Do you remember when we did THIS on the weekend? I can only imagine what take the woke would have on this if children did it today. I know what take they have on us.
In Baltimore (by way of reminder)
The population is 68% black/negro
The police department is 68% black/negro
The fire department is 58% black/negro
The children in the school district are 86% black/negro
The school teachers are 72% black/negro
The city council is 90% black/negro
The mayor is black/negro
The chief of police is black/negro
54% of the population is on welfare
And the democrats have convinced the population that whites are the reason that they live in poverty.
To Kill Children or not to Kill Children
We have all learned during the age of plague that “my body my choice” took on a new meaning. Progs used the slogan to justify the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, but don’t want it applied if you decide not to vax.
The modification of Roe v Wade is being battled out in the courts and irrespective of the test that SCOTUS comes up with, it will not be the last that we hear of it.
I thought of leaving this for the Sunday Sermonette, tomorrow, but — no. I’ll trot it out now and you can take up the rant on either side of the argument (or no side) as you are moved.
My appeal here is not a moral one. It is a legal one. The law is completely inconsistent on how it deals with babies, and that needs to be addressed. If you shoot a pregnant woman and kill the mother and the baby, you’re tried for a double homicide. If the mother and her medical professionals kill the baby, progressives laud the behavior as somehow joyful. That’s only one example.
Current law, including truancy laws and child welfare laws, punishes parents who neglect, abuse, underfeeds, beat, or fail to educate their children.
There exists an affirmative duty on parents to protect and rear the child, regardless of the citizenship of the child, nor is there any legal test of capacity or personhood for such things. It is not legal to kill a child who is insane, retarded, or autistic due to mental incapacity. The childrearing duty applies to all children, regardless.
Lawsuits for paternal support do not make payments of father to child dependent marriage or any other covenant or contract by the father agreeing to support and rear the child: the mere fact that the child exists, and is his, is sufficient, in the eyes of a law, to impose a duty to support the child, even for father absent from the home.
There is no requirement that the child is born in wedlock for the father to be bound, in law, by the duty to support and rear him.
The law recognizes a child as being human without any test of citizenship, legitimacy, or capacity.
Actions both civil and criminal can be brought against anyone who negligently or willfully harms or kills a child, including, and this is well established in the law, civil suits against drug companies or against the employers of pregnant women if unsafe treatments or unsafe working conditions was found to cause birth defects, such as blindness or stunted limbs, even if the child was exposed to the chemical or drug before birth.
Given (1) that parents have a duty to protect and rear a child in a safe and diligent fashion, which includes the duty to providing food, shelter, and education, and given (2) that this duty is not dependent on any agreement or consent on the part of the parent, and given (3) that any act of negligence or malice leading to the child’s harm or death are actionable, including acts done to the child while in the womb, therefore (4) the conclusion is inevitable that the parental duty to protect the child must at least be in force when the child is still in the womb.
The duty to rear the child is applied whenever the child is in existence. If the child can be harmed before birth, then the parent is duty-bound to take reasonable steps to forestall such harm; nor does the citizenship, legitimacy, capacity of the child excuse the parent from his duty.
My wife has taught school for 41 years. Her observation has been that a majority of the time when grandparents are raising their grandkids, it’s because they did a lousy job on their own children, and they end up repeating the process. When there are childless couples willing to give a child a good home, that option should be explored. My father the dairy farmer had a saying;
“crazy cows have crazy calves!”
It’s exceptionally difficult to change culture – and I like the way your father put it.
I’ve seen young men’s lives turned around through military service. (sometimes it works, sometimes not) They need a break from culture and the discipline – primarily Marine Corps – gives that to them.
An acquaintance, David Dye, Dye Automotive, Wheatridge CO is a very successful used car dealer now in his 70’s. He credits the Marine Corps for turning his life around from juvenile delinquency. He will share his story with anyone who cares to hear it.
It is a story repeated. Judges used to offer 4 years in prison or 4 years in the Corps to wayward young men.
I could not agree more. I’d consider exceptions for rape or very serious medical conditions, but this leads us to Down Syndrome and how to deal with it. I would let them live, but it’s a personal choice my wife and I made early on. Gratefully, our kids were free from birth defects.
