it attacking the rest of humanity, is devoutly to be hoped for.

    • Replies: @JR Foley
  3. I like Buchanan but he does seem stuck in a 1990s time-warp.

    • Agree: SteveK9, meamjojo
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  4. Of course Roman Catholic Pat supports the Roman Catholic usurpation of the American Star Chamber. Five of them on the Supreme Court would have been more than enough to generate a little extralegal justice back when America was a free WASP country. In the antebellum era a lot more Americans were concerned about the corrupting effects on the republic of the floodtide of Catholic Irish and German immigrants than about southern slavery, and with damn good reason, as it turns out.

    Historically, abortion was the leading form of birth control in early America. It has been estimated that by the 1830’s there was one abortion for every four live births. Our old newspapers are filled with ads for abortion-inducing nostrums, coyly marketed as “speedy relief for married ladies” suffering from “menstrual obstruction”, i.e., the presence of a fetus. Abortion became illegal, state by state, only in the 1870’s, thanks to the efforts of the newly-formed A.M.A., exploiting Victorian prudery to consolidate the health industry under the control of its all-male membership.

    Ironically, the modern anti-abortion movement flies in the face of Christian tradition – Saint Augustine discovered that it takes the Almighty precisely ninety days to prepare the fetus to receive a soul. Accordingly first-trimester abortion was accepted practice in the first six hundred years of Christianity’s political domination of the western world. Today the anti-abortion crusade is nothing more than a viciously cynical attempt to regain the Church’s lost political power, part of the reactionary movement against “modernism” that has been ongoing since the Pope’s temporal authority was broken in the Italian unification of 1870. Count on the churches to quietly back down and again revise “the eternal truth” when they realize their attack on women’s reproductive rights is further eroding rather than enhancing their fickle power base; the tragedy is the human misery created by this wholly unnecessary misogynist nonsense in the meanwhile.

  5. The arrogation of power by the Court to impose a national policy came as a great relief to the largely invertebrate Congress (and their subspecies in state legislatures). Just as they haven’t borne responsibility or political accountability for waging war since 1945, they’ve been happy to leave hot potato domestic issues to robed penumbralators. The “branches” are better understood as three hands washing each other, using the Constitution as their towel. While the extent of coordination can be argued, this latest distraction will serve the Establishment by recharging Red+Blue politics.

    However, can someone please explain this?

    Why, then, do they not pass that law codifying Roe at the national level and rely upon Roe’s supporters to produce pro-choice laws in the states where they do not today exist?

    What “law codifying Roe at the national level” could still leave to the states any autonomy or need for legislation — either way — on the issue? Wouldn’t it be just a legislative arrogation of authority that would perk back up to the Court?

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    , @Emslander
  6. pre-born child’s right to life

    Um, who’s really to say that a pre-born has a right-to-life? IMHO, a human doesn’t “earn” that right until it’s about two weeks old, i.e. when it begins to act like a conscious person. Yep. But this is all hopelessly debatable.

    Law is a dreadful profession. The guild is all about maintaining legal consistency, even when the original opinion, upon which all the subsequent [decades of] opinions shoehorned into affirming, was ridiculous. This works to keep:

    • licensed-lawyers arguing (and billing).
    • lawyer-profsters lecturing (Socrates-like).
    • lawyer-judges in palatial courthouses (spreading like mushrooms).

    • a mystique that only Ivy-educated, lawyer-professionals can divine the true of meaning of “Congress shall make no law.”

    • Replies: @rebel yell
  7. There is no “right” to an abortion in the United States Constitution. Period…end of story! Abortion is an issue that can only be resolved (to the extent that it can be resolved) in the legislatures of the individual states. Most of the country is pro-abor…er, I mean “choice” (love that euphemism). That’s fixed. Those of us who find abortion repulsive (such as I) will have to deal with the fact that eventually most if not all the states will permit abortion in some form or another.

    In this case the SCOTUS majority has seemingly washed its hands of an issue to which they never should have been a party in the first place.

  8. @Observator

    Returning the abortion issue to the States will, in just about every State, result in the same abortion regimen as in secular Europe and elsewhere: abortion in the first trimester is permitted, with increasingly restrictive conditions for the second and third trimesters. This is hardly a uniquely Catholic issue.

  9. Whoever leaked Alito’s draft, it was a violation of an oath, an unethical act and a betrayal that ought to see the perpetrator fired in disgrace and disbarred permanently from the practice of law.

    But it won’t. The modern American left is above the law. It riots, burns, loots and kills with impunity. If whoever does this is found, he (or more likely, she) be given a comfy sinecure at some foundation or even an Ivy League professorship.

    • Agree: Dr. X
    • Replies: @SafeNow
  10. Anonymous[137] • Disclaimer says:

    The US is polarized over many issues. Bringing back abortion as a political issue only adds fuel to this fire. Is the release of the Supreme Court’s developing internal dialogue meant to stop abortion or fuel the fires of US disintegration? The Left and Right already hate one another.

    Bringing back Roe v. Wade at this time only fuels the social division of America. Just one more straw upon the camel’s back.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  11. JimDandy says:

    If the Alito draft opinion survives and Roe is overturned, pro-lifers will have many people to thank.

    Foremost among these are President Donald Trump, who elevated to the Supreme Court three of the five justices who voted with Alito.

    Put on your hairshirt and go flagellate yourself in penance, Rod Dreher, you little weenie.

  12. @Observator

    Although it will take time, making this a political issue for legislation will eventually lead to compromise in many places. The access to abortion in the first trimester will be the rule in many states. Because that’s where things would stand if Roe had never happened. It then became polarizing where you have now extremists who want no choice under reasonable circumstances and those who have no problem killing a fully formed infant during the last days of a full term pregnancy, or even after a successful birth. Power has been taken from the latter group and now a balance is possible.

    • Agree: Max Maxwell
    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  13. 1) Abortions aren’t merely “had,” “gotten,” or “performed.” They’re committed, inflicted, perpetrated. Similarly, it’s to be called fetal infanticide, not merely “abortion.” And they’re fetal infants, not merely “fetuses.” The whitewashing of this horror must end. Fetal infanticide is a crime, a crime of the highest magnitude against the most innocent and defenseless people among us. The ongoing holocaust of legalized fetal infanticide must end. It’s killing millions upon millions of innocent fetal infants, and it’s cursing our lands. We’ll continue to rot until this supreme horror ends.

    2) There are NO circumstances where one person should be murdered for the crime (e.g., rape) of another, or where one person should be murdered because this person is economically inconvenient. Are there circumstances in which you support the murder of fetal infants, the most innocent and defenseless among us. Then consider how you became so conformed to today’s rot. How did you become such a monster? Seriously think about this.

    • Agree: Max Maxwell
    • Thanks: Emslander
    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Veracity
    , @meamjojo
  14. Chen says:

    All of Alito’s points stand. SCOTUS judges ought interpret the Constitution, not alter it according to their will. The Constitution must stand, even if the United States tears apart. That is the only job of the judicial branch. Any change to the Constitution can only come from “we the people”.
    What strikes me is the indecency of Biden and Harris, they have gone too far. It is beyond the executive branch to interfere the profession of the judicial branch.
    Recent nominations of SCOTUS judges, however, are even more ignoble. Judges were valued not according to their professional skills, but by their party lines only.
    Hope that SCOTUS judges will stand their ground and defend the Constitution at all costs.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Veracity
  15. SafeNow says:
    @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr.

    If whoever does this is found, he (or more likely, she) be given a comfy sinecure at some foundation or even an Ivy League professorship.

    I strongly agree, and for an additional reason. Joan Didion wrote that Americans embrace “the con style.” I believe this predilection crosses party lines, class lines, and racial lines, and the leaker, if found, will be widely admired. Sometimes overtly, sometimes secretly. She will be Time Magazine’s “person of the year,” either with a face, or with an anonymous face substitute.

  16. If not for abortion, black population could be over a 100 million.

    Are you people crazy just for Christian virtue-signaling points.

    Let crazy woke bitches and black wenches kill their own kids.

    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Reg Cæsar
  17. Rurik says:
    @Anonymous

    The US is polarized over many issues. Bringing back abortion as a political issue only adds fuel to this fire. …

    Good

    The SC never had the authority for Roe in the first place. Just as it didn’t have the authority to force integration in the schools with Brown or deny a certain segment of citizens Equal Protection with their ‘affirmative action’ betrayals, or the authority to impose homo “marriages” on the states.

    All these acts of tyranny are an abomination to the Constitution and the God given freedom of the American people to decide for themselves what laws they want to live under.

    It’s very good that these perfidious decisions are being corrected and Americans will be able to vote with their feet on what kind of laws they’re willing to suffer under.

    If you want to live in a state with forced integration, affirmative action, homo “marriage”, transgender kindergarteners, Christmas parade “crashes”, statues to St. George Floyd, laws declaring that straight white men are evil and guilty, reparations, ‘lock-downs’ and forced vaccinations and so forth… then by all means, move to the Blue States with all due haste!

    Let them marinate in their social justice stew, like they are now in San Francisco and Philly and Chicago and everywhere else where ‘wokeness’ reigns. Let them get what they want, ‘good and hard’.

    But the key here, is that the Red states will have the freedom too ~ written and codified in our Constitution, to decide for themselves if they want to live in a ‘woke’ state. If they want to live in a place ruled by the likes of Nadler and Pelosi and AOC, then let them! That’s what freedom is all about. And if they want to live in a state with Open Carry Laws, and some restrictions on abortion and rioting and dead people voting, then they have that freedom too.

    It’s obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between our respective peoples that can only be resolved by separation (or another civil war). Let white liberals move from Texas and Florida to California and New York.

    This is a great and overdue trend.

    I have a dream where every white liberal in the land can look out his window and see throngs of BLM protesters and Somali police officers and Afghan refugees as far as the eye can see! Joe and Kamala and AOC all unloading El Salvadorians and Haitians and Ukrainian neo-Nazis and everybody else off of buses and planes into their new and woke states of inclusion and vibrancy and intersectionality- with George Soros and George Floyd as their patron saints.

