Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约翰·德比郡档案馆
斯卡利亚精神和ROE vs. WADE的终结
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

早些时候: Peter Brimelow 在《福布斯》中谈司法帝国主义……三十 [五] 年前!

当我为今天的播客整理笔记时,消息传出,正如几天前泄露的那样,美国最高法院确实推翻了 1973 年的堕胎决定 罗伊诉韦德案。 涉.

你可以在下面阅读它,带有倾向性的注释来自 “纽约时报” 或者说清楚 PDF在这里。

毕竟,最高法院已经裁定,没有国家堕胎的权利 隐藏在裂缝和裂缝中 的美国宪法。 如果广大美国人希望有这样的国家法律,他们应该游说他们的参议员和国会议员 编写并制定一个。 如果任何书面和颁布的内容被法院判定为违宪,公民应争取适当的 宪法修正案。

这就是我们自建国以来拥有和拥有的系统。 但是由于 中期的1960s 它一直 已损坏 by 司法帝国主义,在国会未能履行其应有的职能的帮助和教唆下。

有一些法学家意识到了这个问题,并在他们的书面意见中表示这是 不能 法院的立法工作; 但是他们的声音已经被现代自由主义知识分子淹没了,其中包括我们的大多数律师和法官。

少数持不同政见者的声音中我最喜欢的:已故的最高法院大法官 Antonin Scalia,谁 离开我们 六年前。 当我看到今天早上的新闻时,我的第一个想法是: “啊,斯卡利亚之魂!” 显然, 迟到的正义 精神是 确实活跃在罗伯茨的球场上。

我提到了宪法修正案。 最后一次是什么时候,你知道吗? 回答: 三十年前的上个月.

当我回顾宪法的最后十项修正案时,请记住这个数字 XNUMX,大声说出每项修正案与前一项修正案之间经过的年数。 你准备好了吗?

从三十年前的最后一次修正案开始,上一次是在此之前的二十一年,四年前的一次 . 所以顺序是:30、21、4; 然后是 3、3、10、18、0、13、1。

这让我们回到了 1919 年前的 103 年。 正如你所看到的,目前的 30 年差距——而且看不到任何修正,所以实际数字会更大——但即便如此,30 年的差距在现代美国历史上是一个真正的反常现象。

事实上,不要介意“现代”。 如果再往后走,一路从 1919 到通过宪法 1787, 在这段时间里,修正案之间的平均差距是多少? 答:不到八年——七点七左右。

创始人留给我们的精彩宪法机制的其他部分也是如此——例如,弹劾太少了。

立即订购

那台机器,那台美妙的、激烈争论的、经过深思熟虑的机器,闲置而生锈,引诱渴望权力的恶棍,并教化狂热者绕过它:引诱行政部门停止执行他们不喜欢的法律,国会忽视关键问题他们的大笔捐助者 被忽视的 司法机关制定法律 国会不会。

现在,我们终于看到了趋势的逆转。 哈利路亚! 愿未来还有更多。

关于堕胎问题本身:就我个人而言,正如我经常说的那样,我与大多数美国人坐在一起,或者可能在他们的右边一点,不介意按需堕胎达到一定的限度——十二周似乎成为共识——只有在妊娠期母亲的健康存在无可争辩的风险时,堕胎才合法。

也就是说,我相信并希望,在 每个精子都是神圣的 大厅和想要斩首不想要的新生儿的人们。

不过,我对这个问题并不深切关注,我会同意我所在州的人民根据这项裁决做出的任何决定。 我可能会抱怨一点,仅此而已。

当然,在这个问题上,还有很多人比那更热情。 这实际上是我们文革的试金石,也是支持他们的统治精英的试金石。

我们已经看到了一些 非常讨厌的示威 在......面前 最高法院大楼 在持不同政见的大法官的私人住宅之外——我的意思是,他们的书面意见与精英意识形态相矛盾的大法官。 有过 一次尝试 由文化大革命 暗杀法官布雷特卡瓦诺,我 受泄漏的启发 鱼子 v. 韦德逆转[在卡瓦诺暗杀阴谋中被指控的男子不认罪 , 作者:Dan Morse,华盛顿邮报,22 年 2022 月 XNUMX 日]。

接下来的几天将向我们展示该政权是多么愿意部署其部队对抗阶级敌人。 这些部队将包括正规军和非正规军:既包括司法部、联邦调查局和国土安全部等联邦机构,也包括 Antifa、BLM 等非正规机构,以及这个名为 简的复仇。

If, for example, Antifa burn down some Catholic church, will there be arrests and prosecutions? Or will the event be memory-holed, like the January 2017 Inauguration Day riots or the 2020 attack on the White House?

Or suppose—God forbid! but just suppose—some more competent activist succeeds in assassinating one of the Establishment’s class enemies on the Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas must look like a tempting target. The Regime and its media could sell the assassination as an act of White Supremacy.

约翰·德比郡[给他发电子邮件]写一个 数量惊人 关于各种主题 适用于各种网点。 (这 不再包括 《国家评论》,其编辑发脾气和 解雇了他。) 他是 作者 of 我们注定要失败:恢复保守的悲观主义 和其他几个 图书. 他拥有VDARE.com com出版的两本书: 异议权 (也可以在Kindle中使用) and 异议人士权利第二卷:《 2013年议论录》.

(从重新发布 威达 经作者或代表的许可)
 
隐藏260条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Selective enforcement of laws, legislation by the judiciary, are examples of dishonesty, of insincerity.
    至诚网

    真相革命网
    断定
    Total Honesty as the singular necessity to recover Western Civilization.

    FULL DISCLOSURE as moral principle would require
    that not just Radio @Derb, but all respectable newspapers point out unequal enforcement of the law.

  2. Memory-holing counter-narrative facts, while over-emphasizing narratives like George Floyd is DISHONEST.

    If, for example, Antifa burn down some Catholic church, will there be arrests and prosecutions? Or will the event be memory-holed, like the January 2017 Inauguration Day riots or the 2020 attack on the White House?

    We can prove the dishonesty by measuring the brainwashing effect, by measuring the distorted and false beliefs in the media consumer

    https://sincerity.net/ukraine/

    NOTE: we devised measures of media misinformation : both the “obfuscation index” of a single newscast, and resulting long term “brainwashing index” can be measured:

    “obfuscation index” of a single newscast: A naïve person gets exposed to a news article or video, and then gets tested for disparity of acquired knowledge and reality

    and resulting long term “brainwashing index”: a person, exposed to normal MSM information, can be tested how much their “knowledge” differs from objective facts. MSM might see the discrepancy as desired success of their misinformation campaigns.
    Blatant examples are Leftist thinking that US police kills thousands of unarmed Blacks per year. In reality the numbers are around 7 to 15.

  3. JimDandy 说:

    in not minding abortion on demand up to some definite limit—twelve weeks seems to be the consensus—with abortion thereafter legal only when there is indisputable risk to the mother’s health in going to term.

    Blah, blah, blah. That means abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. “Mental health” is considered “health” too, and many a baby who could have lived outside the womb has been 屠宰 because the mother said she was depressed.

  4. Anonymous[733]• 免责声明 说:

    “between the every-sperm-is-sacred lobby”

    Insipid attempt at reductio and not worthy of Derbyshire.

  5. The rightwingnuts didn’t wait very long to begin their gloating.

    And in this case, the author finishes by a not-too-subtle prayer for violence.

    But then, Mr. Derbyshire has a history of loving slaughter.

    One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left. As it is, the shock value has all been frittered away. Far from being seen as a nation willing to act resolutely, a nation that knows how to punish our enemies, a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist, a nation to be feared and respected, we are perceived as a soft and foolish nation, that squanders its victories and permits its mighty military power to be held to standoff by teenagers with homemade bombs, that lets crooks and bandits tie it down, Gulliver-like, with a thousand little threads of blackmail, trickery, lies, and petty violence.

    https://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/06/please-no-more-apologies.html

    • 谢谢: nosquat loquat
    • 巨魔: Random Anonymous
    • 回复: @WJ
    , @Blodgie
    , @Anon
    , @Dutch Boy
  6. That is, I believe and hope, a mild, sensible opinion midway between the every-sperm-is-sacred lobby and the folk who want to decapitate unwanted newborns.

    What ‘midway’? They are both the same feminists. It’s an obvious feminist-style ‘counter meme’ which implies that a baby in womb is the same with a sperm.

    Anyway, if ‘every sperm is sacred’ as these retards claims, then obviously an egg is as sacred as a sperm, so every female must be convicted of murder after their first period in life. I’m fine with ‘every sperm is a life’ bullshit as long as this principle of every menstruation being another murder is strictly upheld.

  7. @JimDandy

    John Derbyshire always has been a midwit-style centrist. What did you expect here?

    • 同意: Towey
  8. between the every-sperm-is-sacred lobby

    Sigh. Derb has many times stated he’s not religious, and has that old-well-schooled-Englishman’s flippant mockery of Christianity, but then once a year he goes on one of those esoteric knowledge seminars. So he clearly desires truth but doesn’t want Christianity.

    Now it’s clear from medical science human life begins at conception, and thus abortion is the murder of a human. Mocking the Christians –and Monty Python was propped up very much so because Marxists loved its attacks on Christians — is beneath this argument.

    As a side note, in regards to Python, Graham Chapman was a pedophile sex trafficker/rapist,

    https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/02/09/there-is-no-pedophilia-at-the-bbc-n256570

    And sweet-and-innocent-looking Michael Palin is the most hate-filled, anti-Christian of the lot, even more than miserable John Cleese. Palin’s activities inside and outside of Python have clearly shown a true hatred of all things Christian. For example, see his post-Python film 传教士, where his main character happily abandons his Christian faith for a prostitute.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Missionary

    • 同意: Towey
    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  9. bert33 说:

    1.Abstinence/find a different hobby
    2. Norplant
    3. condoms
    4. Thighmaster
    5. 甜甜圈
    6. deliberate hygiene lapse
    7. Long distance running
    8. Assertiveness class
    9. Adult sex ed class
    10. Glock

    Pregnancy is preventable, harsh, but there it is. Own your acts

    • 回复: @Emslander
  10. Interesting that Fox and CNN feature nothing on Ukraine. The Nazi machine coming apart. Roe v Wade is big but not as big as Rubble v Flintstone –.

  11. meamjojo 说:
    @JimDandy

    Blah, blah, blah. That means abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. “Mental health” is considered “health” too, and many a baby who could have lived outside the womb has been slaughtered because the mother said she was depressed.

    When you wrote “blah, blah, blah”, you were referring to your own post, yes? How does termination at 12 or 15 weeks equate “abortion on demand” when it takes 36 weeks for a normal birth?

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  12. Roe-V-Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court? You mean it’s not normal to kill one’s baby?

    You mean women don’t have a right to kill a baby as its being delivered (部分的-birth abortion) or even after the baby has been fully delivered (after-birth abortion)?

    You mean a promiscuous gal who sleeps around and doesn’t use contraception shouldn’t be allowed to murder her developing baby out of sheer inconvenience?

    You mean a woman has a right to her body, but not any contrived right to kill the separate body inside her?

    This is how mind-numbingly stupid and morally depraved the American sheeple are that one has to go to great lengths to explain why a woman should not terminate her pregnancy unless other life-threatening factors are present.

    The natural mothering instinct of a pregnant woman is to protect and nurture her developing baby. But you’ve got to be one sick and twisted soul to want to have its brains sucked out by some medical device as it’s coming out of your womb, or to give consent to having it dismembered because you’re “not quite ready to have children yet.”

    What a vile people we’ve become.

    • 同意: Automatic Slim, HdC, Ace
    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
    , @anon
  13. ABORTION QUESTION

    President Nixon himself pushed abortion through because of the ghetto & trailer park bastardy rate & guess what

    In the 90’s when kids born in the late 60’s & early 70’s came into their prime the USA had a surprising decrease in crime.

    FREAKONOMICS obviously denies this.

    At any rate, who cares about abortion?

    • 回复: @DCThrowback
    , @SMK
  14. J.T. 说:

    德布先生,

    I’m pretty sure the issue is not sperm, but human life. This is not a Monty Python routine.

  15. John, I expect better logic from you. Apart from the point just made by Jim Dandy that your prescription would not do much to restrict abortions I wonder why you would prescribe any limit at all. I tend to regard the pri.mitive ,and practical, acceptance of infanticide of the new born as impossible for contemporary modern societies to accept but how can you justify a 12 week – or a 20 week limit? What sentient being need suffer from a termination before birth would have occurred? (If medical science suggested that the process of abortion would cause neurological indications of pain that we would not allow to be inflicted on a pet rabbit then anaesthesiology is the answer).

    As it happens I knew Scalia well enough to have him fulfill with great gusto his emailed promise of “another” of his first boss Ed Levi’s favourite jokes – decidedly non-PC, best to be tenured…. on the occasion of his telling me the first one he also told me that he hoped a case inviting reversal of Roe v.Wade would not come before them. I acknowledge that his reasoning, strictly rational, might have been based on the composition of the Court being unfavourable.

    Even Australia with a Constitution only 122 years old has had eruptions of what tends to be criticised as “judicial activism” but without the width of discretion that the US inflicted on itself by including a Bill of Rights. But I invite you to consider whether your American problem results from that inclusion together with the failure of the founders to anticipate the problems that would flow from unforeseeable changes in the world, or even just America.

    • 回复: @Anon
  16. tosca 说:

    I have been a Belgian attorney for more than 43 years. Ideology is not my morning cup of tea. I share the opinion that, individual freedom and choice is THE rule. Laws are, in fact, a very thick line, whithin which judges randomly decide after taking each individual situation into account. At any rate, that is how it should go. Individual situations rarely fit perfectly into a rule. A jugement is always the result of a transactional process between the rigid and general rule and the person to whom it must be applied. Not easy, believe me. I have been a replacing judge for 30 years, and I Have been, more than once, obliged to apply a rule that was morally wrong . As far as abortion is now concerned, I have no general or settled opinion. Each situation is different. We are perhaps not fully aware of the fact that birth regulations have never been decided by laws, until at least, the emergence of christianity, or rather, the rise of christian clergy. The human prolificity has always been a problem when resources were limited or scarse. How do you think that the ancient tribes and peoples managed to match resources and population growth? Easy to guess.

  17. Liosnagcat 说:
    @SiNCERITY.net

    I don’t usually mind ol’ Derb, but, here, he is woefully lacking. Being on the fence about the homicide of pre-born humans is a disqualifier if ever there was one.

    For millennia, Western Civilization was about honesty, even-handedness and eschewing the marketplace. We could do with a return to those traditions.

    • 回复: @Nancy
  18. It is challenging, if mystifying, to comprehend the bipartisan project of killing millions of fully differentiated human beings in the Middle East, Afghanistan, North Africa, with minimum fanfare or debate while embroiled in endless debates on saving the unborn child or fetus. America seems to be pro-death overseas and a SCOTUS that is pro-life (in-utero) at home with no jurisdiction on saving lives (ex utero) abroad.

  19. anonymous[419]• 免责声明 说:

    As Derb notes above, the impeachment powers of Congress are too little used – when in fact Congress is constitutionally ‘supreme’ over all 865 federal judges and all justices of the Supreme Court, who can be impeached and removed by Congress merely for ‘lack of good behaviour’, such as legislating from the bench, inventing stupid pretexts for decisions, etc. No one should doubt the US Supreme Court is a gang of ruffians, as shown in this historic ‘decision’ meriting the impeachment of every Justice who signed on to this

    Justice Antonin Scalia being found dead with a pillow over his face – and ‘no autopsy’ ordered – a death that occurred shortly after Scalia ruled against President Obama – should be seen in the context of Federal Judge John Roll being shot dead on the street in Arizona in 2011, also just after he ruled against Obama … the Roll murder still largely unknown, seemingly more a ‘message’ to the other federal judges

    Lefties on Twitter are in full agreement with Derb’s idea that Clarence Thomas is a ‘tempting target’, as Thomas openly calls for reversing the Court’s decisions on gay marriage and other matters … some tweet screenshots:

    • 回复: @Lee
  20. @Anonymous

    See, I disagree.

    First, it was gutsy of him to put that out there so frankly. Most guys don’t have the confidence to do that.

    Second, if you read as many articles and comments as I have on other websites from old school males related to this topic, you’d understand why he made that comment.

    It is a RARE circumstance that a guy gives a whit about a fetus from an 意外的 pregnancy, that he helped create . No, far from it. They generally want to get rid of it and as soon as possible. They see it as a financial ball and chain around their necks (that, somehow, they couldn’t envision when they voluntarily inserted their fluid near her cervix). So, they most definitely do not care about the fetuses of strangers.

    No, as usual, it’s simply about control. It bugs some of them that she has control over what happens to his sperm and the egg it may have fertilized. Again, somehow, the genius can’t grasp that HE willingly gave it away for her to decide. Unreal, I shake my head.

    No, Derbyshire nailed it on that and is probably the only guy on the internet who has.

    • 回复: @Rich
  21. mark green 说:

    I’m pro-choice but I welcome this decision. Why? The SCOTUS is saddled with the duty of determining whether or not laws are consistent with the limited and delegated powers of US Constitution. That is the specific job of the SCOTUS. The Court’s scope is limited. This is by design.

    It is not the job of the Supreme Court to enact laws (via Judicial decree) that jurists believe are sensible or appropriate. Enacting actual legislation is the role of the Legislative branch, with oversight of the Executive branch. This is how the framework was designed. It is balanced. And designed to be fair. It is not perfect.

    Mob preferences do not–and should not–factor into this artful and nuanced framework.

    • 同意: Nancy
    • 谢谢: Ace
  22. In perusing public media, I’ve seen no mention of the fact that all five justices who voted to overturn Roe are or were raised Catholic. Lots of condemnation of men in general though.

    • 回复: @Zachary Smith
  23. Ah I see the stupid Christcucks got butthurt in the comments lol

    • 巨魔: Ace
  24. Looks to me that this decision comes from the left, and not from the right. Crafted to get the Democrats and all the abortion rights folks to the polls in November, saving their asses. Shows how political the court really is. Doing their dirty work. This will be the platform they will run on. Joe Biden and crew will cease to exist in the media.

    • 同意: Bro43rd
  25. Old Prude 说:
    @JimDandy

    Even if the facts on the ground don’t change, it is salutary to have the emanations and penumbras jibber-jabber cleansed from our public life.

  26. Jim H 说:

    “If Americans at large would like there to be such a national law, they should lobby their senators and congressmen to write and enact one.” — John Derbyshire

    This is exactly what chief “justice” RINO Roberts says in his individual opinion, at page 125 of the 213-page document:

    “On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the states or Congress.=

    Non sequitur alert:

    If the Constitution — a grant of limited powers to the fedgov — is silent on abortion, how then can Congress legislate on the subject when it lacks any authority to do so?

    Thus a seemingly pro-federalism ruling is anything but.

    RINO Roberts has just extended the charter for the two branches of the Uniparty to keep the pot boiling on abortion at the fedgov level.

    Meanwhile the Uniparty is in total concurrence on maintaining the welfare-warfare state, at the direction of the fourth (intelligence) branch of secret unconstitutional government.

  27. Bro43rd 说:

    This scotus decision is blowback from the demoprogressives unwillingness to compromise.

    My opinion is that the state has no business getting involved in medical decisions. And certainly should not be funding planned parenthood orgs or r2l groups either. Really this is only an issue because the establishment realized the wedge it is. A grand distraction from what really matters, the economy.

    OTOH, it’s a bit disturbing that blacks get all bent out of shape regarding law enforcement related deaths but nary a word about the overwhelming use of abortion to reduce black population.

    • 回复: @Seneca44
  28. Cohen 说:

    It is useless to cry over spilt milk
    Roe and Wade business is good distraction item for political use.

    Where were all those writers and activist hiding when Sleezy Joe was promoting the incompetent Clarence Thomas promoting while humiliating Anita Hill. Where were those Democraps who worship Schumuck Schumer who is more loyal to Israel than US, who supported Alito. And dont forget the Great grand mothers Susan Collins and her likes voted for the supreme court judges. Now all those pro and against abortion writers are coming after long hibernation an clicking their computer keys relentlessly causing sparks and possible fire. It is all sham folks.

    I dont care one way or other. Just simply, a woman has a right to choose.

    All these hypocrites of prolife slogans care only for fetus and not for human life. War, famine, medical and health denials. they dont give a damn. Why we are even debating this issue. Just go and demonstrate in front of these S. C judges gangsters house, of course peacefully and send a message to both parties.

    • 回复: @Rich
  29. Emslander 说:
    @bert33

    Pregnancy is preventable, harsh, but there it is. Own your acts

    The logical consequence of a legal regime that once again protects all human beings, thus making an abortion at any stage criminal, is that women will then again have true control over their bodies.

    I was a young man before 1973 and I can tell you that marriage was the only normal pathway to the fun of impregnating a woman and, after that, taking responsibility was an acceptable way of life.

    All the bullcrap talk about abortion giving women freedom is scripted by the men who have been the only winners since January of 1973. All the brave insults by faggy Brits and pussy-men Americans is fully dependent upon this phony arrangement that has given very stupid and very weak men some voice in the culture. When responsibility is shared, sickoes like Derbyshire won’t be so glib with their talk about “sacred sperm”.

  30. sb 说:

    Always wondered why Derb is such a zealous enthusiast for the American way of doing things.
    In parliamentary systems of government judges are there to interpret the law, to fill-in the gaps, to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s and not to be the supreme body making public policy, which is considered to be best left, for better or worse, to politicians in the legislature (or even if a really big deal, to the people via a referendum))
    I’m sure judges in these jurisdictions look with envy at their American judicial counterparts.

    Always found it noteworthy that the countries which use the US as a model for their system of government tend to be places not well known for their quality of life

  31. SafeNow 说:

    51% of pregnancies are aborted in DC, 1% in SD.
    34% in NY, 1% in WY.
    Frequencies by state:

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/states/

    • 回复: @jsm
    , @Lucius Vanini
  32. GLORIOUS VICTORY!

    Roe V. Wade kept the American black population from being twice as big as it is, as black Conservative Candace Owens recently complained on Fox. Now black numbers can start to BECOME that many! Hooray! We need ’em!

    The rate of black-on-White violence can finally stop being so low–a mere annual average of 540,360 attacks, a mere 1480 PER DAY!

    Further, there can be many more millions of votes for the Marxists. 92% of the black electorate voted for Dementia Joe in ’20, and a bigger black vote will ensure plenty of great black mayors and DAs who love criminals.

    Thank Jesus that righteousness and piety have finally triumphed.

    Rabbi Saul of Tarsus is having a belly laugh somewhere, proud that the opiate he pushed, filthy Judeo-Christianity, is still harming the hated goyim in so many ways!

    Cf. “White America’s Latest Defeat,” https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/white-americas-latest-defeat

    • 同意: Dream
    • 回复: @RockaBoatus
  33. WJ 说:
    @Zachary Smith

    I didnt know Derb supported the Iraq disaster. His credibility takes a huge hit for that one.

    • 同意: HdC, acementhead
    • 回复: @Anon
  34. @JimDandy

    I daresay 没有人 does it after the twelfth week just for giggles,
    not even the most rabid choiceress.

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  35. Walter 说:

    Before chattering about Dobbs, read Roe. Then read Dobbs. This will take a few days.

  36. Apparently, Ukraine and Taiwan are going so bad, inflation so worse, that the American sheeple has to be turned inwards before the mid-terms, the only way to rally them around the ideas and ideologies that ruined America these sixty years…

    About no Amendments for 30 years, as pointed out in the article itself, it is a combo of everyone – judiciary, rich lobbies, PACs, corporations, politicians, etc – to sideline the Constitution and do things on the sly; Americans who lived before 1950 would not have allowed such shenanigans and political frauds, but the Boomer generation was more worried about flowers and weeds that it allowed everyone to wreck the Constitution. Even now I doubt if this judgment is a mere flash in the pan; but as America declines, and starts questions the ruling ideas and ideologies, then challenges those that contributed to the decline of that mighty country, I hope more things will be taken out of the kritarchy and back into the domains of public opinion. May be a re-examination of the Sixteenth Amendment will come next.

    BTW, this judgment does not abolish any “rights”; it only sends the thing back to where it belongs – the States.

  37. @tosca

    What a bunch of waffle just to say you have no opinion on abortion. In other words, you don’t have the morals to understand that killing an unborn child, the most innocent and defenseless person possible, is wrong. You obviously don’t have the normal male instinct to want to protect the innocent and defenseless. Sad. The “individual freedom” you speak of should never apply to unjustified murder.

    • 回复: @jsm
  38. Anon[179]• 免责声明 说:

    有人能解释一下禁止堕胎对我有什么好处吗?

    I’m not interested in hearing about state’s rights, federalism, blah, blah. States having the right to ban it is not an argument that they 应该 ban it.

