Culture

“Let Us Kill! Let Us Kill!” The Left Chants As Justice Alito Smiles On

Propagandists are celebrating. Not the possibility that ghouls calling themselves “doctors” will no longer be able to kill legally the lives inside would-be mothers—and use the dead bodies in various and mysterious ways. That they are weeping and gnashing their teeth over.

But they are cheering that spying on the Supreme Court and leaking opinions is now a thing. Their actions show it is a viable, allowable move in informing the body politic. So when our side does it, don’t listen to the whining of the enemy as she shrieks “No fair!”

The opinion is up and available to all. It makes good reading. Let’s walk through it.

It opens with a sentence most beautiful: “Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.”

This means, if this February draft holds, the votes are in, the Constitutional “discovery” that women have a “right” kill their offspring is seen for what it is. A falsity. Naturally, various states run by those who enjoy the thought of women killing the lives inside their wombs will hasten to discover that same “right” in their own state Constitutions. But some states won’t.

The matriarchy is displeased.

Alito lays out the history and the strange legal interpretations of the killings:

Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most crucial line was drawn roughly at the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb.

I examine this argument in detail in Everything You Believe Is Wrong. In brief, it’s always been clear that when they are not lying about the unborn, and reveling in the pleasures they take from the killings, the left believes in magic. It must be magic that transforms what is, to them, a “fetus” into a human being.

They choose a magical act, not defined explicitly, but presumably it’s when some demon touches the fetus and it becomes alive. Before that point, it is just tissue, and can be cauterized or vacuumed, or sliced and diced.

The problem with “viability” providing this magic is that it is wholly reliant on technology. A “fetus” is not viable at, say, eight months in Zimbabwe, but it is at even four or five months in the USA. So the magic is geographic. Or the difference is absurd.

Obviously, if technology improves, and we finally reached the wished for Bokanovsky’s Process, human life can be produced in test tubes from the moment of conception. That being so, viability then agrees with Team Reality, that human life indeed begins at conception—no magic is never needed.

Therefore, if you accept the viability argument, you must reject abortion, which becomes murder.

The next thrust used by those who enjoyed the killings, as Alito reminds us, is the “undue burden”.

Casey threw out Roe’s trimester scheme and substituted a new rule of uncertain origin under which States were forbidden to adopt any regulation that imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion.

It is clear to any but NPR listeners that the “undue burden” argument is viciously circular: it assumes what it seeks to proves, an obvious fallacy.

Alito must see this, because he goes on to say this:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.” The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

He goes on to say how the “right” to killing cannot be found in that Amendment. Though he stops short of saying the Nineteenth Amendment must be repealed. Well, baby steps, baby steps.

This opinion restores some force to originality, and at least reduces the ardor of discovering “rights” in a “living” Constitution (something Gorsuch has done). Even better, Alito rejects blind adherence to stare decisis. He says

…[stare decisis] does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences…

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.

Problem with that is most of the people’s elected representatives are nitwits, fools, and knaves. That, however, is a problem for another day.

We’ll leave off by noting the document is rich and long (98 pages!). Alito discusses the history of women wanting to rid themselves of the children legally, the red herring of “the quickening”, various legal arcana, he spanks up and down the legal logicians who defend Roe, and so on.

As the opinion opens in a lovely manner, it also ends beautifully with these words: “It is so ordered.

The dissents, if any are to come, are not part of the package, so we can’t see how Roberts will do his famous Cuck Shuffle. The conniptionness (you heard me) of Diversity appointments will doubtless be a joy to behold. We wait.

Our fear now is for the body of Alito. The demonic energy of “activists” is not to be ignored. They love the killings, want them to continue, and might not be above the theory of post-birth abortion for Alito. Pray for him.

I leave you with sweet music of the lamentations of their women.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Culture, Philosophy

47 replies »

  1. The democrats were swimming towards comprehensive defeat in November. From the economy, to immigration, to public health policy to the Foreign desk failure as far as the eye could see. This ruling may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as it will allow all other issues to sink to near invisibility. The election may become a one note referendum. I say “May” because not being American I am not as informed of your demographics as others here. I also do not mention the morals or ethics involved though, for the record, I am opposed to abortion on most, but not all, grounds (ie danger to the mother). The potential for widespread violence in the wake of the decision is worrisome as well. At any rate the Court picks it’s times and battles. The leak is very troubling. I believe I gave a warning about all this in the New Year predictions!

