When The Government Plays God: The Slippery Slope From Abortions To Executions
When The Government Plays God: The Slippery Slope From Abortions To Executions https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary... https://doi.org/10.1108/01443339910788712 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html “Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the ‘right’ of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the ‘property rights’ of slave masters in their slaves.” - Ron Paul The government wants to play god. It wants the power to decide who lives or dies and whose rights are worthy of protection. Delve beneath the rhetoric and spin that have turned abortion into a politicized, polarized and propagandized frontline in the culture wars, and you will find a greater menace at work. Abortion may be front and center in the power struggle between the Left and the Right over who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, sexual freedom, the rights of the unborn, and property interests in one’s body, but there’s so much more going on here. The Left would suggest that unborn babies do not have constitutional rights and the only right that matters is a woman’s right to privacy in choosing whether or not to abort a pregnancy. The Right, while fixated on saving the lives of unborn babies, seems less concerned about what happens to those lives from birth to death. What few seem willing to address is that in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, the government has come to believe that it not only has the power to determine who is deserving of constitutional rights in the eyes of the law but it also has the authority to deny those rights to an American citizen. This is how the abortion debate—a politicized tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—plays into the police state’s hands by laying the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights. Even if (as a leaked draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization suggests) the Supreme Court overturns its earlier rulings recognizing abortion as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, that will not resolve the larger problem that plagues us today: namely, that all along the spectrum of life—from the unborn child to the aged—the government continues to play fast and loose with the lives of the citizenry. Take a good, hard look at the many ways in which Americans are being denied their rights under the Constitution. American families who have their dogs shot, their homes trashed and their children terrorized or, worse, killed by errant SWAT team raids in the middle of the night are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Disabled individuals who are being strip searched, handcuffed, arrested and “diagnosed” by police as dangerous or mentally unstable merely because they stutter and walk unevenly are being denied their rights under the Constitution. School-aged children as young as 4-years-old who are leg shackled, handcuffed and strip searched for violating school zero tolerance policies by chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and playing an imaginary game of cops and robbers, or engaging in childish behavior such as crying or jumping are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Unarmed citizens who are tasered or shot by police for daring to hesitate, stutter, move a muscle, flee or disagree in any way with a police order are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Likewise, Americans—young and old alike—who are shot by police because they pointed a garden hose at a police officer, reached for their registration in their glove box, relied upon a cane to steady themselves, or were seen playing with air rifles or BB guns are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Female motorists who are unlucky enough to be pulled over for a questionable traffic infraction only to be subjected by police to cavity searches by the side of the road are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Male pedestrians and motorists alike who are being subjected to roadside strip searches and rectal probes by police based largely on the color of their skin are being denied their rights under the Constitution. American citizens subjected to government surveillance whereby their phone calls are being listened in on, their mail and text messages read, their movements tracked and their transactions monitored are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Homeowners who are being fined and arrested for raising chickens in their backyard, allowing the grass in their front yards to grow too long, and holding Bible studies in their homes are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Decorated military veterans who are being arrested for criticizing the government on social media such as Facebook are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Homeless individuals who are being harassed, arrested and run out of towns by laws that criminalize homelessness are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Individuals whose DNA has been forcibly collected and entered into federal and state law enforcement databases whether or not they have been convicted of any crime are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Drivers whose license plates are being scanned, uploaded to a police database and used to map their movements, whether or not they are suspected of any crime, are being denied their rights under the Constitution. The same goes for drivers who are being ticketed for running afoul of red light cameras without any real opportunity to defend themselves against such a charge are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Protesters and activists who are being labeled domestic terrorists and extremists and accused of hate crimes for speaking freely are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Likewise, American citizens who being targeted for assassination by drone strikes abroad without having been charged, tried and convicted of treason are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Hard-working Americans whose bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash are seized by police (operating according to asset