    • 回复: @Anon
  39. Rich 说:
    @The Real World

    Interesting thought, “he gave it away for her to decide”. But I’m sure you’d be on the bandwagon that when she decides to keep the baby and quit her job, the guy who “gave it away” should have to pay and pay and pay, right up to that doctoral degree in poetry, right? It is a difficult question for a young woman, when she has the option to kill her child and let life go on as if nothing happened, but once she allows herself to become impregnated, she is no longer the sole person involved. There is, of course, the baby, genetically human from the moment of conception, and the father. Laws force the father to pay expenses of the child, so it’s not like she’s going to be abandoned on the street to beg, and most states give generously to unwed mothers. And the child is human, is a person. It might have been possible to argue that the fetus wasn’t quite human until quickening in 1973, but advances in genetics have proven the child is genetically human from conception now. So, the question now is, is infanticide an accepted option so that Sally can keep up her women’s studies degree and keep hitting the clubs on Saturday night?

    • 回复: @The Real World
  40. Observator 说:

    SCOTUS becoming a Roman Catholic-dominated Star Chamber: this is just what anti-immigrant Americans feared so long ago. Those patriots have been written off as “know nothings,” but in their time they were stronger than the antislavery crowd that is so sanctified today. And now the descendants of those alien immigrants pretend they are as “white” as the Anglo-Saxon people whose this country this once was. It is no surprise that Italians and Irish are among the most aggressive enemies of freedom now, along with the always revenge-hungry Africans.

    • 同意: Kratoklastes
    • 回复: @Towey
    , @Hibernian
  41. Dumbo 说:

    It’s easy for women not to get pregnant. Just don’t fuck. If you do it, do it only after and inside marriage. Making abortion illegal reduced sluttery, which is good for society, and good for average men.

    But just banning abortion is not enough. The culture also would need to change back to promote shaming of sluts and out-of-wedlock births. That’s hard without Christianity, in this increasingly secular America (which Derb champions). So, I don’t think this will change things much, and it’s mostly to create even more division in the U.S. If they can’t get the blacks to riot, they will get sluts and their antifa white knights to riot.

  42. Anon[184]• 免责声明 说:

    I am against abortion. The fact is you are killing your own child. We have cunts like the Squad who are all for it but would never abort their own baby. They rouse the rabble and suckers to do what they themselves would never do.

    What I find entertaining is that the people protesting are all young and fresh faced. The irony is that they are alive precisely because their mothers chose not to terminate them. Dont these kids have nothing else to do other than march waving flags and shouting slogans. How about a little yard work, cleaning their rooms or even, heaven forbid, studying !!

    Nevertheless, if a woman does not want to be placed in the predicament of to do or not to do, then either keep your legs closed or have your stud rubber up. Say NO to the bareback ride.

    In any case if you want an abortion dont make a big fuss about it. Fly out of the country and get it done. There are lots of clinics overseas who will be happy to slaughter your kid for you, for a price, problem solved.

    Whether you can live with that decision depends on whether you have a soul or not but that will or will not be your burden to bear. In the meantime feel free to feel as you want but like everything else dont try to ram it down the throat of others who feel otherwise !

    • 回复: @Kratoklastes
  43. The assassination of a SCOTUS member would plunge the country into the Second Civil War. Let’s hope the head of the DOJ, a wannabe Supreme, Merrick ‘the Jew’ Garland and Alejandro ‘the other Jew’ Mayorkas heading the DHS are smart enough to know better.

    • 哈哈: Je Suis Omar Mateen
  44. Anon[184]• 免责声明 说:
    @Anon

    有人能解释一下禁止堕胎对我有什么好处吗?

    Well it would not have benefited YOU but it would have benefited us and the rest of the world as we would not have to listen to a turd like you. You are here precisely because it was not BANNED.

    More to the point it would have been good for your family and friends as they would not have had to live with and tolerate an asshole like you.

    Too bad it is not retroactive as you sound like you would be the ideal candidate for termination.

    • 回复: @Kratoklastes
  45. Ya 说:

    No abortion means more feral blacks. In one generation’s time there will be another 50 million feral blacks roaming, robbing, raping and killing all on our tax dollar feeding, clothing and housing them.

    This is another anti-White agenda replacing us with feral blacks who breed like cockroaches that could have been nipped in the bud at conception and the months thereafter.

    This is not good unless the supreme court can rule like our forefathers did and claim the black 3/5th human. This will exempt them to get abortions on the fact they are not fully human.

    • 同意: TKK
    • 回复: @Mike Tre
    , @TKK
  46. HdC 说:
    @tosca

    You’d guess wrong.
    They died of disease and starvation.

    • 回复: @jsm
  47. HT 说:

    Imagine America today with another 80 million or so blacks if no Roe v. Wade. A combination of welfare handouts given to blacks for producing more babies and no abortion option would have been devastating. But I do believe abortion for whites should be banned coast to coast.

  48. Rosie 说:

    These fetus = child arguments are so tiresome, I have had numerous children and several miscarriages. I would take infinity miscarriages over one dead child. So would every other parent on the face of the Earth. That a fetus is genetically homo sapiens from the moment of conception is a total red herring.

    Oh, and homeschool parents with young children might need to start making other plans, since the right to home or even private institutional education is not spelled out in the Constitution. Nor is the right to refuse vaccines, or refuse abortions for that matter.

    Live in a bad school district? Mom will have to go back to work so the family can afford a house in a “better” (White) neighborhood. The Benedict option is being taken away. This is going to backfire badly on the Right, and it’s a damned shame. Abortions were going the way of the dinosaur, anyway.

    I’ll repeat this for the slow learners we have here au Unz, as many times as necessary:

    修正案九
    宪法中对某些权利的列举不应解释为否认或贬低人民保留的其他权利。

    • 巨魔: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • 回复: @Art Deco
  49. Dystopian 说:

    I was on the wrong side of the abortion issue as a young man and my reasons were far from honorable. Like most people who support abortion, I had the desire to rut like an animal without repercussion. After I grew up I thought about when life started. When sperm meets the egg a new life begins. None of us would be here unless that happened. I also realized the the “viability” argument was bogus. No human child can survive without the help of an adult for many years after conception. If we live in a society under the rule of law and human life is sacrosanct, life must be protected by society from conception until natural death. If you don’t want a child, don’t have sex. Our acceptance of the barbaric act of abortion began our decline as a nation. Roe v. Wade was the most morally damaging decision ever from a court with a history of finding non existent “rights” in the constitution. An optimist might think that this is the beginning of the end many of the bad precedents set by SCOTUS but the seating of a white hating mid wit in August will nullify any good that can be done in the next few months.

    • 同意: Towey
    • 回复: @Rurik
  50. Rich 说:
    @Cohen

    All the hypocrites support war and famine? Really? I’ve never met anyone anywhere who supported famine. Where did you take this poll? You are correct that a woman has a right to choose, she has the right to choose not to have sexual intercourse, or to use birth control if she does. At present, a majority of the USSC doesn’t see the right to kill a baby anywhere in the Constitution. I’ve read and reread the document, nary a word about abortion. It’s up to the states.

    • 哈哈: Mevashir
    • 回复: @Anon
    , @Mevashir
    , @cohen
  51. Rurik 说:
    @JimDandy

    with abortion thereafter legal only when there is indisputable risk to the mother’s health in going to term.

    Blah, blah, blah. That means abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. “Mental health” is considered “health” too, and many a baby who could have lived outside the womb has been slaughtered because the mother said she was depressed.

    I’m taking that to mean that in your opinion, even in those cases when the life of the mother is at risk, you’d refuse to allow an abortion because sometimes that rule would be abused?

    If it were up to you, a few (several hundred per year) mothers dying is ‘worth it’, in order to prevent some mothers from abusing the ‘health of the mother’ exemption?

    I wonder how you’d feel if it were 的课 wife or daughter whose life was at risk, and if you’d look them in the eye in the hospital bed, and tell them ‘sorry, but the life of that baby is more important than yours. Don’t worry, if it’s a girl, we’ll name her after you’.

    Yea? Pretty much?

    For the record I applaud this decision by the SC. Not because I want all abortions illegal, but because Roe was an unconstitutional usurpation of the states rights. As are so many of their tyrannical edicts.

    But I wonder at how many of the people applauding this decision, would do away with all abortions if it were up to them. Even if the baby was horrifically deformed, and would certainly die soon after birth.

    Or in cases of a brutal rape, or the life of the mother.

    Abortions should be rare, and only the last resort in exceptional cases, but those cases do exist, and a humane and compassionate people would not put a mother’s life at risk, just to impose their ridged and dogmatic world view on others, which is what the people on extremes of this issue seem hell-bent on doing.

    As with most issues, the sensible position is more in the middle, than at the extremes. But that requires nuanced thinking, and most people prefer not to.

    • 回复: @JimDandy
    , @Mike Tre
  52. Anon[201]• 免责声明 说:
    @Rich

    Murderer doesn’t go around saying : I supper murder .

    Right now US is creating famine

    Right now US is saying in so many unspoken words and in so many clear deeds that it wants Russian suffer and rise up . That sufferings inflicted much more grotesquely, overtly , dangerously non Iran , Syria , Venezuela and earlier on Iraq are nothing but the earnest desires of having these countries visited by famine .

    There is this moralistic pseudo legalistic argument by some Karen Swallow Prior writing in NY Times at her eventual success at getting this overturned .

    She tells us she does all kind of works through NGO , churches , and outreach to help these women who want abortion . She does to dissuade them and help them after the birth .

    Yes that freaking prick doesn’t demand legislation to make sure that women get real help .
    These women have to depend on charity .

    Has she ever worked against war mongering court , has she agitated aging war mongering state , has she agitated against torture supporting court ? Has she demanded that court approve universal access to contraception, universal child care and universal access to health care for the infants ?

    Fuck these people .

    • 同意: acementhead
  53. jsm 说:
    @HdC

    好吧,你错了。

    A woman in the Middle Ages with 10 kids who are starving, she gets pregnant again, do you really think she’s going to deny her living children food so the next one can eat? Nope. What did those women do? Well, we know, because there’s lots of instances that she confessed to her priest that she “accidentally” laid on the newborn child in her sleep. Which she didn’t do. What she really did is smother it on purpose. Happened all the time. Consequently, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages forbade bedsharing, to stop all the infanticide going on, which they though was accidental.

    This is the genesis of the modern hysteria surrounding “must not bring your infant into your bed; it’s not safe!”

    • 回复: @Rosie
  54. Blodgie 说:
    @Zachary Smith

    And Derb loves war so much he proudly offered up his son as cannon fodder.

    Because that’s what a Real Man does.

  55. Mevashir 说:
    @Rich

    At present, a majority of the USSC doesn’t see the right to kill a baby anywhere in the Constitution. I’ve read and reread the document, nary a word about abortion. It’s up to the states.

    Hey that’s really rich, Rich. Does the Constitution say anything about getting an enema or a root canal? It’s called the right to privacy in making your own medical decisions.

    The good news is that no one in the USA is every forced to get an abortion. The bad news is no one has a right to impose their religious views on anyone else. The ugly truth here is that the churches have failed to persuade the majority of Americans of their morality in this matter and because they cannot compete in the free market of ideas they are calling on government to do their dirty work for them and to impose a theocratic standard by legal fiat. That is plainly unConstititional!

    According to historians, throughout the 18th century up until after the Civil War abortion was widely practiced in the USA. It was frowned upon by the southern plantation owners so they could keep breeding their African slaves like rabbits and sell the precious “right to life nggers” for filthy mammon.

    Right to LIfE is all about the big lie: using moral outrage to defuse white anger over the hijacking of the national economy by a bunch of greedy right wing billionaire oligarchs.

    I found these targets online and think they might be a good way to encourage the libs to sharpen their 2nd Amendment skills down on the range:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sb6tJC1A0IdVBAO8rdXciFP4is9vunCf/view?usp=sharing
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J8FtFcMqedNwBhNv-6O6hMOYL2252xex/view?usp=sharing

    • 巨魔: Realist
    • 回复: @Rich
    , @Mactoul
  56. jsm 说:
    @Automatic Slim

    Not all abortion is unjustified murder.

    Even THOUGH the infant **是** innocent, if the mother cannot physically bear the pregnancy (she has cancer, say, and needs to abort because the meds cause birth defects, or she has hyperemesis gravidarum, which before IVs was the number one cause of death during pregnancy, which STILL today, due to the literal fact the woman is starving, can lead desperate women to abort to save her own life) that mother has the right to abort to save herself.

    And that’s not even considering the fact that:
    Pregnancy is painful.
    YOU try being nauseous night and day for 8 weeks, or in some cases, 40 weeks.
    YOU try being bedridden for 12 weeks due to premature contractions.
    YOU try being unable to sleep for 40 weeks because your hips hurt and there are no comfortable positions.
    Childbirth is painful. Imagine your pelvis being in a giant nutcracker being squeezed shut by two Mack trucks.
    YOU try hopping out of bed multi x per night to care for a newborn when you’ve just had your guts sliced open. See, we’re “not supposed to” bedshare, at all, ever, AAP shames mothers for it, and especially not when we’re on opiates for the severe pain due to their knife to save the infant in distress.

    Frankly, if you ask me, mothers who actually DO complete pregnancies, give birth and go on to nurture the infant deserve fricking MEDALS. The whole abortion argument, both the hysterical leftist women who in their hearts would like to see ALL pregnancies aborted, and the Right who think the only creature that counts here is the embryo, fails to really consider what all is truly involved in good mothering.

    • 同意: Mevashir
    • 回复: @Mevashir
  57. Rosie 说:
    @jsm

    A woman in the Middle Ages with 10 kids who are starving, she gets pregnant again, do you really think she’s going to deny her living children food so the next one can eat?

    Oh but we lived in a Utopia back in the day, donchaknow?

    WTF do people think there are so many stories from ancient times about babies being found on rivers in baskets or suckled by wolves or what have you?

    And BTW, we’re royally f\$%”#”.

    https://religiondispatches.org/unintended-consequences-overturning-roe-v-wade-may-endanger-this-cherished-evangelical-practice/

  58. Anon[201]• 免责声明 说:
    @Zachary Smith

    It was one of those days when saying no to the war would have got one killed , hurt , or removed from the bubble known as circle one lives in .
    That group -think is evident again and is playing out across the mediascape, political hall of mirrors and even among those lefties who don’t like war .

    There are chances FBI and CIA are looking for chatter and community is asking – If you see something , say something .

    That phrase was actually reduced to – Say something and the ‘see something ‘ will be provided by FBI or CIA.

    There was so much hatred against Iraqi and Saddam that incinerating it few times with Napalm , cluster bomb and nuclear bombs wouldn’t have generated any soul searching .
    The hatred was the pinnacle of the dungs heaped on these nations for decades by US administration and media .

    That US machine creating periodically the hatreds are still in operation .
    Sometimes other countries and tribes rent it free and use US to incinerate the adversaries of these
    non-American countries .

  59. anon[421]• 免责声明 说:

    I hope this is a hill worth dying on for the conservatives. This is going to cost the GOP big on the midterm and possibly 2024 as the Dems use this to gain enough majority in Senate and House to change the law. Abortion and guns, it’s what the stupid GOP always focuses on. And they let go of the most important issue killing this country which is Immigration!!

    At the very least SCOTUS could’ve waited til’ after the midterm to announce this.

    The much more important one to strike down is gay marriage. The constitution doesn’t guarantee that either. Trans mania took off after SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage (thanks Kavanaugh!) because the activists needed something new to fight about. The only way to end the trans mania is to reverse this stupid decision.

  60. Rooster16 说:
    @JimDandy

    What if we were proactive? Instead of aborting after conception, we eliminated unwanted pregnancies before they happened…

    Incentivized Sterilization – offer women of color the opportunity of free university and \$100,000 for being sterilized at age 18, provided they have no children; they could have free abortions up
    to 18. Within a generation, many of the problems that plague our Nation would be eliminated. The best part is it’s the women’s choice, and within a few decades the problem segment of society wouldn’t exist. It’s a win for all parties involved.

    • 回复: @The Real World
  61. jsm 说:
    @SafeNow

    这次真是万分感谢。

    In NY, that one third of pregnancies are aborted, is a very powerful argument that these so-called human beings making all these babies just to abort them, are evil.

    Abortion to save the life of the mother, or her health, or she’s desperately wanting an abortion like a fox in a trap wants to chew its leg off because her life is going to be ruined if she has a baby now, all the reasons I have for, thoughtfully, supporting the legality of abortion, are tossed out the window at the realization that in NY, these people are being this incredibly irresponsible with their fertility. ONE THIRD of pregnancies were irresponsibly conceived? Wow, just wow.

    Compromise suggestion: Abortion be kept legal, but if you get one, you get FORCED onto birth control. For the sires, force a vasectomy (perhaps allow him to bank sperm, first, so he can have an ART baby later if he gets his shit together) and force Norplant on the women. (Or maybe forced tubal ligation with egg banking first.)

  62. Rurik 说:
    @Dystopian

    If you don’t want a child, don’t have sex.

    Tell that to the 19 year old Dystopian

    How would you have responded if a middle aged man had told you at 19 to forgo intimacy with your girlfriend?

    ‘cue image of angry priest pointing finger’

    If we live in a society under the rule of law and human life is sacrosanct, life must be protected by society from conception until natural death.

    This is the thing about that.

    Few people are more prominent on the debate stage regarding abortion than Mike Pence, who’s calling for a national abortion ban. Just like with the left, Pence abhors the states and individuals having the freedom to decide things for themselves. Just like the hard left, *他* wants to decide for us all. I suppose because he’s convinced himself that he’s more moral than the rest of us, and therefor that gives him the right to dictate to the rest of us what we can and can not do. Based on *他的* morality, religion and world view.

    But this is the thing.

    As with your ” human life is sacrosanct, life must be protected by society from conception until natural death. ”

    Has Mike Pence ever had one world to say about the millions of innocent men, women and children that the U.S. has been slaughtering in lied-about wars since he’s been in the government?

    Would he agree with that odious hag [RIH] that 500,000 children dying for lack of medicine and clean water was “worth it”?

    I’m sure he would, because I’m sure if you check out his voting record, that he no-doubt supported all the wars and sanctions that our government has imposed on so many millions of innocent people.

    So do you see the conundrum here? If all these people who’re all so excruciatingly tormented by even one sacred life being ended in an abortion, but then once they’re born, then ‘oh fuck em, drop the bombs baby! Blow those terrorists to little bits, and watch their mothers groan in agony at their splattered children, and it’s all good baby! More bombs! More sanctions! Kill them all! It’s more than worth it!

  63. @ThreeCranes

    先生:
    Mentioning the “rabid Catholic” angle would be a fine way to lose your job.

    Both political parties have been quite happy to give control of the US Supreme Court to a 122 acre “nation” ruled by Infallible Males. I’ve already used the term pissant state for another bunch, so let’s call this particular “nation” the Pedophile state.

    Violence has been mentioned several times already. It would not surprise me a bit if Justice Thomas doesn’t enter on a path to becoming a Saint – maybe sooner rather than later. The Pedophile state’s American agents have already used mentally deficient/mentally ill people to murder abortion doctors. No matter what happened, we can be certain the “Left” would be awarded the blame for another murder.

    Sometime during the Watergate years a Nixon fan reportedly said something like this: ‘If we smash the US, I believe we can pick up the biggest pieces’. Destroying the US wouldn’t break any hearts in the 122 acre “nation”. Their wholly-owned SCOTUS has made a good start towards that goal. Review rulings like “Citizens United” and similar ones.

    The mere existence of the US vexes the pedophiles running the micro-nation the same way the existence of successful “free negros” drove the Slavery Elites crazy.

  64. Nancy 说:
    @Liosnagcat

    “..for millenia…” A little history review of ‘Western Civilization’ will reveal that abortion was not considered a major sin/crime most of the time. Today’s view that every sperm is a potential life, equivalent to an independent human, is largely a strategy to use in the pursuit of power, i.e., politics.

    (Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much. Also, the value we place on the child can be judged by the state of domestic/family law, education, our warped AFDC program, drag queen story hour for preschoolers, unscientific CRT cultural warping, gay glorification, school chaos, teacher devaluation, etc, etc, etc.)
    As a traditional Christian, I believe that deliberately aborting a healthy fetus would be a very serious sin for me (I did experience a natural ‘abortion’ – miscarriage) … but I don’t have the right to tell another woman what should do …. she, and her God, will have to make that decision.
    So I’m glad RvW was overturned, and the responsibility returned to the states… might even have been better, if possible, to give the authority to … counties!

    • 回复: @70sTarheel
  65. Rich 说:
    @Mevashir

    Can you direct me to the clause or amendment where there is a “right to privacy” afforded by the US Constitution? When I read between the lines I only see blank spaces. But, if you believe the feds should grant a “right to privacy” the way you can do that is work to have such an amendment passed. I prefer rule by law than rule by judges who often get their jobs for unsavory reasons.

    • 回复: @Mevashir
    , @Reg Cæsar
  66. Anon[131]• 免责声明 说:
    @WJ

    Derb is an OG “Beautiful Loser.” His seminal (no pun intended) work is his book _We Are Doomed_. That title in fact summarizes the theme of every piece he writes on political subjects. His career in political writing is simply a long stretch of masochistic masturbation, evidently satisfying more or less. Such committment is also reflected in his taking positive positions that are self-destructive, e.g., beating the drum for neocon wars. The man is an intelligent and graceful writer, a somewhat charming personality, a good father, and a peaceful citizen, but he is no friend.

    • 同意: Towey
    • 不同意: Mevashir
    • 回复: @Mevashir
  67. In a world that advocates every kind of GlobalHomo sex imaginable between 2SLGBTQQIAHP+ (Translation – Two Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Beastiality, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual people, Hemorphadytes and Pedophiles. + added to cover the overlooked), and destroys man and woman with AI, have lost the sanctity of human birth right and must be punished with weaponized pathogens to comply with the Synagogue of Satan Georgia Guidestones depopulation mandate.

  68. jsm 说:

    同意。

    Even better plan (in my humble opinion). Since offering WOCs money upfront for sterilization will result in hysterical accusations of trying to genocide the wonderful black race, do this:

    Offer all teens and young women whose mothers were ever on welfare (which will overwhelmingly be blacks) this benefit: Come into the welfare office / clinic once every 3 months, get a preg test. If neg, take a Depo Provera shot, get a check. Come back in 3 months, repeat. Continue benefit until at least age 30.

    You could market it as, preventing teen pregnancy, because everybody agrees that’s bad. You could market it as, we want young “disadvantaged” women to “get education,” for them, and the benefit of their later children.

    And all told, prob would not be 100k per woman, but even if it is, so what? The long term savings of the antisocial little monsters not conceived would be the best investment we ever did.

    You could dodge the argument that we’re “trying to genocide the black race.” No, we’re not, see, cuz the woman isn’t *永久性* sterilized, just not getting pregnant when “she’s too young to be a good mother.” (What’s really happening is you’re reducing her fecundity rate from 6 little brats per woman to one, because women in their 30s are not so fertile as women at 18, but doing it in a “politically palatable” way.)

    • 回复: @follyofwar
  69. Mevashir 说:
    @Rich

    How about the prohibition of illegal search and seizure? Doesn’t that imply a right to privacy? Do you need a constitutional amendment to be able to have your tonsils removed or have heart surgery?

    I mean honestly, what is the problem here? If you don’t like abortion then don’t ever pay for someone to have one. Don’t let your wife or daughter or sister ever have an abortion. We tip our hats to you. But mind your business regarding the health and welfare of other people that you don’t otherwise give a damn about, except to use them to prove your religious superiority and to virtue signal off of their backs.

    • 同意: The Real World
    • 回复: @Rich
  70. Mevashir 说:
    @jsm

    Very well stated comment. I totally agree.

    As a former Orthodox Jew and Fundamentalist Christian, I think the reason the Bible wants people to be married before having sex is because contraception was not available and it was understood that sex would likely result in pregnancy, and the Bible understands everything that you have written here: that pregnancy is extremely risky and dangerous for the woman and she deserves the security of a home and support in order to successfully navigate this most difficult situation.

    The Bible also imposes severe penalties on men who cause unwanted pregnancies. The whole anti-abortion movement penalizes women exclusively.

    I think that the anti-abortion movement has won the war of rhetoric and the pro-choice movement mistakenly portrays itself as promoting frivolous abortions which is highly offensive to most people. I tip my hat to the organizational ability of the right. They frankly deserve to have won this battle. The Democrats are a completely clueless bunch of arrogant elitist snobs out of touch with the problems and concerns of middle America.

    Sayonara shitheads.

    • 同意: jsm
  71. Mevashir 说:
    @Anon

    If he’s all the wonderful things you say about him at the end, then he’s a good example to the rest of us which is the best kind of friend!

