In re: Abortion

If you think our politics is boiling over now …!

The U.S. Supreme Court today begins hearing arguments on an abortion case arising from the state of Mississippi.

We’re 48 years removed from Roe v. Wade, the court decision that overturned law in the states to find a right hidden in the “penumbra” of the Constitution. If that seems like a long time, consider Brown v Board of Education overturned “separate but equal” 58 years after Plessy v Ferguson 1896.

The Head Groundskeeper herein professes his pro-life credentials, achieved not by his Catholic religion, nor by the marvels of science but by logic alone. To the question of when does human life begin? he reasons thusly: at the beginning.

A brief for the court

Medical science has converted other non-believers. Two-pound “preemies” delivered after 22 weeks gestation are surviving — well before the third trimester (28 weeks) when Roe permits states to ban abortion. (More here.) The contested Mississippi statute prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. Embryonic babies have a detectable heartbeat at six weeks.

Blowing retreat

Although the Supremes are not expected to decide before June 2022, the “abortion access correspondent” for The Nation is already ululating. She blames lack of state-level political organizing. (Progressives are always “organizing.”) That’s a tacit acknowledgment that Roe did, indeed, improperly expropriate the legislative process. The author neglects to factor in the shrill, hectoring, finger-wagging of taxpayer-financed, abortion-on-demand hellions.

Over at MSNBC, Ari Melber is blaming that reliable, all-purpose villain: men. Mississippi’s legislature is 83% male (Wisconsin is 69% male — about the national average.) He neglects to mention that the Mississippi state attorney general litigating the case is female.

Not ‘Our bodies, ourselves’

We yield the floor to Ross Douthat in the New York Times to address the morality of abortion:


There is no way to seriously deny that abortion is a form of killing. At a less advanced stage of scientific understanding, it was possible to believe that the embryo or fetus was somehow inert or vegetative until so-called quickening, months into pregnancy. But we now know the embryo is not merely a cell with potential, like a sperm or ovum, or a constituent part of human tissue, like a skin cell. Rather, a distinct human organism comes into existence at conception, and every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.  

There is a burden of proof on the pro-choice side to explain why in this case taking another human life is acceptable, indeed a protected right itself. …

Douthat addresses the socio-economic issue:

If there were an integral and unavoidable relationship between abortion and female equality, you would expect … fewer abortions, diminished abortion access, to track with a general female retreat from education and the workplace. But no such thing has happened: Whether measured by educational attainment, managerial and professional positions, breadwinner status or even political office holding, the status of women has risen in the same America where the pro-life movement has (modestly) gained ground.

Blaska’s Bottom Line: Hold onto your MAGA caps! The court’s June 2022 decision comes in the midst of state and congressional election campaigns.

Who is YOUR favorite news reporter?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to In re: Abortion

  1. Good Dog, Happy Man says:

    Abortion is not about a woman’s (euphemism) “right to choose” to kill her own baby.
    It’s not “wymyn’s health care, a reproductive right” or a “choice” , either.
    It is about a more basic and eternal right.

    The “Right to Life,” is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Abortion is a violation of government’s primary purpose: to protect innocent life. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

    Every ‘successful’ abortion, always has at least two victims, the unMother deeply wounded,
    the other, smaller and more innocent one, … the baby, … DOA.
    .
    .
    .
    Prager nails it: FYEE:

    Even my one honest Lefty friend admits Roe was badly decided, and the worst SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott. While there is a “Right To Life” declared in our founding documents, there isn’t a right to an abortion. But Lefties say that it was there all along in our Constitutional Garden. It was just hiding in plain sight right behind an “emanation” eggplant and a “penumbra” pickle.

    Science-denying Lefties are confused about human embyology. They should ask any five-year old, “What’s in mommy’s tummy?” After looking at you as if you’re some kind of moron,
    they’ll always tell you the truth, “It’s a BABY.”

    Poor-choice, pro-abort proglobots are waving their bloody coat hangers again, threatening a revolution if Roe dies. Lefties are like those “good” Germans, who saw and smelled the smoke coming from the camp chimneys, yet still denied reality and their own senses.

    It’s a proggy palindrome, “EVILSLIVE” at Planned unParenthood. Babies don’t.

    Don’t be poor-choice. Choose wisely. Choose Life. Life IS good.

    Like

  2. David Gerard says:

    What kind of hell will there be to pay? A lot.

    Many people are looking at this as an issue that will define the legitmacy of the court. The court’s authority, no matter which way it rules in this case, is under threat.

    Nowhere in the constituion is the court given the authority it usurped in Marbury vs. Madison. The Court can’t order troops into a locality to enforce its decisions.

    If the executive branch chooses to defy and not enforce court decisions, the entire fragile system will fall apart. Eisenhower knew this when he sent federal troops into Little Rock.

    Abortion is just one issue in this process. Water rights will be the next one.

    Like

    • Liberty says:

      There’s a huge difference here. One can reasonably argue that abortion is not a right. How do you do that with water?