forfeiture schemes that provide profit incentives for highway robbery) are being denied their rights under the Constitution. So, what is the common denominator here? These are all American citizens—endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights that no person or government can take away from them, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and they are all being oppressed in one way or another by a government that has grown drunk on power, money and its own authority. If the government—be it the President, Congress, the courts or any federal, state or local agent or agency—can decide that any person has no rights, then that person becomes less than a citizen, less than human, less than deserving of respect, dignity, civility and bodily integrity. He or she becomes an “it,” a faceless number that can be tallied and tracked, a quantifiable mass of cells that can be discarded without conscience, an expendable cost that can be written off without a second thought, or an animal that can be bought, sold, branded, chained, caged, bred, neutered and euthanized at will. It’s a slippery slope that justifies all manner of violations in the name of national security, the interest of the state and the so-called greater good. Yet those who founded this country believed that what we conceive of as our rights were given to us by God—we are created equal, according to the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence—and that government cannot create, nor can it extinguish our God-given rights. To do so would be to anoint the government with god-like powers and elevate it above the citizenry. Unfortunately, we have been dancing with this particular devil for quite some time now. If we continue to wait for the government to restore our freedoms, respect our rights, rein in its abuses and restrain its agents from riding roughshod over our lives, our liberty and our happiness, then we will be waiting forever. Already, the politicos are beating the war drums to herald the next phase of the abortion wars. President Biden wants voters to elect more pro-abortion rights officials to ensure that “a woman’s right to choose is fundamental.” The Senate plans to vote to codify the right to an abortion into federal law. Chief Justice John G. Roberts is opening an investigation into how the Supreme Court’s draft abortion ruling was leaked. And polling indicates that the majority of the American people want abortion to remain legal. Like clockwork, we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of yet another political circus that could get scary, ugly and overwhelming really fast. Before you get too distracted by this conveniently timed diversion that has everyone forgetting about spiking gas prices, inflation, housing shortages, and warring empires, remind yourself that no matter how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs, it will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical and scientific minefields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity. Humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being. As such, we haven’t even begun to wrap our heads around how present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, and abortion play into future discussions about singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive and unavoidable government technologies. Yet here is what I know. Life is an inalienable right. By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights. If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection. There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others, but there is no hierarchy of freedoms. All freedoms hang together. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we must never stop working to protect life, preserve our freedoms and maintain some semblance of our humanity. Freedom cannot be a piece-meal venture.
Women are free citizens or they are slaves. Roe said they were citizens. Now they will be slaves again. A clump of cells is not a person, let alone a citizen. Even a mostly formed baby is not a person or citizen. There is no memory, no cognition. That it will become a baby is not much different than observing that sperm & eggs can become a human. Now, we could create a human out of a stem cell, from the skin perhaps. Are those cells humans? Citizens with rights? Doesn't make any sense. sdw On 5/11/22 9:49 PM, grarpamp wrote:
When The Government Plays God: The Slippery Slope From Abortions To Executions
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary... https://doi.org/10.1108/01443339910788712 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
“Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the ‘right’ of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the ‘property rights’ of slave masters in their slaves.”
- Ron Paul
The government wants to play god.
It wants the power to decide who lives or dies and whose rights are worthy of protection.
Delve beneath the rhetoric and spin that have turned abortion into a politicized, polarized and propagandized frontline in the culture wars, and you will find a greater menace at work.
Abortion may be front and center in the power struggle between the Left and the Right over who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, sexual freedom, the rights of the unborn, and property interests in one’s body, but there’s so much more going on here.
The Left would suggest that unborn babies do not have constitutional rights and the only right that matters is a woman’s right to privacy in choosing whether or not to abort a pregnancy. The Right, while fixated on saving the lives of unborn babies, seems less concerned about what happens to those lives from birth to death.
What few seem willing to address is that in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, the government has come to believe that it not only has the power to determine who is deserving of constitutional rights in the eyes of the law but it also has the authority to deny those rights to an American citizen.
This is how the abortion debate—a politicized tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—plays into the police state’s hands by laying the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights.