  72. HT 说:

    Of course, in a white Western Christian country abortion should be non-existent. I wish we lived in one.

    • 同意: littlewing
  73. Bo Bo 说:

    If a female does not want to manufacture a child, then why are they f*cking? The purpose of f*cking is to manufacture children. Females are nature’s baby factories. That is why nature made females, to manufacture children. Am I the only one who knows that? Abortion disrupts nature’s purpose for females being on earth- to manufacture children!!!

    • 回复: @acementhead
  74. littlewing 说:

    30 million black babies have been aborted.
    They openly say “I had an abortion yesterday.” like it’s just another day.

  75. Curmudgeon 说:
    @R.G. Camara

    Now it’s clear from medical science human life begins at conception,

    You are conflating issues. A foetus does not become viable until 30+ weeks, and then only with massive medical intervention. Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur frequently and stillborn foetuses much less so. Are states going to pass laws punishing women who have these?
    I find it astounding that the debate about abortion in the US still centres on morality while its government invades, bombs, and overthrows governments causing more deaths than abortions, yet there is no discussion about that morality. Women have, and will always seek abortions, whether legal or not. Until the discussion about what conditions can reduce the number of those seeking abortions begins, this will be a dog chasing its tail.

    • 回复: @Anon
    , @anon
    , @R.G. Camara
  76. Mike Tre 说:
    @tosca

    “I have been a Belgian attorney for more than 43 years. Ideology is not my morning cup of tea.”

    Lol huh? What is law if not ideology.

  77. JimDandy 说:
    @nokangaroos

    Your strawman and silly language is evidence that you don’t have an argument. In fairness, there is no argument in favor of slaughtering a viable baby–unless letting it live would literally kill the mom. Also, I’m not sure that these killings aren’t sometimes done for giggles, but they are done for the same banal reasons as other abortions, including things like, the baby daddy cheated and she wants revenge, etc.

    “It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other. However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.”

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  78. JimDandy 说:
    @meamjojo

    I’m embarrassed for you. Re-read, and figure it out yourself. It will be a good exercise for you.

  79. Art Deco 说:

    IIRC, your children are 27 and 30, respectively. Be agreeable if your daughter wants a cheap wedding and your wife gets some grandchildren ‘ere long.

  80. JimDandy 说:
    @Rurik

    “If it were up to you, a few (several hundred per year) mothers dying is ‘worth it’, in order to prevent some mothers from abusing the ‘health of the mother’ exemption?”

    Fuck off with your juvenile strawman, baby killer. “Health” should not be a catch all that allows the murder of a babies for no good reason.

    “It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other. However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.” (Note: Because adoption “isn’t really a thing.”)

    “最近的一项 Guttmacher 研究侧重于妊娠 20 周后的堕胎,并得出类似的结论,即寻求晚期堕胎的女性不会因为胎儿异常或危及生命而这样做。”

    • 谢谢: Automatic Slim
    • 回复: @Rurik
  81. Mike Tre 说:
    @Ya

    Abortion has not been outlawed. The decision whether to ban it or not has simply been returned to the states. The states that report the highest rates of negro abortion are not likely to restrict the practice. Calm down.

    • 回复: @Ya
  82. @Rich

    是的, 很清楚, he gave it away.

    And when no pregnancy was desired or intended – WHY did he do something so careless? He could have utilized the oldest birth control method ever by pulling it out before the grand finale. WHY can’t he accomplish that simple measure? There are times when there is nothing available for her to use (even if there is) so why is he so irresponsible to impregnate her?

    Those are questions that need to be answered.

    • 回复: @Rich
    , @Kratoklastes
  83. Mike Tre 说:
    @Rurik

    “ even in those cases when the life of the mother is at risk”

    Ok, it’s time for this line of reasoning to be quantified. Can you provide an example, within the realm of modern first world medicine, when a woman’s life is at risk and the only thing that will save her life is aborting the fetus?

    Is there a documented occurrence? And I mean a concrete physical risk, not some subjective mental health crap.

    How many women in the US die in childbirth every year? Because I suspect that if was any even remotely significant number, feminists would be exploiting the issue directly.

  84. 70sTarheel 说:
    @Nancy

    Do you have the right to tell a mother not to kill her newborn baby?

  85. beau 说:

    a political decision rendered by activist judges making, not interpreting, law has been rectified by a constitutional jurisprudence decision rendered by true judges, NOT unelected legislators. it is beyond time, but better late than never.

    we will now be treated to those among us who LOVE killing babies. they will declare ‘sanctuary baby killing’ status for their states and support those who slaughter the most innocent. they will show all the very deep, dark state of their hearts, minds and souls.

  86. Dystopian 说:
    @Rurik

    So Mike Pence is a scum bag? I wouldn’t disagree with that sentiment but how does that refute anything I said? Abortion is murder of the worst kind, ruthlessly killing the most innocent and vulnerable of beings. The fact that our morals have slipped so far as to allow it might be why people like Pence, Pelosi, Shumer, Obama, Biden and McConnell are our leaders.

    • 谢谢: Automatic Slim
  87. @Mike Tre

    How many women in the US die in childbirth every year?

    That was a simple internet search.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm

    861 in the USA in 2020 – up from 658 in 2018. Number is rising, I don’t know why.
    NOTE: those numbers reflect pregnancy or childbirth deaths. Both happen.

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  88. I don’t understand why people cannot understand simple common sense. Let me start with my opinion.
    “I stand with individual liberties including women’s right to decide what they do to their body (with limitations on society in general), rights to own guns and arm oneself and refuse vaccine or masks etc.”
    As in medical profession, I believe fetus is a parasite until it is able to survive alone outside womb which with modern medicine is as early as 22-24 weeks. After that it should not be called abortion rather delivery in case of risk to health of mother. If woman has not made a decision by this time (which I think is ample time for counselling/education) she should carry it to the term. This limit should also apply to cases of rape and incest. Or make women go through whole pregnancy when genetic abnormalities are not compatible with life.
    Why would you want to torture a woman for rest of her life to remember the trauma of rape to carry a human which is not desired.
    Banning abortion will not ban illegal abortion similar to banning guns will not ban illegal arms. Prostitution is illegal, did it stop? Drugs are illegal, did it stop?
    Rich people who wants something will get it regardless its legal or illegal (guns, abortion, drugs). It’s the ordinary people who have to face consequences of elite’s decisions.

  89. Ya 说:
    @Mike Tre

    Most states that did ban it are southern states where the majority of the feral blacks live and breed.

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  90. @Mike Tre

    Yes. In cases of severe genetic abnormalities which are not compatible with life where continuing pregnancy is not only a burden and exposing mother to possibility of pre-eclampsia and eclempsia which can be fatal.

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  91. Bo Bo 说:

    除非有人注意到,否则现在推翻 Roe v. Wade 的目的是让民主党及其支持媒体在 XNUMX 月选举之前有一个竞选问题来打击选民,以防止他们将众议院和参议院投票给共和党多数席位。

    由于试图将通货膨胀、经济和疯狂的能源价格归咎于普京和共和党人是行不通的,堕胎问题非常适合在中期选举前进行骚乱和宣传。 民主党人、他们的媒体和他们的捐助者必须能够贿赂、勒索或同时贿赂大多数保守派法官,以便现在推翻 Roe v. Wade 案,这样他们就可以在 XNUMX 月的选举之前获得完美的竞选问题。

    • 谢谢: Je Suis Omar Mateen
  92. I understand that abortion isn’t a pleasant idea, but I don’t understand why conservatives are so eager to a ban it. When feminists say that conservatives don’t want to pay to look after other people’s children, they’re not wrong. I myself have been adamantly opposed to all forms of welfare, without exception, be it public education, school lunches, foodstamps, etc. I consider the use of tax money for such purposes to be cuckoldry, which is surely a greater affront to civilized order than abortion. What do pro-life conservatives plan on doing about the growth of the parasite class?

    An alternative to abortion would be mandatory sterilization of welfare recipients, but leftists go ape at the suggestion, so let them have abortion.

  93. Dutch Boy 说:
    @Zachary Smith

    You are confused. It is the other side that has been doing the slaughter.

  94. Let people like this kill their kids.

  95. Agent76 说:

    September 20, 2021 The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation

    It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it’s inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an earlier case.

    https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned-precedent-dozens-of-times-in-the-past-60-years-including-when-it-struck-down-legal-segregation-168052#comments-container

  96. Anon[362]• 免责声明 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Constitution is like the bible; it can be interpreted to mean whatever just enough people in positions of power want it to mean. And it can be amended. The emperor has no clothes; our self -serving narratives that our rights come from God, is wishful thinking. Yesterday “abortion rights”, was a thing. Today there’s no such thing as “abortion rights”. Because a right for all intents and purposes is whatever just enough people in positions of power deem is a right. Once it’s “recognized”; gay marriage, Afro American equality etc., the narrative is that it was inherent in the bill of rights and the Constitution all along. We just did not see it, till one day we did. Rights come from groups agitating for political power, bottom up usually. Then acknowledged or “recognized” by those in power; legislature, or judicial as having been there in the constitutional /bill of rights all along, those not seen. Fact i , legislating from the bench is equal to passing legislation. It’s what a hand full of people in power deem is right or just. The sanctimonious pompous narrative around US law making is US supremacist arrogance. That all these Americans believe it’s perfectly acceptable, and a Human right, to dismember or poison a sentient human fetus, is astounding. Show how gullible and easily manipulated Americans are. And we say Muslims are backwards. At least they do have ethe excuse of being ruled by brutal dictators or guided by a backward religious fundamentalism. What’s our excuse, feminazis dominate society!

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  97. Anastasia 说:

    He thinks he is to the right in allowing abortion up to 12 weeks. Just goes to show you that over the last 50 years roe v wade had converted an entire nation to the notion that abortion is not murder

  98. Anon[362]• 免责声明 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    A new- born is not viable unless taken care of by an adult. Neither are most kids. Humans are not viable in outer space or in water, without intervention. Our humanity is not dependent on where and when we are viable. Sick people need care often too. This criteria of viability is a rationale to support legalized killing of unborn humans. It’s primitive barbarism, if it’s even that. It’s inhumane.

    • 同意: R.G. Camara
    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  99. Bel Riose 说:

    A few things to keep in mind, ladies:

    第一:

    If it’s 100% your body…

    …and 100% your choice…

    …then it’s also 100% your responsibility.

    第二:

    Methods of birth control available to women:

    [更多]

    1. LNG IUD
    2. IUD
    3. Hormonal Implant
    4. Hormonal Shot
    5. Oral contraceptives (the “pill”)
    6. Progestin (“mini”) pill
    7. Patch
    8. Hormonal vaginal contraceptive Ring
    9. Diaphragm
    10. Cervical Cap
    11. Sponge
    12. Female condom
    13. Spermicides
    14. Fertility awareness method
    15. Copper IUD (emergency contraception)
    16. Emergency contraceptive pills
    17. Tubal Ligation

    Methods of birth control available to a man:

    1. Condom
    2. Vasectomy

    If a woman engages in sex — and chooses not to use any one of the 17 (!) methods of birth control available to her — she shouldn’t complain if she gets pregnant.

    And she shouldn’t blame the man for the pregnancy.

    Of course, we all know she’ll do so anyway.

    And she won’t accept ANY responsibility for the pregnancy. None! She won’t even acknowledge that she is 50% responsible, or even 1% responsible.

    No guys — it’s all YOUR fault!

    But this shouldn’t come as a surprise.

    After all, isn’t feminism all about avoiding responsibility?

  100. jsm 说:
    @Mike Tre

    Yes. Hyperemesis gravidarum, where the woman is so nauseous, so intractably nauseous, that she is literally starving to death. There are cases where no known antiemetic is available that doesn’t cause birth defects. And the lack of B1 from not eating, plus the increased demand by the fetus, can lead to brain damage in the mother..

    Mortality in childbirth: The most recent U.S. maternal mortality ratio, or rate, of 17.4 per 100,000 pregnancies represented approximately 660 maternal deaths in 2018.

    Some of the more-common causes of mortality can be, particularly with c-section: hemorrage; infection; and or embolism or blood clot.

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  101. Cris M. 说:

    The slavish notion Scalia or any of the supposed judges have/had any ‘spirit’ in any positive sense isn’t tenable. They and the system were conned in purpose to slide down to the tyranny that exists now as the ‘top’ cons levy it or otherwise default to ignore and let happen and distract with garbage that doesn’t matter such as ‘abortion’ same time other false laws scratched off what people think they have as paper ‘rights’. There are too many examples to note so will proof just two which ‘scalia’ had part, one as cover snivel and the other by default as ignored entirely. Kelo case, and supreems refusing to hear Hedge’s ndaa lawsuit. The con of supreem ‘court’ is to pretend there some ‘system’ watchin out fer you’ and otherwise have a couple people snivel when the ‘others’ claim the right to take our life and property so we don’t shut down their false system but instead sit as their co-tyrants advance. Scalia example, in kelo as cover snivel after their ‘decision’ https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/11_21 .Scalia and Thomas supposed ‘dissent’ was irrelevant and only served to falsely pacify dupes as the con law continued since. If they were honest they would have said it won’t change until people get out the pitchforks which of course people didn’t bother because they’re too busy sucking snivel acts or fake supposed ‘backlash’ that didn’t happen. Fake front ‘republicans’ or supposed states ‘limiting’ eminent for ‘economic’ purpose’ remains cover bs. Be clear ’eminent domain’ was always a fraud for exactly the setup of that fraud con case. The schemers are long range planners, we are at end of their ‘plan’. Kelo was not ‘only’ eminent domain’ for ‘public’ such as roads etc it was private to private, taking property for whatever ‘payment’ they decide to hand some private commercial con for private profit -spewing as ‘public benefit’. Those mass immigrants have to have somewhere to ‘shop’ as they breed you out of existence you know.

    For those too dim to figure out what that means, they can take houses/property for whatever they claim as ‘payment’ and hand to others. Remember mass robbery by ‘catholic church’ as ignorant dupes sat, same situation. The slide from ’eminent for roads’ to -your property handed to some enviro raping shopping center was the End of property rights and they knew it. Scalia’s snivel act was cover. Nothing else. There was no ‘overturn’ obviously as there is no format ‘above’ the supreem court and they won’t accept any case to ‘overturn’ the con which every ‘court’ was made for to begin with -taking of everyone’s property into hands of the cabalist tyrants. Supposed ‘state’ cons the same. This ‘abortion’ distraction is proof of distraction nonsense as the heist continues. ‘overturn abortion’ bs -as kelo sits. Proof two, refusal to hear Hedge’s ndaa case, go ahead find where Scalia said a word. Nothing. Don’t complain when the feinted ‘supreems’ sit back as people are bagged by con ‘govermnt military’ fraud ‘system’. More proofs -where were ‘attorn-eys’ and ‘judges on ‘masks’ and ‘lockdowns’. Sitting and denying. ‘red flag’ laws bs as supreems distract with ‘abortion’. There are no enemies of the establshment in any ‘courts’. What’s the definition of ‘attorn’, search. Brief on wider fact, sixty percent of lawyers and judges are part of it, the other thirty or forty percent are irrelevant. The kavenaugh ff con was because people are catching on that ‘courts’ are cons so they concocted a phony ‘threat’ act so dupes ‘feel sorry fer a judge’ and continue clinging to cons. Phony ‘attempt’ so lame they’re not even trying anymore. Millions harassed, robbed, drugged or destroyed completely by lawyers/judges yet no ‘media’ about them yet the cons do a phony threat act about a judge and media slobbers so people stay duped. Most people don’t know lawyers can lie in court and if you’re divorcing they scribbled down laws so people cannot claim constitution rights if judges and lawyers take your kids and whatever you have. Same with ‘probate’ or cases with older people. ‘isolate medicate liquidate’, search. Many states/lawyers doing ‘non judicial’ foreclosure’ now. There’s nothing stopping state govmt cons raking ‘tax’ to a dozen times current level same time others of them in monopoly food charge \$20 on loaf of bread. Dupes shouldn’t have sat for those ‘bailouts’ ten years ago. Supposed judges are other lawyers in robes, supposed ‘bar’ rules’ are a con. There are no rules -except when a lawyer who’s not one of the cons tries to do something to stop the cons by using the phony ‘courts’ the con lawyers and judges gang and attack them. That is because most people sit and fail to tribe in resistance. Abortion is nobody’s business but the breeders -though people should know what others of the cons are doing with the remains. Heinous is everywhere, and distraction. Then again people didn’t care about ‘wars’ elsewhere either.

    A p.s. while people have right by nature law to do what they choose as justice since as we can clearly see there is none otherwise, at minimum there is nothing stopping people from simply bolting shut the doors so no more courts’ -other than the drones dupes let the cabalists get from phony ‘wars’. Point being freedom takes brainwork and effort. The longer people sat without protest the concrete sets. Stop following fake groups and bogus leaders, in sum and other words I disagree with the overall premise of article. Last, do not copy and paste any part of my comment, do not use any part for repeat on web, use pen paper if you want to take a few notes as reminder in as share discuss with others in actual life, off ‘web.

  102. raga10 说:

    I find it curious that proponents of displacement theory are in favour of ban on abortion… actually black women have abortions at a rate of more than twice that of white women – I’d have thought you’d be all in favour of making abortions as available and cheap as possible…

    • 谢谢: Lucius Vanini
    • 巨魔: R.G. Camara
    • 回复: @shadowy_figure
    , @R.G. Camara
  103. @jeff stryker

    It’s the exact opposite. Freakanomics argued that legalized abortion reduced crime v. Unz’s own Steve Sailer, who argued the contra.

  104. Joe Paluka 说:

    The whole Roe vs Wade decision back in the 70’s has long gone beyond a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy, it’s evolved into a religious sacrament that represents to the left, part of their fight to destroy the traditional America and their desire to create a federal dictatorship of total control. Just look at the people who are protesting, they look like something that’s been flushed out of the sewers, mostly purple haired lesbian types and emasculated men who have no skin in the game, except that they like all the free drugs and booze that they get for protesting and rioting. If any of these people really believed that it’s all about a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body, they’d have been the one’s foremost in the fight against covid mandates and forced injections. Instead, these people love overeaching, overarching government control as long as they get lots of sex, booze and drugs.

    • 同意: Towey, jsm
    • 回复: @Francis Miville
  105. @RockaBoatus

    You mean a Pro-White can welcome the removal of something long affording Euroamerica a precious measure of protection?

    You mean a White advocate, though informed of the shocking rate of black-on-White violence, could oppose that which kept the black population from being twice what it is–which prevented 1480 black-on-White crimes PER DAY from becoming 2960 per day?

    And ya mean a Pro-White thinks millions more black votes, all but certain to be overwhelmingly Leftist (as in ’20, when 92% of the black electorate voted for the Marxists and against Trump), are an acceptable price to pay for mere conceits like “morality” and “piety”?

    ANSWER: No. No actual Pro-White does such things, only phonies with a separate agenda, with concerns much more important to them than White well-being could ever be….

    To listen to silly bible-thumpers, one would think that SCOTUS has done something we really needed–like considered the evidence of electoral fraud in ’20, or compelled the Marxists to enforce U.S. immigration law and stop promoting the Third-World invasion. But no. SCOTUS undid something providing us material advantages.

    As our good luck would have it, blacks used Roe-guaranteed abortion as birth control. They were far more likely than other racial groups to choose it, aborting at a rate five times higher than the White rate and precluding 20 million blacks. So, as black Conservative Candace Owens recently complained on Fox News, Roe and abortion did prevent black numbers from being twice as high as they are. (When the progeny that these millions didn’t produce are factored in, one sees that the present black pop of 40+ mill would’ve been AT LEAST 80+ mill but for abortion, not 60+.)

    As a result, there are NOT more than 540,360 violent black-on-White crimes annually (DoJ stats). NOR do many millions more black votes contribute to make even moderately White-friendly governments unelectable. BUT Conservative White America, hallucinating from an opiate concocted by Jews, saw that it was not nice to let blacks cull their numbers for us; so things may change, and Conservative White America may discover that it’s shot itself in the foot.

    HOWEVER! All is far from lost. The loss of Roe means that the states shall decide whether to allow abortion. And certainly women in anti-abortion states could travel to pro-eugenics (in effect) states, even without it costing them anything.

    As I recently suggested, in a pro-abortion Facebook group of which I’m a member, woke corporations might allot funds sending the poorest of women to pro-abortion jurisdictions. If big money can finance criminal gangs like Black LIES Matter, it can also afford such funds as can benefit America, too. Apropos of that, the Disney Corporation has pledged to send its female employees to wherever they can get abortions, all expenses paid. Lol by a quirk of history, the Left, despite itself, favors something with a definite eugenic effect on society; and that’s a gift horse into whose mouth I don’t look….

    P.S. YES, though not nearly at the same rate, White women also abort. I do hope that a resurgence of White self-love can provide for the nurture of unwanted Euroamerican children. Then again….who are the White women likely to abort, and to do so repeatedly? Not OUR women–Rightist, very Conservative ones. No, liberal women, Left-leaning. And how many of the latter get impregnated by non-Whites, especially blacks? It’d seem that making abortion difficult or impossible would mean a proliferation chiefly of Leftist types–that even where White women are concerned abortion tends, overall, to have something of a eugenic effect.

    • 回复: @RockaBoatus
    , @jsm
  106. Rich 说:
    @Mevashir

    The prohibition against illegal search and seizure is pretty straightforward, it has nothing to do with abortion. If you want the specific right to murder your children, pass an amendment allowing it. If a judge has the right to allow you to kill your baby he has the ability to give or take whatever rights he deems adequate. I prefer a written constitution and rule by law, not by men. Is this too difficult for you to comprehend?

  107. Rich 说:
    @The Real World

    I agree that both men and women should be responsible when having intimate relations. And both should take of the the child if one is conceived.

  108. @raga10

    I agree. I’m not really understanding why pro-choice isn’t the default conservative position. I think that a lot of feminists are pro-choice simply because they know that it riles conservatives. They’re the ones who should be pro-life. Wouldn’t a new wave of welfare-dependent minority children be more consistent with their existing civilisation-wrecking agenda?

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
    , @Jay Fink
  109. @Lucius Vanini

    Don’t worry, Lucius, your precious baby-murdering industry will continue despite Rode-v-Wade being overturned and given to the States to decide which is where it belonged in the first place.

    And not to fret, Lucius, Blacks will continue to murder their babies in huge numbers. White liberals will make sure to provide them the funds and resources to do so. And yes, white babies will be murdered too. But that’s okay according to your logic because they’re “liberal women, Left-leaning.” I guess there’s no chance that those same white babies might one day turn out to be pro-white advocates and productive members of society? And as for those liberal feminists, there’s certainly no chance they’ll ever change their views and renounce their liberalism, right? You’ve got yourself quite a crystal ball there.

    I know it’s hard for you, but it’s not the end of the world in spite of the hysteria you’ve mustered.

    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
  110. @Lucius Vanini

    No, Blacks will continue to murder their babies just as they’ve always been doing. White feminists will make sure it continues, and they’ll be glad to provide the funds and resources for their racial ‘pets’ to do so. Of course, white babies will also continue to be murdered, but that’s okay because they’re liberal and left leaning. It’s okay for 那些 babies to get their brains sucked out or to be dismembered on the operating table. And why not – their mommies were politically liberal?!

    There’s no chance, after all, that those same white feminists might one day have a change of heart, right? There’s no way they might come to their senses, correct? And those babies are sure to never become advocates of white racial and cultural interests either, right? We’re all so glad you’ve got it figured out and can see the future so clearly.

    And as usual you can’t leave any post without condemning “Rabbi Saul of Tarsus,” can you? In your obsessive mind, Paul got together with the Pharisees and concocted Christianity in order to deceive the goyim. Good grief, what an ingenuous plan! The hatred that Talmudic Jews have had against Christianity and Christians for the past two thousand years, well that’s just an act. The hostility between rabbinical Jews and Christianity is just for show, a wink in the midst of faked anger – all so they can get gentiles to esteem and worship them. Wow, what insight you have!

