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
Who Speaks for the Unborn in Massachusetts?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow 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 its most recent exercise of liberal democracy, the state senate of Massachusetts voted 32-8 to override Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of what is called the Roe Act.

One day earlier, Monday, the state house had voted to override.

The Roe Act is now law in the Bay State. And what does it say?

Drafted and adopted to protect a woman’s right to an abortion, should Roe vs. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court, it guarantees 16-year-old girls the right to abort their unborn children, without their parents’ consent, through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

At 24 weeks, an unborn baby has a 60% to 70% chance of survival.

But the Roe Act covers this problem as well. If the “mental health” of the teenager is imperiled, she can still get an abortion.

Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times quotes the reaction of the state’s Catholic Action League. This measure “will reduce the age of parental or judicial consent for minors seeking abortions, remove born alive protections for infants who survived abortion, lower the medical criteria for late term abortions, and make abortions more dangerous for women by allowing (midwives) and nurse practitioners to perform them.”

The ACLU, NARAL and Planned Parenthood hailed this as a victory for women’s rights.

Speaking for the Catholic Action League, executive director C. J. Doyle blamed Catholic religious officials and Catholic organizations for their failure to rebuke lawmakers who routinely vote for abortion rights.

“None of the Catholics who voted for this life-ending measure will suffer a word of rebuke from any priest or prelate in Massachusetts. … There will be no articles or editorials critical of them in the Catholic press. No one will be denied Holy Communion. No one will be expelled from the Knights of Columbus.”

This silence, said Doyle, “equals consent.” And given this silence, “no rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to the killing of the unborn in Massachusetts.”

Former New England Patriots’ star, Benjamin Watson, a pro-lifer, described the absurdity of what the legislature did. A teenage girl still needs her parents’ permission to get a Tylenol from the school nurse, but she doesn’t need permission to have an abortion and kill their grandchild.

What the Bay State did, again in an exercise of democracy, raises questions that go beyond normal arguments among Americans on this most divisive of social issues since slavery.

In the 1950s, abortion was regarded as shameful, even criminal, mandating excommunication from the Catholic Church. Abortionists were social outcasts, often prosecuted and punished.

Now, within the span of a lifetime, abortion has been raised, in what was once “God’s Country,” into a constitutional and a human right.

To be accepted as a “progressive” today, it is almost an imperative to support a woman’s right to terminate the life of her unborn child.

Even “devout Catholic” Joe Biden has come around.

He now favors repeal of the Hyde Amendment he had supported in the past, which bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman or if the pregnancy arises from rape or incest.

Something comparable has happened with homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Also once regarded as shameful, this, too, is now a civil and constitutional right and the LGBT flag flies atop U.S. embassies during Gay Pride Month.

As abortion and homosexuality have become new constitutional rights, the old rights of the First Amendment have taken on new meaning.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has been interpreted to mean that God, the Bible, the Cross, prayer and Christian symbols all have no place in the schools that educate America’s children.

“Freedom of speech” now protects blasphemy and the burning of the American flag.

“Freedom of the press” now protects dissemination of what used to be criminalized as pornography.

In brief, using democratic methods and means, and normal legal and judicial procedures, what was once immoral and even criminal has come to be officially declared both constitutional and morally correct.

Scores of millions in the “silent majority” may yet embrace the old beliefs about right and wrong and good and evil, and what is pro-American and what is not, but the nation has changed.

And it raises an even broader question.

Can moral truth be altered? Can the killing of unborn children, unjust and immoral in Christian teaching and Natural Law, be made right, and moral, if a legislature uses democratic processes to declare it so?

If right and wrong can be changed by plebiscites and political votes what do we do with those who refuse to go along?

Before we go to war again to defend “American values,” ought we not be told exactly for what values our soldiers are fighting?

For if “democracy” inevitably produces the consequences we see in America today, what is the argument for killing people to persuade them to embrace 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.”

Copyright 2020 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion 
Hide 87 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. meamjojo says:

    Excellent! Woman should be able to choose what they want to do with THEIR OWN bodies. If your narrow-minded, archaic religion or associated beliefs has problems with this concept, then as the saying goes, that’s “tough titties”.

    The Catholic religion is riddled with sexual deviants, child abusers and hypocrites among numerous other derogatory descriptive adjectives I could use.

    As a convenient example, I just came across this story, where I’ll quote one paragraph:

    Lori Loughlin’s Husband Mossimo Giannulli Is Reportedly Having ‘a Rough Time’ in Prison
    The fashion designer was sentenced to five months for the college admissions scandal.
    December 30, 2020

    “Mossimo is spending his time reading, writing letters to his family and planning future business ventures,” the insider also told Us Weekly. “Mossimo is also a man of God and has been turning to prayer when he feels weak.”

    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2020/12/lori-loughlins-husband-mossimo-giannulli-is-reportedly-having-a-rough-time-in-prison/

    It’s too funny that this guy who thought his god was OK with him bribing people to get his stupid daughters into a decent college claims to be a “man of God”! Perhaps he should have prayed to his god and asked for guidance prior to undertaking bribery? [roflol]

  2. What has been done to children in the womb these past 50 years in the West is barbarism and maybe that is why it’s all heading for a bad end.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  3. Saw “why do we kill people,who kill people, to prove
    killing people is wrong” on a bumper sticker 30 yrs.ago.

    How is it that the state religion is always exempt from the
    conversation? Does it not breed this IN sanity ?

    The first amendment was to read freedom FROM religion,not of.

    They arrest the prostitutes,and the pimps lead on?
    Peace vs.Love as we get ever closer to destroying all life?
    What kind of belief systems would create/accept this reality?

    God needs your help? How is this happening? Happy New Year?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Hibernian
  4. I say let the dirty skank whores kill their kids.

    And free fetucides for Negresses and race-mixers please. How nicer if Michael Brown and Obama had been fetucided.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  5. But in “Mr. Paleoconservative’s” truly federal system, shouldn’t the elected legislature of a state determine its laws?

    Consider.

    Mr. Buchanan barely mentions that lawful abortion was delivered by nationwide judicial decree.

