As a opponent of Roe V Wade, we appear to be on the verge of a moment I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Let us not forget that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 yrs old, battling a cancer (pancreatic) that almost always wins, and she is not likely to be awake when the next Democrat sits in the Oval Office.
What will this mean?
Immediately, it's hard to say.
We may have riots in the street, or at least another demonstration of angry 'women' (provided the current batch of shrillies hasn't sat down by then.)
All the left really has in the way of debate anymore is anger, rage, name calling and threats of violence (oh, and the enhanced-titted porn star who serves as their 'Mother Teresa'... a real feminist hero there).
I'm going to predict there will be demonstrations up to the moment the new Justice (who will no doubt be a racist, homophobe, nazi mysogonist) is seated.
I think the real riots will wait until that glorious day when Roe is properly overturned, if it ever happens. I have my doubts. I think the best we will see is a weakening of Roe along the edges. Maybe limitations on abortion providers, waiting periods... but not much else.
As much as some people might say that they want a total ban on abortions, I'm aware that Virtue Signaling happens on both sides.
It's easy to come out in favor of a policy when you know there is no real chance you will have to abide by it.
I don't believe enough of them mean it.
Too many people have gotten used to having the 'Out', even if they would never use it, to want to get rid of it. Some Genies can't be put back into the bottle. This is one of them, though I see it more as a Pandora's Box.
Even states that currently have laws banning abortion will not be able to enforce them, or will have to radically alter them.
The fight for Life, and it's sanctity, can only happen person to person, heart to heart, one sacred life at a time. We must change the culture, and laws cannot do that.
Intellectual persuasion, when allowed to bloom, can play a strong role in that slow moving process.
Combine that with a loving heart, and the odds increase ten-fold.
I'm no intellectual.
But I do know what love is.
This will continue to be my role in the struggle going forward...
Person to person,
Heart to heart,
One sacred life at a time.
Plus c'est la même chose.
5 comments:
There are few things as easy to manipulate as a deeply terrified pregnant woman-- and once you manipulate her into killing her child, she's got to defend that "choice," or face...something really horrible.
There aren't a lot of folks who are that strong. I don't know if I would be. Solid grounding in biology prevented that ever being an issue.
Truth can help fix the culture; the laws are there to make it harder to prey on people.
and once you manipulate her into killing her child, she's got to defend that "choice," or face...something really horrible.
this.
1000 times this.
and this is where love and compassion can play a role.
The fight for Life, and it's sanctity, can only happen person to person, heart to heart, one sacred life at a time. We must change the culture, and laws cannot do that.
Intellectual persuasion, when allowed to bloom, can play a strong role in that slow moving process.
Combine that with a loving heart, and the odds increase ten-fold.
I'm no intellectual.
But I do know what love is.
This will continue to be my role in the struggle going forward...
Person to person,
Heart to heart,
One sacred life at a time.
Exactly right. It's the only way.
In the original case, TX defended its position as an equal protection as guaranteed by 14th amendment. The justices rejected that claim based on their alleged uncertainty as to the beginning of life. Deferring to the Doctors and the woman (at least for the first trimester).
In the years since 1973, we've made huge strides in proving the viability of life from conception. This should present a real burden for the pro-abortion advocates, but I suspect those same arguments regarding when life begins will be used, for it is the only defense those who support abortion can make. If they concede the life of the unborn is viable then logic would argue that to take that life without the consent of the unborn would violate its rights.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
From the preamble, which from my reading, explains the reason for the constitution to exist, and why it's needed. To me, its the footings of the foundation of the govt it will support.
Roe itself was unconstitutional, because it denies the blessings of liberty to our posterity.
Post a Comment