  2. You know I e heard the idea that this will damage Republicans in November because it energizes the Democratic base, etc.

    If abortion is murdering babies, what is the point of winning if we can’t stop it? Will God be more or less likely to punish us the longer this goes on?

  3. “The democrats were swimming towards comprehensive defeat in November”

    Like their election rigging machine broke or something? Give me a break. This decision is not handing the Dems a win in the rigged election. Democrasy is dead. This decision is possibly just the last decision of the SCOTUS before the federal govt falls apart due to its Ukrainian policy getting DC nuked by Russia.

  4. I’ll wait for the ruling by the MOT about life

    They should surely transcend anything from the SCOTUS

  5. John, that’s right — surely the Ministry of Truth will overrule the Supreme Court on this. No way can the Overlords let stand this slight to their sacraments. The Truth Czar will… Truth Czarina… the Czarowitz will quash it.

  6. They know how to press buttons and just at the right time. See Plantagenet’s comment.
    ]Don’t be so easily triggered to shoot yourselves in the foot. If you want to change the policy, first you must be in a political position to do so. Since you’ll all claim to know this basic fact, why does political discussion not resemble that? There is always prayer…that might bring some greater wisdom
     
    The federation is going to break up since it’s an experiment on an enormous land mass where everybody’s supposed to be equal and yet everybody thinks and wants different things. Either that’s a principle or it isn’t. Texas will be first to go independent. Perhaps after some bloodshed. Then? Texas takes South America and starts the thing all over again. The country is too big when the masses think violence is the only way, see Vladolph Putler.

    Abortion won’t be the issue which mobilises people, it’s more likely to be something closer to home in peoples li ver. It will eventually affect the demographic, though. Just keep making babies faster than the next group.
    Do it for America!

  7. “Li ver.”! lives.
    If you’re on the wrong side on so many vital, pun intended issues, nobody’s going to take you seriously on abortion, either
    All life is precious, walk the walk?

  8. Joy

    “…where everybody’s supposed to be equal and yet everybody thinks and wants different things…”

    thinking and wanting different things has nothing to do with equality

    thinking and wanting different things has everything to do with freedom.

    Do you really want a lecture from Master Briggs on equality?

    Declaration of Independence

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

    I don’t think Texas wants to leave the Union
    Equality can only come from God not the Government

  9. Therefore, if you accept the viability argument, you must reject abortion, which becomes murder.
    So if a topic is worth doing?,
    Murder has a clear definition which includes malice. Some form of the same exists in the US. So the argument falls flat and never goes beyond an Twitterati invective.

    Intent to kill unlawfully is not the definition of murder.
    Is that nitpicking? or is it that the word suits better the sentiment of those arguing against abortion?
    Will you be able to keep your cool on reading this comment or will you sink to the level of accusation of enablement or something else. There is only one truth, remember? You said “lose language is a problem in logical and philosophical argument”, words to that effect. Maybe you were joking then, too?
     
    Although, the attitude displayed so proudly on a daily basis towards the” life” of others, is so beyond satire that I can’t take word you write on this topic as meant in earnest. It sounds like more of the same red noise.

  10. From Cornell Laaw School

    Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.

    Background: Common Law Murder

    At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

    “Intent-to-kill murder”

    “Grievous-bodily-harm murder” – Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm. For example, if the defendant fatally stabbed the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.

    “Felony-murder” – Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.