      “Abortion is just one issue in this process. Water rights will be the next one.”

      Like

      • David Gerard says:

        Roe vs. Wade defines abortion as a right.

        Here’s a possible scenario – When Nevada, Utah, Arizona and California come to the Court over the next twenty years and ask the court to resolve their on-going water disputes, the court could rule in California’s favor, threatening Arizona’s very existence. The executive branch could then choose not to enforce the decision. California chooses to enforce the decision. Let the games begin.

        In a polarized nation, there are tipping points all over. Dred Scott led to a civil war.

        Like

        • Liberty says:

          I very well understand what Roe v. Wade entails, and I understand your point that the courts could theoretically rule in favor of California.

          My point is that water is essential to life and thus easier to argue that it’s a right. Abortion (unless it threatens the life of the mother) is not essential to life, and in fact it can be reasonably argued that it’s the antithesis of our guaranteed right to life.

          Two separate arguments.

          So by theoretically upholding California’s decision, the Supreme Court would be voting to deny people the right to life. I’m not a Constitutional expert, but I can’t see this happening.

          That said, impending water shortages are real and need to be solved. I’m just not sure your scenario is realistic as is stands now.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Liberty says:

    Compelling and easy for anyone to understand.

    “every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.”

    Get ready for the pink hats, “I had 20 abortions” t-shirts and tasteless SNL skits.

    What I have the biggest issue with is how anyone can contest late term abortions and “born alive” bills. You have to be a real ghoul.

    Even Progressives can surely see that at this point, that what a women is carrying is a developed life. Or maybe they do see it, but are so filled with ideology and hate that they don’t care.

    That said, it’s not enough to preach and tell women that abortions are bad, especially if they think they have no other choice. I think Republicans need to invest in options that make adoption possible for women who don’t want to keep their babies. Why can’t our tax dollars fund adoption centers? Action over lip service.

    Liked by 1 person

    • richard lesiak says:

      Republicans fund something? Since when? The court is trapped between politics and the law. The last two appointees made many comments on where they stand on abortion. Now it going to bite them in the ass. When it comes to getting a shot it becomes “my body; my choice.” women say the same about abortion. What about rape, incest, deformed and serious medical problems? Maybe the RNC can stop paying trump’s legal bills and fund those centers you speak of. You want to save kids; how about gun control?

      Like

  4. Michael Leger says:

    I support a woman’s right to choose up to the point that the fetus is viable on its own. A heartbeat is not a sufficient definition of when a nascent life form has become a human being.

    It is a far greater tragedy to me to bring a child into the world who is unwanted, unsupported, unloved, than to realize a mistake was made and terminate the pregnancy at a very early stage.

    It is very easy to say one is Pro-Life. If something isn’t actively being done to support the many unwanted children in the world, it’s just words.

    Like

    • Liberty says:

      That’s why I support tax-payer money being diverted to adoption centers, to give women more options. Let these young women learn valuable life & work skills whether they’re preparing to give their babies up for adoption or keep their baby.

      The Catholics used to run several such centers in Chicago. They should be much more widely available.

      The definition of when a life begins may not be sufficient for you, but it is to others. Therein lies a big part of the problem: agreeing when life become life.

      Like

    • David Blaska says:

      “A nascent life form.” !!! George Orwell is spinning like a centrifuge!

      Like

      • Michael Leger says:

        Here’s the problem: if both sides take absolute positions, it is guaranteed war.

        Nascent is exactly correct:
        Coming into existence; emerging.
        Commencing, or in process of development; beginning to exist or to grow; coming into being.

        I’m not big on big gov’t. I prefer private solutions. To be blunt, if you don’t have skin in the game, your position is paper (maybe digital) tiger.

        Like

  5. Another great blog post by Blaska!

    Here’s my thoughts on abortion.

    Here’s another good related read on abortion.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. richard lesiak says:

    ALL these conservative judges told a very different story when they wanted to be confirmed. Interesting that the final ruling won’t be due till ’22 after the midterms. This court is nothing more than an arm of the gop. Maybe they need to take up flushing condoms. Both the bible and the torah say that a man spilling his seed should be put to death.

    Like

    • georgessson says:

      Richard, I’ll-Calls-Ya-Dick,

      “Both the bible and the torah say that a man spilling his seed should be put to death.”

      I believe there s/b a special kinda punishment for ya, Richard. Because the use of a moldy rancid donut-hole to self-fornicate is Uber stomach-turning…

      Like

  7. georgessson says:

    Richard, AKA, “Dick”…. Yer describing/quoting RE: Onanism. That hardly ever leads to pregnancies…

    Like

  8. Bill Cleary says:

    Ah, abortion. What a way to start a conversation on values. As a person who grew up in the Roman Catholic Tradition, I will comment on this without bringing religion into the mix until the end of my thoughts.

    The American value of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness goes right out the window with abortion. In addition, since there are more children that are born who are female, abortion is misogynistic at it’s very base. It is also racist as more children of color are aborted than children that are white.