    Drafted and adopted to protect a woman’s right to an abortion, should Roe vs. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court

    What an odd term in this context: overturned. As though the Nine Penumbralators of 1973 were a different, legislative body of inferior authority to those now permitted to enter the inner temple and listen to the crinkling and rustling of the Constitution.

    Digging into this, though, would be awkward for a Team Red cheerleader like Mr. Buchanan, someone who’s become quite comfortable with an Establishment headquartered in and running things from Washington, and the withering of sovereignty in the 50 states. He also might have to mention that Justice White, whose dissenting opinion called out the

    exercise of raw judicial power […] as an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court

    was a Democrat appointed by President Kennedy. Or that, of the seven who condoned it, five had been appointed by Republicans, three of those — including Justice Blackmun, who wrote the decree — by President Nixon, for whom Mr. Buchanan worked and about whom he’s written favorably ever since.

    Today, abortion is a faded Red & Blue button still pushed occasionally to allow invertebrate politicians in the executive and legislative “branches” at both state and federal “levels” to grandstand, to get out votes in each Most Important Election Ever, and to keep people riled up and distracted in between.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Realist
  6. As abortion and homosexuality have become new constitutional rights, the old rights of the First Amendment have taken on new meaning.

    They aren’t rights, Pat: They are sacraments in the Church of Progressivism, and as such they transcend the Constitution. Consider the Constitution to be the Old Testament, and the Bill of Rights to be the old Ten Commandments.

  7. The abortion debate is about a dying, irrelevant belief system latching onto a hot-button emotional issue in a desperate last-ditch bid to stay alive in a world in which science has invalidated its major suppositions about the natural world and the human place in it. It is as doomed to failure as Christianity’s now long-forgotten campaign against smallpox vaccination, which also claimed that human inventiveness interfered with “god’s plan”, in that case, of mass suffering and death.

    The modern anti-abortion movement also flies in the face of Christian tradition – Saint Augustine discovered the soul enters the fetus precisely ninety days after conception; accordingly first-trimester abortion was legal in Christianity’s first five hundred years of political domination of the western world. Abortion was the leading form of birth control in early America, performed almost exclusively by female midwives. Our old newspapers are filled with ads for home-remedy abortifacients, coyly promising “speedy relief for married ladies suffering from menstrual obstruction”, i.e., a fetus. It has been estimated that by the 1830’s there was one abortion for every four live births. Abortion became illegal in this country only in the 1870’s, thanks to the efforts of the newly formed A.M.A. to exploit Victorian prudery in order to consolidate the healthcare industry under the control of its all-male membership.

    Fetus fetishism is the last stand of patriarchy – it’s going out with a bang, misleading naive and probably mostly well-intentioned souls in the final campaign to keep institutionalized sexism alive for just one more day.

    • Disagree: KenR, RadicalCenter
  8. @meamjojo

    If you are not aware that the fetus is a genetically human being distinct from the parents, then you were sleeping in biology class some years ago.

    The fact that you hate or resent some of the people who want to stop the killing of those innocent and helpless human beings, does not change biological fact. The fact that you find some of their religious doctrines untenable or silly, as do I, doesńt change biological fact.

    You are as irrational as the religious zealots are about their religion.

    • Thanks: Liza
    • Replies: @meamjojo
  9. @goldgettin

    Perhaps we should abolish the death penalty for murderers. There is a good case for that.

    Perhaps we should stop imprisoning women, often desperate and poor young women, for engaging in prostitution, especially when the exploiting scumbag man called their pimp sometimes gets away.

    What any of this has to do with allowing the murder of innocent human beings in the womb, though, remains unexplained.

  10. @Priss Factor

    If you look at my comments, you will see that i have been seriously permanently injured by an african-„american“ and think we would be better off separating from that unusually deadly and volatile group of people.

    But wouldn’t it be better to induce people not to create those new human lives, of whatever race and color, rather than let them commit murder to snuff out those lives once they are conceived?

    I‘d instead offer large financial incentives for the violent and dead-weight people among us to be voluntarily sterilized, black, white, whatever. Offer permanent sterilization to every person who is convicted of any intentional homicide, forcible rape, or more than one instance of a violent felony. Even REQUIRING it for such people would be better than having them reproduce and then letting them hire a „doctor“ to kill the innocent baby.

    Having said that, our lives, safety, and society are endangered by having large numbers of africans among us. It is odd that banning abortion would be a major priority for non-africans who care about their own children and grandchildren staying alive, safe, and in an orderly, productive, clean, trusting society. Much better to put far more resources into providing for European-American women (or even any non-African women) who have screwed up and become pregnant, doing whatever it takes to convince them not to kill their children and giving them the means to care for that child well if needed.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  11. anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:

    Here is how you can tell Republicans like Pat are full of shit.

    Pat is always on about the right to life, every sperm is sacred, blah blah blah. Do you ever hear him defending the right to life of guys in prison who are gonna get lethal injections, even if they got framed for crimes that CIA did, like Jokar Tsarnaev? No. Right to life, death penalty, sure, fine.

    A lawyer in the Vatican curia told me the means of life are as much a part of Vatican doctrine as the right to life. Human rights are Catholic doctrine. And human rights are indivisible. You can’t pick and choose. Do you ever hear Pat profess his Catholic faith in political, civil, economic, social, or cultural rights? No. Never. Do you ever hear him talk about the ICCPR, the ICESCR, or the UDHR, all of which are Catholic doctrine? No. Core human rights, does he believe in that Catholic doctrine? No.

    Pat’s a cafeteria catholic, picking one item of doctrine and blowing off the rest. He just picks the GOP blue plate special, which is the one item CIA allows. If he held to Catholic doctrine and defended human rights, CIA would kill him like they killed real Catholics with Catholic balls like Archbishop Romero and all the nuns Rodriguez raped. Pat’s a CIA catholic, believing what CIA lets him believe.

  12. Wyatt says:

    Massachusetts is a blue state. Literally nothing wrong with this.