Even if (as a leaked draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization suggests) the Supreme Court overturns its earlier rulings recognizing abortion as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, that will not resolve the larger problem that plagues us today: namely, that all along the spectrum of life—from the unborn child to the aged—the government continues to play fast and loose with the lives of the citizenry.
Take a good, hard look at the many ways in which Americans are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
American families who have their dogs shot, their homes trashed and their children terrorized or, worse, killed by errant SWAT team raids in the middle of the night are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Disabled individuals who are being strip searched, handcuffed, arrested and “diagnosed” by police as dangerous or mentally unstable merely because they stutter and walk unevenly are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
School-aged children as young as 4-years-old who are leg shackled, handcuffed and strip searched for violating school zero tolerance policies by chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and playing an imaginary game of cops and robbers, or engaging in childish behavior such as crying or jumping are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Unarmed citizens who are tasered or shot by police for daring to hesitate, stutter, move a muscle, flee or disagree in any way with a police order are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Likewise, Americans—young and old alike—who are shot by police because they pointed a garden hose at a police officer, reached for their registration in their glove box, relied upon a cane to steady themselves, or were seen playing with air rifles or BB guns are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Female motorists who are unlucky enough to be pulled over for a questionable traffic infraction only to be subjected by police to cavity searches by the side of the road are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Male pedestrians and motorists alike who are being subjected to roadside strip searches and rectal probes by police based largely on the color of their skin are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
American citizens subjected to government surveillance whereby their phone calls are being listened in on, their mail and text messages read, their movements tracked and their transactions monitored are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Homeowners who are being fined and arrested for raising chickens in their backyard, allowing the grass in their front yards to grow too long, and holding Bible studies in their homes are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Decorated military veterans who are being arrested for criticizing the government on social media such as Facebook are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Homeless individuals who are being harassed, arrested and run out of towns by laws that criminalize homelessness are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Individuals whose DNA has been forcibly collected and entered into federal and state law enforcement databases whether or not they have been convicted of any crime are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Drivers whose license plates are being scanned, uploaded to a police database and used to map their movements, whether or not they are suspected of any crime, are being denied their rights under the Constitution. The same goes for drivers who are being ticketed for running afoul of red light cameras without any real opportunity to defend themselves against such a charge are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Protesters and activists who are being labeled domestic terrorists and extremists and accused of hate crimes for speaking freely are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Likewise, American citizens who being targeted for assassination by drone strikes abroad without having been charged, tried and convicted of treason are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Hard-working Americans whose bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash are seized by police (operating according to asset forfeiture schemes that provide profit incentives for highway robbery) are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
So, what is the common denominator here?
These are all American citizens—endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights that no person or government can take away from them, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and they are all being oppressed in one way or another by a government that has grown drunk on power, money and its own authority.
If the government—be it the President, Congress, the courts or any federal, state or local agent or agency—can decide that any person has no rights, then that person becomes less than a citizen, less than human, less than deserving of respect, dignity, civility and bodily integrity. He or she becomes an “it,” a faceless number that can be tallied and tracked, a quantifiable mass of cells that can be discarded without conscience, an expendable cost that can be written off without a second thought, or an animal that can be bought, sold, branded, chained, caged, bred, neutered and euthanized at will.
It’s a slippery slope that justifies all manner of violations in the name of national security, the interest of the state and the so-called greater good.
Yet those who founded this country believed that what we conceive of as our rights were given to us by God—we are created equal, according to the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence—and that government cannot create, nor can it extinguish our God-given rights. To do so would be to anoint the government with god-like powers and elevate it above the citizenry.
Unfortunately, we have been dancing with this particular devil for quite some time now.
If we continue to wait for the government to restore our freedoms, respect our rights, rein in its abuses and restrain its agents from riding roughshod over our lives, our liberty and our happiness, then we will be waiting forever.
Already, the politicos are beating the war drums to herald the next phase of the abortion wars.