    Margaret Sanger who founded planned parenthood was in fact a racist. Here is a quote from her: “We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the [African-American] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

    https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/07/28/margaret-sangers-extreme-brand-eugenics

    If you want to support abortion you are supporting the death of women and black people. How does that not make you a misogynist and a racist?

    Do you see yourself like the Germans of Nazi Germany. Do you do the goose step, do you Sieg Heil every time another abortion is performed?

    In addition, let’s suppose that the elderly who cannot take care of themselves are no longer considered “people”. How about those with physical and mental disabilities who need the constant support of the state to live. What if they are declared as “non persons”?

    I have worked with those who have physical and mental disabilities, the aged, as well as those in the LGBT community. I have a profound love for many of them as I have seen the humanity they have displayed toward others.

    I know and work with a number of people who are people of color or in the LGBT community who are by any standard, the finest people I have ever met. They are way smarter and well educated than I will ever be. They take care of the people of Madison will a love and understanding that I, as an old white guy, could not ever replicate.

    Point is that if one side has the power, they can declare anyone as non human.

    That is NOT what America is about or ever was set up to be.

    I don’t want to live in a world like that. I am not now or have ever been a member of the nazi party.

    I never want to see people of color, people who are in the LGBT community or the people who have physical or mental disability’s, humanity taken away from them.

    In my mind, it all comes down to this: If you want diversity, if you want equity, or equality, you have to appose abortion.

    That is why, as an American, I appose abortion.

    As a Catholic, I appose abortion as it is God who said in the Holy Bible in the book of Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    We will all one day stand before Almighty God, the Father of all creation and have to answer for all we have done or not done.

    I am guilty of many sins for which I am sorry for. I do not want to add the killing of an innocent person to my sins.

    I hope that one day, each and every one of us, will all know God’s love for each and every one of us.

    Amen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • One eye says:

      You are channeling Candace Owens. It’s ridiculous to think abortion is akin to genocide of the black community.

      As I’ve said before I’d prefer that long acting reversible contraception be used. I know some religious people have a problem with even that.

      Like

  9. One eye says:

    More feral kids …. what could go wrong?

    “Restaurants get you in with food to sell you liquor; religions get you in with belief to sell you rules.” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

    Like

  10. Good Dog, Happy Man says:

    Lefties always speak in euphemisms like “choice” when referring to abortion. They have to.
    For any sentient human, the reality of what they’re choosing to do is just too horrific.

    They’ve never honestly asked themselves, “What exactly are I choosing?”
    The answer is harsh. You’re choosing to kill your own unborn baby.

    Poor-choice, pro-abort feminasties are willing to “choice” murder their own babies. It shows me, the D’s are a party of Death, the Devil and the Devil’s own donkey.

    The Democrat Party is hardly a national party anymore, it’s only an urban coalition of perpetually-offended TDSers, #HateAmericaFirsters and #AngryBlueFisters. It’s been co-opted by the morally relativist godless secular-progressives, pro-abort feminasties, looney-toon Luddite-like lockstep Lefty lemmings and social justice wing-nut warriors.

    Democrats abandoned normal, regular, common sense, family, faith and the Freedom First, God, Constitution and Country-loving, reality-based blue dog Democrats a long time ago.

    Mamas, don’t let your children grow up to be Lefties.
    Lefties aren’t good for children or other living things.

    Back in 1973, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had a sign in his office,
    “There will be no emanatin’ in the penumbra.”

    Voofda!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Balboa says:

    What is even more perverse, many lefties humanize other animals over actual humans born and unborn. But support unfettered access to this medical procedure. I am in agreement, republicans should be focusing on creating laws to make sure as bill clearly protect the state from mandating forced abortions of what the left consider to be the most vulnerable.
    As a parent a child is pretty much helpless now until age 27 so deemed by the ACA to support and pay their own way so why can’t parents just post pregnancy abort if they so choose. It is absurd and horrific to even think about but follows some lefties logic. Every other freedom in this country has its limits and has rules to follow with the one exception abortion because that is the one right that can never be restricted in lefties eyes. In the 70s children born premature died, but through science and innovation the death outcome has become less of a factor. So a 20 week fetus in womb is not a life but a 20 week baby born is a child. It is a question or situation i have never been in, let’s say a doctor comes to you, unforseen accident child is near term , mother to be unconscious, no poa or discussion made in writing with spouse, child, whomever and u are in charge. They say they can only save the mother but baby will need to terminated if we don’t both will die. In my years on this planet u witness miracles and u witness trajedy and loss and their stories.

    I don’t agree with it but this topic truly is one i want left alone. 15 weeks no exceptions cannot be allowed to stand. Do i believe it needs to be limited,yes , but if this is allowed to stand and no exceptions are allowed it will be an injustice and other horrific outcomes will come from it allowing to stand.

    Legal, limited, rare with exceptions. Safe is a relative term. It is about as safe as taking prescribed ivermectin or hcq to fight covid. All medical intervention has risks, and abortion is not a slam dunk one will recover and not have lasting physical and mental issues.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Liberty says:

      “What is even more perverse, many lefties humanize other animals over actual humans born and unborn.”