    “Depraved heart murder” – Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

    According to Briggs’s Law School, it is murder (even with ‘common law’ understanding

  11. Johnnby, goodness gracious me,
    Absolutely. You seem to think you’re saying something corrective of my comment? Presuming that I’m the one in the wrong?
    “Freedom” has been discussed, rarely here, presumably that’s not an oversight. *even prior to covid 19.
    (Ken posted an excellent quote from an essay, famous, naturally, on the topic maybe as far back as 2016)
     
    The point is precisely that freedom is a movable feast for many a political punter, IF they were honest. (Perhaps because I used the word “equal” without qualifying.). You see there you go doubting me again. It’s why Id don’t trust.
    “Equality under the law”, is the point which wasn’t clear.
    The law: That thing which everybody has to abide by? The object of the post, federal law? I presume? This is equal for everybody. ie. federal law is true in Texas as it is in NYC. NO? That is the kind of “equality” that Texans don’t want. That was my point. You’ve got some funny idea about me if you don’t think I had heard the first lie of the constitution ad nauseam. It’s why you shouldn’t have a written constitution but that’s an argument for eslewhere.

    FWIW:
    “Equality of opportunity” was the beginning of the politicisation of factions, or the fascism, as I see it. Introduced deliberately where love is mandated by law. Equal opportunity is a noble goal.
    Previous comments are all addressed to the author of the article.

    have just noticed you’ve written another comment while I wrote this clarification…haven’t read yet.

  12. This article might be worth discussing … it’s long … I’ve provided a taste … but British Common Law does reflect only Malice by the limits of uncodified Engish Common Law as reported by British ‘Authorities’
    That said, there is no fixed common law definition of murder…

    (https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=87445)
    Beijing Law Review > Vol.9 No.3, September 2018
    Murder: A Critical Analysis of the Common Law Definition
    English Criminal law provides a range of offences that recognizes the sanctity of life by prohibiting the unlawful killing of a human being. The generic term “homicide” covers offences such as murder, manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving. What all homicides have in common is the unlawful killing of a human being; what distinguishes them is either the state of mind of the defendant who has caused death, or the defense available. This article shall critically analyze the common law definition of murder in various criminal homicide cases to find out if any concrete common law definition could be established. It will be seen throughout this article that though criminal law throws up many exceptions to this general proportion, there is no fixed common law definition of murder. This article shall prompt the question whether the legislature should rethink the forms of criminal homicide and the judiciary reconsiders some of the definitions of the mens rea words produced in recent years.

    Murder, one of the most serious crimes that can be committed against individuals, has been variously defined:
    Hawkins defines it to be “the willful killing of any subject whatever, with malice aforethought, whether the person slain shall be an Englishman or a foreigner” (Ashworth, 2006).
    Russell says, “murder is the killing of any person under the king’s peace, with malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied by law” (Card, 2006).
    Sir Edward Coke1 defines or rather describes this offence to be, “when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in return nutra under the kings pace, with malice afore thought, either expressed by the party or implied by law (so, as the party wounded, or hurt, etc die of the wound or hurt, etc within a year and day after the same)2.”
    These classic definition, which has been adopted by others has been severely and perhaps justly criticised. In simple word, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by a human being during the “Queen’s peace” with malice afore thought. Surprisingly enough, despite being the most serious crime (apart perhaps from treason), the offence has not been defined by statute. The present law of murder is a product of judge made law supplemented by parliament’s sporadic intervention.

  13. According to Briggs’s Law School, it is murder (even with ‘common law’ understanding

    Not in England, who;’s common law you inherited!
    I quoted the exact legal definition only a couple of weeks ago in response to C Marie. Presumably you read those comments and so knew you didn’t need to repost to me, in particular.
    Recall the murder 1 category in the minisota trial of the policeman? They had to prove malice.
    That was never apparent, but skip that, the point was that there was an alarming number of categories.
    This is the pickle that you get into when you claim that all are equal under federal law when you’re in fact, not.
    That’s not because my definition of murder is inconsistent. It’s yours that shifts with the wind and according to state lines.
    Man slaughter is not murder.
    This is another reason why calling something “murder one two three four five” or whatever means that the definition of murder is eroded. If the term “unlawful killing” were used, would anybody be arguing?
    No, but then Briggs wouldn’t get to use the word “murder”. Like “sodomy” it is a specially emotive and it’s the Eason why I pulled him up for it and the reason you missed the point. It’s an appeal to emotion. Otherwise the argument is circular:
    “It’s only illegal if it’s illegal.”

