https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2022/06/30/celebrities-wildest-reactions-scotus-rejection-roe-v-wade
The above link contains a sampling of leftist response to a very Constitutional correction to the unConstitutional Roe v Wade ruling of 1973. This decision was well known to what used to be semi-moronic lefties..."semi" compared to today's lefties, anway...of all degrees of intelligence and education horrible law. The ruling by the Supreme Court last Friday overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, was no more than correcting that bad ruling from 50 years ago...a ruling which shouldn't have taken 50 years to correct.
The link begins with foreigner James Corden exposing his ignorance of how the government of his new home operates. He explains that it would take over 300 MPs to overturn the law which legally allowed abortions to take place in the UK. He compares this with the six competent, intelligent justices of our Supreme Court who simply did their job and correctly acted in overturning a bad ruling. He wants to believe these six stalwarts of reason made a decision for the entire United States. They didn't. The people who thankfully and righteously elected Donald Trump over a hag who would have further eroded our nation's greatness as Obama did and Biden now does. The people elected Trump partly due to his promise of appointing Constitutionally sound jurists to the SCOTUS. And because he came through on that promise...as he did so many others...the PEOPLE of the United States got what they wanted. Not all the people, of course, and now morons are irate. What's more, as this ruling returns to the states their authority to each decide for themselves if they wish to continue murdering innocent people, the people of each state will again decide...far, far more people than those 300+ Members of Parliament in the UK.
The rest of the examples are every bit as moronic and demonstrative of either a lack of knowledge about how our government works, abortion itself, or are lying like lefties like to do. We hear the same nonsense about "women's reproductive choice" despite the fact that when a woman seeks an abortion, she's clearly already "reproduced". The moronic "guns have more rights than women", the "my body, my choice to murder another body which isn't mine" whine, the "what about Loving v Virginia ruling?" stupidity...all the greatest hits of moronic thinking and dishonest bloviation.
What the piece leaves out are all the responses by violent leftist assholes whose violence shouldn't be a surprise from the very people who visit the most barbaric violence against the most innocent and defenseless of our kind. Their rioting and threats to protect their "right" to murder is simply their character showing. They're just more willing to express it in no uncertain terms. It's their Democrat Death Cult nature. And from the morons who complain the center-right portion of America is destroying our democracy, the prove just who it is who cares least about it.
13 comments:
"We hear the same nonsense about "women's reproductive choice" despite the fact that when a woman seeks an abortion, she's clearly already "reproduced". "
Yes, that times 1,000!
Great post, as usual.
Reproduction is a process, not an event. A fetus is not a person. It has no rights. People have rights - not fetuses. The notion that a "human life begins at conception" is religious - not scientific, and even many religious people don't agree with it. And The law has always held that personhood requires a live birth. It is religious and right-wing extremists in recent years that have tried to re-define what a person is. They have even changed the language, inventing terms like "pre-born baby" to replace what had been traditionally called a fetus, in an attempt to distort people's thinking about what a fetus is. They want to grant it rights that never existed.
Of course, we know that they don't really care about life. If they did, we'd see some consistency in that position. We'd see than express some concern about the slaughter of actual people that goes on every day at the hands of armed lunatics. No, I don't see them trying to do anything about that. What they want to to exert control over others - especially women.
im-skeptical,
Welcome. I'm somewhat skeptical we can have a serious discussion, but I'm willing to give you a chance.
Let's review what "reproduction" means in terms of "HUMAN" reproduction. A male has sexual intercourse with a female while she is ovulating, and his sperm penetrates her ovum. That's the "process". Once that penetration of the ovum by the sperm has occurred, reproduction has taken place. The "process" of reproduction is complete. From that point on, the new person...which is what that fertilized ovum now is, begins to grow and develop until it is a completely, physically matured adult human being...somewhere around 20-25 or so years later.
"And The law has always held that personhood requires a live birth."
You pervert what the law says. The law, 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant reads as follows:
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
"It is religious and right-wing extremists in recent years that have tried to re-define what a person is."
A fetus is indeed a person. A "fetus" is a stage of development, just as is an embryo, zygote, infant, toddler, pre-adolescent, adolescent, teenager, etc. The notion that a "human life begins at conception" is absolutely scientific and every embryology or biology textbook confirms this.
This is how Merriam-Webster defines "person":
Definition of person
1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
The FreeDictionary.com:
1. A living human.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
a man, woman, or child
Dictionary.com:
1. a human being, whether an adult or child:
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
Etymonline.com:
c. 1200, persoun, "an individual, a human being," from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage;
Britannica.online:
Britannica Dictionary definition of PERSON. [count] 1. The plural of person is usually people except in formal or legal contexts, where the plural is often persons. a : a human being.
Oh, and just for fun:
Definitions for "child":
Merriam-Webster:
3a : an unborn or recently born person
Dictionary.com:
>4. a human fetus
TheFreeDictionary.com
2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
All these resources, by your claim, must all be religious and right-wing extremists.
"Of course, we know that they don't really care about life. If they did, we'd see some consistency in that position. We'd see than express some concern about the slaughter of actual people that goes on every day at the hands of armed lunatics. No, I don't see them trying to do anything about that. What they want to to exert control over others - especially women."
First, you're not clear about whom it is you reference as "they". But I'm going to go out on a limb and infer you refer to "pro-lifers" in general. If so, what you say is merely that which "pro-choicers" choose to believe, but it isn't true. There's all manner of efforts to protect life before and after birth. Most crisis pregnancy center provide supplies for new mothers and help with employment and other needs to help with raising the child.