      Why do we have to pit one issue against another?

      Some of us care about both humans AND animals. I’m repulsed that leftists are ok with partial birth abortions and have voted against the born alive bill. You have to be a real ghoul. That said, I’m also appalled by cruelty displayed towards animals.

      Like

  12. Rollie says:

    For all the logic espoused, I see nobody taking the logic to any broader conclusions. As stated, the key is in the definition of when life begins. Taking the author’s position that it begins at conception has ramifications far beyond the abortion issue. Please, logical thinkers, employ your logic to what else will change if this definition is to be the truth. I predict some shifting and squirming and round-about illogical rationalization once this logical exercise shifts to impacting one’s own self or further intrusion of government power into our lives. In other words, sanctity of life quickly becomes sanctity of some life.

    For those that are using the Bible as their guide, I’m perpetually surprised at the curious cherry-picking of Jesus’s teachings. Please, moral thinkers, take your morality to a few more conclusions and see where you land.

    For so many decree themselves “logical” or “moral” but rarely challenge themselves to examine exactly where they cease to be so. There are none living a truly logical or moral life. Just as anyone truly smart would never declare themselves as such because being truly smart means to understand the vastness of that which is not known; anyone truly logical or moral would understand how far they are from that ideal.

    Understanding this allows us to see each other as not right/wrong or good/bad, but at different points on a spectrum and with differing fundamental assumptions. For example, many will confidently espouse that killing is wrong. But further examination will uncover a trove of situations where they believe killing is not wrong, and even situations where they believe killing is right. What started as a simple moral statement evolves into a complex pretzel that reasonable people can reasonably differ within. All of them will claim a logical or moral reasoning rising from each personal set of fundamental assumptions.

    In a nutshell, get off your moral and logical high horses. We live in a democracy and we all need to compromise. None of our law is derived from actual consistent logical or moral frameworks. This is not a moral or logical discussion, it is a political discussion that uses morals and logic as tools to be inconsistently applied to serve political ends.

    Prove me wrong and show me the logically or morally consistent person in this arena.

    Like

    • Batman says:

      What will you accept as proof Rollie?

      Like

    • “Who really has the moral high ground in the abortion argument? It’s certainly not the ones that are exterminating helpless human beings because they blindly shirked their personal responsibilities regarding sexual intercourse and unintentionally created an “unwanted” human being. Yes, there are actually responsibilities regarding sex that are something other than “getting off” to fulfill your personal enjoyment goals. There are responsibilities for those who engage in sexual intercourse regardless if it’s consensual sex or not and every male and female should be taught these things by their parents and reinforced by our society/culture before they enter puberty and continued as they grow to be an adult.”

      List of Responsibilities

      Like

    • Rollie says:

      I would accept as proof a challenging interview. I could interview anyone and eventually discover where their logic and morals twists them into a contradiction. The only person I know of that couldn’t be was Jesus – we all know he took his morality all the way through his execution. No “self defense” rationalization for him, but “we know” he’d be morally justified to slay the soldiers crucifying him, and he clearly had the ability to do so – why didn’t he? Because he had consistent morals and we don’t.

      And a high horse rider has arrived! Demonizing “the other side” as morally inferior when they simply disagree with the opinion regarding when life begins. Sure, there’s a great mass-media brainwashing push going on right now “scientifically proving” that life begins at conception. Please do regurgitate that. And to throw in “regardless if it’s consensual sex or not” brings this up a level indeed. I assume that this is to advocate a complete ban even in the case of rape? Feel free to believe that but please also allow others to disagree.

      We’re all better off if we stop demonizing those that disagree with us and understand that to live in a democracy means compromise. We all do not have the same morality or fundamental assumptions and this has to be ok for any of this to work. Given a choice, I’d rather have democracy and laws that don’t always agree with my morals rather than dictatorship and laws that align perfectly with my morals. Please all: stop desiring to force everyone to think like you do. Vigorous and spirited debate, sure. Demonization, no.

      Like

      • Batman says:

        Rollie says:
        “I would accept as proof a challenging interview. I could interview anyone and eventually discover where their logic and morals twists them into a contradiction.”

        You obviously have an idea of what constitutes solid refuting proof *of something* that you would accept but seem unwilling to just say it in unambiguous language.
        Your writing lacks simple clarity despite the verbosity.

        Like

        • Rollie says:

          Plain language: nobody is logically or morally consistent nor are our laws. If a person says they are they are lying. Use of holier-than-thou language in political arguments to demonize “the other” is hypocritical – if in glass houses don’t throw stones. On average we are not morally or logically superior to each other and we should compromise.

          Like

      • Rollie wrote, “I could interview anyone and eventually discover where their logic and morals twists them into a contradiction.”

        Interesting.