  14. Joy

    “Equality under the law”, is the point which wasn’t clear.
    The law: That thing which everybody has to abide by? The object of the post, federal law? I presume? This is equal for everybody. ie. federal law is true in Texas as it is in NYC. NO? That is the kind of “equality” that Texans don’t want. That was my point

    YES! Exactly what Roe v Wade was about! It took away state’s ability to define ‘murder’. This decision puts the question of abortion in the hands of the state! New York has every right to say infants can be killed or allowed to die as it were. They have. Texas (Mississippi) does NOT the Federal Government through the wishes of New York to limit their ability to define human life

  15. Aside from the quite valid moral issues, throwing this issue back to the states is only going to lead to greater red and blue state division. It will drive the country even further extremes. It’s going to be a problem in the red state border areas. If someone goes across the border to get a legal abortion, then returns to their home state where it is banned, have they broken the law? I can see a flurry of Supreme Court cases resulting from this decision, if it holds true.

    For the interested (I’ve posted this before) here is a link to the great Justice Alito’s address to the 2020 National Lawyers Convention; put up on Federalist Society website:

    https://fedsoc.org/conferences/2020-national-lawyers-convention?#agenda-item-address-8

  16. Joy

    Just want you to understand I don’t disagree with you about English Common Law especially reading the other article, but for better or worse the Federal Government and states use English Common Law as a lattice and is built up from there.

    Briggs’s Law School says that the definition for murder is different in each state. What Roe V. Wade did, was take away the state’s ability to define a subsection of taking away life as murder. Removing Roe V. Wade gives states their option to include abortion as murder.

    (May the Fourth be with you)
    … And Also With You

  17. Johnby,
    are you simply agreeing while realising?

    It’s the federal law which is absolving responsibility and doing a pilate on the situation. I daren’t say what ought be said about why they might have though that was a good thing, (separate to a conversation about abortion). The point I made years ago about America going the same way that Europe thinks it want s to go holds true.
    It will break apart because you’re not individual states, your’e countries. in reality. Perhaps there are four or five, not fifty, I wouldn’t know. It might be better to just share a military, nothing else.
    People want to live with their own kind and their own tribe, for this read philosophy or religion. Either America wants to live as a united states or they want to have different criminal law for different states. After all, it’ snot civil law that’s different. One written law is bad enough! Allowing so many allows for crazy to come in through the back door.
     
    Just as truth can’t be enforced by violence…love can’t be mandated by law (or violence)

  18. Please stop using the term “women”. The correct word is “aborting persons”.

  19. I’m still ten minutes behind d your replies!
    Do you have a time machine? I always suspected as much

  20. This article might be worth discussing … it’s long … I’ve provided a taste … but British Common Law does reflect only Malice by the limits of uncodified Engish Common Law as reported by British ‘Authorities’
    That said, there is no fixed common law definition of murder…

    There is a fixed definition of murder.
    What Americans think and claim that English common law states or claims is separate from to what the reality.
     
    Noted the democrat impeacher using it during the trial, first time round against Trump. It was meaningless then as it is now.
    If one wants to “go to law” as I had cause to do, in particular the myth about common law was explained to me.
    There’s no such thing which can be legally binding.
    There is legal argument and that’s that. Anyway I chose the moral high ground or that ground which I could live with in my soul much to the disapproval. of others who insisted I went.
     
    So, what’s left?
    Ironically, The Right to ‘bare’ arms even in winter, came from old England.
    Legal definition of murder in England (which developed from English common law) states from memory,
    “The illegal taking of a life in the queen’s peace, with Malice aforethought.” shall be called murder.

  21. Russell (whoever he is) agrees: “murder is the killing of any person under the king’s peace, with malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied by law” (Card, 2006).

    That article is from Mohammad Belayet Hossain, Saida Talukder Rahi
    School of Law, Chittagong Independent University of Bangladesh (CIUB), Chittagong, Bangladesh. (Not Americans but perhaps former British subjects as well?)

    But yes Joy, the tension between Federalism and States’ Rights goes back to the revolution and the Continental Congress.