President Biden wants voters to elect more pro-abortion rights officials to ensure that “a woman’s right to choose is fundamental.” The Senate plans to vote to codify the right to an abortion into federal law. Chief Justice John G. Roberts is opening an investigation into how the Supreme Court’s draft abortion ruling was leaked. And polling indicates that the majority of the American people want abortion to remain legal.
Like clockwork, we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of yet another political circus that could get scary, ugly and overwhelming really fast.
Before you get too distracted by this conveniently timed diversion that has everyone forgetting about spiking gas prices, inflation, housing shortages, and warring empires, remind yourself that no matter how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs, it will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical and scientific minefields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity.
Humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being. As such, we haven’t even begun to wrap our heads around how present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, and abortion play into future discussions about singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive and unavoidable government technologies.
Yet here is what I know.
Life is an inalienable right.
By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights.
If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection.
There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others, but there is no hierarchy of freedoms.
All freedoms hang together.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we must never stop working to protect life, preserve our freedoms and maintain some semblance of our humanity.
Freedom cannot be a piece-meal venture. --
*Stephen D. Williams* Founder: VolksDroid, Blue Scholar Foundation 650-450-8649 <tel:650-450-8649> | fax:703-995-0407 <fax:> | sdw@lg.net <mailto:sdw@lig.net> | https://VolksDroid.org <https://VolksDroid.org> | https://BlueScholar.org <https://BlueScholar.org> | https://sdw.st/in
On Wed, 11 May 2022 22:03:43 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Women are free citizens or they are slaves. Roe said they were citizens. Now they will be slaves again.
LMAO. The US is a cesspool full of subjects. There are no 'citizens' there. Now we can have a non-argument between a trumpofascist like grancrap and a 'progressive' CIA nazi like williams. You're right, fetuses have no rights. But why would a piece of fascist shit like you pretend that he cares about rights? You don't.
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:25 AM From: punk <punks@tfwno.gf> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: When The Government Plays God: The Slippery Slope From Abortions To Executions
Now we can have a non-argument between a trumpofascist like grancrap and a 'progressive' CIA nazi like williams.
You're right, fetuses have no rights. But why would a piece of fascist shit like you pretend that he cares about rights? You don't.
ohhh, Rapelbaum defender.what about you? you're probably a guy who likes to get dick in your ass. He must have fucked you. You still haven't forgotten
On Thu, May 12, 2022, 1:04 AM Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
Women are free citizens or they are slaves. Roe said they were citizens. Now they will be slaves again.
A clump of cells is not a person, let alone a citizen. Even a mostly formed baby is not a person or citizen. There is no memory, no cognition. That it will become a baby is not much different than observing that sperm & eggs can become a human. Now, we could create a human out of a stem cell, from the skin perhaps. Are those cells humans? Citizens with rights? Doesn't make any sense.
sdw
It used to be that feeding trolls could give you spam. Nowadays feeding trolls can give you life destroying political manipulation. Be careful ! But thanks for adding a more rational viewpoint.
On 5/11/22 9:49 PM, grarpamp wrote:
When The Government Plays God: The Slippery Slope From Abortions To Executions https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary...
“Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the ‘right’ of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the ‘property rights’ of slave masters in their slaves.”
- Ron Paul
The government wants to play god.
It wants the power to decide who lives or dies and whose rights are worthy of protection.
Delve beneath the rhetoric and spin that have turned abortion into a politicized, polarized and propagandized frontline in the culture wars, and you will find a greater menace at work.
Abortion may be front and center in the power struggle between the Left and the Right over who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, sexual freedom, the rights of the unborn, and property interests in one’s body, but there’s so much more going on here.
The Left would suggest that unborn babies do not have constitutional rights and the only right that matters is a woman’s right to privacy in choosing whether or not to abort a pregnancy. The Right, while fixated on saving the lives of unborn babies, seems less concerned about what happens to those lives from birth to death.
What few seem willing to address is that in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, the government has come to believe that it not only has the power to determine who is deserving of constitutional rights in the eyes of the law but it also has the authority to deny those rights to an American citizen.