  13. Realist says:

    While this issue has some merit…how about a tremendously more important issue, that is how this country is being destroyed by those in control.

    https://twitchy.com/doug-3137/2020/12/31/we-are-being-played-new-years-eve-scene-in-nycs-times-square-looks-very-different-from-wuhan-china/

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  14. TGD says:

    A lot of late term abortions are performed on African-American (black) females. Usually, it’s because they succumbed to the advances of a black super stud (who abandoned her) or her latest boyfriend doesn’t want the responsibility. To her, the growing fetus is just excess protoplasm. And so why should society care if she doesn’t?

    Below is a photo of colorfully wrapped African American protoplasm found in the Philadelphia offices of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

    • Replies: @N30rebel
  15. pdb says:

    Wanting to kill your children says something about your value system – it’s missing!

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  16. Realist says:
    @Greta Handel

    Agreed. See my comment #13 for a much more important issue.

  17. meamjojo says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Fetuses are not human beings until they are born.

    By your same flawed logic, masturbation should be prohibited because it kills all those sperms that COULD join with eggs.

    But then again, perhaps that is why the Catholics used to spread the rumor that masturbation caused hair to grow on the palm of your hand. [lol]

  18. JimDandy says:
    @meamjojo

    The Catholic angle is a red herring. Anyone who supports the murder of a viable baby is a despicable ghoul. The legalized slaughter of babies devalues life in our culture. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that in 2020 more than 4,100 people were shot in Chicago alone.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  19. JimDandy says:
    @meamjojo

    Yeah, you’re right, the premie lab incubators are filled with “fetuses” and the women they came out of should still have the right to terminate them up until their 9 month birthdays. But that’s currently illegal. Are you going to stand for that? Get out there in the streets and DO something!

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  20. @Realist

    And notice in the subsequent comments how many Exceptional! people, taking their cues from the Red+Blue Establishment, blame “our” problems on China.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @GeneralRipper
  21. Tsigantes says:

    Thank you Mr. Buchanan.
    Exactly. It is hard to know what American values actually are.

  22. KenR says:

    I would caution readers that there’s some bit of historical revisionism going on in the comments here. But also, it’s an irrelevant angle of this particular discussion that can only derail it.

    These are the questions from Mr. Buchanan:

    Can moral truth be altered? Can the killing of unborn children, unjust and immoral in Christian teaching and Natural Law, be made right, and moral, if a legislature uses democratic processes to declare it so?

    If right and wrong can be changed by plebiscites and political votes what do we do with those who refuse to go along?

    Before we go to war again to defend “American values,” ought we not be told exactly for what values our soldiers are fighting?

    For if “democracy” inevitably produces the consequences we see in America today, what is the argument for killing people to persuade them to embrace it?

  23. Dumbo says:
    @meamjojo

    Fetuses are not human beings until they are born.

    LOL. What an idiot. What are they, rhinoceros? It seems you missed biology class.

    By your same flawed logic, masturbation should be prohibited because it kills all those sperms that COULD join with eggs.

    Now I see you also missed logic class. It’s not the same thing at all. A fetus is an individual, a living creature growing inside a woman’s womb. In most cases will most likely grow and be born. Sperm is not a being.

    Woman should be able to choose what they want to do with THEIR OWN bodies.

    “Their own bodies” doesn’t include the fetuses they carry. But it’s also not true in general. They should NOT be able to do “whatever they want” with their own bodies, just as men should not. Some things are positive, others negative.

    You’re an idiot, a troll or a paid Hasbara, or probably all three together.

  24. “The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

    On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.”
    Solzhenitsyn

  25. raga10 says:

    “Killing the unborn” is a logically inconsistent and meaningless concept. Likewise, “speaking for the unborn” makes as much sense as “speaking for the Elves”.

    If you are so worried about protecting life, there are plenty of people who are definitely already alive to be concerned about. But this is not about protecting anything – it’s about control.

    Also, it’s about imposing religion-based rules on the whole, largely non-religious population. Sharia law in all but name.

    • Agree: meamjojo
    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @KenR
  26. @Observator

    You are one of the most disgusting sacks of shit in this place.

    I pray to God every single day that I get half a chance to to kill your kind.

    The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or to repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat.

    • Replies: @raga10
  27. Realist says:
    @Greta Handel

    Yes, propaganda is easy in this country of idiots.

    China has about four times the population of the US and an average IQ about five points higher than the US. This affords them a tremendous advantage in the number of people of high intelligence…at any level. China also has a larger number of people, than the US, on the left side of the curve, …here is the rub…China doesn’t let them vote. China doesn’t let those on the right side of the curve vote either…China puts those of higher intelligence in positions of power commensurate with their intelligence. It is called MERITOCRACY…the US is controlled by a Plutocratic Oligarchy.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @meamjojo
  28. @meamjojo

    Of course it’s a human being, you silly fuck.

    I also like the “viability” lie…lol

    As if a newborn could get up, clean itself and make it’s own meals etc…

    Why don’t you shut your cunt mouth or just admit that you support infanticide?

  29. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    I was a university resident advisor just before Roe. An unwanted pregnancy meant consultation with the Dean, who would arrange an illegal abortion by a doc. It was big big deal. So there were extensive efforts to avoid it, and these worked. We were trained in how to conduct detailed, incredibly candid, discussions in the RA living room of the ways it might happen, and so how to prevent it. I don’t know the extent of such discussions now. But I suspect that there was a correlation between illegality and the extensiveness of discussions. Are such detailed discussions conducted now? If not, why not, even if abortion is legal. It would prevent a lot of abortions, and grief.

  30. @Greta Handel

    And notice in the subsequent comments how many Exceptional! people, taking their cues from the Red+Blue Establishment, blame “our” problems on China.

    And while you’re at it, take notice of how many people in very high places, as well as a significant amount of people here on this site, desire that the United States and indeed the entire world to be run exactly as China is.

    Better Dead than Red.

    Fuck you Greta.

  31. raga10 says:
    @GeneralRipper

    I pray to God every single day that I get half a chance to to kill your kind.

    And here’s the reality behind the mask of concern for life.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  32. Daniel H says:
    @meamjojo

    Religion has nothing to do with it. A basic understanding of biology and applied common sense would lead one to ineluctably conclude that the fetus is a person in utero. Go ahead, boldy destroy this life, live with your conscience. You are utterly depraved, God notwithstanding.