    States with the help of SCOTUS have reclaimed the right to call murder where they see it

    Unfortunately for Briggs, if he’s still in NY, infanticide is not necessarily called murder, so unless he moves, he cannot ‘legally’ call abortion murder. He’d be looking at libel and defamation if he accused a NYer of Murder for aborting their baby while in NY

  22. Also for calling the unborn an infant. Unfortunately if legal definitions count
    Sorry Johnby didn’t read your article, I was really responding to your claims about the common law…unsurprising that so many misunderstand it’s true nature or legal or power.
    “in common law” tends to mean a variety of things.
     
    I find it interesting how emotional certain people appear to be on tis topic.
     
    I recall Briggs suggesting that Drs should be thrown down the stairs if they carry out abortions. How is that not simply hypocritical?
    Murder is not defined by the perceived innocence of a victim. Now perhaps Briggs might argue that it should be redefined to include that provision but it never has before. A life is a life, to me, but not apparently, to an abortion activist. Meeting violence with violence is war. If it is not carried out on behalf of an official government edict to war, then it is also murder. Or terrorism, which often results i n murder.
     
    “Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics Hardcover – 29 Aug. 201”
    Is a book which I can’t say I’ve read, but have heard him lecture at length on the topic of the book and think it would be of interest to those who want to take this topic seriously. From a nation without a written constitution that is always being pressured by non friendly powers,, I believe, to formalise such a piece of paperwork.
     
    Good luck trying to argue emotionally, sarcastically, satirically, about an already emotionally overcharged topic, in a legal framework which is politically rigged against whoever is an opposition party., it seems.
    It seems to me that stripping out the emotion would be the way forward. Not claiming murder when it isn’t. Or “sodomy” when that is in fact a description of an act of rape, and so on and so on. It’s lying. Especially if it’s known to be false.

  23. Joy

    The State of Virginia was discussing their bill through the third trimester allowing an abortion even as the mother is dilating. NY had a bill through the third trimester as well…

  24. “him” being Johnathan Sumption,
    Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics (Paperback) ; Publisher: Profile Books Ltd ;
    ISBN: 9781788163736 ;
    He wasn’t necessarily on the “our” side over the brexit debarcle
    He makes a clear and easy to understand case against the ‘notion’ of referenda…but the people spoke. The law only has levers of power. It is not a living thing. It is passive.

  25. “the mother is dilating”. Nice talk,
    What was the particular reason or purpose for this discussion? Can I hear more detail?
    It sounds moody to me, ie suspect, as the coppers say.

  26. Joy responding to your statement … Also for calling the unborn an infant. Unfortunately if legal definitions count… Who do I trust … the Law … or what I know

    So yes I don’t think there’s any distinction between a fortieth week “unborn” and a fortieth week infant … A State of Virginia “official” asked about their abortion bill and that official said the law would not make the distinction. No legal definition for a child on the verge of birth. You HAVE heard of partial birth abortion, I trust?

    NY, Virginia and others are free to enact these laws. Let Texas and Mississippi enact theirs.

  27. So those who are for the murders of the babies, both in and out of the womb newly born, are actually for mothers to be able to legally kill their unwanted children. Those words, “unwanted children” struck deeply within me. The moment that Jesus was conceived, He was a living baby, and these children are also.

    So I found this online about Mr. Jeffrey Sachs who received an appointment from Francis … see below … also in Mr. Sachs book I read online the following: “In his 2009 book “Commonwealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet,” he called for the legalizing abortion as a cost-effective way to eliminate “unwanted children” when contraception fails to achieve that end. “To accelerate the decline in fertility … abortion should be legalized,” Sachs wrote.”

    Mr. Sachs opinion on how to obtain peace in the Russian-Ukranian war, was being considered due to the knowledge he has regarding governments and more. And so I responded with: This man who supports the murders of “unwanted children”? How can anyone think that Mr. Sachs hears God for a solutiion???

    And, Francis’ close frienship with Him?? And that Francis appointed Mr. Sachs to the Political Academy of Social Sciences … one who advocates killing babies ….

