The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe was as shameful as its decision in Dredd Scott — and for the same reason.

The Federalist ^ | JUNE 24, 2022 | JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The end of Roe v. Wade is perhaps the greatest political and cultural event in a generation. It will change American politics forever, and — what’s more important — it will save the lives of countless unborn children. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is a great victory for the U.S. Constitution, for the American people, and for justice and truth and the common good.

It is also a turning point. We should now expect Democrats and the left to call more explicitly for violence, initially against places like crisis pregnancy centers and Catholic churches, as we have already seen, and eventually against ordinary people who disagree with them. We should expect not just calls for physical attacks against the justices in the Dobbs majority, but, as we have also already seen, attempts to carry out such attacks.

This violence will likely be accompanied by rhetoric that more explicitly posits abortion not just as a positive good — “shout your abortion” — but a necessary one for women to enjoy their full rights as citizens under the Constitution. The argument, already gaining steam in public discourse, is that without a constitutional right to kill the unborn, women are relegated to a kind of second-class status, stripped of their full humanity. This rhetoric will be used in part as a justification for violence, but it also reflects the actual views of Democrats and the left on abortion.

Indeed, the very first paragraph of Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in Dobbs makes this claim: “Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.” Note the phrase “full equality.” Without a right to abortion, women do not have full equality, goes the argument.

[DoodleDawg]

Actually they can go a much easier route.

Easier route? In this Congress?

[cymbeline]

Me: The anti-abortionists never show any understanding of the predicament the pregnant girls and women are in.

You: What planet are you from?

Me: What would you do if your daughter got pregnant and didn’t want her baby?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I would welcome my new grandchild.

You would murder your new grandchild.

See the difference?

[aquila48]

“Easier route? In this Congress?”

Yep. 60 votes in the senate, majority in the house and a president that signs it and it’s done.

If it wasn’t for the filibuster rule they could easily do that today.

[cymbeline]

“You would murder your new grandchild ... See the difference?”

I’d welcome the grandchild too. How did that brain of yours conclude otherwise?

[windsorknot]

The title makes no sense

Very misleading. Typical.

[combat_boots]

Just the opposite. Babies are not considered persons with rights to the Left. A type of 3/5 person allows for ending a baby’s life as a result.

[Dr. Franklin]

The current state of morality in the country is somewhat dependent on easy access to abortion for “inconvenient” pregnancies. But access will now be less easy. We should attempt to achieve better morality in the country.
Today, many women who absolutely do not want a baby, simply “make it go away”. But now that won’t be quite so easy. We should plan to help women who have a baby they do not want. Orphanages and adoption agencies will be in greater demand.

The issue is that in the West, sex and procreation have been separated, and marriage and the traditional family are considered antiquated. Then when the population isn't growing, the elites resort to importing illegal immigrants. Hopefully, this is the first step in changing things and it begins by returning to having a set of rules for our women that they not kill their unborn children. That should have a domino effect on other things like women considering that they are choosing a potential parenting partner and not just a sexual partner who is "exciting".

Thank God Roe has been overturned finally!

[ClearCase_guy]

That should have a domino effect on other things like women considering that they are choosing a potential parenting partner and not just a sexual partner who is "exciting".

Yes.

Part of our culture seems to focus on the Great Power of women. "Happy wife, happy life" sort of thing. A lot of silly men chase a lot of women and act like the approval of women is a difficult and valuable jewel to come by.

In fact, women have some "market value" between the ages of 18 and 30. The window is brief. And their goal in that time, ought to be finding a husband who will respect them and raise children with them. THIS is a difficult and valuable jewel to come by. Women ought to work much harder on finding that and on making themselves appealing to the RIGHT kind of men.

Our culture is approaching this completely backwards. And I hope that strict limits on abortion help open a few eyes.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Because you advocate for this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=garbage+bag+of+aborted+babies&iax=images&ia=images

[airborne]

Bookmark

[cymbeline]

“Because you advocate for this [picture of aborted babies]”

My original post was this question:

“Why do you suppose that spokesmen for the two sides never show the slightest understanding of the other side?”

I’d be interested in your (and others) answer.

[DoodleDawg]

If it wasn’t for the filibuster rule they could easily do that today.

But it is there and a bipartisan solution would be practically impossible to arrive at.

[aquila48]

Ironically they could get rid of the filibuster rule with a simple majority.

[DoodleDawg]

Ironically they could get rid of the filibuster rule with a simple majority.

They could. But currently no majority exists.

[aquila48]

Kamel could break the tie, but Munchkin would probably vote against it.