    The only way this American experiment can persevere, is by The Great Separation. And overturning Roe is the perfect start to getting TGS moving with gusto and vigor.

    Freedom!

  18. Rurik says:
    @Really Realist

    It’s killing millions upon millions of innocent fetal infants, and it’s cursing our lands. We’ll continue to rot until this supreme horror ends.

    how often have you condemned the wars (all based on lies) that have murdered millions of breathing men, women and children, including babies?

    Is the life of a baby in the womb more valuable than the life of a ten year old Iraqi child?

    2) There are NO circumstances where one person should be murdered for the crime (e.g., rape) of another,

    There are basically two (or so) scenarios where I feel the anti-abortion lunatics are so off the rails, that they make the rest of the anti-abortion people (most of good faith) lose credibility.

    One is when the life of the mother is in danger. The other is in the case of rape.

    If your daughter was forcibly raped by a fiend (redundant), and an abomination was growing inside her sacred womb, any person that would force her to bring to term the monster inside her, is just as big a monster, IMHO.

    If your daughter were to kill you, in order to abort the spawn of a rapist (monster) inside her, I’d vote to acquit.

    or where one person should be murdered because this person is economically inconvenient.

    Better to have them starve to death?

    It has been estimated that near four hundred thousand children starved do death in Yemen due in part to the USA! supporting the Saudi war on that nation.

    Is it better that they starve to death than be aborted? (I won’t post pictures, but there are plenty).

    Are there circumstances in which you support the murder of fetal infants, the most innocent and defenseless among us. Then consider how you became so conformed to today’s rot. How did you become such a monster? Seriously think about this.

    You know what I consider a monster to be?

    Someone utterly devoid of empathy and compassion.

    Telling the victim of rape that they must carry the abomination in their womb to term, because you figure you’ll get a seat a little closer to Jesus on Judgment Day if you toss her under the bus, is likely to be a big disappointment.

    Jesus was the Christ, because he was compassionate and self-sacrificing, above all things.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  19. Veracity says:
    @Prester John

    You’re very much mistaken!! Read the 4th Amendment. The basis of that amendment is the right of a person to be secure in their personhood and effects and the govt. may intrude only under certain conditions. It is also obvious that until the placenta is disconnected only one person is involved-the genetrix- and is the only sentient one there.

  20. Veracity says:
    @Chen

    Nonsense! If we follow Alito’s argument the Supreme Court’s duties would be limited to those specified in the document. Those assumed by the John Marshall court would be null and void.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  21. Veracity says:
    @Really Realist

    Hyperbole to the max. Those foetal cells are the mothers until they are separated either through birth, miscarriage, or surgery. Her personhood is hers, not the state’s.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  22. @Abolish_public_education

    Um, who’s really to say that a pre-born has a right-to-life?

    Well, who’s really to say anyone should have any rights? Who’s to say we should have laws against murder, assault, theft? Unlike race and gender, rights are indeed a social construct. Governments decide what will be rights and what will not. Ideally we have a democracy or a republic, i.e. self-government, which means that your neighbors decide what rights you have.
    So voters will say if a pre-born has a right to life. That’s good enough for me.

    IMHO, a human doesn’t “earn” that right until it’s about two weeks old, i.e. when it begins to act like a conscious person. Yep. But this is all hopelessly debatable.

    You evidently don’t have kids, and this is not a serious opinion. For thousands of years parents have placed great moral value on babies in the womb during the mother’s pregnancy, and of course on the new born as soon as they see it. I hope I speak for the majority in saying we are not going to let you kill new born babies.
    Abortion and right to life are no more or less hopelessly debatable than other laws – homicide, contract disputes, locating a sewage treatment plant. We’ll debate it, pass the law, and enforce it. That’s how civilization works.

    • Thanks: Emslander
  23. Alfa158 says:
    @meamjojo

    But wait, the people you are referring to love black people. Half of them walk around wearing sportsball jerseys with black people’s names emblazoned on the back. When corporations want them to buy stuff, they figured out the best way to do it is to fill the commercials with 2/3 black people. Anti-abortion activists make a point that abortion disproportionately kills black babies, so I think those people regard more blacks as a good thing.
    I can’t speak for everyone here on this site but this is an HBD centric platform. We are mostly not the “you people” you think we are.

  24. As we have seen since the 1950s onwards, the Left protects its own, usually with sinecure positions in academia and think tanks (e.g. Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Anita Hill).

    So if this clerk (and it looks like its the Deutsch girl) is discovered, she will be disbarred (Roberts et al. and the Federalist Society do have that pull), but she will enjoy a celebrated post at some college teaching non-legal courses or giving paid speeches for Planned Parenthood. And maybe even run for office, like that black federal judge who got convicted, impeached, and then ran for Congress and won a seat.

    Shame is dead, and the Marxists killed it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  25. @Observator

    There isn’t a single nonrisible idea in this sayanist aggregation of lies, Christophobic fables, and conterfactual “history.” Jews and their servants are trembling in terror at the thought that the USA might have a hundred fewer abortions in 2022 than 2021.

    • Thanks: Emslander
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  26. SafeNow says:

    The Doucey/Psaki interchange about protesters going to justices’ homes was typical of many during her tenure, in a way I am critical of. As I recall it, Doucey asked what the White House’s view is about residential protesting. Psaki’s “answer” was to say that the protesters are very passionate about this issue. A Fox anchor later called her answer “clever.” I would call it very predictable. Doucey could have taken that away from her by building it right into his question. Like this:

    “The Roe protesters planning residential protests are of course extremely passionate about this issue. I acknowledge that. That’s not my question – – whether they are passionate. My question is, what is the White House’s view about the appropriateness of passionate residential protest at the homes of justices and their families.”

    Am I expecting too much? Am I guilty of hindsight-thinking? The preface was indeed predictable, but would be too nasty, and Republicans are nice?

  27. Bo Bo says:

    The easiest way for women to not have a baby and not have an abortion is too simple. STOP F*CKING!!! F*cking causes babies. Am I the only one who knows that?

    Also, I am stunned that Democrats are pro abortion. Why? Because abortion is killing potential Democrat voters!!!

    • Agree: JR Foley
  28. JR Foley says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Stop having sex –live a long celibate life—Sing the praises of the Pledge of Allegiance —read the Bible —take cold showers—attend your local church-synagogue-mosque —write Biden—

    • Replies: @Bo Bo
  29. @R.G. Camara

    she will be disbarred… but she will enjoy a celebrated post

    In other words, Bill Clinton’s fate.

  30. @meamjojo

    You people are stupid. By far, the biggest partakers of abortions are black woman [sic]. Criminalize abortions and there will be many more blacks collecting welfare and growing their population here.

    Blacks were a lot better behaved in 1960 when abortion was illegal everywhere. Your bizarre defense of the third-rate jurisprudence of a half-century ago doesn’t hold up.

    Abort a black child, and the woman can go on to birth more children, and often does. Thus it is more efficient to abort the black mother. The only arguments against this are moral, and you’ve rendered that aspect irrelevant.

  31. @Observator

    women’s reproductive rights

    Simply by using this hackneyed phrase you’ve exposed yourself as a fool.

    • Agree: Emslander
  32. The DEMs are ‘pro-choice’ on exactly one issue. They totally suck on freedom issues such as school attendance, motorcycle helmeting, vaxxes, FICA participation, and so forth. Until they stop being merely “pro-abortion”, I’m going to be strongly anti-abortion.

    TBH, I’m pro-infanticide, but I see no good reason why a mom should choose that option over leaving her baby at the firehouse.

  33. meamjojo says:
    @Really Realist

    There really should be an idiot button!

  34. @Greta Handel

    Well, I guess people are more interested in futilely arguing about abortion than addressing this apparent nonsense:

    Why, then, do they not pass that law codifying Roe at the national level and rely upon Roe’s supporters to produce pro-choice laws in the states where they do not today exist?

    Shouldn’t the question have been written

    Why, then, do they not rely upon Roe’s supporters to produce pro-choice laws in the states where they do not today exist?

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  35. Emslander says:
    @Greta Handel

    A Federal statute taking the issue away from the states would only send the matter back to the Supreme Court, where the question of the source of authority for such a statute would be litigated. The Left (satan) hopes that enough election stealing might give them back control of the court system.

    The fallen angel hates humanity because God had decided that salvation would come through a man-God. It’s (satan’s) insane jealousy has distorted all of human history. It’s deepest thrust at human existence is to attack the human capacity to be a co-creator of new human beings. You can see it in the eyes of the women it has turned insane.

    Is it a coincidence that, at the same time as the highest court in the USA is ready to strike down abortion, the Left (satan) is rattling the nuclear warheads over Ukraine? Is it a mere coincidence that our highest elected leader right at this time is an obviously demented shadow of a human being they trundle out for an occasional screech of madness?

  36. Trinity says:
    @meamjojo

    Yeah right, Jew. We have been hearing that Jew lie about black women having all those abortions for decades but we see with our own eyes all those black women popping out 8-9 kids before they hit 30. Tell us about the 6 gazillion or the 11 million illegal invader lies next, Shlomo. Hey, how about Jews make up 2% of America’s population. I have been hearing that one for at least 40 years nd counting.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  37. @Greta Handel

    Or, more precisely

    Why, then, do they not rely upon Roe’s supporters to repeal restrictive laws in the states where they today exist?

    It’s a good argument, muddled by Mr. Buchanan. Perhaps because he’s part of the Establishment, immersed in Beltway politics.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  38. “My body, my choice” went out the window with Biden’s “leaky” vaccine mandates. Moreover a recent report from Denmark in The Lancet claims that the mRNA vaccines DO NOT reduce overall mortality, despite some protection from Covid deaths. This seems due to an increase in cardiovascular deaths in the mRNA vaccinated, although the numbers are too low to be sure. (In contrast the adenovirus vaccines, from J&J and Astra Zeneca produced a remarkable 60% fall in overall mortality. The CDC immediately stopped the use of J&J Covid vaccines; Astra Zeneca vaccines are not used in the US).
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489

    If abortion control is returned to the states, Blue states will still allow abortions (just as the Southern states allowed slavery) and if serious about this women’s right will provide transport to pregnant women in Red states (just as the Underground Railroad shielded return of slaves.) Bus loads of illegal aliens are now bused away from the border for their own protection. Abortion will just become an even more expensive form of birth control, and “more expensive” is what America is all about.

