As of noon today - Sunday May 10th, 2020 - The reported death toll from Coronavirus COVID-19 in The United States since the outbreak began in January -- stands at just over 78,700 individuals. Bear in mind that this number is vastly over-stated - since the CDC has mandated that anyone who dies WITH COVID-19 shall be declared as having died FROM it - regardless of any other underlying illnesses.
By Comparison - American pregnant mothers deliberately kill that many of their own healthy unborn infants about every 6 weeks --- continually ---- without abatement --- year in and year out --- SOLELY for their own convenience. And that "cause of death" - infanticide - is 100% accurate. So - as a culture - we are deliberately killing babies at a rate more than 3X faster than the Coronavirus disease is contributing to the deaths of already immune-deficient adults. The other striking difference is that the killing of babies is not going to stop - we are not trying to stop it - and our Supreme Court and Government have even insisted that it continue - indefinitely.
While taxpers are now spending billions to try to stop Corona virus related deaths - we are simultaneously spending billions to ensure that people can continue to kill their own children without consequences - mainly for their own convenience.
Don't attack the messenger for this - these are just statistical facts for you to chew on - I'm not making any moral proclamations or ethical judgments on the aforementioned (at least not yet anyway). The ethics of this is for you to decide for yourself -- based on your own values and what your own conclusions reveal about your character.
I also find it interesting that in our culture - we have effectively shut down the entire global economy, added more than $2 Trillion to our national debt in the past 6 weeks -- for the former -- but will viciously vilify anyone who is even remotely critical of the latter.
Think on that for a moment - before you read further --- that is if you dare. If you prefer to only read what supports your already closely held-beliefs ... if you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear .... if you're the kind of person who embraces patronizing "feel-good" platitudes instead of the Unvarnished and Absolute Truth - especially when the Truth Hurts --- then stop here, return to your sofa and go back to your mind-numbing video game or continue exchanging facebook posts with your own personal mutual admiration society.
But if you want to learn Truth - absolute and Irrefutable Truth -- I welcome you to continue. You may disagree with the following commentary and assertions - I can respect disagreement -- but I dare you to refute with facts - anything in the following - most especially the Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision near the end of this commentary.
Now Brace Yourself - What you read is going to piss you off - no matter which side of the issue you're on .... because pissing people off is my job as I see it ....... It's what I do best.
When people say things like “a woman should have a right to choose what to do with her own body,” – that is logical, and I couldn’t agree more as a proponent of a free and just society that respects the concept of individual property rights.
But applying this to the concept of abortion is fallacious.
Contrary to what so many would like to obfuscate - a fetus is not just another part of a woman's body. A fetus is someone else's body. Yes, it's exchanging oxygen, CO2, and obtaining nutrients from the mother’s blood supply through the placenta, but the child – as soon as the egg was fertilized – became a separate and unique individual – with its own DNA, it's own identity coming half from its mother, and half from its father. It is a child - with its own identity - separated from the mother carrying it by the placental interface designed to keep both alive and healthy while these two separate individuals share access to mom's blood supply across the placental membranes. In fact - mother and baby often have different blood types - and combining the two would be lethal - another purpose for the protective placenta separating even the blood of these two SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL humans.
The operative phrase here is - SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.
Biologically - if the fetus were just another superficial "part of the mother's body," no placenta would be necessary. A woman's biology DEFINES that the baby is a separate, living, individual, person - from the very instant it was conceived.
And furthermore, the fetus, infant, baby, child – whatever you want to call it – is every bit as much a part of its father as it is its mother – so to claim that the mother carrying it has some greater authority over the life and death decision of that child’s fate than does its father - is a perversion of logic (otherwise known as a lie). When an abortion is performed - it is as much an act of killing the father's baby, as it is in killing the mother's, and when performed without the father's knowledge or consent - that indeed constitutes murder, according to its legal definition. At least 4 of every 5 abortions are performed without the consent of the father.