        That statement was “spoken” like an anti-logic and anti-morals activist hiding behind the facade of a pseudo journalist; abuse critical thinking skills to manipulate the target. It’s gaslighting which we all know is a form of psychological abuse where a person or group makes someone question their sanity, perception of reality, or memories.

        Rollie wrote, “The only person I know of that couldn’t be was Jesus – we all know he took his morality all the way through his execution. No “self defense” rationalization for him, but “we know” he’d be morally justified to slay the soldiers crucifying him, and he clearly had the ability to do so – why didn’t he? Because he had consistent morals and we don’t.”

        Actually Rollie, I think you’re misinterpreting the Bible story. Jesus didn’t not slay the soldiers crucifying him because he had consistent morals, he didn’t slay them because he was very purpose driven and to slay them would contradict that purpose. Jesus knew he was walking into death, he knew the reasons why, he knew he would be raised from the dead, he knew what was on the other side of death for him and he accepted his fate with as much dignity, humanity, forgiveness and honor to the purpose as any human being could possibly give. Read and understand your Bible a little better.

        All that said; I do agree that human beings in general have shown themselves to have inconsistent morals and rationalize too many things but that’s no reason to toss morals aside and allow defenseless human beings to literally be exterminated simply because they are “unwanted” which is profoundly immoral and wicked, aka pure evil.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Rollie says:

          It really is true that all humans hold logical and moral contradictions. I would think one would be unfathomably close to God if they didn’t. I don’t think I’m gaslighting to say that, but I am trying to get people to take their self righteousness down a few notches and seek out in themselves where they fall short rather than cast stones.

          People can differ in interpretation of the Bible. I’m free to read it my way, you’re free to yours. I won’t bother with more theological debate, I was simply implying that it is my opinion that to be Christ-like one would not kill even in self defense. There is a diversity of moral viewpoints that can be respected.

          Liked by 1 person

  13. Bill Cleary says:

    Why is it that if I drive drunk, (Which I don’t), can be prosecuted if I drive into a mother with an unborn child inside her and kill or do harm to that child?

    Why is it that if that mother who was carrying her unborn child did crack cocaine or drank heavily, causing injury or death to that child can be prosecuted as well?

    Why is it that when a woman is less than 21 weeks pregnant, if harm is done to her unborn child, the person doing that harm can be prosecuted but she can legally have an abortion?

    Like

  14. Good Dog, Happy Man says:

    Lots of low-flow Lefties believe Life begins when the dog dies,
    and their full-grown child moves out of their basement.

    Some years more black babies are killed by abortion than are born. #BlackLiesMatter doesn’t care about those black lives, or do they care about the staggering number of blacks murdered by other blacks. Blacks used to be 17% of our population. Thanks to Planned unParenthood’s business model of locating their #HumanChopShops in the hood, … it’s down to 12%.

    If BLM really were interested in saving black lives, the most important thing they could do would be to set some reasonable limits on abortion. They could save more black lives in a month than the police would kill in 100 years. If the BLM had their way, the number of young black men dying would INCREASE, because when you boil it all down, BLM has a simple agenda, … they hate cops.

    With her “Negro Project” the founder of Planned unParenthood, racist, eugenicist, and hero to the godless, secular progressives, Margaret Sanger, is my top favorite socialist mass murderer. She ranks way above Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Che and the Castros.
    Her death toll is still going up. Over 62 million babies have been “choiced” since Roe.

    Even after 48 years since Roe , abortion remains on the front burner. Thanks to MS’s attempt at setting some reasonable time limits on abortion, we’re having this conversation again. Despite the best efforts of the government/media complex, (beware of) “gosnelling” Planned unParenthood’s trafficking in aborted baby body parts is still front and center.
    Poor-choice, pro-abort proglobots exemplify man’s inhumanity to man.

    Personally, I’m looking forward to the repo of a Lamborghini owned by a PunP butcher. It’s bad enough to steal a little baby girl’s Life, but then for the #HumanChopShop to sell her baby body parts for profit is unconscionable. It’s plain evil.

    But then again EVILSLIVE at Planned unParenthood. Babies don’t.

    Some godless secular-progressives have lost their moral/ethical center.
    You wouldn’t do what they “choose” to do to an unborn baby to a dog.

    Like

    • Rollie says:

      Hark! We are in the presence of the moral! Please, espouse how killing is wrong. Then please further espouse upon how killing is also right. We seek your superior guidance. Exactly when is it right and when is it wrong again?

      Like

      • Good Dog, Happy Man says:

        Dear Rollie,

        You seem confused about that whole right v. wrong thing, so I’ll presume your question is an honest one and try to answer. I know the right and wrong dichotomy might harsh your mellow and be absolute, but it gives you some guidelines of societal behavior, too.

        I don’t claim to be superior, Rollie, but I do enjoy some of His superior guidance.
        Personally I try to abide both the laws of society, and also God’s Natural Laws.

        If you knew any Christian theology, you’d know that “Thou shalt not kill.” is the 5th Commandment. Like Socrates, in his small catechism, Luther always asks, “What does this mean?,” and answers, “We should fear (respect) and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need.”