This is how the abortion debate—a politicized tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—plays into the police state’s hands by laying the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights.
Even if (as a leaked draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization suggests) the Supreme Court overturns its earlier rulings recognizing abortion as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, that will not resolve the larger problem that plagues us today: namely, that all along the spectrum of life—from the unborn child to the aged—the government continues to play fast and loose with the lives of the citizenry.
Take a good, hard look at the many ways in which Americans are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
American families who have their dogs shot, their homes trashed and their children terrorized or, worse, killed by errant SWAT team raids in the middle of the night are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Disabled individuals who are being strip searched, handcuffed, arrested and “diagnosed” by police as dangerous or mentally unstable merely because they stutter and walk unevenly are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
School-aged children as young as 4-years-old who are leg shackled, handcuffed and strip searched for violating school zero tolerance policies by chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and playing an imaginary game of cops and robbers, or engaging in childish behavior such as crying or jumping are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Unarmed citizens who are tasered or shot by police for daring to hesitate, stutter, move a muscle, flee or disagree in any way with a police order are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Likewise, Americans—young and old alike—who are shot by police because they pointed a garden hose at a police officer, reached for their registration in their glove box, relied upon a cane to steady themselves, or were seen playing with air rifles or BB guns are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Female motorists who are unlucky enough to be pulled over for a questionable traffic infraction only to be subjected by police to cavity searches by the side of the road are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Male pedestrians and motorists alike who are being subjected to roadside strip searches and rectal probes by police based largely on the color of their skin are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
American citizens subjected to government surveillance whereby their phone calls are being listened in on, their mail and text messages read, their movements tracked and their transactions monitored are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Homeowners who are being fined and arrested for raising chickens in their backyard, allowing the grass in their front yards to grow too long, and holding Bible studies in their homes are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Decorated military veterans who are being arrested for criticizing the government on social media such as Facebook are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Homeless individuals who are being harassed, arrested and run out of towns by laws that criminalize homelessness are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Individuals whose DNA has been forcibly collected and entered into federal and state law enforcement databases whether or not they have been convicted of any crime are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Drivers whose license plates are being scanned, uploaded to a police database and used to map their movements, whether or not they are suspected of any crime, are being denied their rights under the Constitution. The same goes for drivers who are being ticketed for running afoul of red light cameras without any real opportunity to defend themselves against such a charge are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Protesters and activists who are being labeled domestic terrorists and extremists and accused of hate crimes for speaking freely are being denied their rights under the Constitution. Likewise, American citizens who being targeted for assassination by drone strikes abroad without having been charged, tried and convicted of treason are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
Hard-working Americans whose bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash are seized by police (operating according to asset forfeiture schemes that provide profit incentives for highway robbery) are being denied their rights under the Constitution.
So, what is the common denominator here?
These are all American citizens—endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights that no person or government can take away from them, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and they are all being oppressed in one way or another by a government that has grown drunk on power, money and its own authority.
If the government—be it the President, Congress, the courts or any federal, state or local agent or agency—can decide that any person has no rights, then that person becomes less than a citizen, less than human, less than deserving of respect, dignity, civility and bodily integrity. He or she becomes an “it,” a faceless number that can be tallied and tracked, a quantifiable mass of cells that can be discarded without conscience, an expendable cost that can be written off without a second thought, or an animal that can be bought, sold, branded, chained, caged, bred, neutered and euthanized at will.
It’s a slippery slope that justifies all manner of violations in the name of national security, the interest of the state and the so-called greater good.
Yet those who founded this country believed that what we conceive of as our rights were given to us by God—we are created equal, according to the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence—and that government cannot create, nor can it extinguish our God-given rights. To do so would be to anoint the government with god-like powers and elevate it above the citizenry.
Unfortunately, we have been dancing with this particular devil for quite some time now.
If we continue to wait for the government to restore our freedoms, respect our rights, rein in its abuses and restrain its agents from riding roughshod over our lives, our liberty and our happiness, then we will be waiting forever.