    福音书中对耶稣的描绘明确谴责了法利赛人和他们的口头传统,这也只是“计划”的一部分。 保罗在帖撒罗尼迦前书 1:2 中所说的话,宣称杀害耶稣和先知并将使徒赶出去的犹太人——“他们不讨神喜悦,反与所有人为敌”——好吧,这并不是他真正相信的。 不,他只是在愚弄帖撒罗尼迦的信徒,作为宏伟计划的一部分。 当使徒约翰在启示录 15:3 记录耶稣的话时,他谴责“撒旦的会堂”——好吧,他也不是那个意思。 他只是坚持“计划”,仅此而已。

    还有所有那些夜以继日地工作以破坏和淡化基督教信息的犹太人——好吧,他们也不是真正的意思。 他们也知道这也是“计划”的一部分。

    卢修斯,我必须赞扬你,因为你真的了解了那些犹太人。 你发现基督教和塔木德犹太教是一样的! 犹太人一直是幕后黑手! 几个世纪以来的拉比只是假装憎恨基督教。 当以色列犹太人在他们的国家阻止基督教传福音时,这只是保罗和那些一世纪拉比从一开始就炮制的“计划”的反映。

    是的,的确如此,什么洞察力。 我们都非常感谢你。

    • 谢谢: Towey, Houston 1992
    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
  111. The overstep by the supreme court was to indulge in a discussion about what constitutes a human being and a person. Their end seems to have been that a baby is not entitled to protections of the constitution because they lack citizenship.

    It is an interesting discussion. But at the end of the day, until our institutions recognize that human life starts at conception and no person has the right to terminate that human development -save perhaps for self defense of their physical being —- the murder of children will continue, even if curtailed by this decision as a matter for the states.

    It remains the work of those of us willing to defend children in the womb, to teach the next generations of that biological truth. A child id human and that human starts its life at conception.

    And should one not want to have a child, there are a number of ways to prevent that conception. And that they should in fact take responsibility for their bodies by engaging them.

  112. @Anon

    depends on whether you have a soul or not

    LOL… religiotards can’t hide their childish belief in the supernatural for three sentences.

    That, and insisting on sticking their pig-ignorant fucking noses in everybody else’s private decisions.

    Frankly I don’t give a fuck if some woman I don’t know gets pregnant, decides it would be an inconvenience, and takes PlanB.

    The fact that you think it’s any business of yours, just shows that you have some over-arching desire to stick your nose in where it’s not wanted and will serve no good purpose.

    Of course, that’s because I have no soul – which in turn is because the very idea of a soul is a stupid primitive fiction that appeals to people with primitive childish ideas about how reality works.

    People who use bullshit fairy-tale terms like ‘soul’ and ‘satanic’ (and ‘evil’) are just showing the world where the gullible imbeciles are.

    • 同意: acementhead
    • 回复: @Ace
    , @Anon
  113. @Anon

    So let’s get this straight…. abortion is bad, but anyone who disagrees with your fuckwitted imbecile opinion deserves to die? You obviously can’t think for shit.

    You’re primo evidence of my favourite apophthegm, which is 2500 years old, and as true as when it was first uttererd: HOI PLEISTOI ANTHROPOI KAKOI. Most people are shit.

  114. No mention of abortion in The Constitution??!! Sapristi!! No mention of automobiles, telephones or television, universal suffrage etc, eight hundred overseas military bases either. Ban them all, I say, and let the USA return to its 18th century idyll. Leave it to ‘the people’ ie the rich who own politics, the brainwashing machines, business, money etc.

  115. @shadowy_figure

    The ‘debate’ in the USA is the usual moronic picking of sides. No sane woman ever has a termination happily and thoughtlessly. Termination, in their opinion, and perhaps that of their partner and others, is the lesser Evil, a concept that Bible-bashing misogynists with their Bronze Age patriarchial mind-set do not entertain.
    The Great Daddy God (the ego projection of a bunch of Near Eastern loonies 3500 years ago)wants females to breed, unhesitatingly and to his greater glory. That the offspring might live, or rather, exist, in squalor and want after birth is of NO interest to Big Daddy. You must do as you are told, and like it. Every sperm is sacred.

    • 同意: acementhead
  116. @jsm

    And mortality in child-birth is INCREASING in Gilead-oops-the USA, in contrast to every other developed country. A veritable demi-paradise.

    • 回复: @jsm
  117. Towey 说:
    @Observator

    The Anglo-Saxons, as mere muscle for the usurers, have been more responsible for the death and destruction of white European peoples than any other group.
    The genocíde of the Irish by Cromwell, the killing of your coreligionists, the Boers, the financing of the Bolsheviks which resulted in the massacre of 60 million Russian Christians, the two world wars you started which were responsible for the deaths of millions of European Christians and innocent German civilians are just some examples of the genocides carried out by your cowardly materialistic race on behalf of your Jewish masters.
    Only idiots could fight and die for democracy without realising that democracy is your assent to your status as bond slaves.
    Your recent illegal invasions of the Middle East on half of the bankers has resulted in a refugee problem which will result in the end of Europe and western civilization which was built by the Catholic Church. Your Anglo-Saxon civilization built on greed and usury is about to come to an end and the world will be a better place for it.

  118. Icy Blast 说:

    Derbyshire just wants Catholics of European ancestry aborted. Other than that, he opposes baby-killing.

  119. Dually 说:

    I sit… not minding abortion on demand up to some definite limit

    Why are many of our culture heroes on the alt.right, like Derbyshire and Andrew Anglin – with his promotion of rap music vulgarity – essentially just sell-outs when it gets down to core cultural issues?

  120. @The Real World

    Those are questions that need to be answered

    Why do they ‘need to be answered'?

    换一种方式: what fucking business is it of yours?

    If people put as much effort into looking after their own fucking lives as they do jonesing for interference in others’, the world would be bereft of finger-wagging cunts – and that would be an unalloyed good thing.

    This is why religious fuckwits are jizzing their pants over the idea that they might be able to finagle abortion bans in retard-heavy states in the Bible Belt: they a absolutely compelled to foist their worldview on as many people as they can, because of their 3rd grade reading of the ‘nice’ bits of a preposterous Iron Age fairy tale. (In this whole “everyone must think as I do” cuntery, they are no different to the ‘liberals’ who are notionally their polar opposites. Fuckwits from another mother, perhaps.

    Like any non-partisan (be it religio-primitive-tard or SJW-Woke-tard) who thinks about it, I am not keen on the idea of abortions after more than a few weeks; after the first trimester it’s pretty disturbing. Before then, it’s just a probability tilt – because the ‘self-abortion’ (miscarriage) hot-zone is the first trimester (and 一个在四 pregnancies self-abort in that time): that’s why “a hot bath and a bottle of gin” has worked for dozens of human generations (and all ‘primitive’ cultures have abortifacients of varying efficacy).

    However when it crosses my mind I think “It’s got fuck-all to do with me: it’s not like the people involved are trying to force me to have a Pfizer needle stuck in my arm – if you want to ban something, ban 那些 婊子。=

    One final word for fuckwits who mention ‘Western Civilisation’ as if abortion has always been frowned upon: in Ancient Athens newborns were not considered ‘people’ until they were 10 days old (because neo-natal death rates were so high) and babies born with deformities were left in the Agora – in the hope that someone would adopt them, but with indifference as to their fates. Straightforward infanticide (i.e., without reference to the 10-day period) was quite common in Rome as late as the 4th century.

    Infanticide and abortifacients are as old as humanity.

    That doesn’t make it right, of course, but the existence of abortion is not something caused by
    ① a recent slide into hedonistic decadence, or
    ② the ‘sexual revolution’, or
    ③ the fact that it’s now frowned upon to smack a bitch upside the head if she gets uppity.

    • 同意: follyofwar
    • 回复: @The Real World
  121. anon[853]• 免责声明 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    Wonder how viable Kissinger, Soros are on their own?
    Or how viable would every neocon be in Iraq?
    All should be aborted.

  122. Hibernian 说:
    @Observator

    It is no surprise that Italians and Irish are among the most aggressive enemies of freedom now…

    Scalia, Alito & Kavanaugh are/were 辩护人 of freedom; abortion involves conflict of rights; there are at least two parties involved. Look who defended gun rights – the same ones who said abortion wasn’t in the Constitution and the mother isn’t the only party involved.

    • 谢谢: Towey
  123. Jay Fink 说:
    @shadowy_figure

    Something changed over the years where conservatives now want the baby born so much they are more than happy to pay full welfare benefits for 18 years. I never had an opinion on abortion but I was very attracted to the GOPs “fend for yourself” attitude towards unwed mothers and their bastard spawn. Today the fend for yourself spirit is long gone unfortunately.

    • 谢谢: Lucius Vanini
    • 回复: @The Real World
    , @Art Deco
  124. Mike Tre 说:
    @The Real World

    And there were 3,613,647 births in 2020. So we are talking about .00024 of a percent chance of dying during child birth.

    For comparison, almost 39,000 people died in car crashes the same year. No one is screaming to ban cars, even though 1000’s of the dead were likely current, former, or future mothers.

    Further, 42,000 people died from fentanyl overdoses in 2020. What the fuck isn’t that poison banned?

    Put in perspective, 900 deaths in childbirth (how many of those were due to doctor error) does not justify murdering healthy, late term fetuses.

    • 回复: @The Real World
    , @jsm
  125. Mike Tre 说:
    @Eddiehoustonelptx

    So that rare deformity justifies terminating healthy, late term fetuses? No.

  126. Ace 说:

    ** If Americans at large would like there to be such a national law [granting a right to an abortion], they should lobby their senators and congressmen to write and enact one. **

    Mr. D, no power to legislate on health, women’s health, abortion, health care, Medicare for All, reproductive health, or reproductive choice was ever delegated to Congress by the people. That being so, the Tenth Amendment makes clear that power to legislate on those issues belongs to the state or to the people.

    Don’t tell me you do not grasp this fundamental principle of constitutional interpretation.

    PS — government does not grant rights to citizens. Citizens have rights according to natural law.

  127. cohen 说:
    @Rich

    my mistake about not thinking at your level. The prolifer pretend to be concerned about a fetus life but dont give a damn of living people who are bombed, killed by wars or through famine or people who die because of lack of health care. Simple things for considerations.
    what constitution you are talking about. This well intended document is just a peace of paper used by powerful and their agents in justice dept (not all justices are crooks though) to further their agenda. All those fancy phrases like innocent until proven guilty, speedy trial, lieing under oath and getting away without any punishment. Does anyone care? anymore.

    In my opinion women should decide about this issue. you and me kind of folks mind our own business

    • 同意: The Real World
    • 回复: @Rich
  128. Mike Tre 说:
    @Ya

    It’s about half. NY, MD, CA, IL, VA, OH, PA, MI, and NJ are all in the top 15 states with most negroes.

  129. Ace 说:
    @Kratoklastes

    If a gender-fluid transexual lesbian cage fighter wants to kill her wife, our wanting to punish her for doing the deed is because people less enlightened than the great Kratoklastes have an “over-arching desire to stick [our] nose[s] in where it’s not wanted and will serve no good purpose”?

    I dare say it’s the rare criminal who wants anyone’s nose stuck into their criminal enterprise so consent to interference is irrelevant.

    And then you tack on “will serve no good purpose.” So Kratoklastes is the arbiter of what is or is not a good purpose? Evidently you don’t really object to sticking one’s nose into the business of others. It’s just that only the right sort of people like yourself should be the ones doing it.

    • 回复: @Anon
  130. Richard B 说:
    @SiNCERITY.net

    不过,我对这个问题并不深切关注,我会同意我所在州的人民根据这项裁决做出的任何决定。 我可能会抱怨一点,仅此而已。

    And that’s exactly why, in your own words Mr. Derbyshire, We Are Doomed!

    • 同意: Lucius Vanini
  131. follyofwar 说:
    @Rurik

    If any of our so-called “pro-life” leaders is also in favor of killing Russians (for what the US is responsible for in Ukraine) then I’m not with them and won’t vote for them, even if I agree on most domestic issues. They are hypocrites of the first order, leading us to a stand-off with Russia, economic collapse, and possible nuclear war. They don’t mind millions dying in war, but don’t dare allow a woman to have an abortion.

    On a slightly different note, do pro-life conservatives realize that they are jeopardizing their chances of taking back Congress by wholeheartedly supporting the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe? They’ve lost the support of tens of thousands in the middle, for whom ending abortion is not their most important issue – not with Biden’s America falling apart at the seams.

    It will serve the “pro-life” republicans right if they fail to take back Congress after bragging for months on Fox News that there will be a Red Wave in November. With this Supreme Court decision distracting their supporters from more important issues, maybe they’ve blown their chance to take down Pelosi the Witch, loud-mouth Schumer, and their disgusting ilk. Ending Roe was better as a talking point, as had been the case since Reagan, but will probably hurt them when America votes. They don’t call the republicans the Stupid Party for nothing.

    • 同意: nokangaroos
    • 回复: @Ace
    , @Lucius Vanini
    , @Rurik
  132. Lee 说:
    @anonymous

    The evidence seems pretty compelling against Herrera:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/506/390

    At about the same time, Los Fresnos Police Officer Enrique Carrisalez observed a speeding vehicle traveling west towards Los Fresnos, away from the place where Rucker’s body had been found, along the same road. Carrisalez, who was accompanied in his patrol car by Enrique Hernandez, turned on his flashing red lights and pursued the speeding vehicle. After the car had stopped briefly at a red light, it signaled that it would pull over and did so. The patrol car pulled up behind it. Carrisalez took a flashlight and walked toward the car of the speeder. The driver opened his door and exchanged a few words with Carrisalez before firing at least one shot at Carrisalez’ chest. The officer died nine days later.

    4
    Petitioner Herrera was arrested a few days after the shootings and charged with the capital murder of both Carrisalez and Rucker. He was tried and found guilty of the capital murder of Carrisalez in January 1982, and sentenced to death. In July 1982, petitioner pleaded guilty to the murder of Rucker.

    5
    At petitioner’s trial for the murder of Carrisalez, Hernandez, who had witnessed Carrisalez’ slaying from the officer’s patrol car, identified petitioner as the person who had wielded the gun. A declaration by Officer Carrisalez to the same effect, made while he was in the hospital, was also admitted. Through a license plate check, it was shown that the speeding car involved in Carrisalez’ murder was registered to petitioner’s “live-in” girlfriend. Petitioner was known to drive this car, and he had a set of keys to the car in his pants pocket when he was arrested. Hernandez identified the car as the vehicle from which the murderer had emerged to fire the fatal shot. He also testified that there had been only one person in the car that night.

    6
    The evidence showed that Herrera’s Social Security card had been found alongside Rucker’s patrol car on the night he was killed. Splatters of blood on the car identified as the vehicle involved in the shootings, and on petitioner’s blue jeans and wallet were identified as type A blood—the same type which Rucker had. (Herrera has type O blood.) Similar evidence with respect to strands of hair found in the car indicated that the hair was Rucker’s and not Herrera’s. A handwritten letter was also found on the person of petitioner when he was arrested, which strongly implied that he had killed Rucker.1

  133. Lee 说:

    The Lib lie is being spread worldwide.

    Headline on todays Manila Times (a country where abortion is illegal)

    Supreme Court: Abortion is illegal

  134. @Curmudgeon

    . A foetus does not become viable until 30+ weeks, and then only with massive medical intervention.

    lol. Viability is not the equivalent of alive, liar. Life begins at conception, viability of that life later. Do keep up, babykiller.

    Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur frequently and stillborn foetuses much less so. Are states going to pass laws punishing women who have these?

    lmao. Typical babykilling lie: “Well it happens accidentally some times, so clearly you’re going to punish it like you do people who try to kill it!” The illogic is stunning in its shallowness.

    Women have, and will always seek abortions, whether legal or not

    “And people have always sought to rape, steal, and embezzle, whether legal or not. Don’t try to stop it!” –Babykilling logic.

    I find it astounding that the debate about abortion in the US still centres on morality while its government invades, bombs, and overthrows governments causing more deaths than abortions, yet there is no discussion about that morality.

    Another sad babykilling attempt to change the subject.

    Begone, Soros-boy!

    • 巨魔: The Real World
  135. follyofwar 说:
    @jsm

    No need to worry about giving them a Depo Provera shot. The Gates/Fauci Clot Shots, which prevent women from getting pregnant, and vastly reduce men’s sperm counts, are removing the pregnancy problem anyway.

  136. @raga10

    “Don’t you want more dead black children?” screams the “logical” babykiller.

    Man, you will try anything, won’t you, you demonic loser?

  137. Mactoul 说:
    @Mevashir

    Please define medical procedure.
    Is abortion a medical procedure?

  138. anon[174]• 免责声明 说:
    @RockaBoatus

    Striking down R v W was a bad decision. It is going to hurt the country in ways that must be unimaginable to most social conservatives. More crime. More dysgenic predators. More lives brutally ended by the criminal element. More social welfare costs. And the black population will explode, which will mean an explosion in crime that will make the 1970s seem tame. the anti-abortion crowd won the battle, and lost the social war. And their children will be the ones who pay the freight.

  139. An invasion by tens of millions of the world’s dumbest and most fertile is happening, and the states which are most harmed choose to ban abortion.

    Why not grant wild boars limitless free food and medical care, and then criminalize animal control.

  140. TKK 说:
    @Ya

    In the book Freakonomics, your theory is proven correct.

    The huge drop in crime in the 80s and 90s was due to black women have full and legal access to abortions. Millions of young black men were terminated before they could prowl the streets as Apex Predators.

    The idea that they would be considered less than human is, of course, absurd and would never happen. No truths about blacks and their criminality and cancerous effect on any population are allowed in the Western discourse.

    • 回复: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Wizard of Oz
  141. jsm 说:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Due in large part to the ever-increasing C-section rate. It’s up to 30 percent on average; some locales pushing 40 percent. That’s a lot of births requiring major abdominal surgery. Most, in reaction to supposed fetal distress — or a prior C-sec for fetal distress leading to all subsequent births being by C-sec (back to the old, Once a C always a C.). And of which, most of those first C-secs are engendered by interventions, such as pitocin (“pit-to-distress” orders) and / or misreading of Electronic Fetal Monitoring strips.

    So the heyday of VBACs has come and gone, either because most OBs are so scared of the possibility of a uterine rupture that they refuse to attend them, or, even more so, hospitals, to save the expense of a surgical team ready to go 24-7, refuse to allow them.

    Also, physician greed. Mine SAW ME COMING.

    Oh, and do make it so homebirths are as unavailable as possible.

    So, hey, make pregnancy birth and postpartum as difficult on mothers as possible! That sounds like a grand idea for reducing the demand for abortions! YEAH! USA! USA! USA!

  142. jsm 说:
    @Lucius Vanini

    Lol by a quirk of history, the Left, despite itself, favors something with a definite eugenic effect on society;

    You’re kind of retarded, aren’t you? Can’t you see that this ruling is GOOD for White America, at least the parts of America that are still White? As you point out, blacks have the most abortions. They also reside, by and large, in the most leftist, ergo most pro-abortionist, states. So that just means, when red state (i.e. White) America outlaws abortions, the few blacks here will move OUT, to the blue pro-abortionist states, making red-state, i.e., White America, even Whiter. It’s a push for segregation by state.

    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
    , @Jay Fink
  143. Anon[369]• 免责声明 说:
    @Kratoklastes

    You are out of control with your profanity! I dont think vulgarity wins any debate. You dont humiliate the opponent just yourself. So get a grip !

    First I could care less about whether abortion is legal or not in the US. As I stated if the law says you cannot do it in the US then go to Mexico and if illegal there go where it is done. I dont and I am sure the majority of sensible American could give a damn. Many, many people fly out of the US to have elective surgeries so an abortion is nothing new.

    Regardless of which side of the equation anyone is, they are sticking their noses into the other persons business. So if you advocate for abortion you are in fact interfering in the right of someone else to have one and visa versa. Your view of the world is distorted. Everyone sticks their nose into someone else’s business. We are social animals Krakko !

    Further if you dont believe folks are soulless that is your belief. Unfortunately the majority on earth feel otherwise. Whether you believe in God, Religion or Satan or none of them, the fact is people feel a sense of remorse when they have done something wrong. They may argue it was legally right but they still feel that pain inside. Even men who have killed many times are affected. Before they take their last breath, hard men who have never believed in anything ask for the Priest, the Imam or Rabbi and beg forgiveness for their sins.

    Your riposte is sheer emotional nonsense tainted with hysteria. You should think carefully before you comment or you will be taken for a fool. You also have to consider that if your Mother had elected to have an abortion you would not be here and we would not have the amusement of your clown opinions. Too bad, given your potty mouth I would have been in favour of terminating you in the womb LOL.

    • 哈哈: acementhead
  144. Technomad 说:

    As far as I am concerned, it isn’t a baby until it is born. Or at least can survive outside the womb without considerable artificial assistance.

  145. @Mike Tre

    Why are you losing your marbles about mere information provided. You’re the one that wanted it in your prior comment but, somehow, didn’t know how to find it.

    So, I provided it to you. 别客气。

    I made no further declaration about the info. Just put it out there.
    But, you start comparing things as if keeping score; it’s not a sport or a competition! And, look there, you just deemed that some lives aren’t worth the bother to worry about because the numbers don’t line-up as far as your concerned. That’s actually disgusting and utterly illogical.

    I’m kinda thinking that if a woman had to get an abortion because her life was threatened, that she DIDN’T die. The abortion was to PREVENT that possibility. So, you are just all confused and over-wrought.

    Best idea – let people manage their own lives and you manage yours. What a concept!

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  146. jsm 说:
    @Mike Tre

    Put in perspective, 900 deaths in childbirth (how many of those were due to doctor error) does not justify murdering healthy, late term fetuses.

    Sure it does. Approx 6000 late term abortions were performed in 2019. Yeah, 900 mother deaths DOES justify 6000 fetal deaths.

    • 同意: acementhead
    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  147. Anon[369]• 免责声明 说:
    @Ace

    So Kratoklastes is the arbiter of what is or is not a good purpose? Evidently you don’t really object to sticking one’s nose into the business of others. It’s just that only the right sort of people like yourself should be the ones doing it.

    Well said Ace.

    Krakko Elastic is somewhat of a dunce with a mouth sadly in need of a scrubbing brush and some soap. Add hysteria to the mix and he must have had a meltdown while writing his comment.

    His comments in general on any subject here on UR are generally twaddle and drivel but amusing in their banal stupidity. He does serve a purpose but in a negative way !

    As I pointed out in my original comment. The people who are for abortion do not seem to recognise the irony of their position. They are alive and able to be out there protesting precisely because their mother did not abort them. What I see is a bunch of people in their early 20’s or so, probably paid to show up and be rabblerousers.

    Everything is the US these days seems to be a demonstration against something until something else “sexy” comes along. However when it comes to youth marching in the streets I become bored. Which person in their right minds consider anything coming out of the mouth of todays youth to be anything other than nonsense.

    In any case the whole ruckus is all for nought because a woman who wants an abortion will get one just like the man who wants a gun will get one or the man who wants to smoke up will get his fix. The whole thing is a fart that some people imagine to be a hurricane.

    • 回复: @Ace
  148. @Jay Fink

    在 RvW 之后的至少几十年里,共和党及其选民对堕胎并不十分关注。 没有大规模的推动,也没有一直在进行大规模的宣传。

    对我来说很明显,改变的是福音派教会的人群在这个话题上陷入了共和党的困境。 而且由于他们是一个庞大的投票集团,并且倾向于服从他们的传教士或牧师,共和党必须注意并开始服从,否则他们将失去大量的捐助者、选民、志愿者,整个shebang。

    So, largely, the GOP got coerced. That’s politics – it’s ugly. Btw, most Repubs I know support abortion access, with limits.

    Oh but, believe me Jay, those Evangelical extremists don’t want to PAY to support all those additional kids in foster care or welfare Mothers, etc. If you showed them the actual cost of all that times millions more babies, I know exactly what most would do. They’d go quiet and then change the subject. Yeah..

    • 同意: nokangaroos
    • 回复: @Jay Fink
  149. @anon

    I hear you, and I agree that abortion laws allowed Blacks to murder their babies and, as a result, the U.S. had less feral Black criminals. But this most recent decision by SCOTUS only made it so that each state will get to determine its legality. Thus, Blacks who want to kill their babies will still be allowed to do so in the majority of states within the union. White liberals will make sure of it.

    Black women seeking an abortion will have an array of funds and resources courtesy of white liberals to kill their developing babies in the womb. An entirely new industry will be created to make sure that Black women can have access to an abortion. And mind you, many Black women will quickly get in line to get their monetary assistance, including whatever perks and benefits they may receive from bleeding heart liberals. Some Black women will get an abortion just so they can stick it to whitey.

    I tend to think that by the time any Black babies born now or in the near future will grow up in an America entirely different than when we grew up. The U.S. will probably be fractured into several independent countries or states or regions – Blue states separated from Red states – and that sort of thing. Black criminal pathology will get so bad that whites will be forced to form their own regions and safety zones. The government will try to prevent it, of course, but by that time it will be so weak and divided that it will have little power to do much about it.

    This is because people can only put up with political and social insanity for so long before they break free and pursue independence and a return to sanity. This does not necessarily mean that Whites will racially awaken in the sense that we might hope, but only that typical Black dysfunction and criminality will not be tolerated in the way that it is now. Obviously, there are no guarantees, but this is what I envision as a real possibility.