  33. KenR says:
    @raga10

    You miss Mr. Buchanan’s point entirely.

    You say:

    Also, it’s about imposing religion-based rules on the whole, largely non-religious population. Sharia law in all but name.

    But Mr. Buchanan’s question was rather the opposite. Sharia Law is not guiding Massachusetts. His question is rather: should morality be determined by plebiscite? Can it override both religious guidance and natural law?

    Yes, natural law. Forget about religion for now. You say:

    “Killing the unborn” is a logically inconsistent and meaningless concept. Likewise, “speaking for the unborn” makes as much sense as “speaking for the Elves”.

    Well that’s cute, but nobody is pretending to speak for the elves or any imaginary creature but rather the creatures who confront us in reality. The unborn. Yes, they can speak with words, but they can and do speak with actions. They recoil and struggle against the abortionist’s forceps, for example, locked in their battle of survival and preservation.

    We call the grisly process ‘abortion’. Well it’s an abortion of what? It’s an abortion of a life in progress. Not elves or hobbits.

    • Replies: @raga10
  34. Hibernian says:
    @meamjojo

    Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

  35. Hibernian says:
    @goldgettin

    The first amendment was to read freedom FROM religion,not of.

    In your dreams. There’s a free exercise right as well as freedom from Government establishment of religion, not from religion itself.

  36. Hibernian says:
    @Observator

    The notion that life began at quickening was a result of scientific backwardness, not enlightenment. Abortion enables the exploitation of women; it doesn’t liberate them as people like you would have us believe.

  37. @raga10

    Killing men in combat vs killing a helpless unborn child.

    Perfect illustration of the sort of filth YOU are.

    Keep talking, Jew.

    • Replies: @raga10
  38. raga10 says:
    @KenR

    But Mr. Buchanan’s question was rather the opposite. Sharia Law is not guiding Massachusetts. His question is rather: should morality be determined by plebiscite? Can it override both religious guidance and natural law?

    I don’t think I missed his point: I agree sharia law is not guiding Massachusetts, but he would like to make it so. (Sharia law is a common law based on authority of religious texts. Actually it is more than that, but that’s the part relevant to this discussion)

    To answer your question then: should morality be determined by plebiscite? Yes, certainly. Can it override religious guidance? Absolutely – religious guidance does not, and it should not, apply to those who do not wish to be guided by it. That’s the whole point!

    BTW, there is no law that would force people who oppose abortion to have one. They are free to follow guidance of their religion and their freedom in this respect is not threatened in the slightest. It is only they who want to force their views on others.

    As for natural law, well that’s more tricky. But natural law doesn’t prevent killing. Killing is unfortunately the integral part of nature – and if a fetus will recoil and struggle, well… a slug will too if you try to pick it up. Yet French people eat slugs. Yes, I know French are disgusting, but you get my point 🙂

    Parts of dead bodies will jerk and move too, yet that doesn’t mean they possess personhood. Neither does a fetus.

    • Replies: @KenR
  39. raga10 says:
    @GeneralRipper

    Killing men in combat vs killing a helpless unborn child.

    If your concern is for preservation of life then why is one OK while the other is not? Was the person killed in combat less alive than a child? Or will they be any less dead when you kill them?

    That’s why I refuse to ever use a label of “pro-life”. The correct term is “anti-choice”.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  40. KenR says:
    @raga10

    raga10, it’s ironic that you refer back to Sharia Law negatively, and then proceed straightaway to arrive at a very Islamic position. Let me explain.

    In Islam morality is indeed arbitrarily decided by Allah. Things are good or things are evil entirely because Allah says so. For instance Allah could say tomorrow that murder is good, and then murder would be good. (I’m saying he would do that, but merely saying that in Islam he could. That’s what you get with his omnipotence). The world of the movie ‘The Purge’ is indeed possible. Good and evil are arbitrary and interchangeable.

    When you come from a Hellenistic or a Christian or a natural law perspective, however, morality is constrained by the concept of goodness. A reason-based morality becomes possible, as things can be rationally understood as ontologically or in essence good or bad. They are not arbitrary, not interchangeable.

    (A fairly recent and good example of running down this line of thought is the excellent Regensberg Address given by Pope Benedict a while back)

    Your moral plebiscites do have the aspect of arbitrariness about them that is seen in Allah’s potential. Not the practice of Islam as we have experienced it, mind you, but the theological potential — you’ve actually arrived at a wilder ride than Islam has ever proposed.

  41. Anon[158] • Disclaimer says:
    @meamjojo

    You’ve just made the author’s point for him. Mossimo is in prison for trying to bribe his children’s way into college, but laws have been changed to allow thousands of blacks to legally do the same, simply by dint of their colour. And you don’t need the rofl at the end of your comment unless you are 12, or in a special facility.

  42. raga10 says:

    Your moral plebiscites do have the aspect of arbitrariness about them that is seen in Allah’s potential.

    Fascinating, but I propose we leave Islam out of this discussion because my position really has nothing to do with it, I was merely using Sharia law as an example of laws based on religion and imposed on whole population of believers and non-believers alike, because that is what the Evangelicals try to do. If there is strong similarity between fundamentalists of both faiths… well, that is certainly no accident, but that’s not what my argument is.

    My position is atheist and democratic one: let people decide. Actually let me revise my previous answer: morality of any individual should not be decided by majority – I was wrong to imply that. What I meant to say is that the laws of the land should be decided by majority. Hopefully they will then agree with how majority of individuals feel on any particular issue, thus representing their morality as individuals as well.

    In case of abortions specifically: majority is in favour of being able to get them. Minority that is against is completely free to continue their pregnancies so their rights are also fully preserved. And if their belief is that they should impose their standards on others then as the saying goes, “your freedom ends where my nose begins”. Finally the third party, those alleged “Unborns” doesn’t get any say on the issue, since it doesn’t actually exist.
    There is no state of pre-existence; person either exists or does not.