Already, the politicos are beating the war drums to herald the next phase of the abortion wars.
President Biden wants voters to elect more pro-abortion rights officials to ensure that “a woman’s right to choose is fundamental.” The Senate plans to vote to codify the right to an abortion into federal law. Chief Justice John G. Roberts is opening an investigation into how the Supreme Court’s draft abortion ruling was leaked. And polling indicates that the majority of the American people want abortion to remain legal.
Like clockwork, we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of yet another political circus that could get scary, ugly and overwhelming really fast.
Before you get too distracted by this conveniently timed diversion that has everyone forgetting about spiking gas prices, inflation, housing shortages, and warring empires, remind yourself that no matter how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs, it will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical and scientific minefields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity.
Humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being. As such, we haven’t even begun to wrap our heads around how present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, and abortion play into future discussions about singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive and unavoidable government technologies.
Yet here is what I know.
Life is an inalienable right.
By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights.
If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection.
There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others, but there is no hierarchy of freedoms.
All freedoms hang together.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we must never stop working to protect life, preserve our freedoms and maintain some semblance of our humanity.
Freedom cannot be a piece-meal venture.
--
*Stephen D. Williams* Founder: VolksDroid, Blue Scholar Foundation 650-450-8649 | fax:703-995-0407 | sdw@lg.net <sdw@lig.net> | https://VolksDroid.org | https://BlueScholar.org | https://sdw.st/in
As someone historically exposed to the left wing, I might propose things like: fetuses get rights if animals get rights. Of course rape culture changes would make more sense, something to provide and give justice for single mothers and victims of domestic violence, to excess of their burden or such. Curious what the right wing would think of the fetus / animal comparison. But this roevwade stuff is so controversial, considering if it should be a state level issue, and harassing opposing groups should not be okay. Doesn't make sense to have national laws when there is strong disagreement. How do we help the people who agree with eachother, live their cultures without conflict?
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
fetuses get rights if animals get rights
So your proposed solution to the killing unborn humans is to reduce the dignity of all humans to slaughterable animals?
How do we help the people who agree with eachother, live their cultures without conflict?
You separate them into things called Nation-States. -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
hi Izaac On Fri, May 13, 2022, 9:18 AM Izaac <izaac@setec.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
fetuses get rights if animals get rights
So your proposed solution to the killing unborn humans is to reduce the dignity of all humans to slaughterable animals?
No! Does what I say imply this to you? It seemed like the two propositions were a) equally silly b) desired by large groups _get_ rights. not _take from_. _gain_.
How do we help the people who agree with eachother, live their cultures
without conflict?
You separate them into things called Nation-States.
In the USA we have states inside the nation, although I agree it would work for secession to do this as well.
-- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 05:46:21PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
fetuses get rights if animals get rights
So your proposed solution to the killing unborn humans is to reduce the dignity of all humans to slaughterable animals?
No! Does what I say imply this to you?
It certainly does. Because what you say only makes sense if fetuses have no rights and animals have some rights. Only in that context can a nebulous someone let a fetus "get" the rights of an animal. (Which are what, incidentally?) Now, counter that with the concepts of rights as established in the United States. Therein, the rights of Men are endowed by the Creator and animals are a resource to be managed as Men see fit. In such a context, a Man is not "elevated" to the position of a resource. The start higher and are reduced. The question -- in a very real, legal sense -- becomes the determination as to when creation occurs. Conception or birth? Which involves the interesting philosophical discussion, "Who is the creator?" I think it ought to go without argument that the one described by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence is the Divine Creator. But even the most atheistic secular humanist cannot escape the act of creation being the combined activities of a man and woman. This points directly at conception -- since birth is a consequence of that act and a woman cannot clone herself. Now if you want to leave the United States for a place whose laws are structured around the concept that the monarch (or heaven forbid a state) owns the person as property and conveys rights at their discretion, you are welcome to do so. But here in America, we shot an awful lot of Englishmen and other Americans to establish the novel system which I describe. And will undoubtedly shoot an awful lot of anyone else that tries to revert it to one of persons as animal property. -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:32:50 -0400 Izaac <izaac@setec.org> wrote:
Now, counter that with the concepts of rights as established in the United States.