    • 回复: @jsm
  150. @Rooster16

    Rooster – It’s actually pretty simple.

    If no more advanced birth control method is available to use, then he MUST wear a condom or pull out before the grand finale AND, if she has any reason to believe the method he used may not have worked, then she takes a Plan B pill the next day and pregnancy is avoided. Voila!

    But, I assure you, many of the unhinged control freaks will take plenty of issue with that basic, rational approach to avoiding unintended pregnancy. Because, well, they are crazy and it would remove their beloved bully pulpit issue.

    • 回复: @Rooster16
  151. @R.G. Camara

    Some of the Latin American States, bedeviled by the Vatican, HAVE criminalised miscarriage as a form of hidden abortion. There are lots of nassty misogynistic scum like you about. I am only 100% in favour of one type of abortion-retrospective, for the likes of you.

    • 同意: acementhead
    • 巨魔: R.G. Camara
    • 回复: @R.G. Camara
    , @IreneAthena
  152. Abortion isn’t the best way— not by a long shot— to prevent a pregnant woman from dying in childbirth. It is true, however, that pre-natal and perinatal life-saving measures (for babies and mothers) have become less accessible to women in the USA, because healthcare costs started skyrocketing after government intervention and mismanagement starting in the 1980’s. (Legislators married to mandated-insurance company executives, literally a lethal combo.)

    Regarding the allusions to Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale, that’s fabulism based on religious bigotry, and I thought you might have been above that. We all have our blindspots, I suppose.

    https://www.statnews.com/2019/09/13/childbirth-deaths-prevention-strategies/

  153. Reg Cæsar 说:

    I’m not deeply concerned about the issue, though, and I’ll go along with whatever the people of my state decide following this ruling.

    In 1970, the legislature of your state legalized elective abortion. In 1972, the new legislature repealed that bill, returning the state to one of the toughest laws in the land.

    Or would have returned it, had the billionaire governor who signed the first bill with a smile not flown in from out of state expressly to veto the repeal.

    At least this state waited until 2010 before enacting no-fault divorce, which had been in force for decades everywhere else. Something to be proud of.

  154. @Bo Bo

    “The purpose of f*cking is to manufacture children.”

    Really? The british army disagrees with you on that.

    This my rifle
    This is my gun
    This is for shooting
    This is for …

  155. Reg Cæsar 说:
    @TKK

    在这本书中 怪物经济学, your theory is proven correct.

    Steve Sailer made mincemeat of Levitt and Dubner’s argument right here on 乌兹网.

    Do you seriously believe the 1990s were more placid than the 1950s or the 1930s? If so, I have a deed to a leaning campanile on the Ligurian Sea to sell you…

  156. Reg Cæsar 说:
    @Rich

    Can you direct me to the clause or amendment where there is a “right to privacy” afforded by the US Constitution?

    Mevashir clearly doesn’t care about the financial privacy of the “greedy right wing billionaire oligarchs” he condemns!

    Anyway, almost all the billionaires who have taken a public stand on this issue agree with Mevashir, which makes them anything but “right wing”. And makes Mev himself rather suspicious.

  157. @jsm

    Those are mainly blacks and Hispanics getting abortions you psycho

    A child is not going to find his life worth living unless they are adored by their mother. If a mother is seeking an abortion, the foundation for a good childhood, and thus good adult life, is not there, and you’ll have a permanently mentally ill person.

    http://violence.de/

    • 回复: @jsm
  158. @JimDandy

    XNUMXD压花不锈钢板 比你更神圣 number does not work on the humble one – I
    never said I was a 非常好 Catholic; I only said twelve weeks sounds about right
    (with Augustinus I hold the soul does not “enter” – that´s reincarnationist
    pagan BS – it 成长).
    The SCOTUS only said that 鱼子 violates the Enumerations Clause –
    a technicality; much the same goes for every last stinking Sibbyl Rite
    (except for voting, where an argument for “compelling national interest” can
    be made).
    The State had no standing to sanction pooter poking any more than it now
    has standing to bestow special privileges upon it (e.g. “marriage”).
    An aborted healthy fetus is a lost potency – regrettable but so are a lot of things.
    那里 is a compelling national interest in eliminating defectives.
    – While we are at it, compelling a man to pay alimony is a violation of the
    Equal Protections Clause on two fronts – as male as White – as he
    has no say in at least one direction even after expressly withdrawing his, erm,
    同意 (the French oneupped that and made paternity testing illegal).
    没什么 would curb bastardy (and idiocracy) faster than eliminating it
    as a career choice for stupid females; for the same reason #61 Rooster16´s
    glorious plan is counterproductive – black female academics´TFR is 已经
    below replacement; who wants even 更笨 joggers?
    Instead, the science of perverse incentives deserves some good hard looking into.

    Unlike your Neopuritan bruthas and sistren (I cannot be the only one who sees
    no difference between pictures of pro- and anti-life harpyes) I do not expect you to
    believe, not even to profess – Nietzsche-adjacent biologism is not for everybody,
    and the Inquisition was a Jewish racket too.

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  159. @Dystopian

    Abortion is euthanasia in the interest of the person which the fetus will become. Infants require deep affection and care from their mother to be strong enough to cope with the mental burden of living in civilisation. Mother seeking abortion, aside from being highly non-white, are often mentally ill and are not prepared to care for the child.

    Some people are also so genetically damaged that their family history consists of six consecutive generations of foster or state care. They aren’t fit to have children, and the child is going to be tortured for life due to being mentally incompetent in a dangerous society.

    Look at the institutionalized children in that documentary. They’re fucked for life.

    In premodern life, women did not have access to abortion. Infanticide was an absolute necessity and not the least bit immoral when the child was born with a defect. Anti-abortion laws generally don’t care about physical or mental defects when considering whether abortion can be permitted.

    • 同意: follyofwar
  160. America hates children anyway.

    This is just ideology bullcrap of a dying junkheap

  161. Ace 说:
    @follyofwar

    ** They don’t mind millions dying in war, **

    Where do you get that? You plucked that out of thin air.

    Moreover, if I work to devote years to overturning 威卡德诉菲尔本I’m morally deficient because i didn’t help find a cure for cancer and end human trafficking? How many other problems must I simultaneously address before I pass muster?

    Or is acceptable for me just to focus on one problem?

  162. @Joe Paluka

    No woman is empowered as a woman if she hasn’t experienced an abortion. No man really loves a woman for who she is if he doesn’t give his consent that she get aborted of his carnal works. The US federal government should therefore impose on all women to get fucked as part and parcel of their K-12 so as to experience both pregnancy and abortion, as well as to have experienced a lesbian relationship of at least one year so as for them to be in position to make a real free citizenship-worthy choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Any woman refusing to undergo that final homework and exam as the grand final part of their K-12 education should be stripped of her US citizenship. Feminists used to say that if if men had babies abortion would be a sacrement : well abortion must be made into a sacrament for women to real feel and be empowered as citizens with full rights. Any religion going against such a measure to be passed should be outlawed outright as organized hate crime and violence against women.

    • 哈哈: Joe Paluka
    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  163. KenH 说:

    Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so SCOTUS was correct in overturning 罗诉韦德 and turning the issue back over to the states and their voters. SCOTUS cannot create fundamental rights like they did with the 1973 Roe ruling or make laws such as they did in Brown V. Board or with forced busing.

    Abortion will still likely be legal to varying degrees in about 20-25 states.

    The reason you don’t see Constitutional amendments any longer is because they are hard to pass. So the radical, Jewish led left realized it was much easier to get judicial activists on the lower federal courts and on the SCOTUS who will amend the Constitution from the bench to conform to their radical, anti-white ideology.

    With enough Ketanji Brown Jackson’s throughout the federal courts you an kiss your first and second amendment rights goodbye.

    That’s why the last thirty years or so the SCOTUS nomination process has become a battle royale between cucked right and radical left and why the last several years the nation almost erupts in civil war when a nominee is judged to be an opponent of radical left ideology.

  164. @Anon

    Since your right to punish abortionists and women undergoing abortions is apparently dependent on the foetuses being sentient would you not agree that you and fellow moralists should lose that right if it was made a condition of an abortion’s legality that the foetus’s possibibility of sentience be first negated with anaesthetic, as if it were a tosilectomy?

    • 回复: @Anon
  165. Rosie, citing to a site that uses the bogus rhetoric “forced birth” pretty much rules out the possibility that you’re arguing in good faith, but I’ll pretend you are and address this repeated concern-troll argument of yours. The majority opinion by Alito in Dobbs explicitly states that this decision does not overturn other “right to privacy” cases and distinguishes abortion from other “substantive due process” rights by emphasizing that the exercise of those other rights does not involve the termination of potential human life in the way abortion does. Thomas, in his concurrence, wanted to wipe out the concept of substantive due process entirely, but the other justices were obviously afraid to go that far, as doing so would trigger the overruling of Obergefell and set off a double-strength political firestorm.

    As a lawyer and a Constitutional law junkie, I agree with Thomas that “substantive due process”, the idea that the 14th Amendment guarantees a host of unspecified substantive rights against state governments, is BS. That Amendment was obviously intended solely to ensure equal legal procedural treatment (the right to trial, legal representation, etc.) for ex-slaves, nothing more. However, I can understand why the other justices didn’t want to touch that issue at present.

    Anyway, there is no way that the 9th Amendment can logically be considered to cover abortion, a practice that was universally criminalized at the time of the Framing; making that argument is like saying, “well, the Constitution doesn’t expressly forbid murder or suicide, so they must be reserved 9th Amendment rights belonging to the people.” The same is true of the 14th Amendment; even if you buy the idea that the 14th Amendment bestows “substantive due process” rights, abortion cannot conceivably be one of them; as the majority Dobbs opinion laid out by careful historical analysis, abortion was illegal throughout America at the time that Amendment was adopted.

    The historical analysis for homeschooling would be an entirely different matter. There has never actually been a SCOTUS decision specifically covering homeschooling, but Meyer v. Nebraska, a 1923 case that defined the right to establish a home and bring up children as a fundamental right, is usually cited as the implicit basis of the right to homeschooling. This case predates the line of sexual “right to privacy” cases that began with Griswold v. Connecticut and led to Roe, and is not dependent on them. Thus,, contra your argument, homeschooling does not stand or fall on Roe and the right to privacy. Although Meyer did rely on substantive due process doctrine, Justice Kennedy later observed that it could have been decided under the First Amendment on speech and religion grounds.

    Even if the 14th Amendment substantive due process doctrine ever came on the chopping block, which I doubt will ever happen,the homeschooling right could be defended on First Amendment grounds, and would also be supported by the Ninth Amendment using the same historical approach Alito used in Dobbs. The right to bring up your children is grounded in Anglo-American history and would be considered one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the 9th, unlike the historically baseless right to murder your children. And if you say, “well, a later Court may not take the historical approach and will abuse this precedent,” let me assure you that a later court with a majority of Biden or Harris appointees would be quite capable of striking down homeschooling rights and simultaneously protecting abortion rights without any precedent at all.

    Dobbs, in short, does nothing to harm homeschooling; it leaves substantive due process, which is the keystone of the “family rights” line of cases (which the “right to privacy” is not) untouched, and also sets forth an excellent historical test for fundamental rights that would clearly protect parental rights under a conservative Court even in the unlikely event that substantive due process was eliminated as a legal doctrine. The article you linked is clearly leftist wishcasting, barely concealing its glee at the idea that those Dumb Evangelicals are going to blow themselves up. You appear to be so emotionally invested in feminist orthodoxy, including the “right” to kill babies, that you either can’t or won’t see that the “Roe protects homeschooling” argument is not viable.

  166. @Francis Miville

    You forgot the mandatory 拉森尚德 (a.k.a. “socialisation of ius primae noctis“)
    Then again, in practice nothing much would change anyway.

  167. Jay Fink 说:
    @anon

    Pro lifers seem to think babies stay babies forever.

    • 谢谢: Lucius Vanini
  168. Rurik 说:
    @JimDandy

    “If it were up to you, a few (several hundred per year) mothers dying is ‘worth it’, in order to prevent some mothers from abusing the ‘health of the mother’ exemption?”

    Fuck off with your juvenile strawman, baby killer. “Health” should not be a catch all that allows the murder of a babies for no good reason.

    提供 no good reason?

    XNUMXD压花不锈钢板 生活 of your wife or daughter, is no good reason?

    That’s not a strawman, that’s a reality. It happens hundreds of times a year, women die due to complications with a pregnancy.

    I didn’t see anything in your post doubting or questioning that, so I have to presume you know it’s true.

    So, from your point of view, even if a few mothers die due to complications from a pregnancy, it is your position that it’s ‘worth it’, so that potentially a mother who simply doesn’t want to raise a child, can not play the system and claim the health exemption, and you can proudly pump the air with your fist, that you got your way.

    Sure, a lot of women will die needlessly because of your stridency, but that is a price *you’re* perfectly willing to pay, huh?

    Also, I see you didn’t even try to answer my question about the ‘sanctity of life’, when most abortion opponents seem perfectly happy to see innocent men, women and children, (and babies) slaughtered as their government bombs civilians in illegal and immoral and unconstitutional wars based on obvious lies.

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  169. Rurik 说:
    @Mike Tre

    How many women in the US die in childbirth every year?

    It looks to me that this was answered by the replies to you.

    IOW, several hundred per year.

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  170. jsm 说:
    @RockaBoatus

    我同意这一点。

    I predict that what will happen is, the blacks in Red states that ban abortions will get their abortion travel paid for by White liberals to a Blue state that allows it. And, because blacks are lazy, many many will then just … stay there. Just like what happened after Hurricane Katrina: Many blacks were transported to Houston while 9th Ward got rebuilt, but a huge portion of those blacks simply stayed in Houston, greatly increasing the crime there. So giving a black woman free travel for an abortion is a sneaky way to get her to self-deport. And it’ll be paid for by Blue State Libtards! AWESOME.

    So this Supreme Court ruling will promote further segregation of blacks into Blue states, leaving Red America Whiter. WIN!!!

    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
  171. Rooster16 说:
    @The Real World

    The problem is everything you mentioned is readily available now, and we still have a pandemic of black people destroying the cities. The abortions aren’t the problem; the people are. We need to find an ethical approach to righting a wrong, which was bringing them here in the first place.

    • 同意: Lucius Vanini
  172. Rurik 说:
    @Dystopian

    So Mike Pence is a scum bag? I wouldn’t disagree with that sentiment but how does that refute anything I said?

    你的话:

    “If we live in a society under the rule of law and human life is sacrosanct, life must be protected by society from conception until natural death.”

    And I was simply pointing out that most, (perhaps all or nearly all) of the strident anti-abortion advocates and proponents, seem to be unaware of the illegal wars that America has been waging ever since 9/11. Forget the trillions that these wars will cost future generations. Forget the moral consequences of America being a rogue state that wages Aggressive Wars against innocent nations and people based on lies. Forget the treason against our Constitution that these wars represent..

    And just consider the souls that have been murdered.

    Perhaps the most appalling example of American exceptionalism regarding the death of children, was when that vicious ogress who called the deaths of 500,000 children due to lack of clean water or access to medicine, “worth it”.

    Ok, she’s a psychopathic Jewish supremacist, just like Pence. (you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Jewish supremacist ; )

    But what about the everyday Christians in America and their leaders?

    It’s very clear that the issue of abortion is thee hot topic for this crowd. But what about murdering people once they’re born? What about when our government, using our tax dollars, mass-murders innocent people by the hundreds of thousands?

    Why is there nothing but crickets when it comes to this issue from the very voices who claim to be sooo concerned about the sanctity of 所有 life?!

    If the life of an unborn child is sacred and sacrosanct, (and I agree) then what about the life of a three year old Iraqi child?

    The Iraqi toddler wasn’t murdered so that some skank can have casual sex without consequences. He was murdered so a fiend can run roughshod over the people of this planet, threatening and menacing and murdering them with impunity, in order to impose an Orwellian dystopia over everyone.

    ‘Oh, that’.

    ‘Well God says He will bless those who bless Israel’.

    And so murdering 那些 babies, is worth it’. ‘We don’t even call it murder, so long as it’s the U.S. military dropping bombs on them and doing it for Israel.’

    ‘God likes it when 那些 babies are killed, it’s just the ones in Detroit where some teenage girl thinks she’s going to have sex with her pimp, and then when she gets pregnant, doesn’t think she has to pay the price!’

    '那是 the ones we’re worried about!’

    ‘Who gives a fuck about Iraqi children and babies. They’re all terrorists who hate Israel!’

    >> <

    I wish I was making that all up.

    • 谢谢: Lucius Vanini
    • 回复: @KenH
    , @Lucius Vanini
  173. @anon

    You understand the matter exceedingly well, my friend. IF ONLY Euroamerica had millions of realists like you. Unfortunately, it’s plagued and weakened by multitudes whose instincts of self-protection have been impaired by an ideological opiate–a toxic superstition clearly calculated to have that effect! Inasmuch as Judeo-Christians live enough in the real world to notice we’re in a war for self-preservation, they want the war to be without casualties!!!!

    To the bad consequences which the loss of Roe will have, I add these–

    * accelerated diminution of the White majority (funny how so many on the Right are concerned, rightly, that the invasion over the Mexican border has that result, but don’t notice that proliferation of high-pregnancy-rate non-Whites already in America, especially blacks, must also);

    * a more formidable foe in the event of a paramilitary reckoning, such as might well transpire after the breakdown of the present order (one need only observe the “New Black Panthers” to see how blacks are arming themselves….and won’t 60, 70 or 80 million blacks mean more armed black belligerents to face on streets and fields?);

    * and the one already beginning–namely, increased mobilization of the Left, for many of whose adherents the loss of Roe is a wake-up call…. The increase of Leftist commitment and participation–spurred by an event we certainly did NOT need–may well help to defeat our efforts to gain what we DO need, like an end of the Third-World invasion….

    I’m furious at these Medieval bible-thumpers for screwing things up so!

    But take heart, anon: the loss of Roe might be gotten around to some valuable extent. The states will now decide whether to allow abortion. Many will allow it; and women from anti-abortion states can travel to pro-eugenics (in effect) states. Big woke money (finally of use to us?!) presumably can enable the poorest of women to go wherever they can get abortions.

    Keep being the fearless thinker!

  174. jsm 说:
    @Mandrill with a hand drill

    I actually agree with you, Man.

    And I agree it’s blacks and mexicans getting abortions. So my proposed compromise still works.

    You can have your abortion, all right, but to do so you, you’re going to have to then submit to forced birth control or sterilization. (And to avoid accusations that we’re doing genocide, offer germ cell banking.)

    Forced birth control for people so irresponsible with their fertility that they want abortion-on-demand (except for good reasons, like life of the mother) will not only prevent the abomination of needing further abortions-on-demand by those cretins, but also address Steve Sailer’s point (in refutation of Levitt) that abortion availability actually INCREASES the number of piss-poor-quality people having babies. Steve’s reasoning is, because the availability of abortion caused these useless fuckwits to relax their vigilance in birth control use, but their incompetence caused them to not quite make it to the abortion clinic in time, the babies conceived due to the “No Worries, I’ll Just Have an Abortion” line of thought got born.

    So administering to abortion-on-demand seekers forced birth control going forward (or be sterilized with germ cell banking to avoid accusations that we’re doing genocide) addresses ALL the problems that Roe V. Wade and its repeal have wrought.

  175. ruralguy 说:
    @tosca

    Very good point. Legal Theory is amazing. I’ve read countless books in my library on it. But, the harsh reality is that our legal system is quite broken and barely functions. Based on my experience, it really can’t settle disputes over laws, facts, or almost anything.

    In the U.S., few can afford \$300/hr to \$600/hr attorney fees, so law is out of reach a for everyone except those of us who can afford it. I have been involved in three large civil lawsuits, each of which by coincidence, lasted more than three years. It’s shocking and depressing to watch those mounting costs drain your bank account. Worse yet, it becomes your sole focus for years. Every attorney that I’ve dealt with say they hate their field. During breaks, the opposing attorneys often tell each other how much they hate it, in front of clients. Who can blame them? Most are highly educated, expecting a rewarding career, but are stuck in petty disputes. The whole point of civil actions seems to be to inflict as much monetary damage on the other side as possible through these attorney fees. It’s certainly not to resolve disputes over laws and facts.

  176. Ace 说:
    @Anon

    衷心感谢你。

    Years ago Joe Sobran put out an audiotape (a plastic box with a long strip of magnetic tape inside :–) ) in which he described the differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives he described as just being all about appreciating the color of the light at sunset or the smell of the lilacs. They appreciate their friends and family and politely refrain from pointing out the failings of their companions so as to build on each moment. It was a pleasant picture he drew and much in contrast to the endless “protests” about something. Nothing goes down the gullets of the lumpenproletariat but that it goes down sideways. They find nothing charming, delicious, captivating, insightful, or witty.

  177. KenH 说:
    @Rurik

    Perhaps the most appalling example of American exceptionalism regarding the death of children, was when that vicious ogress who called the deaths of 500,000 children due to lack of clean water or access to medicine, “worth it”.

    That’s right Rurik. American conservatards prattle on about the sanctity of life then show virtually no remorse for killing innocent children and people in illegal wars or by causing their deaths using sanctions. Then they blame the victims for supporting an “evil” leader because he didn’t sufficiently worship Israel or accede to U.S. demands.

    • 同意: Lucius Vanini, nokangaroos, Rurik
    • 不同意: Rich
  178. @jsm

    You’re definitely and severely retarded, aren’t you.

    Large black populations also exist in red states. Unless black women in these populations are enabled to go to pro-abortion states to get abortions, black numbers in those states will spike. As will the frequency of violent crime, for which blacks are justly notorious.

    In the Bible Belt, with states like Missouri and Mississippi, abortion will almost certainly be banned.

    Most or all of the American South will outlaw abortion, and all of it has a large population of blacks, increasingly violent ones. Take a look at “Top Ten Cities with the Highest Murder Rate.” You’ll find St. Louis, Missouri; Jackson, Mississippi; Birmingham, Alabama; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    Ever consider too that, while not a majority, liberal/Leftist White women also inhabit red states? And which White women are likeliest to have repeated unwanted pregnancies? Conservative, straight-laced ones, or liberal ones? The latter, of course; so all of their pregnancies coming to term will tend to increase their ilk substantially. On the other hand, the more self-controlled Conservative population won’t increase, if it does at all, at the same rate. In time your red states may not be so red lol!

    And how many liberal White women are mudsharks? How many will be impregnated by non-Whites, usually blacks but also non-White Hispanics?

    The women who abort most are the women whose abortions WE NEED MOST. Pantheos forbid that all or many of their pregnancies come to term!

    Of course, if blues grow in number and eventually make red states purple, changing their politics, the states might reintroduce abortion, which would lessen Leftists’ reproduction . But, at the same time, all the Conservative and Pro-White causes will suffer.

    In states banning abortion, blacks (usually Leftist, anti-White) together with liberal Whites figure to reproduce at a faster rate than Conservative Whites–with dire consequences for the states’ political complexion and for Whites in general. The more one analyzes these things, the more one realizes what a great blessing Roe represented. As the wise Margaret Sanger might’ve told Conservative Whites, it’s wise to let your adversaries inflict casualties on themselves rather than on you.

  179. JimDandy 说:
    @Rurik

    Not the life, you illiterate imbecile, the “mental health”. You support the needless slaughter of viable babies. Nothing is lower than you.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  180. Rich 说:
    @cohen

    Actually, many pro-life people are very concerned about wars and indiscriminate bombings that result in the deaths of innocents. Many are anti-war and even pacifists. And there are many pro-abortion people who love wars and bombings, for example Obama, both Clintons, Madeline Albright, Biden, Kamala, Schumer, and on and on and on. On average, in my experience, the pro-lifers are usually more against war than pro-choicers, but I suppose there are anti-war, anti-imperialists on both sides of this particular issue.

    • 同意: IreneAthena
  181. JimDandy 说:
    @nokangaroos

    You’re either responding to the wrong comment or you’re retarded. Or both.

  182. Curmudgeon 说:
    @R.G. Camara

    So, you are ok with your wife or daughter being attacked on the street and gang raped then forced to relive that every day when looking at the child conceived by that brutality. Obviously their views are unimportant to you.

    Birth control and abortions have always existed, as has leaving babies, especially deformed ones, to die by exposure. Leave religion out of this debate.

    • 谢谢: Lucius Vanini
  183. Mike Tre 说:
    @The Real World

    So many words, and you literally said nothing.

    • 回复: @The Real World
  184. Mike Tre 说:
    @jsm

    LOL – There is nothing to do but laugh at how loathsome you are.

  185. Mike Tre 说:
    @Rurik

    And I ask that you see my replies to those.

    In 50 years, 35,000 deaths during childbirth justifies 55 million abortions. That’s what you’re saying.