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-appoints-population-control-activist-jeffrey-sachs-to-pontifical-academy-of-social-sciences/

    But, everyone makes their own choices.

    God bless, Claudia P.

  28. Abortions done due to danger for the mother, need not be done. One delivers the child first, at whatever stage of pregnancy. No murder needed.

    And for children who are raped and conceive, the act was horrendous, yet the unborn must be allowed to live.
    We have all been sinned against, but this act is one of the worst perpetrated against children. Praying for healing for all children so sinned against, and for the healing of their families, and for all to forgive the perpetrator, and for the perpetrator to repent before God and to be kept from children, always.

    God bless, C-Marie

  29. There are mankind’s legal definitions made without concerning themselves with God’s commandments, this we know.

    Matthew 19: 18. Exodus 20: 13. And there are many, many more verses on Thou shalt not murder.

    Agree with Joy that we have to watch what we say as in New York … legally. But then Jesus did say “If they persecute Me, they will persecute you.” John 15:20.

    God bless, C-Marie

  30. https://youtu.be/DqTiL6k4QEQ

    Unfortunately if legal definitions count”
    Do they not then? If you’re going t quote them.
    … Who do I trust … the Law … or what I know.?
    You trust what you know if you are true to yourself. Yet you seem so often to mix while saying you ‘know’… quoting the law ’s authority then saying you don’t know who to trust. Do you trust logic? Common sense? Can you not function without saying you need to ask God what to think? How about which pair of socks? I know the answer John it is rhetorical. “who should you trust”? Is being dramatic. Defining the terms saves argument, promotes agreement. That’s not what Briggs’s school is looking for though. Which is the original point, one of them.
    The Law:
    It’s not there to trust, it’s there to be abided by if you don’t want to be on the wrong side of it. It’s as simple as that. If the law itself is deemed morally wrong, then that argument is worth having properly, not with sarcasm or satire; overstatement, exaggeration, humour, fake news….on and on. Straight truth and logic CAN stand scrutiny.
    You can trust what you like but I don’t have to trust what I know to be a falsehood.
    This is why plain language and defined terms ARE vital whatever you claim now, it is the only common truth we all share. Logic and common sense/reason. Without definitions you can’t have a proper discussion, legal or otherwise.
    They can be called babies, or unborn babies.
    So yes I don’ think there’s any distinction between a fortieth week “unborn” and a fortieth week infant …
    “A difference” in what way? You’re not playing a straight bat. You’re assuming to know what others know and to know what they think, too. One is born, one is not. There’s a difference. Once is breathing with lungs, the other is not. There’s another. You know this.
    So… once the baby is born it is an infant. If you want to be more precise you might say “unborn infant” (which would still be weird/contrived) Or “unborn baby”, which would be fair enough.
     
    Put another way, for instance, you wouldn’t call a baby a ‘foetus’ if it were in the arms of his/her mother would you?
    A State of Virginia “official” asked about their abortion bill and that official said the law would not make the distinction. No legal definition for a child on the verge of birth. “.
    He said she said? Sounds like the reporting of con ersations over covid. Phoney outrage and gossip.
    So someone had a discussion and asked questions.
    You HAVE heard of partial birth abortion, I trust?
    No. I have to trust you though?
    NY, Virginia and others are free to enact these laws. “Let Texas and Mississippi enact theirs.”
     
    Hmm “let them” …but you don’t want the law to be the same for everybody. You want something else…at the top you thought I required a lecture on equality an it’s pitfalls.

  31. C Marie,
    There are mankind’s legal definitions made without concerning themselves with God’s commandments, this we know.
    Yes and we accept that people do have different beliefs. There are, it seems as well, plenty of Christians who are not against abortion.
    “The written law kills”?
    “The law is an ass”?
    The spirit (of the law) gives life, you could say.
    It is the Spirit of the law which is always being tested
    The law is a necessary evil. The state does not bear the sword in vain.
     
    I always think it is there for those who don’t abide by basic levels of decency and morals by their now innate knowledge of goodness. For example how many people need to know the definition of murder not to commit one? The law is there when things have already gone wrong. Rather. than as a restraint or deterrent for most.