WHOA - infinite self parody. Shocking.
Therein, the rights of Men are endowed by the Creator
yeah, can't make this shit up. Ok, so here's reality : 'rights' in the US jewnazi cesspool means : civil asset forfeiture, plea 'bargaining' (extortion), global surveillance-police state, out-of-control medical fascism including incarceration of the whole population, highest 'ordinary' incarceration rate on the planet, jewnazi empire that invaded the whole world...and more! So what we have here is yet another, righ-wing, jewnazi, more than likely christian nutcase babbling about the non existent, 'god-given' 'rights' of fetuses. How original.
On 5/19/22, Izaac <izaac@setec.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 05:46:21PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
fetuses get rights if animals get rights
So your proposed solution to the killing unborn humans is to reduce the dignity of all humans to slaughterable animals?
No! Does what I say imply this to you?
It certainly does. Because what you say only makes sense if fetuses have no rights and animals have some rights. Only in that context can a nebulous someone let a fetus "get" the rights of an animal. (Which are what, incidentally?)
Now, counter that with the concepts of rights as established in the United States. Therein, the rights of Men are endowed by the Creator and animals are a resource to be managed as Men see fit. In such a context, a Man is not "elevated" to the position of a resource. The start higher and are reduced.
I've heard one or two others describe this. Is it from the Bible? I see rights as something people disagree on, that laws dictate, etc. I'd consider that a fetus has a right to have a chance to be born, and that animals have a right to live a reasonable animal-life. I wouldn't let a fetus manage my herd, but if my religion dictate to, then that's important. I'd personally derive those rights logically: if you didn't let fetuses get born, there would no longer be people; if you didn't let animals live, there would not longer be meat. You could cast these in terms of human's managing resources, too. Humans have a right to have animals and children in their world.
The question -- in a very real, legal sense -- becomes the determination as to when creation occurs. Conception or birth? Which involves the interesting philosophical discussion, "Who is the creator?"
Everything is created slowly. Nothing is instant.
I think it ought to go without argument that the one described by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence is the Divine Creator. But even the most atheistic secular humanist cannot escape the act of creation being the combined activities of a man and woman. This points directly at conception -- since birth is a consequence of that act and a woman cannot clone herself.
Now if you want to leave the United States for a place whose laws are structured around the concept that the monarch (or heaven forbid a state) owns the person as property and conveys rights at their discretion, you are welcome to do so. But here in America, we shot an awful lot of Englishmen and other Americans to establish the novel system which I describe. And will undoubtedly shoot an awful lot of anyone else that tries to revert it to one of persons as animal property.
Do you cast the united states as having a nonsecular government? I see the government as secular; this is how I was taught to see it in grade school ('separation of church and state'). Your view that the government is nonsecular is new information for me.
izaac to kind of simplify things i wasn't raised with religion, but i was always shocked that people considered eggs and sperm to be something you could waste. it's guttural, the connection between one's morals and choices, and how these potential living beings can be lost. i blame our culture pushing us into education programs rather than having us marry in adolescence. kids want to marry in adolescence. it's unnatural to prevent this. but we have a culture where, in order to survive, you need to learn weird unnatural jobs that involve suppressing yourself in every way for the rest of your life. so it makes sense, in some way.
On Fri, 13 May 2022 06:14:27 -0400 "Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
As someone historically exposed to the left wing, I might propose things like: fetuses get rights if animals get rights.
that has nothing to do with the 'left' - that's just US fascism. And of course you are a US fascist.
