This is written in response to Ms. Kimberley’s article here.
I am pro-choice. But I think the predominant highly emotionalized ‘thinking’ one hears expressed from the typically hysterical Woke Cult crowd, which seems determined to prove that it can rule over our nation through mob hysteria, is entirely counterproductive to assuring women that at some point in a pregnancy they can have the legal option of ending the pregnancy.
I basically agree with Ms. Kimberly’s argument, although I think her reasoning behind it is faulty. In her opening paragraph she writes:
“Alito made clear that the court with a 6 to 3 conservative majority intends to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which made abortion legal in the United States.”
While technically speaking we could consider that statement as ‘true’, it falls far short of a more incisive analysis. Roe v Wade went far beyond ‘making abortion legal’. A law would make abortion ‘legal’. Roe v. Wade declared that abortion was a fundamental constitutional right.
Unless we understand that, we cannot understand Alito’s well-reasoned majority opinion, which states that nowhere is abortion mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore it is NOT a constitutional right. It is rather an issue of law that must be addressed by state and/or federal legislatures. Alito’s leaked opinion does not make abortion illegal. It simply states that Roe v Wade is “bad law” because it erroneously states that abortion is a constitutional right.
Ms. Kimberley makes the point that rather than hysterical mobs trying to intimidate judges, (which is illegal under Federal law, punishable by up to a year in jail, but the current ‘woke’ Democratic Regime refuses to enforce the law), it would be better to petition elected representatives for a redress of their grievances.
Is that not EXACTLY what Alito’s leaked opinion concludes?
The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is completely bizarre to any clear thinking person, even those like myself who are pro-choice. Roe v Wade was “bad law” is what Alito’s opinion contends. This issue must be decided by legislatures, not by judges.
“Keep your hands off my uterus” is an unreasoning, hysterical, and completely nonsensical statement. Do people have the right to defecate in a public square at high noon? Would “keep your hands off my digestive system” make sense defending an imagined “right to defecate” as one sees fit?
To people willing to address this morally excruciating issue of abortion in a reasoned manner, (which leaves out the Woke Mob that wants to rule over our nation through mob rule), the key question underlying this issue is: when does a human foetus become a human being, with its own protected constitutional rights?
Do these hysterical shrieking women of the Woke Mob, guarding their precious uteri from the long arm of the law, think that when their water breaks, they have a constitutional right to rush off to an abortion clinic rather than a delivery room? When does a foetus become a human being in their opinion? Not until the actual umbilical cord is cut, severing all ties to their precious uteri?
A foetus is NOT part of a woman’s body. It is an entirely separate organism, with a different genetic makeup from the mother. We all know that at an early stage of its development, a foetus has a beating heart. Is it not alive? Of course it is.
Before a certain stage of development, that living organism cannot live independent of the mother’s body. Neither can a living baby live independent of care from its parents. Should infanticide thus be legal, as it has been in a number of societies throughout history, and is still in some nations today? As this article reports, 8% of all infant mortality in the Netherlands today consists of babies who are intentionally euthanized by doctors. Yes, actual infanticide is legal in the Netherlands today.
Well… Infanticade is against the law in our nation. We have laws governing parenting. Parents are not free to do as they will with their children.
When does a foetus become a child with protected rights of its own? THAT is the question here, not sexually promiscuous women’s wishfully conjured ‘right’ to use abortion as a fail-safe back-up method of birth-control.
Abortions are performed by different methods, some of which chop up the foetus en utero, and then suck out the jelly-mess. If that foetus were first extracted before being chopped up on a stainless steel table, it would be moving and squirming when chopped up, (unless left to die first, of course). Indeed, in some partial birth abortion techiques, a foetus is extracted through the cervix, and is decapitated, (i.e.: ‘killed’), as it emerges.
A living organism is being ‘killed’ when an abortion is performed. That simply is true. We can talk about ‘viability’ as a reasonable determinant, which is the basis of my own pro-choice position, by which I believe that other than in exceptional circimstances, (such as the safety and health of the mother, and/or the developmental health of the foetus), a woman’s choice should be limited to the first trimester.
When does a foetus become a human being with rights of its own? There is no way to make this determination through reasoned moral argument. A society thus has a perfect right to make this determination of when the rights of a foetus come into effect. In the Netherlands today, parents can decide to have their doctor kill a living baby. Why? Because that society has considered opposing arguments, and through the application of reason, (presumably) has democratically decided that under certain conditions infanticide is ‘legal’.
Many people hold a deep belief that a human life, endowed with the rights of a human being, begins at the moment of conception. No one can disprove that. I respect those people’s right to believe that. In fact, I don’t even disagree with them.
Using abortion as a casual means of fail-safe back-up birth control to indemnify sexual promiscuity is fraught with moral hazard, and is morally reugnant to many, myself included. My pro-choice position is rooted in my awareness of the utter devastation, sometimes even fatal devastation, that an unwanted pregnancy can wreak upon a woman’s life, and in my basic sense of human empathetic decency toward those women.
But when I regard the sheer moral ugliness of these promiscuous, arrogant, shameless alley-cat American women, snarling in ugly arrogant pride to declare their right to kill their own babies so they can continue to behave like alley-cats in heat without worrying about pregnancy, it makes me want to puke in pure disgust.
I’ll NOT change my opinion, however, following from my disgust over these morally ugly women, as I think some reactionist people will. I will continue to think that this is a morally excruciating issue. I will continue to respect and sympathize with those who deeply believe that a human life begins at conception, (as it most definitely does). But I will continue to recognize the devastation that can be wrought in a woman’s life by an unwanted pregnancy.
It is a morally excruciating issue. If I were to cast my vote, I would vote for a woman’s prerogative to make this choice very early in her pregnancy, (with key exceptions as noted above).
Even more disgusting to me than the alley cat arrogance of the shameless jezebels, snarling and howling like animals about their claimed ‘right’ to kill their own babies, (jezebel: “an impudent, shameless, or morally unrestrained woman”… impudent: “not showing due respect for another person”), is the entire crazed Woke Cult in general, throwing tantrums like immature children, determined that they should rule by mob passions, who denigrate the rights of other people to hold opinions disagreeing with them.
Ms. Kimberley is correct in her assertion that these people should be petitioning their elected representatives for a redress of their grievances, not trying to illegally intimidate judges.
Ms. Kimberley does not even seem to realize, however, that her line of reasoning is in essential agreement with the leaked Alito opinion.