    Notice I say, person – because that’s the key concept here. If you are an American it might seem strange to you since you guys grant personhood even to abstract legal entities like companies, but I don’t think a lump of cells is a person. Which of course begs the question, when does that lump become a person? Well, not while still in the womb at any rate, that’s my somewhat evasive answer. Personally I think not until it is about 15 years old, but I admit that might be an extreme view – I just really don’t like children 🙂

    • Agree: meamjojo
    • Replies: @KenR
  43. meamjojo says:
    @JimDandy

    Ha ha ha. Did you know that Argentina, after something like 9 tries, finally made abortion legal the other day? You’re probably turning red from holding your breath and stamping your feet. [lol]

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  44. meamjojo says:
    @JimDandy

    A nine month birthday? You mean 9 months after they were born?

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  45. meamjojo says:
    @Realist

    C’mon. I’ve met plenty of stupid Chinese. They are good at stealing intellectual property though and copying it.

    • Replies: @Realist
  46. Dumbo says:

    What is the “freedom of choice” provided by abortion?

    If you think about it, it’s just about freedom for women to have sex out of wedlock and then eliminate the unwanted progeny. Sometimes, forced or convinced by the current boyfriend/lover who doesn’t want a kid (so much for abortion being “feminist”). Sometimes, because they regret the sex with someone who was not as “alpha” as they thought so they want to kill the kid too.

    But it is also about willingly killing the unborn (as opposed to preventive birth control). All excuses that “it is not a human being”, etc, are just that, excuses. It’s a new life in formation. Prematurely ending pregnancy is killing it.

    So abortion has an element of dark magic, of ritual infanticide, and I think this is the real reason it is promoted.

    In medieval times it was common among “witches” to sacrifice some of their own children:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Child-Sacrifice_among_European_Witches

  47. Dumbo says:

    It’s interesting also to notice that the modern medical industry aka Big Pharma has great need of aborted fetuses tissue for several products (including vaccines). This is about profit but I wouldn’t discount an element of black magic/cannibalism here as well; just as the witches would sometimes eat the murdered babies, Big Pharma is about making people consume human fetuses

    “The sacrifice of a child was usually performed as a means of procuring certain magical materials or powers, which were obtained by preparing the sacrificed bodies in several ways. Scot says that the flesh of the child was boiled and consumed by the witches, for two purposes. Of the thicker part of the concoction “they make ointments, whereby they ride in the aire; but the thinner portion they put into flaggons, whereof whosoever drinketh, observing certeine ceremonies, immediatelie becometh a maister or rather a mistresse in that practise and facultie.”[12]

    At Forfar, in 1661, Helen Guthrie and four others exhumed the body of an unbaptised infant, which was buried in the churchyard near the south-east door of the church, “and took several pieces thereof, as the feet, hands, a part of the head, and a part of the buttock, and they made a pie thereof that they might eat of it, that by this means they might never make a confession (as they thought) of their witchcrafts.”[14] Here the idea of sympathetic magic is very clear; by eating the flesh of a child who had never spoken articulate words, the witches’ own tongues would be unable to articulate.”

    • Thanks: Liza
  48. JimDandy says:
    @meamjojo

    You should organize Antifa-style squads to break into premie labs and terminate those clusters of cells that are being artificially kept “alive” in incubators. Premie labs are a slap in the face to all women. It’s pretty sad that I even have to tell you this.

  49. JimDandy says:
    @meamjojo

    Huzzah! Right up until the umbilical cord is cut, I assume. Right? What? No? That’s on you then. Do better.

  50. Realist says:
    @meamjojo

    C’mon. I’ve met plenty of stupid Chinese.

    I addressed that in my comment.

    They are good at stealing intellectual property though and copying it.

    They did not steal it…it was given to them by greedy corporations.

    • Agree: Greta Handel
  51. Liza says:
    @Observator

    Aside from moral arguments and considerations, abortion is never, and I mean never, without negative physical effects on the pregnant woman. I won’t refer to her as a “mother”, as some do, because the majority of women who do have abortions do so for their own comforts, not because they were forced (which does happen).

    Hippie type girls – like the early midwives and their home-made medicines – think that if they use some strong herbal abortifacients, it’s all “natural” and “safe”. Well, no, it ain’t. A herbal remedy works ike this: it poisons the woman to the point where in order to stay alive the body expels the fetus. In some cases, if the woman is somewhat weak or she takes too much of the herb, she dies along with the fetus. That’s how anesthesia works: your body is poisoned to the point where it knocks you out.

    These herbal remedies have negative effects on a woman’s body over and above the immediate poisoning. Same as mechanical-medical abortions of today. It is simply an un-natural, anti-nature act to remove a viable fetus and nature will rebel.

    Keep your legs together, girls, or get your tubes tied. You’re 45 years old or you have too many kids? Take the previous advice. There is something aberrant about femles who are so desperate to not have baby that they’d kill it while it’s a fetus instead of preventing the pregnancy in the first place. Yes, there’s always exceptions.

  52. @raga10

    There is no contradiction. The unborn child is innocent and has done no harm to anybody. That being said the person who abhors abortion should wait until judgment when these evil people will face punishment commensurate with the crime the have committed. I can excuse women who have been brainwashed into abortions but not the doctors who carried it out nor the advocates or defenders of abortion.

    • Disagree: meamjojo
    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
  53. Who speaks for the unborn in Massachusetts? I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s whoever is trying to ensure that they have food, housing, and healthcare during gestation and after they’re born, as well as parents who don’t resent their very existence. If you don’t like abortion — and *surprise!* most “pro-choice” advocates don’t like it, either — work like hell for comprehensive sex education and free contraception. It’s much more effective than a Prohibition-style ban. (And for the “but there’s always adoption” crowd, newsflash: children are not fungible goods. Emotional bonds, including bonds steeped in regret, resentment, and anger, form during gestation.)

  54. Liza says:

    (And for the “but there’s always adoption” crowd, newsflash: children are not fungible goods. Emotional bonds, including bonds steeped in regret, resentment, and anger, form during gestation.)

    That is true. However, kids born alive after botched abortions, can and do “turn out okay”. Children born of parents who were well prepared for them, ,and wanted them, turn out bad seeds sometimes as well. You never know.