  39. anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:

    Exactly like your Dem partisan counterparts, you obsess about three words of one clause of one article of one of the nine core instruments setting out your human rights. You, like your Dem partisan counterparts, live in proud ignorance of all the core instruments.

    You let your Langley rulers stipulate two sides, D XOR R, defined by nothing but their opposition, and compliantly you pick a side and wave your poms-poms by thinking what your side’s supposed to think. Periodically Langley hits your knee with the rubber hammer, contriving a stereotyped controversy, and causes your reflex.

    Abortion. Boing goes your foot. Immigration. Boing goes your foot. In unison with all the other partisan dupes on both sides. You say it in your own words, like good boys are taught in third grade.

    Pat. You are not a serious person. You’re the same apple-polishing Class Vice President as ever. Come back when you can show some dim awareness of world-standard black letter law.

  40. Bo Bo says:
    @JR Foley

    I have the perfect solution to stop abortion and preserve the female’s right to f*ck. Young females, starting about 12 yrs old or so, should be vaccinated with a long-term enduring contraceptive medicine. If everyone has to be vaccinated for COVID, then why not a long-term enduring contraceptive for females??? The contraceptive medicine, if developed as I envision, should be reversible by a counter vaccination when a female wants a baby and can demonstrate they can support it.

  41. TGD says:

    The late Sam Francis called the Republican Party, “the stupid party.” The party had a good chance to retake the House and even the Senate until this “draft paper” was leaked. Womyn everywhere are going to march in lock step against this ruling and the party that promoted it. Even the most conservative womyn want the option to have a legal abortion if their circumstances change or if they are raped and impregnated by a future majority male.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  42. @Rurik

    One is when the life of the mother is in danger. The other is in the case of rape.

    Prochoicers claim to oppose capital punishment. They merely redirect it.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  43. @Veracity

    Hyperbole to the max. Those foetal cells are the mothers until they are separated either through birth, miscarriage, or surgery. Her personhood is hers, not the state’s.

    That’s not what the DNA tells us. Unless you mean by “hers” not essence but possession. And why would birth make a difference? Fæcal cells are still hers once out of the body, why not fœtal cells?

    A man’s responsibility to those cells– and to his partner– dates from conception, if not the act which brought it about. Why is it extreme to hold a woman to the same standard? If he has no claim on her, why would she have a claim on him?

  44. Rurik says:
    @Greta Handel

    Why, then, do they not rely upon Roe’s supporters to repeal restrictive laws in the states where they today exist?

    Because some states would refuse to do so.

    Roe is like Obergefell v. Hodges, (the Supreme Court decision that demands all states recognize homo ‘marriages’). The reason they did that is because many (most?) states realize that homo marriages are an affront to decency, and they wouldn’t pretend to honor the depraved farce.

    (Civil unions were a fine idea, but then ‘little Bobby’ couldn’t have two ‘daddies’, which is the whole point of the homo agenda, to normalize the soul-rape of children).

    Pat’s point..

    Democrats claim 60% of the nation wants Roe preserved and only 1 in 5 Americans wants Roe overturned.

    Why, then, do they not pass that law codifying Roe at the national level and rely upon Roe’s supporters to produce pro-choice laws in the states where they do not today exist?

    ..is that the Democrats pretend that Roe is so popular that if it were up to ‘the people’, they would all pass laws in their states allowing abortion on demand.

    But as we can see, that’s not what states are doing. They’re doing (for right or wrong) the opposite.

    When left up to the people’s representatives in the more conservative states, they’re passing laws restricting abortion, which suggests that the leftists are wrong again- (Pat’s point), and that abortion on demand really isn’t that popular outside of the Blue State dystopias, where abortion mills function like livestock slaughter houses for the unborn. Only instead of cattle, pigs and sheep, they’re butchering human babies.

    I’m in the middle on the abortion question. I consider it a terrible thing for all involved, (especially the mother), but then I know of babies that are born with horrific deformities, like anencephaly, when no humane person would ever want such a baby born, (only to die shortly after). Much better if such a baby could be aborted a few weeks into a pregnancy, rather than have the mother go though carrying such a baby to term, only to know it is doomed to die shortly afterwards.

    Our motivating principle should be compassion. For the mother, for the baby, and yes, even for the father, (if he’s a loving participant).

    But for me, this issue goes to the larger question of states and individual rights.

    For me, no one. Not a SC Justice, president, minister or priest, cop or soldier, has any say when it comes to a decision so personal. So I respect the perspectives on all sides here.

    Except, (I guess I’ll point out, because they’re out there), the people who screech ‘SO WHAT IF SHE WAS RAPED!, FORCE HER TO HAVE THAT BABY BECAUSE I AM THE VOICE OF GOD!

    Or, the equally execrable: ‘If you didn’t decide to FORNICATE, you wouldn’t have that problem would you? The baby is your just punishment for defying God and FORNICATING!!

    They’re out there.

    When The Great Separation really kicks in, these people will find their slice of heaven somewhere in the backwaters of Arkansas. Where they can dance with rattlesnakes and speak in tongues all they want.

    The abortion-on-demand liberals can seek out their utopias in San Fransisco and other ‘enlightened’ states, and pass laws making only white babies subject to abortion, and make it compulsory.

    And the rest of us can seek out states where sodomite adoptions and infanticide and lock-downs and forced injections are the stuff of dystopian novels and the open air insane asylums of California and New Jersey.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Emslander
  45. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    One is when the life of the mother is in danger. The other is in the case of rape.

    Prochoicers claim to oppose capital punishment. They merely redirect it.

    When the Mongol hordes descended upon Russian and European villages and mass-raped the women and girls, you’d condemn those pitiable victims who used whatever means were available at the time to abort the fiends growing inside them?

    Sometimes a rapist is so cruel and full of race-hatred that they torture their victims in unspeakable ways. If Channon Christian had lived, and was pregnant by the orc who tortured and murdered her boyfriend, and then raped and tortured her, you’d demand that she be forced to birth the orc’s spawn, and see that face leering back at her for the rest of her life?

    That would be the ultimate rape. And the rapist’s ultimate triumph over his victim. Which is really what most rapes are all about.

    And no baby should be brought into this world unless it is loved.

    And for God’s sake, no woman should be forced to birth an abomination growing in her sacred womb, put there by violence and force and hatred.

    Babies should be born of love, and raised in love.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  46. nsa says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Are you people crazy…..”
    Yes, the hate-thy-neighbor cock cutter chrissie cultists are nuts, as personified by Papist Paddy, and demand more human pain and misery. You see many less Down Syndrome and severely deformed people than say 40 years ago……..when it was a common sight to see ageing parents toting around a trailing 40 year old Down kid. Prenatal testing and abortion have culled many of the physically and mentally defective before they are delivered. You can’t get enough fear, hate, sin, pain, perversion to satisfy a chrissie……….

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  47. There seem to be a lot of supporters for baby-killing in these comments. Why?

    I have a feeling many of them are atheists, feminists, advocates of homosexuality, and they support/defend sex with pre-pubescent children.

    Evil comes in bundles, in this respect.

    • Agree: Emslander
    • Replies: @Emslander
  48. @Rurik

    The real issue is of course one of equality; if men cannot get out of
    paternity with the same ease, why should womxyn?
    (Equal rights would only profit White males as Blacks! do not pay alimony
    anyway so we cannot have that)
    The libtards are right to fear the simple recognition there is a Tenth Amendment –
    all their pet issues from Brown vs. Education to the Firearms Act of 1936
    (aimed at the Thompson 1928 “or equivalent”) are up for grabs;
    wouldn´t it be fun? 😀
    The consequences from Roe would be minimal – maybe half the states would
    tighten restrictions some; it´s just another smokescreen.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  49. @Henry's Cat

    No Buchanan article about abortion would be complete without him praising St. Reagan (abortion “will be on the ash heap of history’). But Reagan was smarter than today’s republicans. He talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk. And he didn’t hate Russians either.

    Reagan never even attended the annual March for Life. (Wasn’t Trump the first to do so?) RvW served as a convenient talking point for republicans, one sure to get Christian votes. But it was only a talking point, not to be acted upon. Back in Reagan’s time, republicans weren’t afraid to be pro-choice, and many were.

    Now it’s become a litmus test. Pro-choicers are shunned and drummed out of the party. But polls show that a majority don’t want RvW overturned. And the left, as we are seeing, is willing to go to extremes to get their way. Do Americans really want to go thru another 2020 Summer of Love?

    Republicans are so full of their own hot air that they have convinced themselves that they can’t lose in November no matter what politically stupid things they do. They may be in for a reckoning. The republicans are losing America Firsters with their bloodthirsty desire to rub Russia off the map. They’re compounding it by striking down RvW, which will galvanize millions of democrats to drop off their mail-in ballots, just as they did two years ago.

    With these two positions, aren’t these idiots working against the best interests of their party, as well as the white majority? Apparently, they don’t mind staying in the Congressional minority, so long as they get to kick Russian ass and overturn RvW. The Biden Regime must be ecstatic.

  50. Right after they throw out the abortion “penumbras and adumbrations” — whatever they are — they ought to abolish the US Supreme Court entirely.

    Bobby Jindal already has called for abolishing the US Supreme Court back in 2015.

    Jindal is not related to Bobby Rahal, as far as I know, but Jindal is winning the anti-Supreme Court 500 as far as I can tell.

    ABOLISH THE US SUPREME COURT

    Tweets from 2015:

    [MORE]

  51. Rurik says:
    @nokangaroos

    The real issue is of course one of equality; if men cannot get out of
    paternity with the same ease, why should womxyn?

    imagine if such were put to the leftists..

    it’s a man choice if he decides to be a father. If he says no, then just like a mother with an abortion, it’s his life, it’s his wallet, it his choice, period!