Of course rape culture
LMAO
Hypocrites can't have it both ways... "Devout" Catholic Nancy Pelosi Banned From Receiving Holy Communion Over Abortion Support https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-archbishop-pelosi-communion-a... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-says-abortion-is-murder-us-bishops... https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55003/abortion-catechism-of-the-... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been barred by the Catholic church from receiving Holy Communion due to her support for abortion, which the church considers murder. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone wrote in a Friday letter to Pelosi that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests are to refuse to perform it if she does. "A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'" reads the letter. The church has been clear on abortion for a long time. "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion," says the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law," it continues, calling the medical procedure and infanticide "abominable crimes." As Fox News notes; liberal Catholic politicians have consistently attempted to try and align their Catholic beliefs with their support of abortion rights. Then New York Gov. Mario Cuomo famously declared himself personally opposed to abortion in 1984, but said he could not impose that view on the country. But since then, Democrats such as Pelosi have been more full throated in their support of pro-abortion policies. President Biden, also a Catholic, had once supported the Hyde Amendment -- which prevented U.S. funding going to pay for abortions abroad. He flipped on that amendment when he ran for president in 2020, and recently described "a woman’s right to choose" as "fundamental." Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that "should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." He says that since that time, she has not done so. -Fox News Pelosi has long tried to present herself as both a "devout" Catholic, while also fully supporting a practice that the church considers a grave evil. In 2008, Pelosi tap-danced around the issue - claiming that "as a devout, practicing Catholic," the Church has "not been able to make that definition" of when life begins. Yet, the Catechism clearly says "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception."
Most Dangerous, Hampering, and Politicizing Woman Pelosi, Soon to Beg for Corrupt Indulgence to Keep Herself Out Of Hell... "Very Dangerous": Pelosi Responds For The First Time Since Being Banned From Communion https://www.theepochtimes.com/pelosi-responds-for-the-first-time-since-being... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on May 24 reacted for the first time to being banned from communion in San Francisco, where she lives. The decision “is very dangerous,” Pelosi said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) speaks in Washington on May 17, 2022. (Julia Nikhinson/Reuters) San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Joseph Cordileone recently announced that he was banning Pelosi because of her continued support for abortion despite “numerous attempts” to convince her of “the grave evil she is perpetrating.” Cordileone said he held off on the move for years while speaking with Pelosi but was compelled to act after the lawmaker’s position on abortion became “more extreme.” He also noted she has said that her Catholic faith motivates her support for abortion, which directly opposes Pope Francis and the Catholic teachings. “Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable,” the Vatican said in a communication to questioners in 2009, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” Pelosi will not receive communion in San Francisco until she “publicly repudiate[s] her support for abortion ‘rights’ and confess[es] and receive[s] absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of penance,” Cordileone said. Pelosi, speaking on Tuesday, attacked Cordileone directly by describing him as being “against LGBTQ rights” and questioning why he has not barred people who support the death penalty from taking communion. “I wonder about death penalty, which I am opposed to. So is the church, but they take no action against people who may not share their view,” she said. Pelosi reportedly received communion at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Georgetown over the weekend following Cordileone’s announcement. The Archdiocese of Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that Archbishop Wilton Gregory will not ban Pelosi from communion. “The actions of Archbishop Cordileone are his decision to make in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Cardinal Gregory has not instructed the priests of The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington to refuse communion to anyone,” the spokesperson said. Other bishops, including Bishop Robert Vasa of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, have said they support Cordileone’s decision. “All politicians who promote abortion should not receive holy communion until they have repented, repaired scandal, and been reconciled to Christ and the church,” Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, said in a statement. Pelosi on Tuesday also was asked about the Women’s Health Protection Act, which she helped pass the House of Representatives before a bipartisan majority of senators blocked it. Pelosi falsely said the bill did not expand access to abortion, alleging it would just “enshrine Roe v. Wade into the law.” “I think it’s very insulting to women to have their ability to make their own decision hampered by politics,” she said. “This should never have been politicized.”
participants (7)
-
grarpamp -
Izaac -
Karl Semich -
punk -
Revevilgod God -
Stephen D. Williams -
Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many