        Informed Christians, true Christians, … regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the Word of God and honor His commands, … will not, indeed CANNOT, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful. Abortion is killing, It’s evil.

        This is not only our constitutionally-affirmed human right to freely exercise our faith, but it’s our Christian duty, as well. It is not done from hate. It is not done from bigotry. It is done neither from a position of superiority nor a desire to “impose our beliefs” upon others. It is done from obedience to Christ and compassion for our fellow fallen who yet wallow in folly.

        All of our common laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals, ethics and values.

        Moses giving the Tablets of the Law is on the outside frieze of the Supreme Court Building.
        (Lefties would have to deface that building in order to culturally cleanse cancel this religious/historic scene. So far they haven’t, but I wouldn’t put it past the godless secular-proglobotic Left. But I digress.) During war, our society accepts killing for self-defense. It’s a well-reasoned, widely-accepted, justified act based on Augustinian Law. The State can therefore impose the death penalty for crimes so grievous one must pay the ultimate price.

        You might ask (like Hillary did), “What’s the difference?” between killing an unborn baby or a criminal? You might rationalize, … it’s still killing.

        It’s so simple even a Lefty could understand it. It’s the difference between taking an innocent Life, … the baby’s, … versus taking a guilty life, … the murderer’s.

        I hope this helped you.

        Peace. Out. And keep the baby, Faith.

        GDHM

        Like

        • Rollie says:

          That was wonderful, thank you and I agree more that you probably think.

          The 10 commandments aren’t ranked in importance and they don’t have asterisks and exceptions. Once those that cite their faith as reasons to be against killing start being just as upset over war and capital punishment I’ll begin to respect the argument. And once they protest for keeping holy the sabbath and against coveting their neighbor’s things to the same degree as they do for anti-abortion rallies I’ll complete my respect for their effort. Hypocrites should get off their high horses!

          Like

        • Rollie says:

          I’m interested to dive into your rationalization that man has authority to determine who is ok and not ok to kill. I don’t have time now, but if you want I’ll revisit it.

          I’m personally anti-abortion. I just believe that we have to compromise in a democracy and that those citing their faith should tread carefully and look within themselves rather than cast stones and judge others. God is the judge.

          Like

        • Good Dog, Happy Man says:

          Dear Rollie,

          Thanks for endorsing the 10 Commandments. It’s Old Testament, but It’s still The Law.
          The law had to be dumbed down in the NT for today’s post-modern Christian-lite Lefties:
          “Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind,” … and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

          We’ve all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, but there’s a process for redemption, forgiveness and being made whole again. Still, there is a difference between individual sins and a philosophical worldview that embraces those sins as a matter of course.

          Modern liberalism, … progressivism, Leftyism, secular-humanism, socialism, communism, pick your poison, … is built on, by and for sin itself. Liberalism’s entire fabric is constructed by proggy precept planks that are soaked through and stained by man’s arrogant rebellion against our Creator. It’s just par for the proglobotic course, of course, because Lefties are self-made men who worship their own creator. Leftyism is folly. It shows man’s futile attempt to rebel against God’s Natural Law.

          Leftyism is the unholy brainchild of God’s very first enemy, given by that enemy to God’s Crown of Creation, us, with the sole purpose of destroying that creation. Unfortunately, we’re all too happy to help. Leftyism just formalizes the process, making sin public policy.

          The central tenets of Leftyism violate each of the Ten Commandments.
          (The Ten Commandments from the Pentatuch, The Book of Exodus 20:1-17):

          1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.
          At worst, Lefties deny the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, they adopt that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing, false equivalency and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Lefty Christianity falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp. Secular-Progressive humanism, Lefty’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

          We’re talking idolatry. Leftyism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry, … the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects, … enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: political ideology, pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc. Essentially, Lefty worships the created over the Creator. Lefties confuse liberty with licentiousness when worshipping the sins of the flesh.

          2. Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord, Thy God, In Vain.
          To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain. Lefties do this and much more. Many Lefties also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. Lefties hate The Truth.

          3. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.
          This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law, … the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a sacred significance.

          4. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.
          Lefties seek to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated, traditional conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “homosexual marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these common sense cornerstone institutions. It’s the only commandment that comes with a promise, …. that you’ll live long on this earth.

          5. Thou Shalt Not Murder.
          Abortion, wymyn’s health care, euthanasia, genocide, reproductive rights, death with dignity. Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the feminasty sacramental rite of passage for an unmother to slaughter her own child in the womb. 62 million dead babies later, Lefties continue to worship at the proglobotic pagan altar of “choice”.

          6. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.
          This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include marital infidelity, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, transgenderism, et al. Proggies embrace all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. A central tenant to Leftyism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, Lefties feel they can do no wrong because there is no wrong, “It’s muh truth.” There’s The Truth, and then there’s your opinion.

