Justice for the Unborn: A Great Day in America
•
by Ronald Gipper Reagan
Today was a day that many have long hoped and prayed for, the reversal of one of the most poorly decided, unconstitutional decisions in the history of the United States. There has been such a culture of death created in this country and around the world, and many lives have been wrongfully extinguished under the supposed guise of "choice." It was a day that one of my political heroes, President Ronald Reagan, had also longed to see.
It sickens me to see the sort of propaganda appearing in the media about this, with their warped perspective of the situation. Your choice ends when it involves eliminating another human life. Today was not some dark day. It was one of the greatest days in the history of this country. It should be celebrated, and it should inspire us to re-double our efforts, and soldier on! This is a great start, but we still need to fight for a federal ban, and there are many nations around the world where unborn children also need to be saved. It is a huge victory for life, but the work is far from over. For those who don't know the specifics, this ruling by our court allows us to now enact laws on this subject, but it does not stop it in all states, and will not until we are able to take national action.
There are true pro-abortion extremists out there who will stop at nothing to try to codify abortion protections in individual states, and even further, codify it in federal law. These people if they cannot be reached or shown the light, are enemies of humanity itself. We have major US companies that are actually going to pay money for their employees to engage in horrific acts. How about these companies actually stand up for what's right instead? And it's most certainly not that.
There are countries which actually force you through your tax dollars to pay for other people to kill their own mistakes, and they call this "healthcare". I thought personal responsibility was supposed to matter, but it appears not so much in many places. I have even seen articles where there is concern that Ukrainian refugees in Poland will have difficulty obtaining abortions, as if what these poor people need is even more death? This is one of the few "civilized" nations which protects human life. We need more of those, not less.
I will never understand the mindset of people who defend this. Abortion is plain and simple, evil. The founding fathers of our nation would surely be appalled at how this imaginary right was created by actual radicals in our country. The phrase "all lives matter" is perfect for this situation. Everyone should be treated with compassion and empathy, whether they are unborn or born. The belief in the protection of life is one of my most sacred and uncompromising principles, and I will never relent on that.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Any laws like that must be voted ONLY by women wich are already moms. Any reasonal man MUST abtain not only to cast a vote but even to have a public position on the matter.
Basically that means that menkind can't enter with their boots between a woman and his unborn baby, divided them into two antagonistic parts. It's not a political, medical or church business. This is only God job.
Actually i want have choice too, because when She want a baby, i have nothing to talk, but when i want, i should be able to choose too! It's inequality, because at the end it will change both lives - her and mine.
HOES MAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMooGEw6vTc
Then you find a women who want a baby and problem solved. If you don't want baby with one women then choose one who don't want the offspring. Not so difficult
God made us inequal. Don't fight against God, he didn't gave us equality.
God does not made erep, leave it now!
And still, you can say a lot about that but don't make a law of it. Don't try to force your neibour wife to obey your opinions.
Do you think for a husband to beat his wife in order to convice her to have a baby (or to abort) is barbaric?? Try to convice her with a bunch of other men (dressed in policemans) in her livingroom threatening to throw her in jail.
Actually women shouldn't have voting rights at all, because unlike men they won't be effectively coerced into military service by the draft (if there ever even was a precedent, a legal basis forcing them to do so, then we would immediately have a baby-boom of unheard of proportions, with them getting pregnant left and right, including all those anti-natalist hedonists thinking abortion is a form of contraception).
Right now they massively vote pro big government, leftard policies and bear no direct responsibility when their stupid decisions will eventually cause wars, in event of which it will still only be men who will be kidnapped, enslaved and killed through involuntary military draft.
[removed]
Women shouldn't have voting rights. Tell me you're a sad, pathetic clueless clown without telling me you're a sad, pathetic clueless clown
Comment was too long for PimpDollaz and his 10-seconds attention span. Tell me you're a sad, pathetic clueless NPC who only reads headlines without telling me you're a sad, pathetic, clueless NPC.
You're an idiot, I'm sorry I characterized you like that, but right now I can't think of anything smarter. 🙂 The reason for such an epithet is that you can't put all people in the same basket. To clarify, not all fingers on the hand are the same, nor are men or women.
@anon: That's because your comment is so utterly garbage and gibberish it's not worth the time. Only in your little mind does it sound coherent. You don't even start to have a semblance of any point, child. You don't even have enough brainpower to resist copypasta of my comment. Such brilliance indeed from you
Women's voting right is in the American constitution. If women should not vote because they vote left and can't be conscripted, you could say directly leftists and people who avoid conscription should not vote, because men can do it too. Conscripted army is an outdated thing anyway.
I just say this because I realized RGR voted your comment. There is difference between American conservativism and European far right, which is antidemocratic and un-American.
"you could say directly leftists and people who avoid conscription should not vote, because men can do it too."