    If he says ‘no’, then by rights, he has opted out, (like the blacks do, as you point out), and now his decision has been cast, and he’s free to go his way.

    Imagine that.

    The leftists would be beyond apoplectic. It would be like a genuine investigation of the 2020 election, and Trump being declared the winner. With Tucker Carlson as VP and Ted Nugent as AG.

    That could be the first Executive Order. That men are now free to choose. If a man identifies as a father, then all fine and good. But if a man identifies as ‘not the father’, then he’s free to choose. It’s his life and his body and his wallet, and we should all be free to choose what and who we are.

    We all know that blacks and illegals and other protected groups are by and large exempt from things like Child Support, but imagine, just imagine if the same ‘choice’ were offered to white men, whose wives have filed for divorce and need a lot of cash to spend on their new boyfriends and lifestyles.

    What would they do if the divorced white fathers didn’t identify as fathers anymore (unless they had custody), and simply said it’s all about choice.

    The libtards are right to fear the simple recognition there is a Tenth Amendment –
    all their pet issues from Brown vs. Education to the Firearms Act of 1936
    (aimed at the Thompson 1928 “or equivalent”) are up for grabs;
    wouldn´t it be fun? 😀

    This is what will happen during the impeding and inevitable Great Separation.

    States will make their own laws. Tommy guns will be back in favor, and the streets will be cleaned up pronto. Parents will send their children to local schools where they’re educated rather than indoctrinated. Little Billy will no longer have two daddies, and fisting will no longer be taught to first graders.

    I suspect that just reading those lines, has caused a few liberal lurkers out there to have brain aneurysms. A gender studies professor in Massachusetts has just keeled over and is twitching on the floor. A transgender US Marine Colonel has popped a vein and has died on his keyboard.

    Oh what fun it will be!

  52. After reading Glen Greenwald’s article on the subject, who in fact agrees with the contentions made in the article here, I tend to agree with both authors.

    My problem is that our SCOTUS has been terribly politicized and even corrupted with the likes of Kavanaugh, Barret, and Gorsuch, all three who lied under oath regarding Roe vs. Wade. They all agreed that it was settled law and as such would not look top over turn it.

    Our SCOTUS has become corrupted due to the ability of presidents to make lifetime nominations not on the qualified jurists available but as a result of political intentions.

    This then makes the current issue being ruled on by jurists, who like Trump and broken clock, just happen to get something right twice a day.

    So it does not matter on which side of the debate you come down on, it is being decided not by rational and honorable jurists but by a bunch of corrupted clowns who are there for their own political agendas or those of others…

  53. @Veracity

    Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but here is a little law lesson for you:
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/expressio-unius-est-exclusio-alterius/
    While it references statutes, the principle applies to all legal documents.

  54. SafeNow says:

    On the Wall Street Journal Editorial Report today, Ilya Shapiro said that Justice Alito has been moved to “a secure location.”. Paul Gigot was taken aback, and replied that he knew security has been enhanced where are the justices live, but this was the first he had heard about being removed to a secure location.

    What does “secure” mean? (1) The location is a secret. Hey, you can trust the people who know the location to keep it a secret; that’s good enough; and/or (2) The location is physically fortified, as in a bunker. That’s your life now.

    In either case, this is a heck of a thing, and the implications are significant.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  55. @Pierre de Craon

    My complaint has been that, IMO, the truly Christian thing to do would be to focus on the reasons abortions are sought in the first place and work to remove those reasons. Unfortunately, there are many women who see it solely as a form of birth control. What that really says is that they lazy, or can’t control themselves.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  56. @TGD

    After Alito’s decision was leaked (a master stroke by whoever did it) it may have spelled doom for the republicans, so smug in their belief that they will sweep the mid-terms. For democrat womyn, RvW is the existential issue they’re willing to die for. Antifa and BLM will be on for the ride when this summer’s riots get into high gear.

    Why mess with Roe when the GOP was holding a winning hand? Just leave it alone, let the democrat womyn keep their Most Important Issue Ever, and move on to more important things – like avoiding nuclear war with Russia. These republican talking heads on Fox, so convinced that they will win a huge majority in November, make me ill. Hubris isn’t an endearing trait.

    As long as most republicans support the Biden military agenda, (KILL more Russians. Nuclear War – BRING IT ON), they are dead to me, and deserve to lose. Why vote for a party that wants fewer white people (the more dead Russian and Ukrainian Slavs the better) and more black babies (even when their mothers don’t want them)?

  57. @follyofwar

    Why mess with Roe when the GOP was holding a winning hand?

    Because it’s not a political football to the justices who are overturning it. They have an opportunity to reverse a bad decision and they’re doing it.

    But yeah, considering the stupidity of the average democrat, they will overlook 2 years of massive failure by President Poopy pants to vote for more baby killing.

    • Agree: Emslander
  58. AlanR says:

    Powerful comment! It’s time to separate. And wherever place you choose, I’m sure I’ll want to be there too.

  59. @Curmudgeon

    Unfortunately, there are many women who see it solely as a form of birth control. What that really says is that they lazy, or can’t control themselves.

    Undoubtedly true. I’d suggest adding to your list the desire, especially strong among young women, to be seen as conforming to the intellectual and social fashions of the moment. Of course, as the ongoing passion for wearing a Fauci mask to protect themselves from the fairy-tale dangers of the covid monster demonstrates, young men are almost equally conformist, even when conformism reveals them to be cowards.

    There’s a larger picture, however. Self-mastery, especially as it concerns sex, has been under (((ferocious attack))) since at least the forties. The development of the birth-control pill quickly led to the widespread assumption—encouraged, I need hardly add, by (((our masters)))—that sexual restraint, like slavery, no longer had any place in the modern world.

    I vividly recall, as I’m sure you do, the campaign on behalf of the birth-control pill (usually referred to simply as the Pill). The proponents of wide use of the Pill talked exclusively about the wonders of pregnancy and motherhood when they were planned. All other pregnancies, the advertisers indicated, led to misery and despair—and not just for the mother and child!—and more than the occasional suicide. The proponents also took as a given the validity of the Beat/Hippie revolution’s fundamental assertion: that sexual activity had to be permanently decoupled from marriage—fundamentally in theory and doctrine, not simply in life as it is lived.

    From none of these proponents did one hear even a grudging acknowledgment of the idea that humanity’s age-old perception that mastering rather than indulging the emotional and sexual turmoil of the decade starting with the onset of puberty had anything to be said in its favor.

    Furthermore, no one pushing the Pill ever even hinted that they were working to (1) eliminate the marriage-based family as the basis of society, (2) eradicate every religion’s and every society’s stigmas on illegitimacy, and most important of all, (3) create a mind-set, especially in white Christian women, that children were obstacles to self-fulfillment in life rather than essentials to it.

    They succeeded in their work, perhaps even beyond their expectations.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  60. @Rurik

    Careful whom you call an “abomination”. E.g., Prof. Hasness:

    http://americanchestertonsociety.blogspot.com/2008/08/geir-hasnes-flag-of-worldloyalty-to.html

    Or Steve Sailer. Most of us old-timers here know that he was adopted, but we don’t know exactly why he was put up. For all we know, he could be another one of your abominations.

    If a child of rape is an abomination, aren’t his children, his children’s children, and so forth, as well? It would be in the germline. That would make us all children of rape, abduction, incest, etc., differing only by the number of generations.

    Welcome to the Abominations Club!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  61. @nsa

    How about we cull every human whose IQ is less than ten points above your own? That would really improve the race!

  62. @Priss Factor

    Let crazy woke bitches and black wenches kill their own kids.

    Why don’t you kill the wenches and the bitches yourself? That is more efficient demographically and little different ethically from what you suggest.

    You’re not afraid of Camp Cupcake, are you? Martha came out fine.

  63. Salcio says:
    @meamjojo

    meamjojo – you are not that smart either.
    Nobody says that abortion should be criminalized.
    You have to learn to read with understanding.
    They want to move decision about abortion to states.

    • Agree: 36 ulster
    • Replies: @meamjojo
  64. 36 ulster says:
    @follyofwar

    Ideally, sometime after the midterms would have been the time to reverse Roe (which, as it’s been said, would NOT outlaw abortion), but it’s mostly urban, post-menopausal women for whom abortion is a sacrament or totem. If The Cadaverous One bankrolls Antifa/BLM/SWPL (womyns auxiliary) and we get another Summer of Love, I believe it’ll be on the cabal at 1600, N.W.–the White Extended Care Facility, not on the Gerontocratic, Old Party. But the relentless cheerleading of ConInc. for “Gallant Ukraine” just might depress voter turnout. Some of us must be as sickened at the virtue signaling, virtue grifting (all sorts of crap–in blue and yellow, no less), and unnecessary suffering of Ukrainian citizens as with the hubris of the GOP’s talking heads, who seem to be genuinely assured that the neocons have it right THIS time. Then again, some of us just want no part of it all, period. Now we hear admissions of proxy warfare and allegations of real-time intelligence sharing. The Stupid and Evil parties, doing stupid and evil, a/k/a bipartisanship.

  65. Atle says:

    I actually love Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump too. That’s how bad ass I am, mofo..

  66. meamjojo says:
    @Salcio

    Sheese. You’re dumber than you look.

    Of course some portion of the the individual states will then do the dirty work themselves of criminalizing abortion in their states, as states like TX, AR, MI, OK and others are attempting to do in one way or another right now.

    WHY should citizens of one state in these united states have to live under different rules and restrictions compared to other states? Shouldn’t ALL citizens have the same rights across the country?

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  67. meamjojo says:
    @SafeNow

    “In either case, this is a heck of a thing, and the implications are significant. ”

    You’ve left us hanging. Explain your closing line.

  68. meamjojo says:
    @Trinity

    The world would be a better place if only your mama had aborted you.

  69. Emslander says:
    @Rurik

    Except, (I guess I’ll point out, because they’re out there), the people who screech ‘SO WHAT IF SHE WAS RAPED!, FORCE HER TO HAVE THAT BABY BECAUSE I AM THE VOICE OF GOD!