    我不同意

    • 回复: @Rurik
  186. SMK 说: • 您的网站
    @jeff stryker

    Roughly 20-millon black fetuses have been aborted since the passage of Roe v. Wada. If not for these abortions and if half of those blacks not aborted had 2 children on average in marriage or “illegitimately,” there would now be over 80 million blacks in the US rather than over 40 million and twice as much violence and criminality, including black-on-white violence, over the last 50 years, with roughly twice as many whites assaulted, robbed, raped, and murdered by blacks.

    What a pity that the Carr Brothers and Lemaricus Davidon and the Knoxville savages and untold myriads of black criminals who’ve assaulted and robbed and raped and murdered whites over the last half-century weren’t aborted by their mothers.

    Please, stop with the “every life” and fetus is “sacred” obscenity.and mawkishness.

    • 同意: Lucius Vanini
    • 回复: @jeff stryker
  187. Jay Fink 说:
    @jsm

    Most of the South is red and has very large black populations. We can not take for granted that these states will stay red. Look at Georgia flipping blue in 2020. Yeah I know….cheating. Still the large and growing black population is a major factor in making Georgia as politically competitive as it is.

  188. @Mike Tre

    I explained it clearly. You don’t possess the common decency to acknowledge it.

    Your true colors are quite obvious – they are not pretty. You’re a self-absorbed authoritarian who wants to manage other peoples lives because you’re unhappy about some aspects of your own.

    I’ll repeat for you: Best idea – let people manage their own lives and you manage yours. What a concept! America isn’t China (yet).

  189. Jay Fink 说:
    @The Real World

    I wonder if evangelists know, care or think about abortion demographics or that in most cases the mother won’t be able to financially support the child they are forced to have? They seem so emotionally focused on saving fetuses that they don’t even think about what happens to them after they are born.

    • 回复: @The Real World
  190. @jsm

    IF from red states blacks and liberal Whites (many of them mudsharks) do move to blue states, so they may have abortions, well and good. But how many will? For most people home is home; and what assurance have you that so many as a third will make the move (which seems optimistic)?
    And the blacks and liberal Whites whom red states would thus lose, would be more than made up for by those who stayed home and had their offspring. They’d be getting welfare, and more of it as they bear more children; they’d have incentive to get pregnant.

    Meanwhile, there aren’t only states: there’s the United States. Unfortunately–as in the present circumstances wherein red states suffer from the invasion over the Mex border–Conservatives live under federal Leftist/Globalist tyrants. Enough blue states can mean a blue preponderance in Congress and a neo-Marxist in the WH.

    In any case, you seem to understand that abortion is essential to this grand strategy you envision. You can’t want it banned completely. But why not have it everywhere?

    I. De facto segregation is extremely widespread (as the politically correct complain), and can be easily had. In every state wherein I’ve resided, my friends and associates have always been Whites. Never for one day have I had to tolerate mixed company. (Maybe that was partly because there were half as many blacks as there’d have been but for Roe?) Homeschooling children will be an excellent way of increasing de facto segregation.

    II. The blacks and liberal Whites in one’s state, those who won’t leave, can cull their own numbers if abortion is legal, safe and easy there. WE don’t have to use it–and indeed perhaps all true White Conservatives already refuse to. But why interfere with others using it, if it bears us material advantages? (Anti-abortion White Conservatives have their reasons for thus interfering, but those reasons are not practical, only emotional and ultimately superstitious.) The thing to do is LET our foes abort–as much as they please, ideally for every pregnancy!–while we never do….

  191. Anon[358]• 免责声明 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Tonsillectomy? Ha ha, ha. No, because its capacity to feel pain is one moral obstacle to abortion. The other is that; its alive and human. It’s a genetically alive human hence, as per fairness and just balance of power, with the right to its continued existence. Might does not make right in a just calculus. Its sentience just makes the murder w/o anesthesia more horrific and depraved; like torturing someone is more atrocious then killing someone by shooting them so that they die instantly.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  192. Rurik 说:
    @JimDandy

    Not the life, you illiterate imbecile, the “mental health”.

    I was speaking of the life the mother, when it’s in jeopardy, illiterate fuck wad

    if you’re too stupid to comprehend that, then do yourself (and everyone else) a favor, and perform a late term abortion on yourself. A 38 in your gob, ought to do the trick

    In fact, truth be known, I abhor abortions when the baby has a chance of living a worth while life, or contributing to society somehow, but in certain cases, I’d be all for correcting the mistake two people made by shipping all irredeemable cretins out to sea as shark food.

    Anyone who countenances wars based on lies, or forces women to carry to term babies that are horrifically deformed, or puts the life of the mother in jeopardy in order to feel warm and fuzzy about how ‘moral’ they are, I’d be happy to fill out-of-service oil tankers, and ring the great white dinner bell.

    ‘Here sharky, sharky, come get it fresh off the boat’.

    Too bad you weren’t aborted in the first place. But then how would the shark feel about losing the meal?

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  193. @Kratoklastes

    Some fairly interesting info there, thanks.

    But, the bombastic, bipolar tirade indicates that it would not be productive for me to dialogue with you. Perhaps, you should stop telling people what to do or not do. Novel idea!

  194. Rurik 说:
    @Mike Tre

    In 50 years, 35,000 deaths during childbirth justifies 55 million abortions. That’s what you’re saying.

    没有

    I’m not saying anything of the kind. I’m saying that 35,000 deaths of mothers isn’t necessary, because society can prohibit late term abortions except in certain circumstances like when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

    So you save the life of the next 55 million babies, 并且 the life of the 35.000 mothers.

    有这么难理解吗?

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  195. JimDandy 说:
    @Rurik

    Ok, so you are retarded and unable to read a simple fucking statement. Despite your mental defects and obvious perversions, I 仍然 wouldn’t have supported you being aborted after viability even though your mom was a dirty whore who molested you.

  196. @RockaBoatus

    I appreciate your comforting words. You assure me that abortion and its advantages won’t be lost to us! Great to hear.

    But rearrangements need to be made, and I hope they’ll be made soon before the loss of Roe results in much damage.

    With your less than winning irony, are you suggesting I should oppose Leftists’ abortions because it’s possible that some of their children will become White Nationalists? How many Leftists might make the switch, do you think, instead of becoming perhaps less Leftist, or moderately liberal, or far-Leftist? Or even civnat? Ventures, business and otherwise, are based on averages. Thinkest thou, O faithful one, that preventing a million Leftist women (some of them mudsharks) from aborting is helpful to us, if one or two of their offspring grow up to be White Nationalists? Lol, I’ll never hire you to manage MY business!

    Hey, maybe the way to engender a Pro-White generation is to get Leftist couples to be fruitful and multiply? The more progeny they produce, the better the chances that there’ll be more David Dukes and William Luther Pierces among them, eh? Hey, you’re schmart!

    And I know it hurts, and it’s a permanent thorn in your side, but we both know that your silly snake oil was concocted entirely by Jews, Hebrews, ethnic Jews. Rabbi Saul was only the prime mover and shaker. As I said elsewhere, in a place where Tomas de Torquemada is Censor, Judeo-Christians who characterize their creed as having nothing to do with Jews, are like well-hooked catfish twisting and lashing but ever unable to get off the hook.

    Funny that someone who sees Jews as a race won’t see that Saul was as Jewish as Annas and Caiaphas. Face it, rockyboatus, it’s only SOME Jews you don’t follow. You do follow others! From Moses and Isaiah to that overrated carpenter and John the Divine.

    Judeo-Christianity isn’t the same as Talmudic Judaism? True enough. But neither is Reform or Liberal Judaism. But Reform, Liberal and Orthodox are all Jewish; and again the makers of Judeo-Christianity were all Jews, every last one of them.

    And deny thou that the Jewish books known collectively as the Old Testament aren’t mixed in your snake oil? Why is it that one constantly sees Judeo-Christians quoting from them? Doesn’t that show that scriptures revered by even ORTHODOX Jewry are integral to your creed?

    Maybe YOU think that Jews who asserted that baptism is the essential initiatory rite were critters altogether different from Jews who said circumcision is. I cannot.

    Next, consider this ethnic/genetic group from whom you’ve received your creed. You yourself recently wrote of them that “They are masters of propaganda”; that they have “an innate ability to deceive, to create smoke and mirrors, and distort reality”; that they’ve a “long history of relying on deception, trickery….” Cf. “Jews and Their Long History of Hysteria and Overreach.”

    And the Jews you evidently claim are exceptions: do you represent them as passably honest? NO, but as INFALLIBLY TRUTHFUL. One of them you worship as the Truth itself…. Here the smell of snake oil is overpowering. Lol you want us to buy a talking dog from a ventriloquist.

    Well, if the propositions these Jews wrote down admitted of verification, you could justly say that this most deceitful group did include infallibly truthful men. But it’s not as though the notions they gave you are math theorems, whose validity might be proved. No, they’re far-fetched. They require FAITH to be believed–willful belief. The Fall of Man, Original Sin, the Vicarious Atonement, a Tempter, parthenogenesis, Heaven, Hell, the raising of the dead, the “rightness” of unselfishness, etc., etc. Aesop and Hans Andersen are less credulity-stretching. Yet you have no trouble believing that, unlike the rest of their deceitful lot, your Jews told the whole truth and nothing but the truth….

    As for the Jews today, who typically hate us, THEY are mostly as unJewish in religious identity as post-Damascus Saul was. They’re ethno-cultural Jews, more at home in DAS KAPITAL than in the Torah. But a main source of their power is making us feel we must be consistent with moral notions their ancient brethren sold to Europe. “Unselfishness” is the cornerstone of those notions, and the idea that unselfishness is goodness itself isn’t only credited in churches, but, because it gradually seeped into the European psyche, it’s also the cornerstone of Western liberal secular morality. Chalk that up to long exposure to toxic mind-conditioning, encapsulated in words like “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” and “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves” and “But for those who are self-seeking….there will be wrath and anger.”

    And so in the places where such slave morals have longest been at hand–Europe and Euroamerica–we find people who feel “moral,” who actually feel virtuous!, in allowing strangers to invade their ancestral lands–to demand, to condemn, to commit violence and, as things are going, to take over without having to fire a shot!

  197. @follyofwar

    YES–you hit the nail on the head!

    In creating a change we did NOT need, civnat Conservatives have awakened a sleeping giant. The trashing of incalculably valuable ROE is mobilizing millions of Leftists. The greater force the Left will have may indeed defeat, or materially diminish, that Big Red Wave fondly believed to be coming in November. It figures to make every objective we DO NEED more difficult to achieve.

    IDIOCY.

    • 谢谢: follyofwar
    • 回复: @Gapeseed
  198. @mulga mumblebrain

    Some of the Latin American States, bedeviled by the Vatican, HAVE criminalised miscarriage as a form of hidden abortion,

    lol. *citation needed, little troll.

    Also, neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox churches criminalized or have sought to criminalize inadvertant/spontaneous/medical miscarriages, little liar. As sin in those churches is only present when someone does an act of their own volition, a miscarriage is by definition not of one’s own volition.

    What you’re probably trying to do is lie and claim that that the miscarriages they “criminalized were actually “deliberately induced miscarriages” which is of course abortion/child murder, not miscarriage. Lying babykillers like you will try to play the change-the-definition game.

    But we’re done playing that game, child murderer.

  199. @mulga mumblebrain

    I wonder if the difference I notice comes because the spelling has been Americanized. I’ve seen you use it quite frequently.

    I do not think it would be hasty, to correct one who meant one thing, but instead wrote “pastie.”
    For one is a meat-filled treat to eat—quite tasty!!— but eating the other would just be nasty. And speaking of words that rhyme with nasty, only one comes to mind right now, rhinoplasty. Oh, there’s another one, but I’ll stop here. Too nasty.

    PS — I’m the kind of “pro-lifer” who finds “bugsplat and Crispy Critters” war-carnage photos as disturbing as photos of babies dismembered in utero. For decades I’ve been frustrated with neo-con Zionist war-mongers who cynically used the abortion issue to win votes of people who believe in Jesus. And for decades the number of Ziocon— and Zioliberal— wars just increased, while the Overton window shifted towards more promiscuity thus more unplanned pregnancies and acceptance of abortion at later and later stages of pregnancy. Be wise as serpents, gentle as doves, Jesus said. Part of me is wondering about ulterior motives, such as the further fracturing of society, such as:

    Trending since leak of the pending Roe v Wade decision, threats made to centers that offer support to pregnant women who need assistance but have decided against abortion: “If abortion isn’t safe, then neither are you.”

  200. Mike Tre 说:
    @Rurik

    Not at all. But let us not pretend that prohibition of “late term abortions except in certain circumstances like when the life of the mother is in jeopardy” isn’t a canard, and that the practice of partial birth abortions has been applied a great many more healthy babies than they have in these rare circumstances where some rare deformity creates some issue for the mother RIGHT at the moment of childbirth.

    With modern technology any of these life threatening deformities can be detected weeks if not months before labor begins and addressed accordingly. Emergency C sections (my second daughter was born via emergency C section) pretty much preclude the need to kill a baby about to be born. Partial birth abortions are 99.9% unnecessary. You can’t talk your way around it.

    All late term/partial birth abortions really do is validate some narcissistic slut’s pathological selfishness.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  201. Gapeseed 说:
    @Lucius Vanini

    Be of good cheer! Certainly, the professional agitators will be frothing. But as has been said in other circumstances, people like the strong horse/winning side and it will dawn on many that abortion laws will not change in their particular neighborhood.

    Also, people really dislike inflation.

    • 谢谢: Lucius Vanini
    • 回复: @follyofwar
  202. Rurik 说:
    @follyofwar

    They don’t mind millions dying in war, but don’t dare allow a woman to have an abortion.

    究竟

    and not just dying, but being murdered by our military in serial wars of aggression based on obvious lies

    do pro-life conservatives realize that they are jeopardizing their chances of taking back Congress by wholeheartedly supporting the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe? They’ve lost the support of tens of thousands..

    I watched a bit of South Dakota’s gov. Kristi Noem being asked about how the new law will play out by some shrill lefty on a public station on TV, and Noem was saying that now it’s up to the states to have the debates. In S. Dakota, the anti-abortion law was triggered as soon as the SC decision was made, and it bans abortions except for the life of the mother being at risk.

    If people use thoughtful and compassionate arguments for restricting abortions in the later stages, and discouraging them whenever they can, I think it will be a healthy thing. Noem was saying that they’re already putting into place state support systems for women who find themselves newly pregnant but without resources to raise child.

    It will serve the “pro-life” republicans right if they fail to take back Congress

    Well, I’m sympathetic to the pro-life people, but if they use incendiary, sub-human rhetoric, calling for the immolation (figuratively speaking) of any women who seeks an abortion or doctor that provides one, even if her life is at stake, then they will surely alienate anyone with a functioning brain cell, and might not just rally the Democrats, but out of horror at such drooling troglodytes, make otherwise conservative voters stay home.

    But if the debate is measured, and thoughtful and considers the lot of very poor or unhealthy women, who happen to get pregnant and are in dire straights, (who can’t just fly to a Blue state), and they take care to consider those women’s welfare and well-being, then I don’t think it’s going to have too much of an impact.

    People who live in Red States generally support restrictions on abortions. People who live in Blue states don’t. So that’s more or less how they’ve been voting anyways. Seeing the rabid, frothing feminists getting triggered over this, I must say is kind of amusing, and I don’t think they’re really changing anyone’s minds, except for a few normal people who watch them with revulsion and then decide that anything those screeching harridans are against, then they’d be for.

    • 回复: @Jay Fink
    , @follyofwar
  203. Rurik 说:
    @Mike Tre

    the practice of partial birth abortions has been applied a great many more healthy babies than they have in these rare circumstances

    I suppose that’s true

    but it’s also true that a great many guilty people have been set free because our system is set up to favor the defendant. Would you change that, and toss 35,000 innocent people into prison, so that many more of the guilty don’t go free?

    where some rare deformity creates some issue for the mother RIGHT at the moment of childbirth.

    How often does that happen? When a mother wants the child, and all the doctors say it’s healthy, but then at the last minute they change their mind, and say they must abort to save the mother’s life. Does that 曾经 happen? I’ve never heard of it.

    life threatening deformities can be detected weeks if not months before labor begins and addressed accordingly

    does “accordingly” include abortion, if that’s what’s necessary to save the life?

    Because for some cretins, abortion should be prohibited even then. (because somewhere, some woman is going to use the health exemption when her life isn’t really at risk! And her only reasons for wanting to abort is because she’s abjectly poor, and has no income or means of support for herself, let alone bringing to term a healthy baby when she lives on the street).

    Partial birth abortions are 99.9% unnecessary. You can’t talk your way around it.

    talk my way around what?

    I’m speaking very plainly, and simply saying that sometimes the life of a woman is threatened by a pregnancy, and in such cases I think an abortion should be an option, if it means saving her life.

    好不好?

    Will it get abused? Yes, of course it will. Compassionate people who see a desperate (often drug addicted) woman or girl who can barely feed herself, being forced to bring a baby to term, that will likely suffer untold physical and mental deficiencies in such a womb, would likely use just about any excuse to help such a woman.

    But for me, like allowing a few guilty people to go free, so that fewer innocent people are imprisoned, is a price I’d (and most of society) be willing to pay.

    All late term/partial birth abortions really do is validate some narcissistic slut’s pathological selfishness.

    If she is a narcissistic slut, then why would she wait until the late term to terminate her pregnancy?

    Why go through all of that, with the bloated belly and vomiting and a ton of other inconveniences and heath issues and social stigma, when the narcissistic slut could just have much more easily and cheaply aborted her pregnancy at the early term? When no one would have even known about it.

    For a woman to wait until the late term to abort, would mean that either she’s mentally defective, or she wanted to have the child. No? Isn’t that more or less obvious?

    And if you’re anti-abortion out of compassion for the baby, then I applaud you. But if you’re anti-abortion out of wrath and hatred for those ‘immoral people who go around fornicating, and then don’t want to pay the consequences’, well then I can’t say I commiserate.

    A baby coming into the world should not be a punishment that is loathed, but a blessing that is loved and welcomed by two loving parents who’re capable and happy to have the child.

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  204. @Jay Fink

    They seem so emotionally focused on saving fetuses

    Some of them have been led to believe that railing about abortion (virtue signaling) will help them get to heaven. Not kidding. So, you see, it’s not really about the fetuses of strangers – it’s about building points for their “grand reward”. Twisted…

    Others have likely succumbed to mass formation psychosis regarding the abortion issue. Those tactics have been utilized ALOT in the modern era and it’s how so many people could be bamboozled into to taking experimental vaccines made by companies that had NO liability risk for their products. Crazy…..

    https://covidvaccinesideeffects.com/mattias-desmet-on-mass-formation-psychosis/

    • 回复: @IreneAthena
  205. Jay Fink 说:
    @Rurik

    My single biggest concern about restricting abortion is giving social services/welfare to the mother. I would much rather we have frequent abortion than expand the welfare state. I have been horrified how the Republican party no longer criticizes welfare, bashes welfare recipients (I loved how Reagan called them welfare queens) or tries to make draconian cuts in their welfare. I always suspected that their pro life position was the reason Republicans have become so fiscally liberal in recent years. Now my worst fears are manifesting.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  206. @The Real World

    Some of them [evangelicals] have been led to believe that railing about abortion (virtue signaling) will help them get to heaven. Not kidding. #206 The Real World

    “Not kidding?” I’m curious where you heard that. “Evangelical” literally means “one bringing good news.” The goal of their words is to get 美味 into Heaven, not to get 他们 into Heaven. Funny.

    My motivation for speaking out against the clot-shots is probably the same as yours, nothing to do with “virtue signaling,” as it’s an unpopular opinion that is a flak-magnet. We speak out because we care.

    My motivation for speaking out against abortion is… if you can believe it… similar to yours for speaking out 提供 abortion: we care about what happens to pregnant women. Again, nothing to do with “virtue signaling.” I’ve addressed your “perinatal maternal death” question logically, factually, and I hope, compassionately (I’m trying!) elsewhere on this thread.

    There really are people who “virtue-signal” when they speak about abortion, though: they’re called politicians. For years neo-cons who didn’t care about pregnant women “virtue-signaled” against abortion to get support for their neo-con wars. And neo-liberals who didn’t care about pregnant women “virtue-signaled” FOR abortion to get support for their neoliberal wars.

    President Joe Biden, now there’s a guy who really knows how to virtue-signal. As a younger man, he put a wet finger in the air to see which way the Zeitgeist was blowing, and spoke out with words to the effect: Abortion is a tragedy that should be safe, legal and rare. Now, decades later, you won’t hear the words “abortion should be rare” proceeding from Joe’s lips. It’s no longer the catch-phrase for a virtue-signaling Democratic politician.

    • 回复: @The Real World
  207. @RockaBoatus

    Rocky, I like your characterizing black abortion as blacks murdering their babies! That’s accurate enough! Life begins at conception, before the fetus, and the child in the womb does have a life different from that of the mother. In abortion the child IS slain.

    So I do hope that blacks will murder more and more of their babies. I can’t expect that they’ll murder them all, but I can dream, can’t I?

    If this strikes you as abominably immoral, that’s only because you’re a stranger to racial partisanship. Y’know, there actually are Caucasians who love and prefer their own that much. In their hearts and minds, other types’ interests are nowhere near center stage. And if those interests clash with those of Whites, actual Pro-Whites won’t ever defend them.

    You might’ve noticed that I often repeat those horrendous figures from the DoJ’s 2017 study re American crime. You know: the annual average of 540,360 violent black-on-White crimes, which is 85% of violent crimes involving blacks and Whites and comes to about 1480 crimes per day. I’ve quoted them to one bible-thumper after another, but none of them, neither you nor the rest, ever seems to raise an eyebrow over them. NONE of you ever gives any indication of shock or horror, nor ever says, “What–can those numbers be right?!” And that’s because you don’t really care. Your heads are elsewhere. In the clouds, shall we say?

    I, on the other hand, am endlessly shocked and indignant. I feel so strongly, am so outraged, that 20 TRILLION black fetuses can be murdered, with all my blessings, if one White child might be protected from black violence. Right. Twenty trillion black babies–or any number of them–don’t mean as much to me as the welfare of one White child, let alone the welfare and preservation of my ancestral civilization.

    Again, that sort of thing is foreign to you. You’ve been sold a bill of goods about altruism and self; and a far-fetched superstition, in which race isn’t stressed, is of foremost importance to you. Your highest good, as you conceive it, is doing what a god wants you to do–or rather what Jews have told you that a god, their god, wants you to do–and you figure you’ll be entitled to play harp quartets for all eternity with Jesus, Saul and Francisco Pizarro.

    That’s why Judeo-Christians are a problem for the Pro-White movement. White well-being and preservation aren’t of uppermost importance to you. No, your race-neutral creed is more important. And you’ll sell out White interests if they clash with your creed–which isn’t “White Racialist” like Pierce’s Cosmotheism and Klassen’s Creativity, the actually appropriate religions for a Pro-White movement.

    If you could, you’d stop all abortion, regardless of what that would mean for Whites. No consequences for Whites could be calamitous enough for you to say, “I’m in favor of blacks murdering their babies, so that they might not pose so great a danger to Whites.” Deny it if you can.

    Elsewhere in this thread I answered your laughable rantings about Leftists’ aborting their potentially White-Nationalist children.

    And thanks again for assuring me that “blacks will continue to murder their babies in huge numbers.” I AM glad of that, considering that it’ll make White babies–the only babies I really care about–safer.

    • 不同意: IreneAthena
    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  208. @IreneAthena

    I’ve addressed your “perinatal maternal death” question logically, factually, and I hope, compassionately elsewhere on this thread.

    I see no other comments from you to any of my posts related to this topic.

    Meanwhile, even with my quite good reading comprehension abilities, I cannot grasp what – really – you are trying to convey in that rather jumbled, rambling post.

    If you’d like to refine/condense it and pose a specific question or two, I’d be happy to reply.

    P.S. If you’d like a great example of how utterly hypocritical, self-serving and SICK some of the anti-choice people are…you need go no further than reading the first two paragraphs of Post #209 on this thread. Foul…

    • 回复: @IreneAthena
  209. @SMK

    Nixon had a conversation about that on You Tube after the Roe v Wade decision

    He more or less predicted that on the eve of Roe vs Wade

  210. @jsm

    We’re in a condition now where young people, women in particular, are more likely than not to have a mental illness. This illness is in part due to disrupted physical imprinting as discussed in the link. Having sex with someone, whether a boyfriend or a tinder stranger, is something that’s going to help them with their mental state, as opposed to celibacy.

    Our job is to optimise sexuality in the face of increasing STDs, increasing psychological stress, decreasing average intelligence, and the risk of unwanted children. Men should also face serious blame for the state of promiscuity. Being humans, women on tinder are usually open to a serious relationship. Men are biasing sex toward casual contact and away from emotional availability and relationship formation.

