Many years ago I was in that place of special boredom wherein I found myself idly in front of the television surfing through the hundred thirty channels of garbage I had to choose from. Most people wouldn’t call me a religious man, at least in any traditional way, but I have always held dear the aspiration to be a philosopher. I like to think but at the time had nothing too really interesting to think about.
Inevitably I stopped for a brief moment on a channel which featured a televangelist preaching his sermon. I can’t recall, and actually probably never knew, who this preacher was, however something he said caught my attention. So I paused for a while to listen to the point.
You could probably guess from the title of this article that he was talking about abortion. Being that this was many decades ago, and my thoughts on the subject were not fully formed, it was something new and different to me that I thought would be worth the investment of some time in contemplation.
He was talking about the Declaration of Independence. Specifically the part where people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” I don’t recall the entire sermon and even if I did I would not attempt to relate it to you here. The major idea of his point was that among these three—Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—the right to life was far more important than the other two.
What good is it to have the liberty to pursue happiness…when you’re dead?
This is a damn good point!
Whether we are talking about the liberal concept of rights or the conservative concept, no right is worth even the ink and the paper to put the words on to express them, without the right to live.
Can’t shoot your gun to defend your life if you’re dead. Can’t have the freedom to speak if you’re dead. Can’t petition your government for redress of wrongs if you’re dead. Can’t worship as you please if you’re dead. Can’t vote for who you want if you’re dead. Can’t live in a house if you’re dead. Can’t get “free” health care if you’re dead. Can’t get a “free” education if you’re dead.
Can’t do anything if you’re dead.
Can you?
Therefore the right to life is the highest of them all.
Let’s put off, for now, the ridiculous argument of the seven dip-shits who decided the case, that the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment gives a woman the right to privacy—it is really a ridiculous argument—and focus on the above point. What is the right to privacy…if you’re dead?
There is an old saying that in public relations and propaganda you should never, for any reason, accept or forward the basic premise of the enemy. You cannot win on their terms, just as a general is most likely to lose on the battlefield chosen by the enemy, fighting according to the enemy’s rules. Don’t help them in any way. Always attack at their critical points.
I’m reminded of my lifelong best friend at this point. He owns his own business, always joking with me about what that business is. He calls himself a “sanitation engineer.” This is somewhat flowery language for a guy who pumps raw sewage for a living. Well, he’s good at it and his family business is now worth millions of dollars. For the sake of brevity let’s just say that he really knows his shit.
The point being that someone can take the most unsavory subjects and call them something more socially acceptable.
When you are dealing with a political subject there is one thing you must do to win.
ALWAYS CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
It’s not a right to privacy to abort a child. It is the killing of a defenseless human being. It’s not the protection of a woman’s reproductive health care. It’s killing a baby. It’s not protecting abortion rights, especially because with the introduction of the word “rights” it becomes political by definition.
Whatever else is involved in the political debate regarding abortion there are two things that are always absolutely true.
1) All pregnancy involves at least three people. The other two people have rights too.
2) The mass killing of human beings for political reasons is genocide.
This is the battlefield of public relations and propaganda that we need to keep in our minds in order to deal properly with this subject in the arena of ideas. Never abandon those two points. The further afield you go from them the weaker your arguments become. The closer you stick to these simply expressed absolute truths the stronger your arguments become. They are points of irrefutable fact. They are the points where the right to live is the strongest and the supposed right to kill is the weakest.
1) It is a denial of the baby’s right to live as well as a father’s right to reproduce.
2) When politics are involved you are talking about genocide.
Now there are people out there who you are not going to convince. This debate is not about them. There will always be the insane. Our job is to convince as many of the people who are on the fence as we possibly can. Sanity is calm and quiet. Insanity is frantic and loud. When you talk to those frantic and loud people just know that there are sane and quiet people listening in the background. They are your audience. Play to them in your rationality and stick to the points and you’ll gently move the dial back toward the right. Be rational in your manners and you will appeal to whatever rational people who are there to hear you.
You are not debating Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. You are debating the Right to Live vs. Genocide.
Now on to the Supreme Court and yet another reason why they are the most dangerous part of the most dangerous organization on Earth. I explained in my Supreme Court Series, Part One how when the Supreme Court is confronted with a clear conflict of interest to following the Constitution they will introduce things from outside of the Constitution to justify their position and rulings. I also showed in my Supreme Court Series, Part Two how when they can’t find anything else outside of the Constitution to justify their rulings they…well…just kind of make it up according to what they personally think is best for society.