    But in any case, agreeing with you, I don’t like adoption in general, unless the adoptive parents are close blood relatives of the child they are adopting. Those relationships tend to be pretty good. Blood is thicker than water, etc.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  55. KenR says:
    @raga10

    You say:

    Which of course begs the question, when does that lump become a person? … Personally I think not until it is about 15 years old, but I admit that might be an extreme view

    You’re ironically very in-line with me! The disastrous Roe v Wade decision introduced the legal concept of fetal viability, and back in the day there was much discussion about this. “When does a fetus become viable?” was the popular question, and more specifically “When can a fetus survive outside the womb?”

    My answer was always this: “When it has a damned job!”

    With that decision the Supreme Court did not appeal to any religious or philosophical notion relating to viability, but rather it submitted to it scientific understanding of sorts.

    Had it appealed to religious thought, Christianity mostly claims that life begins at conception. This claim has theological support but also scriptural – (King David was a sinner since conception the bible states, and elsewhere “in the womb I [the Lord] knew you”, etc).

    Had the court appealed to philosophical thought, the question is as old as Aristotle. He, followed by Augustine and Aquinas, postulated that there had to be a ‘vegetative’ stage in gestation where the unborn child was not recognizably human, but then the child assumed a human form. This led to questions about ‘ensoulment’ and ‘quickening’, and questions about when this metamorphosis of sorts occurred. Akin to the ‘which trimester?’ questions of the court, no?

    I do note that both Augustine and Aquinas suggested an ensoulment that occurred later than conception, but they did think of this an acceptable window for abortion. These were parts of the natural progression of a human life — from the vegetative to the ensouled (or ‘spirited’) to the rational. It was wrong to stop that progress at any point.

    The court took this notion of a vegetative state where the fetus is not recognizably human and this speculation about when does independence or quickening occur in order to very much construct this “green light!” window for abortion. It appealed to a quasi-scientific tautology about “fetus, not baby!” and “mere tissue!” as if this was an unwanted tumor-like growth inside the mother. But since 1972 the court has been betrayed by science. For now we know that as soon as the inseminated egg cell begins dividing that it has it’s own DNA distinct from the mother. It is its own recognizably distinct human life in progress already at that point. Gah, it looks like the bible and the philosophers were correct!

    So what we have today is not scientific, it is not philosophical, and it is not religious in the Christian sense. But it is not irreligious — it’s very Jewish if you ask me. It’s a very legalistic and Talmuld-esque attempt to wiggle out of prior law, natural law, and strictures.

    Frankly all these legalistic twists and contortions and ‘penumbras and emanations’ are so dogmatically twisted and beyond redemption that I think the old legal framework of Roman Law is far preferable to all this bullshit and ten times more honest:

    The pater familias can kill any one of his children at any time. No questions asked.

    And let’s not kid ourselves about the harsh grimness of that reality.

    • Replies: @KenR
    , @raga10
    , @RadicalCenter
  56. @Monsieur Édouard

    George Monbiot’s argument against the Catholic church’s stance on abortion and contraception is wrong on virtually every point (Face facts, Cardinal. Our awful rate of abortion is partly your responsibility, February 26). There is a large amount of evidence that easier access to contraception has very little impact on the number of abortions.

    Monbiot is particularly misinformed when he quotes a study which reported that “Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence” – over 60% of women having abortions in Britain report that they had been using contraceptives. The journal Obstetrics and Gynecology recently published a meta-analysis of 23 research articles examining the impact of increased access to emergency birth control on unwanted pregnancy and abortions, concluding: “To date, no study has shown that increased access to this method reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates.”

    Monbiot claims there is “a clear relationship between sex education and falling rates of unintended pregnancy”. There is not. Most papers (including the one in the British Medical Journal that Monbiot cites) find that sex education programmes have little or no impact on rates of teenage pregnancy or abortion. Sweden’s programmes in sex education, and promotion of contraceptives, have been an admired model – yet total abortion rates there are now higher than ours.

    In contrast, there is clear evidence that even modest legal restrictions can help to cut abortion rates. Some US states now require parental notification before minors can get abortions. This has led to lower underage abortion rates without necessarily increasing underage births.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/mar/05/health

  57. KenR says:
    @KenR

    I said :

    I do note that both Augustine and Aquinas suggested an ensoulment that occurred later than conception, but they did think of this an acceptable window for abortion.

    but I intended to say:

    I do note that both Augustine and Aquinas suggested an ensoulment that occurred later than conception, but they did NOT think of this an acceptable window for abortion.

    I don’t know what it is, my old age? but increasingly I never seem to get my writing correct anymore and I leave out a key word or two which completely upends my meaning. And this is an increasing problem unfortunately. Sigh.

  58. N30rebel says:

    From time immemorial we have been killing everything we touch. Be it by abortion, by child abuse, by war, by suicide, or by murder in general. Not satisfied with that, we are also killing our planet. Billions of years in the making, it has only taken a biological second for us to turn Earth into a toxic garbage dump. Rancorous objections or asserted rights are not going to change our flawed pattern of existence. We evidently aren’t capable of doing so and so we will all perish as just another evolutionary mistake. Cheers!

  59. meamjojo says:
    @Monsieur Édouard

    Give how stupid so many people are, education would be difficult to apply to them. Just look at all the Covid sob stories across the media with single mothers raising 2, 3, 4 or more kids who are now w/o work and unable to even barely scrape by as they previous did.

    A much better solution would be to genetically modify humans such that, by default, woman can’t get pregnant at all until a genetic override is applied when someone is ready to have a family. That override should work for one pregnancy at a time. Further, if you cannot prove that you have the means financially and mentally to raise a family, then your application for this genetic override should be rejected.

    Call it a modified Gattaca solution. And with today’s technology, this is not far from being possible & viable. Our coming robot overloads will probably implement this.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  60. raga10 says:
    @KenR

    I think the old legal framework of Roman Law is far preferable to all this bullshit and ten times more honest:

    Heh, I agree. But I still think even more preferable and honest framework is simply one that gives people right to carry on with their lives as *they* see fit, and keeps meddlesome individuals away from other people’s business.