    I don’t think any person who opposes abortion has ever said that.

    People who respect human life would say that ALL human life, at whatever stage, is to be respected under the law. For millennia, governments fashioned laws with that principle in mind.

    It is true that babies have been born that died soon afterwards. I had a brother and a grandson who died at birth. They were baptized and their souls are in paradise.

    Faith informs me of that and it informs me that to voice your quoted formulation would be a severe act of blasphemy.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  70. Emslander says:
    @RedpilledAF

    Evil comes in bundles, in this respect.

    They make up with volume and vulgarity what they lack in good sense and self respect.

  71. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    From your link: “..his mother’s choice to bear a child even after being violated, and the result being a life worth living.”

    Do you imagine, in a tredecillion-gazillian years, that there exists somewhere a person who would force a mother to abort her child against her will – for any reason other than perhaps the life of the mother?

    That, actually would be a genuine ethnical quandary, if a pregnant mother insists that she wants the baby born, even tho it would- to a certainty- result in her own death.

    Would she be able to override the will of her husband and father of the unborn child?

    And the will of her entire family and the doctors and medical experts, who would all insist that her life come first. What if she said ‘No, I know the birth of this baby will be the end of my mortal existence on this planet, but I still want it’.

    Then what?

    For me, that is an ethical situation where I’d be at a loss. Pouring over her ‘mental state’, and her psychological health to determine if she’s of sound mind, and it turns out she is. Do you condemn her to death, because she says so? Even as her husband and father and mother and siblings are all demanding an abortion to save her life?

    What would you do if you’re the doctor who has moments to make the decision and it’s up to you?

    But as for forcing Channon Christian, if she had lived (because it’s a particularly egregious case of rape), to birth the spawn of one of the orcs who raped her, is for me a monstrous and unthinkable horror to impose on a woman. As I said, like all those Russian women and girls raped by the Mongol hordes. Or the Eastern European women and girls raped wholesale and often tortured by the Red Army rapists.

    A group of twenty Red Army orcs just got done brutalizing a Polish girl of thirteen and her mother, who’s now dead, but if that Polish girl tries to abort the abomination growing inside her, you’d want to force her, even at the cost of her sanity, to bring that spawn of an orc to birth?

    Is that what Jesus Christ would do? Disregard the well-being of the unwilling mother, and force her to birth the issue of a violent thug, no matter what that would do to her and her husband and her father and mother and extended family, who all also want the abomination removed from the sacred temple of her body.

    I don’t get it.

    But there’s another thing I don’t, (and never will) get.

    That’s those good Christian people who say that no matter how terminal, and no matter how unimaginable the suffering a dying person is enduring, that they must NEVER, EVER! be allowed to decide the time and method of their own death. ‘It is NOT up to them!, and if God didn’t want them to suffer the last months and weeks and days and hours of a particularly horrific case of cancer, then God would not have given them that cancer. And now that they have it, and are in excruciating agony, it is God’s will that they suffer, until He calls them home’.

    They’re out there, believe me.

    For me- suffering, especially unnecessary suffering, and especially when it is imposed by others, is the worst kind of evil there is. Good is the alleviation of suffering, and even trying to provide comfort and hopefully, a measure of pleasure, if at all possible, is what I believe a loving God would approve of.

    As opposed to making sure that someone who’s suffering, continues to suffer, (for what ever kind of motivation), is the ultimate in evil.

    So, just so everyone reading this can know, You sir, Reg Cæsar~ would tell Channon Christian, (had she lived), that it isn’t her choice to abort the thing inside her, and that regardless of how it was put there, or by whom or what, that she will be compelled to bring that thing to term in her body, for nine months, feeling it growing and kicking inside her, (reminding her with every twitch what she and her boyfriend were put through), until such time as you are willing to allow for it to leave, after it has become viable, whereupon you will no doubt, (as they all do), wash your hands of the whole affair, once the baby is out of the womb.

    Yes?

    No?

    >><<

    We really would like to know.

    It is the fundamental question, and it goes to the heart of this matter.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  72. @meamjojo

    United Statist —> Global Government

    WHY should citizens of one nation have to live under different rules and restrictions compared to other nations? Shouldn’t ALL citizens have the same rights across the world?

    If that’s not your view, please explain the principled distinction.

    By the way, I’m now about 80% confident that you’re a virtuoso troll.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  73. Rurik says:
    @Emslander

    has ever said that.

    it was (by design ; ) a tad hyperbolic, but I do think it expresses correctly the mentality that some people believe they are the best informed and most moral because their opinions are informed by scripture, and are therefor inviolate and infallible.

    Whereas some others consider scripture to be a general guide, and not God’s word verbatim.

    The earth is older than a few thousand years. It’s unlikely that Jonah actually lived in the belly of a sea beast for three days. So for some people, they bristle when others tell them the exact way things are, based on some words they read in scripture, or an interpretation of those words by a mortal human.

    But even if you go to scripture for truth, does it say in the Bible that there are no circumstances when a life should be ended for whatever reason?

    It seems to me, there are lots of times in scripture where God is demanding the death, even of little children and babies. Didn’t all the babies (of the iniquitous) die in the flood? Were there no babies in Sodom and Gomorrah, as God condemned them all to a fiery death?

    People who respect human life would say that ALL human life, at whatever stage, is to be respected under the law. For millennia, governments fashioned laws with that principle in mind.

    I’m no scholar, (by a long, long shot ; ), but I do know a little about human history, and it seems to me that in that time, (at least what’s recorded), most human societies (historically and including even today), generally have exceptions for when a human life is “to be respected”.

    It is true that babies have been born that died soon afterwards. I had a brother and a grandson who died at birth. They were baptized and their souls are in paradise.

    Is it not so, and self-evident, that all the babies who’ve ever been aborted (or perished for whatever reason), are all in paradise for all eternity?

    Did they not all have innocent souls? Did they all not die without sin? Then, isn’t it a forgone conclusion that every single baby aborted, are all in Heaven?

    I’m not a proponent of abortion. God no! I consider it an appalling decision, and only as a last resort. But if my wife were pregnant with a child who had no chance at any kind of life, and who would either die soon after birth, or suffer as a condition of his existence, then I’d certainly respect her decision, if she wanted to abort the child, and use what time God has given her, to try to have a healthy baby with a chance at some happiness.

    I don’t believe in a God that wants people to suffer or live in hopelessness and despair.

    I don’t believe in a God of vengeance and hate and fiery deaths to all who defy his authority.

    My God is a loving God, of mercy and hope and kindness and compassion.

    He does not want babies born with horrific deformities. These are acts of the devil, (often all too human devil, like the deformities in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq as a direct consequence of my demonic government’s actions), and with God’s good graces, and our human strength to persevere, we can, with His wisdom, use the technology He has graced us with, to make our lives and the lives of our children a little better, with the tough decisions He’s given us to decide.

    You seem sincere, as are most people who disagree with me on this issue. They believe they’re acting in good faith based on scripture. But I believe they’re misguided, and the issue of forcing rape victims to birth the spawn of an act of hate and violence, (like Channon’s, for example), are going to work against their otherwise good intentions. Most decent people abhor abortions, and with good reason. But in some cases, most decent people also understand extenuating circumstances.

    Making it, (like the issue of euthanasia) one of black and white, right and wrong, moral and evil, is simply a bridge too far for the majority who don’t share those strident views of piety and what ‘God demands.

    Most people have a more nuanced view, that includes a sympathy for the raped mother, or dying cancer victim, or Iraqi woman who’s baby in her womb’s internal organs are now on the outside of its skin, courtesy of the ZUS military.

  74. meamjojo says:
    @Greta Handel

    “If that’s not your view, please explain the principled distinction.

    By the way, I’m now about 80% confident that you’re a virtuoso troll.”

    I do believe that there should be one world government, that all country boundaries should be eliminated, that we should speak one language, that everyone should intermarry and that human population should be reduced and capped at no more than 1-2 billion. Currently I am waiting for the alien overlords to come down and embody me with the powers to make all of this a reality.

    Thanks for the compliment!

  75. AlanR says:

    For pro-lifers, I believe the insult is not just the abortion, but the in your face celebration of it, not to mention the Federal funding of free abortions. Pro-lifers hate their tax dollars subsidizing abortions. For myself, I just cannot see jailing or executing a woman for murder or homicide if she gets an abortion. I don’t think pro-lifers want that either. So that leaves us all in an awkward situation.

    Finally, I believe that if a “good” woman wants an abortion, she has a good reason for needing to do something so terrible and sad. And if a “bad” woman wants an abortion, I am glad she is killing her offspring, probably sparing them from a living hell. Therefore, I guess that leaves me anti-abortion, but fully pro-choice. But absolutely no Federal or State funding of abortions.

  76. This is proof enough that abortion should be available.

    Does anyone want a skank like this to have children? Let her kill her brood.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  77. @Rurik

    If one is an abomination at conception, it’s hard to see how this can change after birth.

    Cartman’s Mom goes to the Unplanned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion. The only problem is, she wants to abort eight-year-old Cartman.

    https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/5fujrl/south-park-unplanned-parenthood

    Are you saying that the mother bestows non-abomination status on the child at some point? That people lack intrinsic worth, and exist only at the pleasure of their neighbors? Didn’t they try that in Russia, oh, about a century ago.

    if that Polish girl tries to abort the abomination growing inside her

    What if she doesn’t want to “abort” it, but to,torture it instead? For psychological release. After all, she will never see the sire again, so why not get revenge on his spawn? Give birth, then pour scalding water on it at timed intervals, to maximize the pain. (The Japanese would suspend Christians by their ankles and release blood from their scalps to prevent a quick, merciful death. Hung rather than hanged, so,to speak.)

    After all, per Chief Justice Taney, abominations have no rights which the white man is bound to respect.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  78. @Priss Factor

    Does anyone want a skank like this to have children? Let her kill her brood.

    Why not just kill her instead? Do you lack the will?

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  79. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Are you saying that the mother bestows non-abomination status on the child at some point?