As to "the slaughter of actual people that goes on every day at the hands of armed lunatics", such is the result of the very people who seek to allow for the slaughter of the unborn. Pro-life people are typically 2nd Amendment people who understand arming good people reduces the ability of lunatics and criminals to kill anybody. Yet you who wish to exert control over whether or not the unborn are allowed to see the light of day, are also those who seek to control the populace and keep them unarmed and vulnerable to attack by lunatics and criminals. They also prefer that NO ONE murder innocent children, either in the womb or outside of it, be the woman or man. So your entire argument here is fallacious and based on emotion bred in moral corruption, not logic, science, law or definitions.
I'm somewhat skeptical we can have a serious discussion, but I'm willing to give you a chance.
- Given the title of your article, I'm already pretty sure that your suspicions are correct.
Regarding the question of personhood, I wonder what you think you have cleared up. I said that the legal definition of a person involves live birth. You have cited 1 U.S. Code § 8, which affirms what I said. According to the law, a person is one who has been born alive. But it does include the phrase "at any stage of development." What that means is any stage from the point of birth onward, including infants. Read the words. It says it very clearly. Live birth is the essential part of the definition. Glad I could clear that up for you.
As for other dictionary definitions, I pointed out to you that the definition has changed, and dictionaries reflect that change. So it is not surprising to see definitions of person that may include fetuses. You should understand the point I was making, which is that the definition has changed, and this is an intentional device for changing the way we think.
such is the result of the very people who seek to allow for the slaughter of the unborn.
- This is an utterly baseless accusation that diverts responsibility away from the perpetrators. I know the gun lobby and its adherents love to make claims about guns making it safer for all of us. The statistics tell us otherwise.
So your entire argument here is fallacious and based on emotion bred in moral corruption, not logic, science, law or definitions.
- And we come full circle, back to your opening remark to me. Didn't expect to hear any substantial argument from you, and you have not disappointed.
"- Given the title of your article, I'm already pretty sure that your suspicions are correct."
A more accurate way to say it is, given the article itself, which goes on to support the claim of the title, my suspicions are very much justified. Your comments have done little to change that.
"Regarding the question of personhood, I wonder what you think you have cleared up. I said that the legal definition of a person involves live birth."
What you said was, "And The law has always held that personhood requires a live birth."
What the law says is:
part "a" describes to whom law is applied, which includes those born alive.
part "b" describes what "born alive" means.
But part "c" states quite clearly:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract "any legal status or legal right" applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
It leaves one to wonder what the point was of not simply stating all are protected regardless of birth or not if they're then going to say the nothing in the section shall be construed to deny those not yet born alive. Yet that's exactly what it does. In the meantime, even without that, it still isn't "requiring" that one must be born alive to be a person, but only speaks of how the law will be applied...as in "for legal purposes". As you know, the law treats corporations at "persons" for certain reasons.
"As for other dictionary definitions, I pointed out to you that the definition has changed, and dictionaries reflect that change."
Why, that must mean you have links to sources from a time when the definition was not as my sources have stated!! I'll wait here while you gather and produce them.
Now, while I would state that the more current publications of dictionaries have indeed reflected changes in how words are used...must of which to influence thinking...it's more accurate to simply acknowledge that any changes in a word's definition is in response to how the general usage of the word has change. That is, "cool" always reflected temperature until usage changed to reflect a reference to the character of a person. "Hip" always meant a part of the human body, until usage changed to reflect a person's ability to understand. But you'll notice I included the etymology of the word "person" which also contradicts your need to believe the word's definition has changed in recent times. It has not.
"- This is an utterly baseless accusation that diverts responsibility away from the perpetrators."
Absolutely not, as it refers to the increase or decrease in availability of opportunity for perpetrators to perpetrate "slaughter". Leftist policy has indeed increased opportunity AND ability to succeed in perpetrating mass casualty events.
"I know the gun lobby and its adherents love to make claims about guns making it safer for all of us. The statistics tell us otherwise."
They absolutely do not. The ratio of guns in America to people belies that claim.
The fact that Indiana allows for concealed and open carry and suffers a lower rate of murders than next door neighbor Illinois also makes your suggestion laughable. Indeed, the claim by Democrat gun control asshats in Chicago is that criminals get their guns from Indiana, yet Indiana doesn't have anywhere near the same level of shootings as the typical weekend in the Windy City.
In every case where a shooter intent on killing as many as possible was confronted by a "good guy" with a gun, the number of shot/dead was either extremely low, reduced or zero. Where no returned fire from a "good guy" took place, casualties are always in the double digits.
Cases of citizens with legal concealed carry permits committing crimes of any sort is near zero.
"- And we come full circle, back to your opening remark to me. Didn't expect to hear any substantial argument from you, and you have not disappointed."
That's hilarious given from the jump I've provided definitional and legal support for my position. You're responded with unsupported fantasy. My opening remark was quite prescient.
My opening remark was quite prescient.
- Yes, it was a self-fulfilling prophesy. At any rate, I've seen enough of your "debating". Now I'm done.
And thus your moniker is lacking. A better one for you would be "I'm-Typical", as in you flee when the discussion doesn't go your way. Another surrender monkey. Buh-bye now. You're welcome to return anytime you think you have an argument. I'll always be here for ya.
I've got news for you, dude. The discussion never got started.
Sure it did. It got started the moment you first posted a comment and then got a response to it from me. From there, you did the typical leftist thing. It would've been better had you just acknowledged your defeat rather than do the Black Knight routine. It makes you look foolish. But any time you want to try again, feel free to give it a go.
Oh, you have not seen anything yet. I have to power up and complete my ultimate transformation.
I'm here for ya, dude.
Post a Comment