  32. Abortions done due to danger for the mother, need not be done. One delivers the child first, at whatever stage of pregnancy. No murder needed.

    before what?
    I know that when there is a choice in law, which is almost never the case. The mother is cared for first, then the child. Not necessarily as a separate action, to be clear, but separate priority in law does exist. Babies can be delivered by C section and are, frequently, following road traffic accidents and it has happened due to mothers being ventilated with covid, too! That imaginary disease…but nobody anywhere puts the baby before the mother if such a question is clinically valid. So one needs to know the situation in order to comment on that. I don’t know of any true controversy there either, only that it I has been used by the pro abortion side as a rationale for action against the unborn baby

  33. That is:
    but nobody anywhere puts the baby before the mother…[except the mother]

    …if such a question is clinically valid. Mothers normally put themselves last. Fathers? different matter.

  34. “After all, a lot of people think that the practice of law is all about law. It’s not all about law, Ii’s only partly about that. ON the whole the facts are more important. When as a judge you are confronted with a legal dilemma. One of the thing s which you discover is that thee ain’t no law in it. That the issue is actually about the correct classification of the facts. And once you’ve correctly classified the facts, the answer is quite often obvious. So anyone who practices law has got to be good at understanding the facts of the case and more important still, the factual background against which those facts developed. History is an excellent training for that. It’s a better training than law.”
    Raging against the Past: Why apologise for history? | Lord Sumption | Peter Kurti

    Johnathan summation

  35. I’m confident you would be on safe bet if you bet against the repeal of RvsW. What are the bookies saying?

  36. I AM shocked Johnby

    Yes, words have meaning and I agree with the accusation of infanticide, by any moral standard.
    More tomorrow as this brings up more questions than answers bout Why, the need in the first place?
    This seems to have come from a political desire, not a genuine clinical or medical situation.
    It is repulsive, what was put forward for the sake of it.
    So I agree that it’s a baby that the Governor described too vividly and easily and seemingly without a care

  37. JH: Wait… but “conservatives never win.”

    As a conservative, it’s very hard to see this as a victory. The killing will continue, respect for the sanctity of life won’t suddenly blossom. One jackboot apparently will be lifted, and we are thankful. But the feeling is closer to a small relief after a very long oppression.

    I can’t help but ask myself “why now?” and “what changed?”. Many years ago, I decided to shift my focus, and my financial support, from the political-action Pro-Life groups to the “change hearts and minds” groups, like CBR and SFLA, which focus on young adults, and college students in particular. I believe these groups have been successful in shifting attitudes of the younger generations, slowly and steadily over the years. Another factor that can’t be dismissed is that conservative apples don’t fall far from the tree, whereas many liberal apples were aborted on the branch. Finally, I perceive the passion and intensity to be clearly on the Pro-Life side, as only a minority of the pro-aborts see abortion as an unmitigated good.

    I disagree with those who say that this will further fracture the country. Once it sinks in for the liberals that absolutely nothing has or will change in their particular state, many will lose interest, content to live in a state with laws that respect their narcissism. Some conservatives will also lose interest, content to live in a state with laws that respect life. The rest of us will continue on as before, as there is so much more work to be done.

  38. It will further fracture the country just as any riot and major protest festival in the political life of America contributes each in turn to the ultimate break up. Those who have seen Russia as on side of conservatives, anti gay, anti woke…their favourite cause, have yet to to wake up. Not only is the enemy within but the enemy has taught its methods to a generation that will never unlearn the behaviour and culture of subversion. Social media will be the tool.

    It took so little with the floyd case, the nation has never been taught true history, and so it will repeat it like a delinquent. There are multiple topics that are now blue touch paper. All it takes is bad actors to keep lighting matches…then standing back, naturally
     
    The pro life side is an interesting mix of trouble makers without a real care and those who actually do care about life’s sanctity. Many are ‘activists’ for the jolly and for the easy preach and sensation of crusading in a world where so little honour is often truly earned. On another day they’ll be making cold blooded threats and telling lies
     
    So, one side looks much like the other when it comes to the red noise at the fringes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.