    Yes, it’s up to the mother.

    If the Japanese at Unit 731 decided to do a psychological experiment with Chinese women and girls, and inserted the cloned fertilized egg of a particularly sadistic ‘researcher’ into the wombs of several Chinese victims, to see what kind of effect it would have on them, knowing that a clone of the man who had just tortured their family members to death was germinating inside them, perhaps they’d be tearing at their abdomens with their fingernails in a frenzy trying to rip it out, with the sadistic donor, smiling in their faces as they do so.

    I’d consider those experiments to be abominations. Not because the clones necessarily would have grown up to be as sadistic as their clone donor, (they might not have), but because to the women and girls, the thing inside them would be a fiend. To them. And as far as I’m concerned, they matter.

    A womb is not just a biological incubator for the propagation of humans. It is an intrinsic part of a woman- a human being. With all the emotions and hopes and dreams and loves and hates that all normal humans are imbued with. Force-impregnating a woman (a human being – I guess it must be pointed out) with something inside her that she considers an abomination, makes it so.

    Do you see? Can you comprehend that?

    If a woman has the seed of a man she loves in her womb, her body will respond to that. The harmony of the love and expectation and the miracle of rebirth of a loving couple giving new life, will all work towards a healthy and beautiful baby being brought into this world with joy and happiness all around, as it should be.

    But if the seed of a monster (rapist) is forcibly implanted into her body against her will, and is hated with every breath that mother takes, praying to God that somehow someone will get that demon seed out of her, that will also have an effect on her pregnancy and her well-being and the health of the baby once it’s born, and then (understandably) hated and rejected by the mother who was forced to birth it.

    Now, as a society with law enforcement and methods of coercion, we can force a woman to birth something forcibly put inside her that she will hate- but it’s the worst kind of violation possible. It is possible to do such things, but should we?

    The ‘researchers’ at Unit 731 could do a lot of things to their Chinese (and others) victims. They could do experiments that might even have had some kind of benefit to the Japanese war effort. But in doing those experiments, they treated the subjects as little more than ‘things’. Like inanimate objects, without feeling or souls. Like an incubator sitting on a shelf.

    If they inserted a fertilized seed of a hyena into a woman, that hyena might even develop, and who knows, even be born ‘healthy’ (at great or even the ultimate cost to the mother). Now I would call such an experiment an abomination against all that is holy and decent, but that doesn’t mean it’s the baby hyena’s fault- as if it should be tortured. But I’d kill it nonetheless, simply because of the unholy method of it’s birth. I wouldn’t want such a thing to exist, to remind the mother the kind of monsters that humans can be. (and Unit 731 is a perfect place to delve into human monsters without a shred of empathy.)

    And if you ask me, a random hyena is a whole lot less offensive than a human rapist. The hyena is simply an animal, but a rapist is an fiend and an affront to decency.

    Here I should point out that when I say rapist, I’m not talking about a man who holds the door open for a feminist. Or a seventeen year old boy who has consensual sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend. No, that’s not what I mean. I’m talking about a man who forces himself on a woman or girl (or boy) against their will. For the record. And such a man, in my opinion, is worse than a hyena, in the grand scheme of things. A hyena will kill things and eat other animals, and it’s all part of God’s plan. And I harbor no malice towards them. But a rapist, and particularly those who use cruelty and violence to force themselves on others, are to me, (and I suspect others) abominations against God and nature and all that is decent. In fact, the issue of forcible rape is one where we can gauge the health of an entire society. When a rapist is caught in Iran, they hang them from cranes, and thereby show the world that they are a healthy and sane and admirable society. Whereas when a ten year old boy in Austria is ‘brutally’ raped by a pervert, they toss out the conviction because the pervert rapist was a first class citizen, and the boy an Austrian, which makes him a racist and guilty and thereby not entitled to any rights or dignity.

    You see how that works?

    Rape and it’s victims, and how they’re treated by a society, is an invaluable way to glimmer exactly the health and morality of that particular society. And indeed, the health and morality of individuals as well. For instance, if an individual would demand that a woman or girl, be forced to carry to term and birth the spawn of her rapist, then that goes a long way towards showing just exactly what kind of individual that is.

    • Agree: Liberty Mike
    • Replies: @Emslander
    , @Reg Cæsar
  80. Emslander says:
    @Rurik

    Rape and it’s victims, and how they’re treated by a society, is an invaluable way to glimmer exactly the health and morality of that particular society.

    I think you’ve got yourself a little far out on the limb there, Rurick.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Rurik
  81. @Rurik

    Rape and it’s [sic] victims, and how they’re treated by a society, is an invaluable way to glimmer exactly the health and morality of that particular society.

    The pre-Roe society looks a lot better than the post-Roe one on almost all social measures. So, yes, you are right on this point.

    Yes, it’s up to the mother.

    The worst feminists of all are the male ones!

    At least your point is inherently eugenicist. The woman with compassion for the innocent being inside her will pass on her genes. The woman who lacks it will not.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  82. @Emslander

    I think you’ve got yourself a little far out on the limb there, Rurick.

    Rurik is, by his own definition, an abomination. He descends from multiple rapes, as we all do.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  83. Rurik says:
    @Emslander

    you’ve got yourself a little far out on the limb there, Rurick.

    but you can’t articulate how, huh?

    I guess we’re supposed to divine your meaning from the ether, because it sure as shit isn’t self-evident.

  84. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, it’s up to the mother.

    The worst feminists of all are the male ones!

    at some point, I really do find it incomprehensible, that a man would tell his woman, forcibly raped and impregnated against her will, that she is obliged to carry the seed of the rapist to term in her womb.

    You come home to your wife or daughter brutally raped..

    so the man is arrested, and because our society (and many “men” in it) don’t consider rape as a very serious crime, he gets a few years and then gets out.

    In the mean time, you have forced your wife or daughter to carry the rapist’s offspring to term until it’s delivered. Now, since your point is that this child is innocent, and should be loved like any other, you also insist that your wife or daughter raise the child. So now, a few years after the brutal rape, the rapist understandably wants to stop by from time to time to check in on his son. I wonder how you’d feel about that, never mind how your wife or daughter feels about it, because as far as you’re concerned, their feelings don’t enter into the equation here. Huh?

    Or what if it’s your daughter, and what about her husband? Does his feelings about the matter enter into the decision, or have you decided it all for all of them, and if your son-in-law has misgivings about his wife, (and your daughter) being forced (against her will) to birth the spawn of the rapist, is he just being a ‘feminist’?

    I try to wrap my brain around this insistence, this mentality that women or girls who’ve been raped, (and sometimes brutally and horribly so), have no say in whether or not they should be forced to bring such a baby to term.

    Would a man demand it if it was his own wife or daughter?

    And if so, what kind of ‘man’ would that be? To listen to his wife’s or daughter’s anguished grief and torment, pleading and begging that they can’t live with this thing inside them, only to the aloof and imperious demand from you that such decisions are not for them to make. You have decided for them, and their wishes are irrelevant.

    I wonder what kind of husband and father such a man would make, with such utter contempt for the well-being of his womenfolk.

    I’ll never get it.

  85. @Rurik

    pleading and begging that they can’t live with this thing inside them

    Or afterwards. By your “Mrs Cartman” logic, she should be able to abort that individual at any point in her life.

    If men must surrender to the emotions of women, what if this doesn’t satisfy her? Say Leroy rapes a white woman. Old Black Joe is disgusted, and helps her family find and detain Leroy. But she isn’t satisfied with the deaths of the child and Leroy. She wants Joe dead as well. Why? Because he reminds her of Leroy, and she will never be whole until he is dispatched as well. So you kill Joe.

    Suppose Leroy was a slave of Mr Lee. The victim isn’t satisfied with the death of the child and Leroy. She wants every one of Mr Lee’s slaves offed as well, and she’s not going to share a bed with her husband until he arranges this.

    You can bet Mr Lee will have something to say about this!

    Now suppose she wants Mr Lee executed as well. In this case, she has a valid point. He is ultimately the cause of her violation. Leroy didn’t get here by himself!

    Indeed, you could make a case for wholesale genocide to avenge a single such crime. In the past, some have.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    , @Rurik
  86. @Rurik

    Oh, and what if she’s lying?

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  87. @Reg Cæsar

    You are proffering more straw than Ray Bolger donned.

    You are moving more goalposts than NFL players did prior to 1974.

    You are making argumenta ad absurdum.

    Face it, Rurik has simply presented a far more coherent and compelling case than you have.

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  88. @Reg Cæsar

    I am sure that we can agree that is one unholy alliance.

  89. @Prester John

    Is there a right to privacy or not?

    What right does the state have to listen in on a conversation between you and your doctor? Would you want the state to get to hear what you and your doctor discuss or get his records because the state thinks there is something remotely suspicious about your doctor’s visit?

    The third amendment prohibits the government from being able to force a person to quarter a soldier in his or her home. If ever there was an invasion of the right to privacy that would be it. So the third amendment clearly indicates we have a right to privacy.

    So why do you think a woman’s right to privacy should be invaded so that the state can determine whether a woman is pregnant or not?

  90. @Jefferson Temple

    What about individual liberty? The right to choose what to do with your own body. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights not the rights of the state.

    Do the bill of rights grant the right of privacy? I think they do in amendment 3 which forbids the state from forcing a person to quarter a soldier in his or her home. If anything was a violation of privacy, that would be it.

    If you have a right to privacy, what business does the state have in listening in on doctor / patient conversations.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  91. @Reg Cæsar

    What kind of argument is that other than a personal attack? How about some logic?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  92. @davidgmillsatty

    It seems to me that you are ignoring the growing fetus as an individual with rights. Does the fact that the unborn have no voice, no vote and no money mean that they are not individuals? Not human? The individual right of that unborn human is to grow into an adult capable of doing all the things adults do.

    The elected lawmakers will have to thread the needle. Lawmakers are charged with promoting the public good in their legislation. How does protecting the future of our society by limiting the destruction of the unborn contradict that charge? Human capital is still the most precious type.

    Do people raping children on video for profit have an expectation of privacy?