And then they will rightfully suffer direct consequences of their silly voting, unlike women who will always dodge the draft. As men get weaker and more feminine each generation, their voting patterns change to populist nanny state BS, too, but still women OVERWHELMINGLY, compared to men (it's in their nature), vote those policies which lead us from one crisis to another and with every next crisis general situation is worse and amassed debt, that all countries owe to international mob, grows.
"Conscripted army is an outdated thing anyway."
How long has it been outdated? And what percentage of human history, even modern history, this obsolescence amounts to?
Are wars an outdated thing as well?
@PimpDollaz:
"reeee.... I'm offended, but since I don't have an argument I'll stick to ad hominem"
Obama was an inexplicable warmonger and a leftist, but other wars started by republican Bush were not any less silly. Outside the free world they can't even vote and they are warmongers too.
There is some tendency towards idiocracy but I don't see the connection with political sides or the voting right. For me the right is just as unable to explain itself, as the left. They create as much hostility and tension around themselves, that ultimately can lead to a war, as the left.
I don't think any NATO country will ever be attacked, as long as America is great, and to preserve its greatness, the American values have to remain uncorrupted. This includes the voting right of every people, regardless of gender or belief.
I wasn't talking about voting "right" or "left", let alone Republican/Democrat in case of USA, as those are both sides of the same coin. All those fake wars in the recent terms you refer to are nothing compared to what happens when governments run out of money and can no longer print, Pax Americana still existing or not.
How does women's voting right make any difference if both choices are sides of the same coin? Men hadn't come up with anything else either.
In most countries nowadays you can choose between huge nanny state (so called left) and big nanny state (so called right) and it so happens that women overwhelmingly choose the former.
You would need generations to fix that situation. First you would need educated society (the triad of media, entertainment industry and nationalized education make sure it won't happen), then even with that educated society, which knows very well what reforms need to be introduced, it would still take several terms to vote cynical or ignorant (or both) politicians out of office and actually codify that knowledge into law.
Being realistic I know this situation will not be fixed until it's too late, which has always resulted in atrocities, wars and other forms of reset. Humans (both males and females) parasitically opt to live at expense of others, at the moment mostly at expense of future generations, which they are enslaving, in democracy in particular. Sometimes of course humans (again both males and females) genuinely believe those policies are for the best and sadly female nature in particular (present in weak males, too) affects those choices and consequently destroys civilizations when given power like voting rights.
Is there any precedent for such reset? Because the current huge nanny state is a relative new thing in history, and in my opinion there was no serious reset of it.
Humans like to live at the expense of others, or at the expense of future generations. In dictatorship they cause less trouble because they are deprived of opportunities, but also they have less chance to grow sense of responsiblity. I am not saying there can't be reset in the future, or what humans do isn't dangerous, but as you say there is no way back, only forward. People were given rights, now they have to grow sense of responsibility proportional to their rights and abilities for wrongdoing. If they don't learn that responsibility they didn't do anything meaningful in their life.
There were various forms of nanny state in the history, not always available for every social layer. In case of Roman Empire the bulk of it was centered around their military, which would dispose of any emperor or princeps senatus inconvenient for them (not much of a difference now with demanding mobs). Then the empire dealt with similiar problems USA for instance does now, societal and economical.
And to clarify my previous comment more, in case of USA, since you raised that example, some people who always considered themselves "democrat" (sometimes not even entirely sure what it meant) now, without changing their political stance on anything, find, that "republican" is much closer to their choices, because of how political scene moved. They now come up with terms like "old-school democrat", "conservative democrat" etc.
Elon Musk posted that graph:
http://prntscr.com/57XNX-jjUCFy
Politicians and especially media and lobbyists behind them obviously can affect the political scene, but it still mostly reflects people's choices. Politicians will have to conform to them, otherwise they are voted out. If voters support constructive policies, the entire scene will have to move in that direction. It's the same when voters elect destructive policies.
Eliminating a group which votes the latter from voting pool would therefore be beneficial and then there are arguments to restrict certain groups voting rights (based on convictions - most famous, mental state, receiving benefits or in case of gender - i.a. because of draft).
Also democracy isn't the only alternative to dictatorship. USA was supposed to be a Republic, a Nomocracy.
There is no difference between men and women in mental abilities, there are even enlightened women like Avalokiteshvara. So eliminating them as a group because they tend to support destructive policies can only have practical importance, but in fact it's not practical at all because you can't implement it. If you say to someone you should not vote because you are irresponsible, noone will accept this in the present day society. If you say you have to change your mindset because what you are doing is wrong, your chances are still low but definitely higher.
The American society was built on that people are free and responsible for their lives. A lot of things derived from this, including democracy and the small state. In my opinion this freedom-responsibility dualism has to be emphasized and extended into other aspects of life, because this is an inherently good thing and also practical because the Americans remember it and are more likely to accept.
I was more leftist too, but now I feel the left-wing to be a dead end exactly because their mindset is against the values of freedom and responsibility, I became more opened to right wing ideas. But I still think ideas that are based on we can go back in time, won't work.