Now here in the fifth installment of the series I have to point out that the ruling on Roe vs. Wade is even worse than that because it is a combination of the two. The Court, in their infinite wisdom, couldn’t find something in the Constitution to support their ruling, nor could they make a case that their ruling served the American People’s best traditional interests. So in this case they took the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, hitched that to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, plus the Fifth Amendment’s right to remain silent, and from this claimed that the Constitution includes within it a right to privacy. And that somehow this supposed right to privacy is above the right of a baby to live.
In other words, they just pretended that various parts of the Constitution say things that they don’t say and applied them to subjects that they don’t apply to and told the American People that that’s what the Constitution really says.
The Fourth Amendment; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This does protect a woman from an unreasonable search, by government officials, of their person’s. Well, nobody in the federal government is searching women’s wombs to see if they are concealing another human being in there! It’s a ridiculous misapplication of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment; “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The modern shortened version of this is “the right to remain silent” because you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself. That in itself is a pretty drastic, once removed, radical reinterpretation of what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court, in Roe, took that radical reinterpretation and radically reinterpreted it again to say that it expresses a right to total privacy; forgetting completely that the total context of the Fifth Amendment was protection from the government regarding accusations of criminal activity.
The idea of a woman killing her baby is so far removed from these two considerations, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, that they are totally non sequitur.
The idea that any of these considerations authorizes the Supreme Court to allow the tens of millions of American human beings to be killed since this decision, and that the American People happily swallow and comply with this tripe, is what makes the modern concept of the Supreme Court supremely dangerous.
Because it is political, by definition, the Supreme Court, with the Roe decision, has authorized the genocide of the most defenseless of the three people involved in every pregnancy. And thus, that person is deprived of the right to life and every single right guaranteed by the Constitution and human nature beyond it.
Nothing in the Constitution authorized them to do that. Nothing moral in all of the laws of Heaven and Earth could ever justify anybody doing that. If they can push the clear and precise language of the Constitution to mean this in this case, and get away with it, they can push it to the point where they can justify the government’s killing of anybody.
Conversely there is only one sentence in the entire Dobbs case that you should know.
“Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
That’s all that anybody should have ever said about it from the Constitutional viewpoint. As I’ve said previously, if it’s not directly named within the Constitution the Tenth Amendment applies.
There is one last point I wish to make on this post. The following text comes from a woman whose identity shall remain anonymous.
“I have a story to tell that I have told very few people, but one that haunts me, even though it happened many years ago. It might give some of you an idea why I find it impossible to believe those who claim abortion is about the woman, not about the money.
“I had a friend who had made the decision to get an abortion, but who was frightened to go alone, so I went with her to support her. At the time I neither objected, nor supported abortion, I just wanted to be there for my friend.
“The clinic was packed, at least 30 young women waiting for their abortion, hardly an empty seat in the waiting room. As we sat there, watching girl after girl led into the back rooms, the swinging door suddenly swung outward, and a doctor, carrying a young woman came out.
“She had passed out, during the procedure I suppose, and was still unconscious as he carried her in. She was covered from the waist down with a white sheet. As he swung in through the door, the sheet fell away, exposing that she was unclothed from the waist down.
“He never seemed to notice. He didn't notice the sheet had fallen, or the horrified looks as we watched him carry her partially naked through that room, leaving tiny drops of blood on the linoleum and strode over to a chair and unceremoniously plopped her down in it.
“A nurse hurriedly ran over to her, and covered her back up, holding her head up while the girl, who was starting to come around drank some juice the nurse was giving her. She soon realized she wasn't dressed, and started crying, obviously embarrassed.
“The same nurse helped gather her up and into another back room, what happened to her after that, I don't know. I sat there speechless, looking around the room at the other women; no one would look at each other.
“I wish I could tell you that this story had a happy ending, that it made my friend change her mind, but I can't. I wish I could tell you that any of those women walked out, but I can't. I lost touch with that friend not long after, so I don't know how it affected her life.
“But that young woman has haunted me all these years. I can never forget how that doctor, in such a hurry to make his table available for the next abortion, just treated her like she was nothing. That abortion wasn't about that girl, it was about the money. They all are.”
This woman’s story is regrettably not unique. For obvious privacy issues I can’t reveal who said this to me. Nor can I reveal the account of the other woman who said to me that when she had an abortion she felt like “just another slab of meat.”
As bad as the abortion mills seem to treat the women whose rights they claim to be defending, never forget the simple fact that any one of us could have had it much worse.
Any one of us could have been the baby.
Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part One
Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Two
Thanks for sharing. Abortion is not a good or right choice also it is not legal. But some countries allow abortion and it's called this process as legal. Most of the time the abortion is done because of physical, mental, or financial issues. It also doe if she is a victim of rape. In such situations, women go for a medical abortion process. To do abortion by medical abortion method they buy Abortion Pill online USA.
ReplyDelete