          7. Thou Shalt Not Steal.
          With class warfare as its fuel, Lefties embrace the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Lefties thrive on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, Lefty government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring that liberal politicians remain in power and everyone else remains miserable, but ‘comfortably numb’. How much of what I earn are others entitled to steal?

          8. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
          I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals: “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.” As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Lefties lie. It’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of Leftyism is SOP.

          9/10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.
          Lefties use man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all their economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives Lefties the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only do Lefties violate this commandment, Leftyism commands their true-believers to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.” As Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” so, too, do Lefties masquerade as good. It’s deceptively packaged in flowery euphemisms and feel-good sound bites and talking points that promise “equality,” “tolerance” and libertine notions of “social justice.” Yet, in reality, Leftyism, in both philosophical and practical terms, simply signifies man’s predisposition to “call evil good and good evil.” when it’s just sin, … all dolled up and doled out.

          I’ll get into Lefty’s favorite lament later , i.e., “Judge NOT lest you be judged.” To rationalize their sin, Lefties will pull it out at the drop of a hat. It’s a bit involved, but the nut of it is that that’s not what Jesus really taught. He told us HOW to judge.

          As Luther says, “This is most certainly true.”

          The Most Right Reverend Doctor Good Dog, Happy Man

          Like

    • Rollie says:

      Yet we live in a democracy with freedom of religion. No matter how devoted to The Word any citizens are, our political system requires compromise with people who may believe literally opposite of what Christianity teaches. However much it is determined that Christianity influenced our law, we must respect the views of other citizens and understand that not everyone is a Christian. On topics such as this where there is no consensus about exactly when life begins our law has to find compromise, while we can live according to our own standards.

      For instance, not all Christians agree with your moral carve-outs to justify killing in war or capital punishment. But should they in the name of morality shout and judge and disparage and ruckus around about it, or should they peacefully conscientiously object if drafted and live peacefully among other citizens who disagree?

      What I’ve found lacking in so much discourse surrounding this is Love. Yes, even love for sinners. Love is the overarching teaching of Jesus. To tell the truth I find the opposite in your post so harshly critiquing “the left”. I’m not inclined to do so myself for lack of time, but I don’t find it far fetched that one could write a similar list for “the right”. Then everyone can go around hating and judging and hating and judging…. Not my ideal world.

      I don’t disparage your right to your view, and if you feel the urge to believe what you do so be it. I have a different philosophy and interpretation. I want to live where we can have freedom to decide matters of personal morality for ourselves, and where our politics averages out all of our views in the spirit of democracy. I want to live where we love one another, and I don’t believe demonization is an expression of love. Demonization, in my view, encourages the opposite.

      Like

      • Good Dog, Happy Man says:

        “I want to live where we can have freedom to decide matters of personal morality for ourselves.”

        Because of our sinful nature, mankind is not perfectible. That’s a utopian dream many Lefties share. What is personal morality? Leftyism is a simplistic philosophy.

        It’s like saying “Personally, I’d never have an abortion, but I don’t want to impose my religious views, values, ethics or morality, I’ll give the poor-choice, pro-aborts a pass.”
        That’s using situational ethics and the very definition of moral relativism.

        Moral relativists proglobotically pride themselves on being a good person, but they’re like those “good” Germans, who saw the smoke and smelled the sickly sweet odor coming from the camp chimneys and yet were somehow still able to deny their own senses.

        Excusing bad behavior only facilitates more bad behavior. We’re witnessing the fruits of this soft-on-sin approach right now. If you don’t speak truth or obey and enforce the law, … you implicitly condone and appease evil. As with the law, the truth is absolute and can be harsh. It’s an either/or, good/bad, wrong/right dichotomous decision made by society.

        You can’t be a good Christian and a good Lefty at the same time. It’s mutually exclusive. At best you’d be shamed for demonizing sin, at worst they’d culturally crucify and cancel you. Simply saying, ” If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.” is akin to saying, “If you don’t like slavery, … don’t own one.”

        Let me illustrate with a story. Thomas Jefferson had a progressive friend who said he wanted his children to chose their own personal morality. After supper he invited him to tour his new garden at Monticello. His friend was gobsmacked when he saw the garden and said, All I see here are weeds, thistles and thorny brush, Thomas. ”

        “I don’t want to impose my will on the garden to produce fruits and vegetables.”
        Jefferson replied.

        Lesson learned. Like children, you must teach (impose) good morality, ethics and values or they’ll never bear good fruit.

        A pure democracy would be like two wolves and a lamb deciding what for supper.
        Thank God America is a representative republic. (if we can keep it).

        I believe we are an exceptional nation that’s blessed by God. Not that we’re better than any other nation. We are an exception to all other nations, because only in America are our rights inalienable. Because God grants us our rights, a government can’t take them away. Our Founding Fathers were very intelligent men. They listed The Right To Life first.
        Without The Right To Life, no other rights matter.

        This is most certainly true.