    Does anyone planning, committing, or concealing evidence of a murder have an expectation of privacy?

    If a legislature makes it a crime to abort a viable fetus then that will be that. That’s the whole point of reversing Roe. You cannot equate it with a woman’s right to be secure in her home and property. That’s dishonest.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  93. @Liberty Mike

    Others have discussed the balance of rights between mother and child in cases of forcible rape without resorting to calling the child an abomination. Rurik canot do this. That’s a feminist for you.

    Roe itself moved goalposts. Without it, Michigan returns to her 1931 law, Wisconsin to her 1849 one. Were legislators stupid in those days, or are they stupid now? I’m inclined to believe the latter.

    How about a compromise? The victim can get her abortion once the rapist has been executed, but not before. Unlike the child’s violation of her body, his was deliberate. Her claim on the perp’s life is much stronger than her claim on the child’s.

    That almost all “prochoicers” oppose the death penalty for rape speaks volumes. About whom they really care for.

  94. @davidgmillsatty

    What kind of argument is that other than a personal attack?

    We both used the term “abomination”. I merely showed how his use of it could be extended, via logic, to himself. It certainly fits Geir Hasnes and Steve Sailer a lot less.

    I’m not the one “punching down”!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  95. @Reg Cæsar

    What is an abomination is the proposition that a blue-eyed Nordic woman of pulchritude who has been brutally raped by a low IQ, low impulse control, 5th generation Afro-Harlemite welfare recipient should be forced to carry the fetus to term.

    Why should we assume that the rights of the mother must be balanced against the rights of the fledgling Afro-fetus? The mother did not consent to the impregnation by the horrible Hutu from Harlem. The mother did not make a foolish, reckless decision in the heat of passion from which she seeks to shirk responsibility.

    A culture of life and honoring of life should include honoring the lives of the women who have been forcibly raped, particularly women of Anglo-Celtic-Nordic-Teutonic-Slavic blood who have been savaged by BIPOCs. One can hardly argue that we honor such women by making them carry to term the fetuses spawned by such savages.

    Yes, Roe moved the goalposts and Rurik would not argue otherwise. Nor would I. That, however, does not absolve you of doing the same.

    Death penalty? I am all for it if it applies first to state actors. I am against it if it is the state administering the sentence.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  96. @Jefferson Temple

    You can make the same argument against the second amendment.
    The only purpose of a gun is to kill someone. It has no value whatsoever other than that. I seriously doubt you would advocate taking away guns. You want the right to have a gun to protect yourself if you have a fear for your your life or your family and friends. And you will kill someone with it if you feel you need to.

    A pregnant woman has to make these same choices and you would take that away from her.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  97. @Reg Cæsar

    But the field of medicine has changed substantially. So has religion. So has the population of the planet.

    So you would deprive a woman the right to analyze her situation in the world of today and force her to have others make the decision for her as if the world had not changed in the last 150 years?

  98. @davidgmillsatty

    You’re just appealing to emotion. In fact, the right to self defense, including with a gun, is natural and good. But even the right to a gun is limited despite the second amendment. I don’t want convicted violent felons being approved to buy guns, do you?

    As for how this relates to a woman and her pregnancy, I’m unclear what you are saying. I expect that the rule will be that a woman will be left the choice in case of rape, incest and if the pregnancy threatens her own life. I’m not against that. I’m not against contraception either. I’m also not against her keeping her legs shut vice giving consent.

    In fact, I’m not going to get worked up if the blue states pass laws making all first trimester abortions legal. It’s what I expect them to do. What I’m happy about is that the 1973 legislation from the bench appears to be ended.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  99. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    By your “Mrs Cartman” logic,

    If men must surrender to the emotions of women

    So you kill Joe.

    She wants every one of Mr Lee’s slaves offed as well

    she wants Mr Lee executed as well.

    a case for wholesale genocide to avenge a single such crime. In the past, some have.

    I don’t know about offing entire ethnicities from the planet if my wife or daughter were raped, but as for the rapist, (regardless of ethnicity), I’d say he could pretty much count on it.

    Not because of my wife’s emotions, or because of Mrs Cartman or Mr. Lee’s slaves, but because of me. A rapist is an abomination to all that is good and decent. He takes by force, what he could never get by consent. And what he takes is to my mind, sacred, because it isn’t just a womb he has violated, but the dignity and sacrosanct honor of a human being.

    Would I kill every single person who looks like him? Of course not, and as Mike points out, your “arguments” are pathetic and obvious straw man absurdities. But would I wish for the death of every violent and forcible rapist? Hell yes. Who wouldn’t?

    Talk about eugenics. That’d be as good a place to start as any.

    But as I’ve pointed out, it isn’t just in cases of rape when abortion is to be preferred (as bad as it is) to the alternative. As in horrific and terminal deformities or when the life of the mother is at stake.

    A lot of people don’t (or can’t) think. It requires a certain degree of effort, (not much) and causes the brain to use more oxygen and glucose and other energy that could otherwise be expended pressing buttons on the remote, and changing channels between Jerry Springer and some Evangelical preacher on the TV.

    So rather than considering the nuanced arguments for something like abortion, it’s just simpler to listen to your preacher tell you that it’s murder in every case, and an abomination against God! Which is the exact word used by Mother Theresa and other Christians to describe it.

    But there again, how many of these Christians have ever expressed any concern whatsoever for the 500,000 Iraqi children that died by the actions of their government, eh?

    Has there ever been a Christian minister who even mentioned them?

    Or the children and babies that die regularly from the use of our taxes to fund a forced starvation against Yemen?

    Typical Christian: Against where?

    Yemen has been fighting a civil war since 2014, when Iran-backed Houthi rebels took control of the capital of Sanaa…

    A Saudi-led coalition entered the war in March 2015, backed by the United States, to try to restore Hadi and his internationally recognized government to power. Despite a relentless air campaign and ground fighting, the war has deteriorated largely into a stalemate and caused a humanitarian crisis. The U.S. has since suspended its direct involvement in the conflict.

    https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/food-agency-13-million-yemenis-face-starvation-83079530

    “suspended its direct involvement”, which is to say ‘washed its hands of the whole affair’. As millions of children and babies starve.

    But isn’t that the way? How many anti-abortion (or pro-life or whatever they want to be called), people have ever actually spent their time and money and effort, helping the babies of the desperately poor (or addicted or imprisoned, or the God knows how other many reasons mothers have found it difficult to impossible to provide for their babies), and used the energy they spend tying to prevent abortions, actually helping the mothers and the babies once they’ve been born?

    Is there a program at the local Pentecostal church

    https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/d2/8d2fe89c-3624-5fa4-89e8-859ab7a26395/5c4b7538ed49b.image.jpg?resize=990%2C684

    where the praying to end abortion is impassioned, (to say the least), but then any praying for the well-being of the mothers and babies once the child has been born, is as evident as their concern for starving Iraqi or Yemeni babies, who suffer and die directly due to their own government and their tax dollars being used to starve babies (once they’ve been born!) to death.

    Don’t want to drag this on too long.

    If there was consistency in the passion and concern for breathing babies (of every ethnicity and nationality) by the Christians and others who’re so powerfully motivated to end abortions, I think they’d have a little better argument. But when it seems to most of us, that their compassion and concern for the baby ends the second that baby takes a breath, then one wonders if something else isn’t going on here.

    Why no concern for Iraqi babies, (or children of all ages) as the American bombs are dropping, and all based on obvious lies?

    How many pro-life people and churches and congregations in Murka, who love babies soooo much because they’re all God’s children, and their lives are all sacred.. have given one second’s concern for the untold thousands of murdered Iraqi (and Libyan and Syrian and so many others…) babies who’ve been deliberately and systematically slaughtered by American weapons of death? Any?!

    There is a strange myopia at work here, when the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, including children and babies, is a non-issue, but the victim of a brutal rape having an abortion, is such a crime of epic enormity, that we all need to petition congress and send in our cash to ministers and demand from our politicians that they force that rape victim to bring that baby to term, because to do otherwise is a crime too terrible to countenance!

  100. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    without resorting to calling the child an abomination.

    I’m merely stating a fact.

    The issuance of a brutal rapist is an abomination against God, against human decency, and against the woman or girl assaulted.

    I don’t have to call it an abomination, to make it so.

    Do you want to know what I also consider an abomination? Any man or woman who would tell Channon Christian, (had she lived) that she must bring to term inside her body the spawn of whichever orc had impregnated her.

    Assuming in the unlikely event that she could have recovered with her sanity intact following such an ordeal, I think it’s an absolute certainty, that if she had, and was told by Reg Cæsar that now she was going to be forced, against her will, to birth that abomination growing inside her, that she would certainly, (and understandably) go completely insane – by the knowledge that once she was “free” from those fiends, that now her life and her destiny and her sanity was all going to be placed in the hands and control and under the absolute power of a man who, (because he’s soooo filled with compassion), is going to make her relive that experience every moment of her life, and use her own body to mingle the seed of that fiend, with her own, so that one day the offspring of that orc, will breath the air that Christopher never will again.

    What would such a thing do to a woman? I’m certain she would go insane, and understandably so. Just as if a Unit 731 sadist had inserted the cloned seed of the man who had tortured all her loved ones to death, inside a woman, just to watch her psychologically unravel into madness.

    For some men, whatever the woman or girl is going through, is irrelevant. Their only ‘concern’ is for the unborn baby,

    no

    matter

    what.

    Horrible rape? So what, force her to give birth to the results. Horrific deformity? Deal with it bitch. It isn’t your choice, it’s mine, and my ‘love’ for that baby overrides your petty concerns about ‘ohh, ohh, it has no brain, or ‘ohh, ohh, its organs are on the outside of its skin. Cry me a river. You should have thought about all of that before you decided to FORNICATE!, you God damn whore!!!

    And that pretty much covers it.

  101. Rurik says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It certainly fits Geir Hasnes and Steve Sailer a lot less.

    I’m not the one “punching down”!

    you just did, imbecile

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  102. @Rurik

    A much better constitutional argument is the right to privacy.