Eugenics is another major rat hole we’ll need to go down in.
And wholesale birth control must be made available to all, to give a whole new meaning to choice.
All I wanted to point out was that the LAW needed to be consistent.
However, as always, your considered opinions are worth discussing too. Readily available birth control including the 72-hour pill should be free and dispensed without stigma. Eugenics is something that the world will have to confront – but at the moment we glorify the basest and most troubling of human sexual behavior. In the US in some states, it’s legal to kill a baby, post-birth, on-demand. How is it not murder?
Moloch demands his just wages, that’s why, and all he demands is “more.” ‘Tis nothing but a cost of living adjustment, the closing of a loophole.
I hear a lot of talk about so-called “viability.” Is bullshit, and nothing less. A fetus is no more capable of self-sustainment at 15 weeks or whatever number looks pretty to them what make the laws than at, say, three years old (30 years old for some people). Is a made-up number. Life begins at conception. If the fetus wasn’t alive before whatever arbitrary number, it wouldn’t be growing. Period.
i’m a fence rider. i believe it is wrong, but i have been a party to it in my ignorant youth and for that my penance has been to never have kids of my own. that said, can you imagine 65 plus million more unwanted/un-cared-for/uneducated, plus their millions of offspring? as a practical matter we have to do it to survive, otherwise they(of any race) breed us into extinction.
I don’t follow that argument, because it assumes that 1.) People would continue to have pregnancies at the same rate they do right now if they were all born. 2.) Their children would do the exact same thing.
I can assure you, having children is one of the greatest deterrent to having more children. For one, the number of abortions that women are pressured into, because it makes the problem go away for their lover – if the evidence is not hushed up and thrown away, but walking, talking, and calling him papa even though he’s the boss, or already married to someone else… that has a chilling effect on repeated indiscretions, compared to constantly getting away with it with almost no repercussions.
For another, as many a young couple has found out, babies do not accommodate a partying lifestyle. It becomes extremely difficult to be out doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places well after midnight if someone needs fed and their nappy changed well after babysitters go to bed.
As well, many a single mother has reported a sudden dearth in the dating market – not just because the gents see she has a kid, but because she suddenly has to evaluate them on “do I trust them around / with my kid? Would they be a good father?” instead of simply their sexiness… and so many young males who would make the cut on the latter fail severely at the former. Responsibility and good judgement comes late and unwanted to many people, but when they have consequences, it does come.
And that, as well, generally means many single mothers have a single child. Some have two or three, but at the sheer cost of children, that’s quickly self-limiting. (Note, if you have more than three kids, you have to buy a van just to meet the carseat requirements. There are a lot of hidden costs like that for kids in America, which is part of why many families top out at two.)
Will this stop all humans from having unwanted kids, and rearing unwanted children in turn? Never has before in the history of mankind, and it won’t stop ’em now. But if you remove the ease of killing kids before they’re born, you also remove the ease of the predators and the profligate doing what they will with an assurance that they can avoid the consequences.
What about fixing the law first? You can define “fix” as you will but it should be consistent. The morality of taking life has always been a slippery slope with the government imposing its will on humanity.
Societies adapt to changes. Removing the easily obtained abortion option may lead to a greater demand for personal responsibility. Enduring the change could be ponderous, since most changes lead to more government intrusion in personal liberties.
I see both sides, and will abstain from the discussion.
Please note in advance. I am pro life and believe in life at inception. That’s me.
Having said that. I would really like the Court to overturn it for another reason.
The Court “enacted” a law with their ruling just as they did in the Yonkers school desegregation case. They created law out of thin air mainly because the legislatures refused to do their jobs, right or wrong to enact a new law.
Case in point. Judge Bork argued that even if you could agree with the outcome (in this example the Yonkers case) it was completely unconstitutional for the court to create this law.
I would hope the Court, if it does overturn it would point out this main fact. It was a mistake and throw it back to the loonies in Congress and have them do their job. We as Conservatives should demand the Court act by the rule of law, which does not allow them to create a law
Indeed they will.
I talked with a prominent attorney about this today.
You might find it interesting.
I played the audio of Justice Thomas questioning the pro-murder attorney about the right she was defending.
He brilliantly got her to admit that she was defending abortion, not privacy, and a right to abortion is not in the Constitution.