        Like

        • Rollie says:

          Given your fundamental belief that we are an exceptional nation blessed by God I doubt you and I could ever sway each other’s views. That viewpoint allows one to move on to countless conclusions that don’t hold logical or moral consistency without it. Our nation could literally do anything and it could easily be justified through that fundamental belief. Indeed it has, just ask the Native Americans. They might be surprised to hear how dearly the right to life is held in this country. And we’re back to the hypocrisy that I started this whole conversation with.

          What is a right to life without the right to sustain your life? We’re not a primitive culture where there is a free forest and prairie where each born being has a chance to freely associate, clash, find food and build shelter. A deer in the woods has far greater freedom to independently sustain their life than any human. Every inch of land is owned, and no human has freedom to seek food and shelter independently, they must integrate into the community, where their right to sustain their own life is dependent on the community allowing them access to the means with which to do so. It is not a right if others have the choice to keep it from you. Our laws allow us to completely separate a man from all sources of food if we would so wish. There is no right to land or water, and land and water is what sustains life. These ideals held up so confidently disintegrate in the complexity of modern humanity. We hold to the words as they are comforting but the meanings seem quite distorted under scrutiny.

          I enjoy digging deeper into these fundamental assumptions because I believe that is truly where differences are – many of us can’t understand why other people aren’t swayed by our arguments on particular issues, but is because we’re talking of things many steps past our fundamental beliefs. Only through sharing fundamental beliefs can people agree on logical and moral conclusions in particular situations/instances/issues.

          Like

        • Good Dog, Happy Man says:

          Good talk, Rollie.

          You’re correct, it’s usually impossible for anyone to change a Lefty’s mind about a political, moral, religious or philosophical issue.

          How do you know someone’s a Lefty?
          Is there some kind of a Lefty litmus test?

          Yes, there is. Abortion is but one example. I’m not demonizing, but a Lefty will always follow lockstep Leftist doctrine and parrot proggy propaganda if it furthers their cause.

          My friend, da Gotch said it much better, “Lefties wear industrial-strength, weapons-grade, military-hardened ideological blinders.” So, no matter how much absolute truth, linear-logic or consistency there is in what I say, you’ll “gosnell” it. This sort of close-mindedness makes Lefties nearly impervious to any information that might challenge their close-minded, cognitively dissonant echo chamber.

          Secular-progressives are true-believing zealots in their religion of moral relativism.

          If you think it’s wrong to say that there’s an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. I suppose it’s morally and logically consistent to be non-judgemental, but taking being non-judgmental to the level that Lefties do leaves them paralyzed, spinning around and around in their progressive pretzel logic. Many Lefties are incapable of ever saying, “That’s wrong.”,

          If you’re against firm societal standards and you don’t condemn sinful, immoral or criminal behavior, then your moral compass doesn’t work. You can’t call a spade a spade.
          You condone immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.

          Lefties take a dim view of personal responsibility and accountability.

          Who’s at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society?

          If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you’re dirt poor, starving, and haven’t worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the Collectivist Big Nanny State? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while Lefties say the latter. When you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it becomes very difficult to understand cause and effect in people’s lives.

          If you condone abortion, the truth is not in you.
          There’s never any choice for the unborn baby.
          You’re not pro-choice, … you’re poor-choice.

          Like

        • Rollie says:

          Thank you for the conversation. Just as the left can’t have their mind changed, so also the right. With democracy such differences can be averaged out through compromise. But I remain alarmed for what the normalized demonization of fellow Americans portends, as this urge leads away from democracy. The people you hate are your family, your neighbors, your co-workers, your customers. Love your neighbor even if you consider them a sinner, as we are all sinners.

          There sure is a lot of money to be made from flaming Americans’ hatred.

          Like

      • Batman says:

        Rollie says:
        “Use of holier-than-thou language in political arguments to demonize “the other” is hypocritical – if in glass houses don’t throw stones.”
        “I want to live where we love one another, and I don’t believe demonization is an expression of love. Demonization, in my view, encourages the opposite.”

        I think I understand where you’re coming from Rollie, especially with demonizing the radical Left. Not sure you understand why so many here resort to that type of language.
        Previous comments by myself and others should have clued you in by now, but here is the gist of it: radical Leftys are violent revolutionaries whose intent is to deconstruct the existing system on virtually every level, in every way, and by any means.
        There is no reasoning with them.
        Think of it this way; kumbaya (thatisyou) meets ISIS.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Bill Cleary says:

    For all,

    Read this and weep.

    https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/07/21/modified/CREC-2015-07-21-pt1-PgH5319-2.htm

    Hitler would be so, so proud of us as a nation doing exactly what he wanted to do to the rest of the world!

    I personally feel sorry for these people who participate or promote abortion. They do not know the future. Their future is in Hell!

    Hell is real and is forever.

    To be tortured forever in the everlasting flames of Hell. Not what I would want for anyone.

    To those of us who are complicit in abortion: Repent, repent, repent.

    Change your lives NOW!

    Ask JESUS for HIS forgiveness!

    Stop aborting babies that God created.

    Almighty God forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy Mercy.

    Amen.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.