    Let me elaborate further based on my knowledge of law and medicine ( I am a retired personal injury attorney). If there is a privacy right under the third amendment (see my posts above) along with the fifth amendment right against self incrimination it would be extremely difficult for the state to make a prima facia case that a woman was even pregnant.

    Pregnancy is a medical diagnosis and the common law all over the country requires medical diagnoses to be made by MDs or DOs.

    The right to privacy would prevent any doctor of a woman’s choice from testifying against her in a court of law. It might be possible for a court ordered medical examiner to examine her but that would also most likely violate her right to privacy as it is invasive.

    Maybe a court could order a blood test. But of course since this would be a criminal case, there would need to be a criminal indictment before such a case could even proceed. And then a positive blood test might not be enough to get to the requisite burden of proof of reasonable doubt. And then the prosecution would always have to worry that an accused woman could go to another state and have it done legally.

    I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but legal medicine was my field for 35 years. I just think that if there is a Constitutional right to privacy then there would seldom if ever be prosecutions of women who had abortions.

  103. @Jefferson Temple

    The natural right of self-defense transcends legislative enactments to the contrary.

  104. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike

    Rurik would not argue otherwise.

    for the record, I am and always have been opposed to Roe

    It is, and was from the start, (here we go again) an abomination to the words and intent of the Constitution.

    I would be thrilled if they’d repeal it, and send the matter to the states where it belongs.

    Some states will allow abortion (and even infanticide) where the populace is increasingly soulless/woke.

    Some states will restrict it and allow it in only very unfortunate and specific circumstances. (my preference).

    And some states will put the life of the fetus above even the life of the mother, such is their frothing zealotry and fanaticism.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary

    To my knowledge, none of those people have ever expressed the slightest interest in the thousands upon thousands of children and babies in far away lands where America’s military have been slaughtering and maiming and displacing, all based on obvious lies.

    Their ‘love and concern’ for babies is very limited to a very small and carefully defined group. Only those babies who have not yet been born. The ones born, can go to hell, as far as they’re concerned.

  105. @Liberty Mike

    And the right to privacy would do likewise.

  106. @Rurik

    It is not an abomination to the Constitution if there is a right to privacy under the third amendment.

    The third amendment is the forgotten amendment. It was such an obvious right, nobody ever contested its validity. And since it was rarely contested, the Courts never were faced with having to interpret what it said.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  107. @Rurik

    No this should not be a matter for the states if there is a right to privacy under the third amendment any more than the states have a right to take away the second amendment.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Reg Cæsar
  108. @Rurik

    Three of the gentlemen pictured would appear to be with baby.

    Rurik, I commend you for your outstanding posts on this thread.

    During lunch, I just perused Roe v. Wade (it had been a while since I read it). One thing of which I was reminded is Justice Blackmun’s praise of Holmes’ Lochner dissent.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  109. @Liberty Mike

    If you mean that you disagree with my comment on preventing convicted violent felons from legally possessing firearms, ok. But I’m not going to move from that position. The only absolute rights are those enshrined in the first amendment (since i can’t think of any transgressions that would justify removing the protections of 1A).

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  110. @davidgmillsatty

    Are you sure you’re talking about 3A? It’s always been 4A that I’ve heard cited regarding privacy.

  111. @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t want to sit in jail with Negroes.

  112. Rurik says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    No this should not be a matter for the states if there is a right to privacy under the third amendment any more than the states have a right to take away the second amendment.

    Ok, (and thank you for your thoughtful replies).

    I’m just not sure that even if you’re right, and that the 3rd Amendment’s intent would guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion, (presumably for any reason) because the state has no right to intervene, if that shouldn’t be addressed by the states. Unlike the Second, where it is, and must remain inviolate, a debate about abortion in the hour before birth, for instance, when the husband / father don’t want an abortion, and the woman’s doctor says she didn’t want one either, until she was partially anesthetized, would she still have the absolute right to call for the death of the baby?

    It seems rather complicated.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  113. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike

    Thank you Mike,

    As always, it’s a pleasure to read your posts, and enjoy your humor and your cogent insights.

    Roe has never really been a big deal for me, and I suspect that what’s going on now, is the PTB are expecting a massive repudiation of Brandon (and wokeness in general) in November, and they consider that inconvenient. They like elections to be close, it brings in bigger boat loads of cash for to their media corporations, and gets people more riled up.

    For them personally, it doesn’t make a huge difference to their main agenda, which is war. Because the Republicans are just as militant, if not more so, than the Dems. But they just want things to be close, and so they’ve leaked out this Roe brouhaha, for some kind of agenda of their own. As usual.

    I’m not in on their protocol meetings, so I just have to guess at what they’re up to now.

  114. @Jefferson Temple

    What limiting language is there in the 2A? I trust that you won’t cite the prefatory clause as so many gun control proponents have done for many moons.

    To be sure, I am not a big fan of convicted violent felons being armed, but once they make it to the correctional facility egress, why should they be deprived of their natural RTKBA?

  115. @Liberty Mike

    I’m not a gun control proponent so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t label me so.

    Not that I don’t see what you’re saying but felons do give up some rights on conviction. The fact that you see my point means you understand why violent felons shouldn’t have guns. But I also don’t object to their having the ability to petition the government for the return of rights after they do their time, if they don’t present a continuing threat to society.

  116. Jokem says:

    ‘Whoever leaked Alito’s draft, it was a violation of an oath, an unethical act and a betrayal that ought to see the perpetrator fired in disgrace and disbarred permanently from the practice of law.’

    Although I agree, there are those who have blatantly gotten away with worse. This speaks to the erosion of rule of law.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  117. @ Jefferson Temple.

    That is exactly my point. All of the amendments that have been used as support for the argument that the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy have been amendments that the Court has commonly written opinions on. And they all were like fitting a round peg in a square hole.

    The third amendment is the forgotten amendment. I really know of very little case law in the modern era that even deals with it. So naturally when lawyers do their legal research, no case authority ever pops up. So it has never been considered by the court as to whether it guarantees a right to privacy.

  118. Jokem says:
    @Observator

    ‘Historically, abortion was the leading form of birth control in early America.’

    I don’t believe that. I suggest it was abstention.

  119. Jokem says:
    @Liberty Mike

    The Constitution was never intended to apply to the States, except in specific circumstances.
    The reconstruction amendments were a result of the War Between the States, which was of questionable legality. These amendments were interpreted decades later in a way not intended.

  120. @Rurik

    What the third amendment should do is guarantee a general right to privacy and not a specific right. The Court could say you have a right to privacy in your home but not in your doctor’s office. I don’t think that works though. In the soldier situation, if he is in your house he can scope you out if you are a woman. Very intrusive.

    If you have a right to a gun under the second amendment, why don’t you have a right to privacy under the third? And why should that right not be inviolate as well? All of the Bill of Rights are supposed to be inviolate. You have a right to counsel for example. You have a right not be unreasonably searched and have your property unreasonably seized. Prisoners have a right not to have cruel and unusual punishment. And then there is the right to free speech, assembly and religion under the first.

    These are all inviolate rights.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  121. @Jokem

    I don’t know that it is a disbarment offense. It is certainly a sanctionable one.

  122. @Rurik

    You are beneath me? I assumed we were equals.

  123. @davidgmillsatty

    if there is a right to privacy

    For some unspoken reason this right to privacy is never applied to income declarations. Revenue collection would appear to be a much weaker reason for overriding a right than preventing the destruction of life.

    But statists don’t think this way.

    • Agree: Liberty Mike
  124. If you have a right to a gun under the second amendment, why don’t you have a right to privacy under the third? And why should that right not be inviolate as well?

    Ask Internal Revenue.

    The IRS Warns Taxpayers Not to Forget These 4 Things When Filing

  125. @Liberty Mike

    Why should a convicted felon be deprived of his or her right to vote especially when the eighth amendment guarantees the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.? If they feel the were the victim of it during incarceration, shouldn’t they be able to vote for a candidate who cares about how prisoners are treated during incarceration?

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  126. @davidgmillsatty

    The right to vote is not as fundamental as the rights to keep and bear arms and privacy.

    The invocation of the former constitutes a ticket to the presentation of Two Wolves and a Sheep Make Dinner Plans whereas the exercise of the latter two do not, per se, mess with any other person’s stuff.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  127. Rurik says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    If you have a right to a gun under the second amendment, why don’t you have a right to privacy under the third? And why should that right not be inviolate as well?

    You make good arguments.

    I’m in.

    • Thanks: davidgmillsatty
    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  128. @Liberty Mike

    But the right not to have cruel and unusual punishment is. So people who have been affected by it should not lose their right to vote to ensure the right. The people who would most care about ensuring that right are the ones who are excluded from voting to ensure it.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  129. @davidgmillsatty

    The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is a fundamental right, but the rub is can one classify abridging the right to vote as cruel and unusual punishment?

    Of course, there is a distinction to be made between voting while incarcerated and voting after incarceration. At any rate, once manumitted, one should be able to vote.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  130. @Rurik

    All of the other amendments are like putting a round peg in a square hole. Take the 14th and equal protection or equal rights.

    You can argue, persuasively, that blacks should have equal rights with whites. You can argue, persuasively that women should have equal rights with men. You can argue persuasively that Jews should have equal rights with Christians or argue persuasively that homosexual couples should have equal rights with heterosexual couples.

    But what do you argue with respect to pregnancy? What is equal to it? The closest you could get is that a fetus is like a tumor, but of course it is not.

    So the 14th doesn’t work very well logically either.

  131. @Liberty Mike

    Abridging the right to vote would not be cruel and unusual punishment, but if you are a prisoner or a past prisoner, if your right to vote is taken away, you lose the right to vote for a fundamental right which is probably the most important right there is for you.

    And people who have not been in prison, would have the right to vote in a way that would affect the fundamental right which is most important to you and you would not.

    I have a problem with the fairness of the concept. But I don’t know whether it is a constitutional issue or not. It might be under the 14th amendment since you can compare the rights of an incarcerated person with the rights of a person who has never been incarcerated. I don’t know.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?