    “If a sexual relationship is not pleasurable, the individual looks for another partner… Affectionately shared physical pleasure… tends to stabilize a relationship and eliminate the search.”

  211. @SiNCERITY.net

    Most definitely. Total honesty is the key to success. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made!

  212. @JimDandy

    The number of raw hate-filled misogynists gathering here is quite depressing. As Germaine Greer observed, most women have no idea just how much many men hate them.

    • 回复: @The Real World
    , @JimDandy
  213. @Lucius Vanini

    The absolute Ultima Thule of deranged misogyny and race hatred.

    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
  214. follyofwar 说:
    @Rurik

    True enough, Rurik. But I just saw a poll in which 2/3rd of women said they oppose ending Roe. If that poll is legitimate, obviously it would include thousands of normal women with children who are not “rabid, frothing feminists.” And, overall, only 41% support the SC decision while 59% oppose. That is not a good omen for the GOP come November.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  215. @mulga mumblebrain

    Aw no, mumbling-brain. An actual case of love of race, of awareness that one’s kind is in a fight for survival, of knowing that in any fight there are casualties, and of preferring that the casualties befall one’s foes and not one’s own people.

    Evidently you know nothing of any of that. It must be painful to be so moral (lol) while having to live in the real world. In any case, the anti-Whites can always use useful idiots.

    It’s the deadly “altruism gene” that’s so endangered and battered EuroCiv. And it’s collective egoism and uncompromising partisanship that could save EuroCiv: that’s why White in-group preference is so demonized and criminalized.

  216. Mike Tre 说:
    @Rurik

    “but it’s also true that a great many guilty people have been set free because our system is set up to favor the defendant. Would you change that, and toss 35,000 innocent people into prison, so that many more of the guilty don’t go free? ”

    Separate issue entirely. And equally complex.

    “How often does that happen? When a mother wants the child, and all the doctors say it’s healthy, but then at the last minute they change their mind, and say they must abort to save the mother’s life. Does that ever happen? I’ve never heard of it. ”

    There are 2-3000 PBA’s per year. And frankly, I have no idea why. If the baby is already partially out of the birth canal, how does it save a woman’s life to kill the baby at that point? It still has to be delivered. The only reason I can think of is that the mother changed her mind at that moment. I’m perfectly willing to entertain other reasons. Are you familiar with the procedure for performing a PBA? The “doctor” basically drives a spike into the base of the baby’s skull. Or sometimes they use pliers to crush its head. Or they poison it. One can justify the act all they want, but if you or I walked up to a new born baby and did the same thing, we’d be convicted of murder.

    “talk my way around what? ”

    By you, I meant in general, as in one cannot talk themselves around it.

    “I’m speaking very plainly, and simply saying that sometimes the life of a woman is threatened by a pregnancy, and in such cases I think an abortion should be an option, if it means saving her life
    Will it get abused? Yes, of course it will. ”

    700 deaths in child birth compared to 1.2 million abortions per year. That’s not a reasonable tradeoff. It’s like there’s this sense of entitlement surrounding pregnancy that its just supposed to be a risk free proposition for the mother. It never ever was throughout history, and yet somehow, civilization continued to advance. Currently, it is regressing. More men die at work every year by far. Perhaps we should just put them on the dole until someone figures out how to eliminate work place death entirely?

    “Compassionate people who see a desperate (often drug addicted) woman or girl who can barely feed herself, being forced to bring a baby to term, that will likely suffer untold physical and mental deficiencies in such a womb, would likely use just about any excuse to help such a woman. ”

    But no compassion for the infant, who, unlike the mother, had no choice in the matter. And there are no starving mothers in the US. Our poor are the most obese people in the world. That is just emotional manipulation. And the last I checked there was a long waiting list for couples to adopt.

    “If she is a narcissistic slut, then why would she wait until the late term to terminate her pregnancy?”

    This is what’s commonly known as the moment of truth. Where the reality of the situation finally dawns on the person. It happens in all sorts of situations, where an individual finds themselves at the threshold but cannot step across. And as I said above, the full term fetus still has to be delivered alive or dead, so how does it save the mother’s life to deliver the fetus dead as opposed to living? And as I said in the previous comment, C sections pretty much sidestep every child birthing complication that can occur.

    “And if you’re anti-abortion out of compassion for the baby, then I applaud you. But if you’re anti-abortion out of wrath and hatred for those ‘immoral people who go around fornicating, and then don’t want to pay the consequences’, well then I can’t say I commiserate.”

    I’m not religious. If anything I am a naturalist. And I recognize that for a healthy society to continue people must continue to repopulate it, naturally (not with the suicidal importation of semi barbaric aliens). Healthy societies protect its youth, and are a culture of life. Abortion along with a great many other things, identify ours as a culture of death. And I doubt you’ll disagree that our culture is dying.

    “does “accordingly” include abortion, if that’s what’s necessary to save the life?”

    Ironic question. I am not an absolutist on most issues, and my personal beliefs are separate from how I would manage policy on this and many other issues.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  217. Rurik 说:
    @Jay Fink

    biggest concern about restricting abortion is giving social services/welfare to the mother.

    Ever since the technology became available, I’ve been a proponent of obligatory birth control (or tubes tied if the mothers prefer) for all mothers who’re on welfare (Norplant, or some such). Obviously it forces no one, because the decision to apply for welfare is voluntary, and no mother is forced. And if the mother gets her life together, and finds a man to partner with, (hopefully marry), and she wants to have more kids, then by all means. But no more welfare after the first child. Period.

    It’s compassionate, (babies should not be living on the street in a relatively wealthy society like ours), but it also considers the rights and concerns of others who’re required to pay the taxes that support the welfare system. Where now welfare queens have become a generational lifestyle, having babies one after another, (never knowing who the father even is), and collecting huge sums, where the babies go on to do the same as soon as they’re old enough.

    It’s a system set up specifically to destroy our society, and by the usual suspects.

    I would much rather we have frequent abortion than expand the welfare state.

    I remember back about twenty years or so in Florida, a known crack whore would waltz into the local hospital about every year or so, and plop out another crack addicted baby. Then walk out of the hospital as if it was nothing, and go about her life. The babies required very expensive medical care, because no one would adopt such a baby, and due to the addictions and other afflictions, (AIDs, if I remember correctly), they required expensive medical care just to continue living, such as it was.

    The tragedy of this woman’s plight, hits on many of the abortion hot button issues.

    For some, (a lot more than people think), the idea of giving her birth control is beyond abhorrent.

    First there’s the celebrate puritans who snarl their venom at the idea of giving birth control to a woman who’s just going to use it to fornicate! If some Godless trollop (or teenagers in love, etc..) wants to fornicate!, then she deserves the punishment of a baby!! They sneer. (so full of Christ’s love ; )

    Then there’s the Jews and shitlibs who demand that mandating 任何 kind of birth control ever = gas chambers and Nazis!!, because it smacks of eugenics, and we all know wanting healthy and happy babies in loving homes = Nazis!! and gas chambers!!

    Then you have the run-of-the-mill anti-abortion types who demand that birth control is a sin, and so is any kind of abortion, no-matter-what, and that God wants as many babies, (wanted or unwanted, matters not), because He said be fruitful and multiply, and abortion is always murder, no-matter-what. Now when it comes to taking care of these unwanted children, that’s not a problem either, they spew, because they demand all of society be cucked, and raise other people’s children, because that makes 他们 feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    There a lots and lots of human failings (and fervors and follies and frothing) on display when it comes to the abortion debate.

    As with most things, the thoughtful and measured and considered opinions are the ones towards the middle. Abortion should be discouraged and rare. Consideration for the most vulnerable in society is what laws are supposed to be all about. And none are so vulnerable as a baby in a womb.

    But then demanding that an egg is a human with a soul the nanosecond that it becomes fertilized, is dogma. (Yes, it has the 潜力 to be, but it isn’t yet).

    And saying that a baby should be subject to abortion, even after it’s born, (a position increasingly popular in today’s vile and insane woke leftisphere), is even more depraved.

    All we need is to be sensible, but that seems like a bridge too far, at least in Murka today.

  218. @The Real World

    Re: abortion as a preventative for perinatal maternal death, not directed specifically to you, but to anyone for whom the shoe fit:

    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/the-spirit-of-scalia-and-the-end-of-roe-vs-wade/#comment-5411799

    I suspect you have trouble understanding my penultimate comment, which a direct reply to you, not because of any reading comprehension problem on your part, or lack of clarity on mine, but because of cognitive dissonance: it’s easier to dismiss and dehumanize people with whom you disagree than it is to have a respectful exchange.

    No matter. As I said, that will be my penultimate comment to you.

    • 回复: @The Real World
  219. Rurik 说:
    @follyofwar

    I just saw a poll in which 2/3rd of women said they oppose ending Roe

    I suspect that’s because of the media hysteria telling them we’re going to return to the coat hangers.

    When the respective debates kick in, then I think most of these women’s fears will be allayed.

    As I’ve said before, this decision bodes very good for the future. Red states that abhor abortions, and all like-minded people, will gravitate to those states. Woman who consider abortion to be murder, will be able to finally live in a state that doesn’t force them to fund an act they consider a grave sin.

    And shitlibs and black supremacists and La Raza (that are a voting burden on Red States) will be self-motivated to move to Blue states that revel in infanticide, along with all the other woke derangements.

    The more divided the nation becomes, the better. Let the Blue states descend into dystopian hells on earth, which is what their agendas necessarily will result in. But at least they won’t be able to drag the Red states down with them. It is a great and very poositive development, that I confess I never imagined would ever come to pass. That the SC would rescind the Constitutional abomination that is Roe. And hopefully the others, like Brown and so forth.

    Wokeness means nothing unless they can use it to destroy all decent societies. What good is wokeness if you only destroy your own communities? What’s the point?

    The point of wokeness is to destroy Western civilization and its people. But if Red states are able to consolidate their demographics, (of all races) and then start using the public schools to educate, rather than indoctrinate, who knows where this will all lead.

    And yes, I said of all races. I’d rather have blacks and others who respect education and safe streets and hard work and traditional values, than to have white shitlibs any day of the week.

    I’d take a black man who’s a hard working Christian and family man, (few, unfortunately as they may be) over a white woke liberal POS all day long.

    And that will be the beauty of the Great Separation. Those blacks and Hispanics and others who want to live in states where marriage is a sacrosanct bond between a man and a woman, can vote with their feet and move to Red states. And those blacks and Hispanics and whites who want to participate in BLM riots and burning and looting- can move to Blue states, where that kind of thing will become widespread and routine. Just like all the other blessings of wokeness, like we see today in San Francisco and Detroit and Baltimore and Philly and Chicago. They can outlaw protecting your home or business with guns, or otherwise, because wokeness has a right to burn it all down.

    Just image what those Blue states will descend into once they’re unleashed to undo the ‘systemic racism’ and homophobia and misogyny and anti-semitism that has plagued all people of color and fags and feminists for so terribly long!

    (I’m actually not hostile to homos per se, but the activists need to be bashed in their child-grooming agendas with an iron fist).

    So yea, let the Great Separation commence!

    This will be bigger than even the midterms. Where even if the Republicans are ascendant, they’ll do what they always do and betray the people who voted for them, for shekels from the doner class.

    But as the Great Separation consolidates the decent people / from wokenss, then those formerly purple states will become solidly Blue or Red, as the case may be. No more worrying about Georgia or Nevada or Arizona, as they’ll go hard Red.

    In some states, like Michigan or Wisconsin, and other purple states, let them either go Blue or Red, and then let them live with the kind of laws and politicians that wokeness will result in.

    They will deserve it, good and hard.

    And if they don’t like it, they can move to Whitopia, (yes, that is a thing).

    • 谢谢: IreneAthena
  220. @IreneAthena

    No, it was quite jumbled so, a distinct point is not obvious. I nicely asked for clarity and specific questions but, you seem to find such reasonable request to be offensive.

    I am interested in your opinion about the first two paragraphs of Post #209? That is specific.

  221. @mulga mumblebrain

    Totally agree and I’ve noticed the same thing.

    The sheer, twisted, frothing 痴迷 that some males have on here and elsewhere regarding the pregnancies of strangers is about as sick as it gets. They do not care a single whit about those fetuses and even less about the pregnant women.

    The entire issue is about control and punishment – it’s always been that. Some of these guys grew up with nasty or cold Mothers and they likely never recover from that (nor do daughters). Others have an inability to relate to women and, therefore, have had little success with them. Whichever camp they are in, they remain deeply angry and want to punish women.

    Another aspect, as Derbyshire bravely noted, is that some of them come unhinged that she has control over what happens to his precious sperm that he willingly, and irresponsibly, gave away. He made his choice. If an unintended pregnancy occurs, she gets to make hers.

  222. @SafeNow

    Wow….devastating….

    51% of black D.C.’s pregnancies were aborted under Roe. Think of the spike in black numbers and criminality coming to D.C.!

    And who aborted the 1% in South Dakota?! Rightist, Conservative women? No, the Lefties there.

    EUGENIC EFFECT in both places.

    Great work, bible-thumpers! You did Rabbi Saul proud.

    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
  223. No matter. As I said, that will be my penultimate comment to you.

    Said what I meant; meant what I said.

  224. Seneca44 说:
    @Bro43rd

    Also very few words about handguns in black hands being used to reduce black population.

  225. Rurik 说:
    @Mike Tre

    The only reason I can think of is that the mother changed her mind at that moment.

    well, if so, then I’d definitely be against that.

    700 deaths in child birth compared to 1.2 million abortions per year. That’s not a reasonable tradeoff.

    but as I said, we don’t need either

    The respective states can restrict most of the more egregious abortions, and do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That would be the best way to prevent abortions if you ask me. Why not fund Norplant for every woman who wants it? Because birth control is a sin? I respect people’s opinions if they feel that way, but I don’t respect their right to impose their religious views on others. So if it was refused because some tax payers consider birth control to be a sin, then fair enough. But then the rest of us should find a way to help, IMHO. (is ‘pulling out’ a sin?)

    But no compassion for the infant, who, unlike the mother, had no choice in the matter.

    if you were the offspring of a crack addicted, AIDs infected street prostitute, who has an IQ of 65, and was the child of a drug addict herself, what kind of life would you expect to have?

    If it meant being institutionalized or bounced between foster home to foster home, until eventually you too, (statistically likely) would end up in prison or worse, would you want that kind of life?

    I’d think that some lives, like the horribly deformed, would be better off not being born in the first place. Think of all those babies in Fallujah with their organs on the outside of their skin (I won’t post pictures), would have preferred not to have been born, if they didn’t die within days anyways, and could speak.

    And who should have to take care of the crack addicted, AIDs baby? The tax payer? Is that fair? When they can’t afford yet to have one of their own, because their taxes are too high.

    And there are no starving mothers in the US. Our poor are the most obese people in the world. That is just emotional manipulation.

    would this be a healthy environment to raise children?

    That’s in Los Angeles, and there are no-doubt lots of poor women who languish in places like that, but without children, because they’ve had access to birth control or abortions. Would you force a woman living there, to raise children in those circumstances?

    And I doubt you’ll disagree that our culture is dying.

    Yes, but not because of abortion, but because of the moral cowardice and willful ignorance of the American people who live their lives in fear of ‘the Jew’. As long as Americans are too cowardly to call out the Jew, who’s using their institutions to destroy them, just as they did in Spain and then Russia and then Germany, now in America and Europe, our culture and society and ethnicity will die off, ((be genocided)). It is written.

    “does “accordingly” include abortion, if that’s what’s necessary to save the life?”

    Ironic question.

    你有没有爱过一个人?

    I’m not taking love for your God, or parental love, or love for your siblings or extended family, which are all valid types of love, but rather being in love with a woman.

    The kind of love that would cause you to run into a burning building, or take a bullet, or do anything, 什么 at all, to protect her. A love that is the beginning and end of your existence. The very meaning of your life, and without her, you’re empty and hollow, at least the parts about yourself that you’ve come to consider the best of you that there is. A kind of worship actually, where you’re not just worshiping her beauty, but her soul, and all that she is, for 什么 she is, a compliment to and consummation of your soul that nothing in this world can even come close to.

    The idea that you would sacrifice the woman you love, to save a baby you don’t know, is why I ask if you’ve ever been in that kind of love, because I doubt it.

    If you love a woman, you’d never, in a thousand years, even begin to think she could be sacrificed to save an unborn child. Never in a million, billion, gazillion years.

    But if you’ve never loved a woman like that, then I can’t speak to what might motivate you.

    For me, if the doc said, well Rurik, there’s a ten percent chance that this pregnancy will result in her death, then it’s a no brainer for me. I don’t care if it’s twins or triplets or what, I’m not putting her life in jeopardy, no matter what. Period. Easy-peasy. Call it selfish if you want to, I don’t care.

    But that’s me, and I have loved a woman like that. And it was the most profoundly meaningful and ineffably beautiful thing that has ever happened to me. I can say if I died tomorrow, I’d have no regrets, because I have been spectacularly blessed in the most exquisite way. If I love God, it’s because He created the world that allowed me to love a woman like that.

    Sacrifice her life for an unborn child? Not me. Not ever.

    But if others would do so, then all I can say is that they haven’t loved like I have. And I hope that changes, and that they do, because when you do, you find out what really, really matters in this life.

    Thanks for the exchange, I think you’re honest about it, it’s just that we don’t agree on a few matters.

    上帝保佑。

    • 回复: @Liberty Mike
  226. My compliments on your thoughtful, nuanced posts.

    As always, I enjoy reading your prose.

    Regarding the fetus likely to be born with developmental disabilities, grotesque deformities, and a sub-AOC, Corey Bush, GWB, Prince Charles level IQ, what is to be done with xer? Who is the decider? Who makes the decision on whether this human being can have a shot at life?

    Taxpayers? Doctors? Public health capo-regimes? Elanor Smeal? Stacey Abrams? Big Machines programmed by fellas with compassion and vision? The mother?

    Does the father have any input in the decision-making calculus? Should he have veto power over the death designations made by any of the above, including the mother who insists upon scraping the would be retard?

    What about the rationale for democratizing the decision as to whether the disabled fetus lives? Is not such a proposition a monstrously fiendish one? Should the decision whether the child is to live hinge upon the ability of the parents to finance the medical expenses that may ensue?

    That the child may require substantial medical care should not drive the decision and it certainly should not control. The prospect of the health care costs bankrupting the parents is one thing; it is quite another to abort the child upon the basis that the taxpayer is going to have to pick up the tab for such projected health care costs.

    We should not lose sight of the fact that “health” care costs are what they are largely due to the allopathic / AMA / medical / pharmaceutical / public health / third party payment grift. The taxpayer should be looking at xerself in the mirror and not the parents of the disabled child as the former just rolled over to the third-party payment mechanism, veneration of MDs, muh Medicare, and catholicons like vaccines.

    Now, as for the crack addicted baby, no, the taxpayer should not have to finance his care, nor that of his mother. No more welfare and no more rewards for Tameeka giving birth to Tyrone. Been there and done a whole lot of that, emphasis on a whole lot.

    That, however, does not thereby mean that we should forcibly abort the child over the mother’s objection.

    Of course, given the statistical probability that the prototypical crack baby will be institutionalized and / or incarcerated; the quality of life may not be what we would want for a severely disabled child; or the Fallujah babies to which you advert, it is easy to ratiocinate that it would be better that the child not live at all. Who would want a child to suffer?

    只是一些想法。

    As for your question, and subsequent reply, anent ever having loved a woman as you did, exquisite, bravo. Needless to say, I agree and would do the same.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  227. @The Real World

    Well said. The misogynists are partying. What next in their jihad against women? Contraception as that sex pest, House Negro, nonentity Clarence Thomas hinted.

  228. @Rurik

    留里克——

    My post, # 228, was made in reply to your post # 227.

  229. So now we can add something called “Jane’s Revenge” as the latest of the swamp dwellers who always seem to rise to the surface at times like these so they can play “revolutionary.”

  230. follyofwar 说:
    @Gapeseed

    The people HATE inflation. The higher it gets, the poorer we get. But BOTH MIC-owned parties are equally responsible for growing inflation, no matter how much Fox News tries to spin the entire blame on Biden.

    First, both parties (with only a few republicans dissenting) have been 100% in favor of giving billions to Ukraine to keep the War on Russia going. The insane, unnecessary war has had a HUGE impact on inflation and has nothing to do with idiot Biden’s laughable claim of a “Putin Price Hike.”

    Second, if Trump had remained president, inflation may have been about the same as it is now. With his Trump Tax Cuts (mostly going to the rich), and his profligate spending on both the military and Covid relief, Orange Man was responsible for the greatest deficits in US history. Trump also vastly increased military aid to Ukraine just to show that he wasn’t Putin’s puppet. He was lucky that inflation hadn’t yet erupted to a much greater extent during his term in office – but it was only a matter of time.

  231. @Rurik

    Judeo-Christians move and have their being in unreason. Yes, as you say, the life of the fetus has absolute sanctity for them, but they can live with killing children outside the womb. Also, most of them aren’t averse to killing adults in war–i.e., persons highly conscious of being alive and desirous of remaining so. In fact they’ll celebrate such killing as an act of courage and patriotism.

    They’ll say there’s a difference between killing the enemy on the battlefield and nipping an (as yet) inoffensive child in the bud. The enemy in war, they’ll say, is threatening one’s country!

    Setting aside the fact that most of America’s wars have NOT been in America’s defense, I say in any case that their creed doesn’t approve military homicide, and that, as in so many matters, they’re being brainlessly inconsistent.

    Their Jewish scriptures say “Thou shalt not kill,” not “Thou shall not kill–except enemy soldiers.” Their Jewish scriptures say “Resist not evil but whosoever smites you on the right cheek, turn your left to him also.” They say “Put down your sword, for he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” And they enjoin requiting evil with good. Now, if it’s an evil to be killed or attacked by an enemy, then surely to kill those attacking you is to requite evil with evil–and that’s against the letter of the Judeo-Christians’ law.

    Well, but they do make an exception of out-of-the-womb humans, considering it legit defense.

    Letting Roe be–allowing blacks to do us an inadvertent service by freely culling their own numbers–would have been a genuine act of self-defense, much more so than killing Afghans in mountain fastnesses 8000 miles away. But even if informed of the shocking war that blacks wage on White America, bible-thumpers are all for protecting the reproduction of the demographic responsible for the mayhem. Tell them the DoJ stats, re the literally millions of violent crimes blacks inflict within a matter of a few years, and you find it doesn’t make a bit of difference to them. That a big spike in black numbers almost certainly means as big a spike in black-on-White violence, means nothing to them!

    If they lived enough in the real world, they’d see that protecting the proliferation of one’s victimizers isn’t a healthy function of organisms. They’d perceive that it’s being at war with oneself. But they live in a world of myths and fables. They expect to be paid for their “righteousness” by being allowed to play the harp with Jesus forever. What’s temporal, racial well-being compared to eternal blessedness?

    Of course, abortion hasn’t been entirely banned, and some of these mental children are putting a nice face on that for the rest of us, saying that overturning Roe will benefit Whites because blacks will gravitate to states which allow abortions. Whether or not enough blacks and liberal Whites will thus migrate, creating the balkanization that we could indeed use, I don’t trust the motives of those who say the loss of Roe is good in view of such reasons. I perceive they’d favor abolishing ALL abortion everywhere. I believe they see the overturning of Roe as a battle won in a war against abortion. If they can get us to like it, mightn’t that preclude our going actively “pro-choice”?

    • 回复: @Rurik
  232. Rurik 说:
    @Liberty Mike

    谢谢迈克,

    Regarding the fetus likely to be born with developmental disabilities, grotesque deformities,… Who is the decider? …

    Taxpayers? Doctors? … … The mother?

    Does the father have any input in the decision-making calculus? Should he have veto power over the death designations made by any of the above, including the mother who insists upon scraping the would be retard?

    I’d say the tax payers but only insofar as the tax payer will be expected pay for raising the child, and then for its institutionalization or incarceration, if that looks likely.

    If a private organization is willing to cover all the costs, then I’d leave the tax payer out of it.

    I’ve always felt the father (if he’s known and participating), should have some say in the matter. But I’d be more inclined to feel like that should be in counseling the mother. As in ‘but Becky, it will die in weeks after the birth, do you really want to carry it to term? But if she said ‘yes!’, (or no), then I’d be inclined to consider her as the ultimate decider. But I think there still needs to be guidelines that society needs to wrangle over, which is what is going to happen now, as this goes back to the states. A healthy baby in the late stages of a pregnancy, should be protected by laws that prevent it from being killed for reasons of convenience, IMHO. But I like that these decisions are going to be left to the respective states, and wiser people than I will decide such things, and then people can vote with their feet, depending on their individual perspectives. Yes? No?