    • Agree: meamjojo
  61. Anon[912] • Disclaimer says:

    Dear white men,

    If Biden takes office, resign from the United States Military as soon as you can legally do so. This includes the National Guard. This nation will have openly held a sham election, and foisted a Godless, communism-for-the-lower-95%, warmongering empire goverment upon you that has much in common with the old Soviet Union of the 1970s. Its a heathen’s athieistic regime and not worth dying for.

    Let them enlist antifa and BLM to spread filth values, not you. Make a living with your family while looking for a God-fearing area to move to.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  62. JimDandy says:
    @Anon

    I think that’s the plan. Same with the cops–make things so bad that the current police leave in droves, then replace them with Antifa-types, gays, lesbians, trannies, castrating feminists… That already happened, to some extent, with the English police.

  63. @RadicalCenter

    Corvinus, I don’t think you know what “troll” means. If you disagree with something, explain why. If you simply don’t like me, I’m honored, given the source.

  64. @N30rebel

    Whether I have had good experiences with Africans in the usa or not, I cannot fathom this level of cruelty and evil; you should be ashamed of yourself.

    The dismembered corpses of innocent defenseless human beings in a freezer is funny to you because of their race? I’m not sure whether to be more angry … or sad. And I’m a racialist and a racist.

    Most of us write intemperate or meanspirited things on here that we later regret; I know I have. I hope this one-word sickness becomes such a comment for you as you look back.

    It’s a new year.

  65. @KenR

    The ancients lacked the medical / biological knowledge that we now have. The fetus / embryo / baby / child / adult is genetically (by nature) a human being and no other kind of being. The ancients’ guesses at the stages of development may have been acceptable shots in the dark back then; they are embarrassing, unscientific drivel now.

    • Disagree: meamjojo
    • Replies: @KenR
  66. Hibernian says:
    @Monsieur Édouard

    …and *surprise!* most “pro-choice” advocates don’t like it, either…

    Sure, that’s why they want it legal through the ninth month and won’t even protect babies born alive as a result of “unsuccessful” late term abortions.

    • Replies: @raga10
  67. KenR says:
    @RadicalCenter

    The fetus / embryo / baby / child / adult is genetically (by nature) a human being and no other kind of being.

    I doubt Aristotle, Augustine or Aquinas would disagree with what you said there, with the exception that wouldn’t know what you mean about genetics. Suppose you find a seed and you put in the ground, and then a sprout comes up, and then it looks like a weed, but eventually it takes the form of an apple tree. Aristotle would have told you it was an apple tree all along. It always had the properties of “apple tree-ness” contained in it, you just couldn’t recognize it yet as it went through all these forms.

    I don’t know what Aristotle had to say about abortion or if he wrote about it at all. But Augustine and Aquinas did and they proceeded from Aristotle. Both came to the same conclusion – abortion stops this life process of a developing human, and it’s therefore wrong. Even despite their talk of when a ‘quickening’ or ‘ensoulment’ happens — that’s just talk about how the various stages of growth happen, it is not to deny that said growth, of a human lfe, is underway.

    I have to oppose your contention that these men were taking shots in the dark or that they produced embarrassing, unscientific drivel. They clearly did not. Today the same philosophical debates they participated in still rage, as the topic of personhood remains a big one still ongoing.

    I remember quite well as a young ‘un back in school long, long ago when they trotted out Lucretius. My jaw dropped. Lucretius was talking about atomic theory – about how all matter was composed of atoms and void, how this explained state changes from gaseous to liquid to solid. His description of what physicists call Brownian Motion is still regarded to this day as the best non-mathematical description of it. He went on about a bewildering range of topics including a concise explanation of natural selection that surpasses Charles Darwin. And, Lucretius did it all in epic poetry. Plus, he wasn’t claiming to break new ground. Just relating to Romans some of things the wiser men of Greece had taught him.

    The achievements of this ancients is not embarrassing. It’s staggering and damned near miraculous what they did with what they had.

  68. raga10 says:
    @Hibernian

    I think most pro-choice advocates do think of abortion as the last resort – “prevention is better than cure” is not a particularly controversial statement.

    Anti-choice advocates on the other hand are typically not that keen on prevention, either. Many (though not all) will object to contraceptives as well. Or worse yet, they might not object openly, just try to make them harder to access.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @RadicalCenter
  69. Dumbo says:
    @meamjojo

    A much better solution would be to genetically modify humans such that, by default, woman can’t get pregnant at all until a genetic override is applied when someone is ready to have a family. That override should work for one pregnancy at a time. Further, if you cannot prove that you have the means financially and mentally to raise a family, then your application for this genetic override should be rejected.

    It takes a special kind of stupid to devise a terrible “solution” including “genetically modified humans” when for hundreds of years the same results were achieved with very simple means and mere logic. Monogamy, high value of chastity in women, sex only inside marriage, negative social view of out-of-wedlock births, arranged marriage or at least approval of parents in choice of mates, etc etc.

    Now, there is the problem that intelligent people tend to have less children than dumb ones, I don’t know if this was a constant in human history, however.

  70. Dumbo says:
    @raga10

    I think most pro-choice advocates do think of abortion as the last resort – “prevention is better than cure” is not a particularly controversial statement.

    LOL. Take a look at the people celebrating the new abortion law in Argentina (or anywhere else were recently abortion legalization was approved).

    If they thought it was just a “last resort” they wouldn’t be so keen on wanting it approved.

    They fight for abortion because they like abortion.

    (In the most extreme cases, the view of body parts of slaughtered fetuses probably excites them)

  71. Dumbo says:
    @Liza

    That I don’t know. I know a few couples who adopted kids, they are very loving and and the children turned out alright. It seems to me more problems arise when you have a biological parent who then gets together with someone who is not the father or the mother of the child. Many times, the non-biological parent has no investment or even affection for the child, and there are cases of abuse, rape, etc. (It’s no wonder than in many fairy tales there is an evil stepmother or stepfather.) Of course, this is not always the case and there are many exceptions. But adoptions are usually voluntary by couples who want kids, while in the other case the presence of previous children is not chosen, and in many cases not desired.