If you look at the ultrasound image of your baby after just 3 weeks gestation, he or she already has a beating heart. After 6 weeks, he has hands and many images show the baby already starting to suck its thumb. That's not the image of a “collection of random cells.” It is not that of a “tumor.” It is not some superfluous appendage or vestigial organ of the woman’s body that she can, with depraved indifference, amputate and discard with impunity – simply because she feels it will be “inconvenient” for her to raise a child.
We live in an age with the ability to prevent pregnancy in the first place – so when people engage in unprotected sex just for the fun of it – and then refuse to bear the real consequences of pregnancy – to then use abortion as a means of “birth control after the fact” is not only irresponsible, it is unethical, it is depraved, and it is indeed immoral. It is murder of the unborn, and no sugar coating the language can change that fact. Those who use the phrase "pro-choice" are disingenuous cowards - for they are again manipulating language in an effort to make acceptable - a depraved and heinous act. It is not "pro-choice," it is Pro-Abortion - so let's call it what it is.
And please spare me the nonsense about “what if a woman gets pregnant from being raped?”
Yes, I said – nonsense.
I'm not trivializing the horrific nature of rape, and I"m not trying to offend anyone.
We are not talking about special circumstances like that -- circumstances surrounding a violent crime perpetrated against an innocent woman by a violent criminal. Of course, in such rare cases – other provisions have to be applied – and we now have other technology that can assist in such horrific situations – like “the morning after pill” for example. And furthermore, the rate of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest (incest is in fact rape - and therefore does not require differentiation), is less than 0.2% of all UNPLANNED pregnancies in America.
No, we are talking about something entirely different here. What the left wants to do is apply a “blanket” – all encompassing policy over the issue, by citing its relevance to the one aspect of unwanted pregnancies that is statistically negligible. Out of all "unwanted" pregnancies - 99.8% of them are an issue of convenience, not rape or incest. What the left is seeking to do is to misuse this concept to transform a culture from one that used to have moral values --- that used to respect the sanctity of human life and most especially that should seek to protect the most vulnerable among us – to one that continues to expand the “have your cake and eat it too” mentality – the bear no consequences for your actions culture – the entitlement culture that looks to government to solve all of its problems – while enforcing no laws that are intended to reflect natural law (the Constitution) – which states that every person as the right to life, liberty, and property. Those persons include unborn fetuses.
It is the perversion of logic that the left tries to apply to the unborn, by claiming the unborn are not “persons.” They will do anything to try to dehumanize the fetus - to try to make it a "non-person" so that they can misapply the Constitution and the Natural Law on which it is based. They do this by trying to define some sort of "schedule" as to "when does the fetus actually "become" a human being?"
Clearly, this is absurd.
Then what is a baby before it turns into a baby? Is it a raccoon, or a rabbit? Is is a parasite? Is it a tumor ? An alien? Is it a random collection of cells growing out of control? Is it a useless vestigial organ, appendage, or other part of a woman’s body she doesn't really need and can willfully amputate for her own convenience?
An innocent unborn child is NONE of these things, and anyone who has ever witnessed the live ultrasound images of a fetus being aborted can attest - that every unborn child WANTS TO LIVE -- because they all struggle and thrash about in a horrific struggle to survive while the abortionist begins his "procedure" - code for dismembering and mutilating an unborn child.
A fetus, is a human baby – half of its identity from its father, and half from its mother – but it is nevertheless a living individual human being with its own unique identity, its own future, its own RIGHT to LIVE – independent of what its mother might find “inconvenient” regarding her own life. To kill it – is to deprive that individual of his or her life – deliberately – which is the definition of murder. There is no sugar coating that – no obfuscating that – and trying to give the concept a more benevolent sounding name like “pro choice” – will never obviate the fact that the process of dismembering, mutilating, and then vacuuming the remains of the child out of the mother’s womb – is probably the most barbaric and horrific form of murder ever conceived by humanity.