"So eliminating them as a group because they tend to support destructive policies"
No, eliminating them from voting pool because they tend to support destructive policies AND will never be drafted. So there is no direct punishment for their support towards destruction. Broke, unemployed men may also support destructive policies, but will still be drafted or in case of rescue missions, women will always get the priority. Women, no matter their situation or "enlightment", will always remain women, which is by the way why they are the new proletariat together with sexual deviants, "coloured" people etc. (I believe excluding eastern Asians as of late). A proletarian could always become rich, a bourgeois, and therefore class enemy, which is why communist revolution nowadays focuses on these three groups. (Of course once revolution succeeds, its precious children will meet the same fate as Old Bolsheviks etc.).
Moreover women in USA and many other countries can now easily become single mothers and marry the state (I mean state, rather than federal government; they voted for it as a group, often supported by weak and ignorant males). Some American figures go as far to even call "nanny state" a "single mom state". Officially quarter, unofficially (also at some point) up to HALF the children in USA is raised by single mothers. Single motherhood is extremely destructive to children compared to having both parents or even compared to single fatherhood. It breeds criminals, addicts, promiscuous women and so on. And as a father in some of those countries you can't even tell your daughter "don't be a slut, you'll end up like Stacey there with 5 kids by 4 different fathers", because she might respond "dad, she makes X,000 $ a month sitting at home on top of food stamps and whatnot, I can never accomplish that with honest work".
There is no incentive to put family and your man first, when you can marry the state instead at the ballot, and so the society is in current state of disrepair, and women? In USA they are now less happy than ever, with every decade since the 60's being worse for them in this regard. In other countries it's the same. At least pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money selling SSRIs.
@anon. You're a broken record with no "argument". I still have yet to see you even make an intelligent point, but continue to show everyone your retrograde misogynist, racist viewpoints. Only in your mind is it a good look. Any normal person would agree that any adult who pays taxes should get a vote and anyone who disagrees with that is intellectually devoid. End of argument
Men have equal say, last time I checked it takes a man and woman to get pregnant so that is the man's baby too
Normally I agree with you. But in that specific matter to get pregnant you need a healthy woman but a man can be drunk, idiot, unhealthy, on drugs, or even dead and still you can have a baby.
By the way, latest news, a woman got pregnant with her husband after 2 years of his death,
Trust me if you're gentile and respectfull in your marriage, you can try to convice her to have (or not) a baby with you, you can fight with her on this matter but she will have the last call. That menans love and respect even if she do otherwise than you wish.
Then by that logic, men should be able to get out of child support. The Supreme Court decision just leaves it up to the state or congress to pass legislation, all it does is says there’s not a constitutional right, which there isn’t. They did the right thing but if you call your elected officials you can go for a different policy. I still disagree and think if anything the dad should have to sign off on it as well or be able to press charges. Most of your points are either extremely rare exceptions or just things that you can’t just kill a baby because you later thought the dad was an idiot or unhealthy. If you do the diggity, you assume all risks.
Supreme Court did right in my opinion. Abortion shouldn't be a constitutional right. We should't help people for abortion but in the same way we should't stop them to abort.
Every situation is different and there is involved a tone of emotions in those decisions and processes.
Nobody should teach a mother what means love for her child!!! It is outragious even to think that somebody who never gave birth to know better this stuff!!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-florida-idUSBREA0R1HS20140128
only women can use abortion, no questions asked, as a form of contraception
Her body, her choice! YES for abortion up to 12 weeks!
The land of the free.
...Except when it comes to what people want to do with their body.
Disgusting.
Leave RL politics out of eRepublic. Spread your hate, bigotry and insanity elsewhere.
Ok, let's focus on the interesting game.
Oh, wait...
"This is a great start, but we still need to fight for a federal ban"
It won't happen. Roe vs Wade reversal is obviously just federal government leaving the legislative to individual states, limiting its role.
"There are true pro-abortion extremists out there who will stop at nothing to try to codify abortion protections in individual states, and even further, codify it in federal law."
Maybe not federal law again, but certainly in most states and then, yes, women will just travel to those to perform abortions. Poland has the same problem with them travelling westwards or even visiting some ships sailing in international waters.
They should rule to cut your gebitald off
My dude, true justice would have you either in prison or making your yearly appearance at a local police station to have your picture taken as a RSO.
[removed]
Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? Are you nuts?
aren't you supposed to be "leaving politics out of erepublik" genius?
[removed]
[removed]
No, you call that Holocaust denial. It’s not comparable in the slightest.
And thats your opinion. You're welcome to have it. Doesn't actually mean anything, but you're welcome to have it.
[removed]
[removed]
Says the Holocaust denier.
[removed]
Comparing the abortion issue to the Holocaust is considered Holocaust denial, because you lessen the remembrance of a unique historical event by utilizing it to further your cause.
Noone with reasonable morals will agree with you on that comparison.
It’s morally, factual and historical wrong.
By insisting on it being right you relativise the Holocaust, which is step one in Holocaust denial.