    What about the rationale for democratizing the decision as to whether the disabled fetus lives? Is not such a proposition a monstrously fiendish one? Should the decision whether the child is to live hinge upon the ability of the parents to finance the medical expenses that may ensue?

    I’m not a disciple of Ayn Rand. But one of her arguments was that one person’s need did not constitute a valid claim on another person’s resources.

    There are 7+ billion people on this planet, and many of them are desperately poor. Since now they’re all effectively entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution and welfare system, I think it would be prudent to consider how much compassion you can demand from your neighbor’s wallet.

    Now, as for the crack addicted baby, no, the taxpayer should not have to finance his care, nor that of his mother. … …

    That, however, does not thereby mean that we should forcibly abort the child over the mother’s objection.

    I’ve never heard anyone advocate such a thing. But it does lead to some difficult questions. What if the mother was in an accident (or overdosed on drugs, or what have you..) and she’s clinically brain dead, and kept alive with machines? The father wants to pull the plug, but the woman’s parents and siblings want to keep her ‘alive’ until the baby can be brought to term. Neither the father or the woman’s family have any money. So it will all be paid for from the public purse.

    What, as a society, do you do?

    I confess I wouldn’t know what the wise and compassionate and Solomon-type of solution is in such a situation. Or a thousand other ones, where such legal and moral ambiguities would always come up. I suppose I would leave such decisions to the people most effected by them. Locally, and determined by the community standards that the people effected are comfortable with.

    But the hospital is going to have to know who is going to pay. They don’t have unlimited resources, and if the brain-dead pregnant mother is going to be kept alive until the birth of the child, then that will necessarily mean that other patients will not get the treatment they need.

    Lots and lots of very difficult questions and decisions, but a one-size-fits-all law, is not the best way, IMHO.

    loved a woman as you did

    I wanted to make the point that it doesn’t come down to numbers and statistics.

    And at the end of the day, I’m a quality over quantity kind of guy. If God forced me to decide if the life of someone I loved and held in the highest esteem and reverence, was either going to die, or I would have to condemn the entire January 6th commission, including very high ranking members of the United States government, and all the lobbyists and media moguls and others… that could end up being hundreds or even thousands of people..

    Then all I can say is I’m a quality over quantity kind of guy.

    PS. I enjoyed your humor 😉

  233. The short answer to your question concerning the mother who is clinically brain dead is another question: did she execute a health care proxy and / or other advanced care directives?

    Chances are she did not if her hospitalization resulted from a crack overdose. Never mind the crack ho, most people do not have health care proxies and other advanced care directives in place. Lots do, but most don’t.

    If the mother had designated a health care proxy, then the agent makes the call absent questions of coercion, undue influence, or fraud as to the making of the health care proxy.

    Let us assume that Laronda did not engage in any planning, medical or otherwise, and now finds herself brain dead, with child. In my view, the father should be able to make the decision to pull the plug over the objection of family members, friends, and Laronda’s pimp.

    For purposes of discussion, can we assume that Laronda is unmarried as she would not be in the best position to avail herself of Uncle Sugar’s treats? If, however, she did have a husband, that might change things?

    At any rate, one should do what is necessary to avoid a Terry Schiavo situation. That means, at the very least, designate a health care proxy, in writing, appropriately witnessed and notarized.

    If I conveyed the view that any needy individual has a claim on your wallet or mine, I did not intend to do so. Such a person does not.

    My point is that the decision whether to abort a particular fetus who is likely to require substantial medical care should not be solely predicated upon the ability of the parents to finance the attendant expenses. This does not necessarily mean that the cost is going to be borne by Joe Normie as an opportunity should be afforded the parents, along with charitable organizations, to step up and pledge to pay for some or all of such expenses.

    Perhaps, the allopathic / AMA / health insurance / big hospital / pharmaceutical / public health complex should be “encouraged” to assist in such an endeavor. Yes, resources are limited, but the resources are currently spectacularly misallocated in a manner that is the very quintessence of profligacy – never mind in a manner that is anathema to free enterprise.

    Overall, I agree with you that a one-size fits all approach is probably not the best solution.

    Speaking of planning, I have to get ready for an appointment with a husband and wife who are coming in to discuss, inter alia, advanced health care directives.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  234. Rurik 说:
    @Lucius Vanini

    I definitely agree with you about the pro-life people having no problem with slaughtering innocent (Iraqi and Libyan and Yemen and Palestinian, etc…) children and babies. I used to wish hypocrisy was painful, at times I wish it was deadly. What did the shitlib just die from? He said racial discrimination was wrong, as he was defending Affirmative Action, and then he just keeled over dead’.

    Same goes for those who speak of the sanctity of all life, as they’re dropping the bombs. ‘What do you mean Mike Pence just croaked’? ‘He was talking about how all life is sacred, and then he just stopped breathing and his tongue went swollen and black’. It was the strangest thing!’

    some of these mental children are putting a nice face on that for the rest of us, saying that overturning Roe will benefit Whites because blacks will gravitate to states … creating the balkanization that we could indeed use

    I am one of those mental children. I call it The Great Separation, and I can’t wait to see it unfold. Wait for the SC to strike down Affirmative Action, and then watch the massive migrations to Blue states, as the Red states ban it.

    I don’t trust the motives of those who say the loss of Roe is good in view of such reasons.

    Well, I for one have a very long comment history at this website, and my motivations, (such as they are) are pretty much well-established. And I’m very glad for the repeal of Roe, not just because of the Great Separation, but also because it was a clear violation of the Constitution, and also because too many babies are being killed. Yes, I don’t want more orcs born, black, brown or even white. But there are enough blacks in Africa, that the ((forces)) destroying our world, don’t need the few million blacks that are born domestically to menace and destroy our way of life. If they feel there is a dearth somewhere, they’ll simply import them in from Haiti or some other shithole.

  235. Rurik 说:
    @Liberty Mike

    designate a health care proxy, in writing, appropriately witnessed and notarized.

    extremely good advise Mike

    What about organs? If you’re in that business, how do you protect yourself and loved ones from being declared brain dead, so they can harvest your organs?

    I don’t trust them.

    but the resources are currently spectacularly misallocated in a manner that is the very quintessence of profligacy

    Sounds like the billions of dollars to Ukraine

    or the trillions of dollars for the Covid relief, that was handed out in secret.

    ‘Oh, it’s too complicated for the average American to worry about where these trillions are going. They just need to trust us’.

    I suspect one of the reasons every commercial you see and everywhere you look, it’s wokeness on acid, is because those trillions for Covid relief were given to all major corporations to bribe them all to be woke. And much of that was done under Trump, sad to say.

    • 回复: @Liberty Mike
  236. @Lucius Vanini

    After I was unable to edit my reply to SafeNow (who provided the stat according to which 51% of D.C. pregnancies are aborted [!]), I realized that though District of Columbia isn’t a state it’s Leftist, like all predominantly blacks areas, and so is unlikely to ban abortion.

    So there doesn’t figure to be that big spike of black numbers in the capital. Whew!

  237. @Rurik

    Let me add that the decisions made by a health care proxy can also be challenged upon the basis that the principal revoked the proxy (the revocation must be in writing) or if there are additional health care directives in which the principal avowed the contrary of what her proxy has decided.

    The organ issue you present is not at all far-fetched: it happens routinely. The problem is the heart as people who have been declared brain dead are candidates for heart harvesting for transplant purposes – if they are registered organ donors. Stated otherwise, if you signed up to be an organ donor you could literally have your heart removed while you are alive.

    It is just another dirty, evil, slimy, scuzzy practice employed by the putrid allopathic shamans.

    There is a Law & Order episode from 1997 or 1998 in which the antagonist is a doctor, played by Michael Nouri, who did just what you fear.

    My take: don’t be an organ donor.

    The spectacular misallocation of resources to which I refer include:

    (a) the billions upon billions paid by the taxpayers to Pfizer, J & J, Moderna and the like for their clot shots;

    (b) the proscription of tried and true therapeutics the deprivation of which caused some people to become ill who otherwise would not have and, for some, a one-way trip to the emergency room and a ventilator;

    (c) the shuttering of countless businesses operated by honest doctors and other courageous health care practitioners;

    (d) the general lockdown of small, local, and regional companies; and

    (e) the weaponization of hypochondria.

    All of the above caused a humongous transfer of wealth from poor and middle-class peeps and small businesses to Amazon, Home Depot, Google, J & J, Moderna, Walmart, and big hospital groups. The transfer was not effected by free enterprise nor did it lead to greater productivity or an increase in the standard of living.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  238. JimDandy 说:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    You just can’t stand when people point out the fact that elective late term abortion is murder, troll.

    • 回复: @mulga mumblebrain
  239. @Rurik

    O mighty Swedish Varangian! Founder of the Russian monarchy!

    I….rather think you’re being uncharacteristically optimistic. I rather think that lacking abortion won’t prompt all that many blacks to abandon red states for blue.

    What Roe seems to have done is present an alternative to producing lots o’ chillum for welfare money. My suspicion is lots of Tyreeshas and La Tuvas figured all those kids were a bother. Some of them also probably wanted employment–tough to hold if there are so many offspring to deal with.

    (Actually, though I’m anything but a fan of Janet Yellen, I fear she recently talked sense when she warned that trashing Roe would preclude many women from being contributors to the economy, compelling them to stay home with kids rather than work. She didn’t add, but I did, that instead of being contributors they’ll be welfare sponges.)

    I fear that most of these fecund blacks will acquiesce in untrammeled reproduction–whose silver lining will be welfare payments that mount with each birth. In the six Social Media I use I’ve posted a meme with just such a black with 7 small children, each bearing the dollar amount that it warrants each month. And the caption has her saying “And I thought I wuz gonna miss Roe V. Wade.” I’d have posted it here, but haven’t figured out how.

    Great thing, eh–paying more taxes to maintain a growing population posing increasing danger to oneself, the taxpayer?

    I hope you’re right–I’ve long been a fond believer that political differences are balkanizing the USA. But I fear that abortion won’t do that for black women, who’ll have definite compensation for their
    loss!

    I cannot but regard the loss of Roe as extremely bad for America–especially White America. And I’ll be very surprised if I see any megatrends that console me.

    In any case, I repeat that the anti-abortion zealots, almost always bible-thumpers, are putting a friendly face on Roe’s denouement for us–and SOUND like they can live with abortion not being completely banned, when in fact they celebrate the loss of Roe as a victory in a war against abortion per se. My sense is that you have intellectual integrity. Bible-thumpers do not (they wouldn’t be bible-thumpers if they did); and they care much more for moral and superstitious conceits–e.g., feeling righteous and deserving of eternal bliss with Jesus–than for most material benefits in the here and now.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  240. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Anon

    You are confusing care with viability. A foetus, born at 30 weeks does not have its lungs fully developed. The ones that do survive premature birth at that age do so with massive intervention, including mechanical ventilation and intravenous feeding, going beyond care. Many do not survive even with the massive intervention and of the ones that do cystic fibrosis and other lung diseases are common. The survival rate is not great. Before 30 weeks, survival with massive intervention is a miracle. I worked at a Catholic hospital run by nuns. While grateful for the survival of these very premature babies, there was still a quiet debate about whether the doctors were playing God.

  241. MEH 0910 说:

    https://vdare.com/radio-derb/juneteenth-red-flags-roe-ron-desantis-and-academic-nationalism-etc

    https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2022-06-24.html

  242. NEWS JUST IN: that same Supreme Court has just approved the end of Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy! Marxist-Globalist victory! American streets will swarm with invaders…. More than already, that is.

    Two disastrous decisions in a Roe (sic).

    The pious among us Rightists, masquerading as Pro-Whites, won’t be too angry at SCOTUS for this. They’re still too grateful to them for trashing Roe.

    Well, so what if Third-World invasion accelerates the erosion of White majority, as will the loss of Roe? The truly essential thing is to be moral and righteous, no? And that, as our Semitic spiritual teachers have taught us, means being unselfish, no? Besides, it’s better to play the harp with Jesus forever rather than inhabit the Lake of Fire, where asbestos scuba suits aren’t to be had.

  243. Big LATTE 说:

    黛尔(Derb):

    Somebody probably already mentioned these, but I’d add two other reasons to allow abortions after 12 weeks. One: if the fetus is the result of incest or first cousins coupling, and Two: in the event of rape.

    干杯

  244. @Anon

    Why do you say it is a human whose continued existence we have a duty to preserve [there being no right without our having a corresponding duty, as I am sure you acknowledge]?

    When and how did this duty arise?

    God neglected to instruct his creatures about it as you must know. After all St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century was still repeating the Aristotelian version. Until the early 20th century the Popes weren’t confident of knowing better than the Aquinas version that for a male foetus ensoulment – I.e person hood- occurred after 60 days and the female after 90 days from conception. So, if God cared, why didn’t he give clear instructions? Maybe because God agrees with me that the idea that he lays down rules or otherwise should be obeyed has no basis in logic or common sense. If there were a Creator God isn’t it much more likely that he made us for his own entertainment, starting the universe going and then just watching what evolved in beings and behaviour. After all we were made in his image so we know something about Him. That is he did it for himself, not for us.

    • 回复: @Lucius Vanini
  245. @Wizard of Oz

    O great and terrible Wizard, ain’t the cross-revering pious a barrel o’ laughs?! Re this same matter of their theology, consider that their god infinitely loves his kids AND infinitely punishes them–wreaks on them, or allows them to suffer, ETERNAL damnation! LOL

    Uh, I wonder what’s the point of eternal punishment. Apparently it’s not to lol rehabilitate the offender. His rehabilitation would do no good (unless there are good deeds in hell?), and if he were to be rehabilitated he wouldn’t deserve to be punished anymore, ‘twould seem.

    And I wonder whether eternal damnation isn’t disproportionate payback for some errors committed in a brief lifetime. How much longer is eternity than 50, 60, three-score and ten years? Is there any limit to the greater magnitude of time, between eternity and any finite time?

    Mind you, humans commit errors in a brief lifetime via limited human intelligence, AND, according to the faithful, under the influence of a super-subtle Tempter–whose machinations the god tolerates! Lol it was this same Evil Spirit who occasioned the Fall of Man, Original Sin, in the Garden; and yet the omnipotent god of love allows the baddest of the bad guys to keep doing his worst; and when erring mortals fall prey to the latter, the loving god thinks it’s just that they suffer forever….

    Y’know, one is thus tempted to say “GOOD THING that God doesn’t hate his children!” But one doesn’t say that because lol a hating god couldn’t do worse to his children than the loving god does!

    Obviously heaven and hell are the ancient snake-oil salesmen’s carrot & stick–the ne plus ultra of the “offer they can’t refuse.” Anyone credulous enough to credit them sees every reason to embrace the faith!

    Whatever part of Judeo-Christianity one examines, one sees psychopathology. I love Nietzsche’s characterizing it as “having no contact with actuality at any point” and “a form of mortal hostility to reality as yet unsurpassed.” But it’s not merely untrue; it’s sick. Consider how earlier Judeo-Christians preferred Augustine to Origen, canonizing the former but not the latter (who, I believe, wasn’t only denied sainthood but was declared a heretic for the doctrine I’m about to discuss).

    Early Church pundit Origen wasn’t all that healthy in mind, given that he cut off his own nards lol; BUT he very logically held that divine benevolence must win in the end–that an all-loving and all-powerful God would save ALL his children in the end, including Satan.

    Augustine, on the other hand, conceived or espoused predestination, according to which babies enter the world destined to be damned and suffer eternally…. Tough to square with the idea of an infinitely loving deity who can do ANYTHING, but Augustine was preferred none the less!

    Church “Father” Tertullian said “Credo quia absurdum est”–“I believe because it’s absurd.” He might also have said “I believe because it’s sick.”

  246. @TKK

    Steve Sailer many years ago took issue with that interpretaion of thr figures. He explained IIRC that it was the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that was the cause.

  247. Art Deco 说:
    @Jay Fink

    Something changed over the years where conservatives now want the baby born so much they are more than happy to pay full welfare benefits for 18 years.

    TANF benefits are term-limited.

  248. Art Deco 说:
    @Rosie

    I’ll repeat this for the slow learners we have here au Unz, as many times as necessary:

    You repeating your faulty interpretation does not make it a true interpretation.

  249. Rurik 说:
    @Liberty Mike

    My take: don’t be an organ donor.

    I’ve practiced this prudent advise for many, many years now. It’s sometimes a hard-sell to normally compassionate people because they want to give their eyes, ‘so that the blind may see’, and so forth, but they have no comprehension of the nature of our medical establishment, for whom \$ is everything.

    Not the rank and file nurses, and such, but at the top, just like with all global corporations and big governments and so forth, the leadership is stone cold psychopathic. Compassion simply does not enter into the equation. That’s one thing I try to explain to people as to why I refuse the vaccine. It’s because like Big Tobacco, if they could inject you with something that now you need to be injected with periodically, that would be the biggest win / win for Big Pharma that you could imagine.

    Would our politicians take money to sell out the people in a quid pro quo for their donors like Big Pharma and AMA?

    If ever there was a no-brainer, eh?

    The spectacular misallocation of resources to which I refer include:

    (a) the billions upon billions paid by the taxpayers to Pfizer, J & J, Moderna and the like for their clot shots;

    (b) the proscription of tried and true therapeutics the deprivation of which caused some people to become ill who otherwise would not have and, for some, a one-way trip to the emergency room and a ventilator;

    some states like Michigan deliberately sent infected people to nursing homes, where the states most vulnerable were living at, in order to kill as many people as they could, to bolster the numbers.

    The people paid and trusted and empowered to keep the citizens safe, were the very people who were sacrificing their lives in order to advance the personal agendas of these politicians.

    All of the above caused a humongous transfer of wealth from poor and middle-class peeps and small businesses to Amazon, Home Depot, Google, J & J, Moderna, Walmart, and big hospital groups.

    there’s a reason the people wildly cheered as the guillotine blade dropped.

  250. Rurik 说:
    @Lucius Vanini

    I hope you’re right–I’ve long been a fond believer that political differences are balkanizing the USA.

    I try to avoid Drudge as much as I can, but then I do like to check in on wokeness from time to time, just to see what the lemmingry are being hectored with at any given time. This is the headline on Drudge right now.

    Spurred by the Supreme Court, a Nation Divides Along a Red-Blue Axis

    https://dnyuz.com/2022/07/02/spurred-by-the-supreme-court-a-nation-divides-along-a-red-blue-axis/

    The genius of Trump’s Supreme Court, is that they are not making sweeping edicts from on high like the shitlib court was doing, like pronouncing that male sodomy = the sacrament of marriage.

    Rather, they’re returning power to the individual states, and by doing so, they’re creating the perfect foundation for The Great Separation. The only viable solution to what ails America, by allowing the sane and decent to separate themselves from the ‘woke’ and degenerate.

    When they repudiate Affirmative Action, that will be the death knell of the forced mixing that our ((masters)) have been feverishly foisting upon us (along with their ((wars))) ever since they got their counterfeiting machine. (thank you Woodrow, [RIH])

    When the states are allowed to ban affirmative action for the abomination to freedom and dignity that it is, then in no time flat you’re going to see an exodus from from those Red states that will resemble the hordes of Zions descending upon Europe and North America..

    But instead of them running Europe and North America, they’re going to be running *出去* of the Red states, and into the Blue states, in a transformational sea change of demographic coalescence- of people who want less government and more individual freedom, (Red states), vs. those people who consider less government and more individual freedom as = institutional and systematic racism!

    As the Red states pass laws that codify the American people’s sacred right to carry arms, those who prey on the unarmed will flee to those states that demand the people be unarmed, (and therefor perfect victims of the assorted orcs who prey on such people).

    Religion will come back to the Red states. Christmas trees and Nativity scenes. Those people who look at a Nativity scene or a group of people happily singing Christmas carols, and wishing good cheer to all, will be like a crucifix to a vampire dipped in Holy water,

    If they can’t get the state courts to ban Christmas, it will drive them to deep, dark depths of deranged despair and desperation. Watching happy Christian children full of ebullience and joy at the season, smiling with their cherubic cheeks all full of God’s love, will send them reeling into paroxysms of anguished torment.

    Better just to go back to California, or New York, where they already fled the high taxes and orc attacks on the streets. But what are high taxes and menacing orcs, when the alternative is happy white Christians wearing guns and saying “Merry Christmas!”

    This is the only principled man in congress, and he represents everything they’d like to burn to the ground.

    But as his state, Kentucky, becomes more and more Red, it’s only going to become less and less welcoming to shitlibs and BLM ‘protesters’ and Jewish supremacists and sodomites.

    Where are the homosexuals going to go when places like Texas start arresting fudge-packers?

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/akedna/texas-ag-ken-paxton-sodomy-laws

    They’re going to move to Blue states, that will become havens for pedophiles and BLM rioters and shyster lawyers and shitlibs and radical Muslims and La Raza re-conquistadors and every dreg and detritus that has festered and destroyed so many formerly safe and happy communities from one coast to the other in this dying and beleaguered nation.

    God speed to Trump’s Supreme Court!

    Yes, give us freedom! and sow the seeds of The Great Separation that will redound from one end of this nation to the other!

    Let them have all the gun control they want, give it to them good and hard!

    Let them have so many ‘refugees’ that that their streets are clogged with them. Give them more diversity than they ever even imagined was possible. From the Red states, we can watch grimly as the strength of their diversity takes them to heights and possibilities that few people even imagined possible.

    They can free Mona Nelson from prison, and anoint her as their patron saint. And build statues to Saint George of Floyd and Travon and Leo Frank and all their other heroes from Jerry Sandusky to proud rapist of white women, Medgar Evers

    All hail The Great Separation!

  251. @JimDandy

    Jimmy, I oppose it, but favour earlier terminations, as the Lesser Evil. Are you aware of that concept? I rather think you have that type of simple Rightwing ‘mind’ that does not allow for complexity, and you are, of course, a misogynist, like most racists. That women will die from unsafe, septic, abortions is not an hindrance to your simple-mindedness, but a positive.

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  252. @Rurik

    True-the same racist, misogynistic, Rightwing thugs who get all emotional over foetuses are nearly always in favour of US aggression, sanctions, destruction and genocide. And of the Free Market capitalist system that sentences so many living children to poverty and misery, even in the USA. Nassty, vicious, hypocrites.

    • 回复: @IreneAthena
  253. @The Real World

    AND these Rightwing misogynists are often the worst wife and child abusers.

  254. JimDandy 说:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    You “oppose” it, Mumbles? As in, you think it should be illegal? Yes? Hm? You do? You want laws prohibiting elective late terms abortion? 是对的吗?

    As I have written here before, most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion. Do you? Which restrictions against abortion do you favor? As I have also written here, most Americans support legal abortion in the first trimester-ish, but pro-“choice” activists went too far in their championing of abortion completely without limits–even when the baby survives an abortion, they support a woman’s right to let it die. That shocks and horrifies most Americans–abortion rights activists are the outliers, 他们 are the extremists, and that’s how we got here. And how you call me a racist misogynist, you wog bitch?

  255. JimDandy 说:
    @The Real World

    Another aspect, as Derbyshire bravely noted, is that some of them come unhinged that she has control over what happens to his precious sperm that he willingly, and irresponsibly, gave away. He made his choice. If an unintended pregnancy occurs, she gets to make hers.

    Why did you edit out your last sentence?

    “And, um, but, like, if she DOES decide to have the baby? Which would totally be, like, HER choice ONLY? Then the GUY totally should be forced to pay to, like, support that kid for the next couple decades.”

    为您修复了该问题。

    • 回复: @The Real World
  256. @mulga mumblebrain

    You’ve described a 子集 of pro-life people, the neoconservatives, MulgaMumblebrain, and yes, their claim to be “pro-life” is not only inconsistent, but also often, especially among politicians, deeply cynical. Pro-peace, pro-life, pro-free-market and anti-market-manipulators (e.g. anti Central Bank) candidates gave consistently pro-life people a good alternative, but the neocons saw to it that they didn’t get far.

    It might be instructive to consider the make-up of the group of people in opposition to C19 clot-shots for small children. (Have you seen the nasty, nasty, nasty Sesame Street publicly-funded puppetry propaganda targeting toddlers?) You’re going to find a lot of overlap with the group of people in opposition to that nonsense also promoting the rights of the unborn.

  257. @JimDandy

    You’re one of the angry ones I wrote about. Looking to control and punish.

    So, which is it? The nasty Mom or you’re unsuccessful with women? Both? Yeah, probably. Go deal with your own issues and stop projecting them onto others.

    • 回复: @JimDandy
  258. JimDandy 说:
    @The Real World

    Translation: you have no argument, just an emotionalist position that women are entitled to abortion with ANY limits.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有John Derbyshire的评论