The Supreme Court was wrong in the Roe-V-Wade decision. It wasn't the first time, and certainly not the last. The US Supreme Court has made countless Unconstitutional decisions, since the FDR administration transformed it into the activist body it is today. This is not opinion, or conjecture - there are dozens of examples of the court's deliberate perversions of the Constitution, in order to justify its numerous egregious violations of this country's founding principles.
Roe-v-Wade is a perfect example of The Supreme Court's malfeasance - and the court's own language in the Roe decision - reveals its self-contradictions.
In the Roe-v-Wade decision, the court stated:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins... the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
This statement is a clear indictment of the decision itself.
In other words, this statement - contradicts the courts own decision in terms of The Law. In the court's own words - the court therefore had no legal basis to define that a fetus is NOT already a living human being. The court therefore has no right to subject any fetus to execution for its mother's convenience. If the court cannot define when life begins, it therefore cannot say when it doesn't yet "begin" for an unborn fetus. Our courts do not convict murderers unless they are found guilty BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. Yet here, the supreme court itself expresses DOUBT and uncertainty as to when "life has yet begun" for the fetus - however they're perfectly willing to execute a fetus without proof of non-life beyond any reasonable doubt.
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins..." Oh yes you do. This statement is shameful, and demonstrates the complete lack of ethics within our activist judiciary. If you intend to decriminalize infanticide, then you had damn well better resolve this difficult question first. No Supreme Court Justice has any right to sanction the deliberate murder of infants - whether born or unborn - based on conjecture.
This is one of the most egregious perversions of our legal system ever concocted. The intent of our system to condemn a capital criminal to death only beyond any reasonable doubt - and by a unanimous finding as such by a jury - is to ensure that no innocent will be executed . By extension - for the Supreme Court to therefore subject an unborn baby to the indifference of a selfish mother seeking to kill it for her own convenience, without even proving beyond any doubt that that fetus is not yet a living human individual - is no less absurd than decriminalizing any act of murder for the convenience of the perpetrator.
The Supreme Court's Pro-Abortion Activists
Killing for convenience is ALWAYS a crime, and when the victim is an innocent baby - it is the height of depravity. For the Supreme Court to have ignored this basic ethical principal for the sake of political expediency is an act worthy of impeachment for any sitting justice who supported the legalization of murder with depraved indifference. Not only are those justices guilty who originally held in support of Roe-v-Wade - but so too are those who have supported and upheld it since.
It's simply unimaginable - that any so-called "grown up" could be so depraved - as to deliberately harm, and discard such a beautiful, adorable child - especially their own. Fatherhood, and Motherhood are the greatest gifts bestowed upon humanity. Those who kill their own children for convenience - are criminals.
Most Americans have been persuaded that The SCOTS's job is to "Interpret the Constitution." However, the Framers of the Constitution deliberately used language to render it above interpretation. It uses language such as ... "Congress Shall Make No Law ......," or "...... shall not be infringed." Such language is absolute, clear, succinct, and is not open to interpretation. The SCOTUS was never charged with the authority to change the meaning or intent of the Constitution - Only Congress by the vote of the people can Amend it - but its original meaning and intent are concrete. The SCOTUS's job is to interpret LAW - Legislation passed by the Congress and the US States - in terms of those laws' "Constitutionality." Should any law be challenged and then found to conflict with the powers the Constitution confers onto the government - such law must be cast out as "Unconstitutional." The only way this can work - is to understand that the US Constitution is the Basis-Standard - by which legislation is to be judged. The SCOTUS was never to manipulate the meaning and intent of the US Constitution in order to enable any law to come into being - but this is what this activist body has been doing - as a direct violation of their oaths of office. Justice Scalia - an Originalist - said it best when he stated - "The Constitution cannot be held to be a malleable 'living document," this is absurd, for then there would be no standard to which to hold the judges themselves."
Every Supreme Court Justice who has advocated for the deliberate murder of the unborn - is in direct violation of the tenets of the US Constitution's protections to Life and Liberty - and should be summarily impeached.