    I draw a line however at interracial adoption (one should adopt within one own’s race, the rest is virtue-signalling), and “gay” adoption, which is unnatural and not good for the child (and also abuse is more common).

    Of course, being raised by close relatives is better (uncles, grandparents, etc) is best, but that is not always possible.

    • Replies: @Liza
  72. @raga10

    I can speak with confidence only for our family. My parents were/are pro-life but of course wanted contraception to be legal, because unlike abortion, contraception does not kill a distinct genetically human being.

    My wife and I are pro-life and likewise think it totally unjustified and intolerant to prohibit contraception.

    I have never met a person who says or even hints or jokes that he or she wants to ban contraception, and we attend a conservative Baptist church.

    You must know a different set of pro-lifers than we do. Or not.

    • Replies: @raga10
  73. Liza says:
    @Dumbo

    (It’s no wonder than in many fairy tales there is an evil stepmother or stepfather.)

    It seems to me that all too often someone with children will remarry in order to ease his or her financial burdens not to mention the daily work of trying to raise your kids yourself. They don’t look too hard at their future spouse’s basic character and history. It’s just “Oh, I’m not a single mother/father anymore! My problems are over!” Yet the problems for the children are only just being ramped up.

    However, when I look askance at adoption, I am talking about the usual kind, not remarriages. Make your own kids and if you can’t, live with it. Humane orphanages might be a better idea. .

  74. raga10 says:
    @RadicalCenter

    You must know a different set of pro-lifers than we do. Or not.

    Here’s one: “I’m pro-life. And that means I’m against contraception and gay marriage” – that’ the literal title of an article on lifesite.com

    Or, “Moral case against contraception” – an argument put forth by someone on BBC site, of all places.

    I could probably quote links all day, but anyone can do that too so I’ll stop here.

    And then of course there is that dude in a pointy hat, aka Pope, who still seems to be somewhat on the fence about the whole thing but it wasn’t that long ago that he was firmly against it. (see encyclical letter Humanae Vitae from 1968)

    or here’s more recent catholic source:
    “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997)

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @RadicalCenter
  75. Hibernian says:
    @raga10

    Your Catholic source, as traditional as he or she is, does not equate contraception with abortion. Also, not all pro-life advocates are Catholic. You’re practicing a variation on the straw man fallacy in which you put forth some of your opponents (whose views you invariably distort and/or exaggerate) as representatives of all of your opponents.

    • Replies: @raga10
  76. raga10 says:
    @Hibernian

    Straw man fallacy? Not at all – I am responding to specific assertion by RadicalCenter: “You must know a different set of pro-lifers than we do” – that different set in question being pro-lifers who are *also* against contraception.

    • Replies: @raga10
    , @Hibernian
  77. raga10 says:
    @raga10

    … PS. My source “Vademecum for Confessors”, is an official document published by Vatican. I think we can safely assume it was written by a man 🙂

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  78. Hibernian says:
    @raga10

    You do not “know” the author of that document in any meaningful sense of the word. You cherry pick some statements from some of your opponents and represent them as the sum total of the viewpoint opposed to your own on this issue.

    • Replies: @raga10
  79. raga10 says:
    @Hibernian

    You’re just being obstinate like the proverbial mule and on top of that, you are wrong.

    Where did I represent the views I quoted as a generalisation of anything? Quote me, please! I answer specific question with specific examples and I absolutely never said or suggested these quotes represent “sum total of my opponents position”. In fact I specifically said earlier that (pro-life and anti-contraception) was a position of “many, but not all”.

    And when somebody publishes something, reading that is “knowing” in a very meaningful sense of being aware of what they wrote. It isn’t required for me to know them personally in order to quote their writing as an example of the position in question. In case of the document I quoted the name of the author isn’t even important – it represents the official view of The Church as it was in 1997 at least, In what sense do you propose I should know the Church personally – should I go and kiss the Pope, will that count in your opinion?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  80. botazefa says:
    @meamjojo

    Woman should be able to choose what they want to do with THEIR OWN bodies.

    Obviously the fetus is not part of the mother’s body.

    If the mother doesn’t want the baby, who would you have provide for it?

    If the fetus exists (you agree it exists I hope) at what point does its right to life begin? Does a fetus have a right to be fed through the umbilicus? No right at all? Some right? Does an infant have a right to be fed?

    I suspect women do have some rights in this area due to the legal requirement to care for one’s offspring. But 24 week abortions are abhorrent murders. 24 weeks is very viable and has been ever since alveolar surfactant treatments were introduced in the early 90s.

    It’s a good case for the Amy Comey Barrett SCOTUS to rule on. If it is seen as more restrictive than Roe it’ll be struck, just in time for the 2024 election cycle maybe.

    • Replies: @raga10
  81. raga10 says:
    @botazefa

    Obviously the fetus is not part of the mother’s body.

    Obviously it is. It is literally part of her circulatory system.

    If the mother doesn’t want the baby, who would you have provide for it?

    Exactly – nobody should be expected to take on this burden. Hence abortion.

    • Agree: meamjojo
  82. ingotus says:
    @meamjojo

    Hi there,

    Certain things are difficult to grasp before one has certain experiences in life. I hope you don’t mind me asking, have you had the experience of becoming a parent? Have you had the experience of having an abortion? I can tell you I’ve had both now, the latter more than once in my younger years. After becoming a parent my perspective is much changed. That change has happened in several thoughtful people I know as well, former pro-abortion militants, reformed by becoming parents. A topic that appears easy enough at 20, is not nearly as easy at 40.

    Best,

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  83. @raga10

    What we need are many pro-life people saying that they want to ban contraception through force of government, not that they consider contraception immoral or ungodly. I don’t agree with either proposition, as you presumably don’t either, but they are two very different things in any event. Thanks —

  84. @raga10

    This is the Vatican we are talking about, so let’s be accurate and write “man.”

  85. @raga10

    To do that, you’d have to get in line behind a lot of cardinals and bishops. (Just don’t let them get behind YOU.)

  86. meamjojo says:
    @ingotus

    Whatever. No I am not a parent and it doesn’t matter. I am not arguing on emotion but on logic.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?