What joetote said.
Your discussion about the tangled mess of laws for how children are handled legally is really spot on. I’m fairly sure I recall hearing about someone being charged with homicide for killing an unborn child in a car accident.
I think the important part about the Supreme Court case is that the current ruling appears to violate the 10th amendment, that except for the enumerated powers given the federal government other powers are reserved to the states and the people. I heard a couple of the justices asking the pro-abortion side exactly what line in the constitution gives the feds the right to regulate abortion at all. It should be a state’s right. It should be voted on by the people, either directly or through their representatives. Under the idea that if something isn’t specifically forbidden by law it’s legal, there would be rush to pass laws in the states that want to restrict it.
There have always been people on the pro-abortion side that argue post-natal abortion should be allowed. As it is, “viability” is arguing the beginning of life is determined by technology. The better Newborn Intensive Care Units get at saving the lives of very early term babies, the earlier they can be said to be viable.
You could always go with the King Herod Decision – ruling that all male babies two and under be killed… I realize that sounds a bit extreme to all but a government despot (we have a lot in DC who might go along with that).
Since the obligation to support begins at conception, do we start there, where the legality begins, or do we move the goalpost? When is a baby human, and when is it ok to kill it – for whatever reason including the Planned Parenthood “for fun and profit” motive?
I discussed my experiences:
As a medical professional, I see a D&C as an occasionally-required medical procedure.
Demanding/expecting a medical procedure as ‘a replacement for a mature reasoned decision prior to unprotected sex’ qualifies as mal-practice.
I welcome your rebuttal.
During dissections of cadavers, we sometimes discover a fetus.
Invariably, everybody in the room falls silent, realizing the fragility of our species.
I rebut nothing, Marge. I ask the question about the law alone. Discussion of facing one’s maker is above my pay grade.
I don’t know enough to make an informed comment.
Sure you do. But it’s ok not to. The subject is divisive. You’re one of the smartest guys I know.
I’ve seen young men’s lives turned around through military service. (sometimes it works, sometimes not) They need a break from culture and the discipline – primarily Marine Corps – gives that to them. -LL
One of the people I worked with in the Probation Department had worked in the Atascadero State Mental Hospital for the Criminally Insane prior to his military service.
In as what I came to see as an unexpected use common sense in posting they gave him the assignment of interviewing new intakes at the stockade.
At that time it was common practice for judges to give malfactors the option of prision or an enlistment in the military with the thinking that the structure and discipline would straighten them out and “make men out of them”.
He told me this did not work.
His opinion regarding the military turning young men’s lives around was similar to yours:
the large percentage of the time the young men who got themselves incarcerated were trouble makers/criminals before, during, and after their military service.
As is well known and sometimes voiced by law enforcement, ” We only catch the dumb ones”.
You noted that The Marine Corps did better in turning problem children’s lives around.
I would speculate that esprit de corps and hazing process of boot camp bonds Marines to the Corps and its values (including those spoken of by Eleanor Roosevelt) and it become a family they need.
DIs really are a god figure to young men.
I was traveling last week and stopped at a restaurant for lunch. I went the men’s room and there was a line. The stalls were full, but an opening at a urinal developed and As I moved up to do my business another older guy came in, looked around and said, “Well, I guess I could piss in the sink”.
I turned my head to look at him and commented, ” You must have been a Marine”.
He perked up and said, “How’d you know”?
He gave me a ” Semper Fi” when he walked by my table when he left. 🙂
There are some like Hackworth who was running with a street gang, heading for prison, when he enlisted by at 15 by lying about his age. Hackworth was the exception and not the rule. His Tiger Force…nuff said.
A lot of young men need structure. They aren’t sadistic or sociopaths.
The Corps during the Viet Nam war needed replacements even if some were criminals. Today it’s different. Different Corps.
I just read that the Corps is looking at re-vamping the way they handle staffing levels.
In the past they stressed recruitment and very few Marines stayed in after their hitch was up.
This actually served the Marines well as their primary mission needed young men.
They have now decided that retention will be something to look at due to more complicated weapons systems and the cost of training people on them.
Complex weapons systems brings to mind Awerbuck’s comment that when the dust finally settled the last man standing on the hill will be wearing cut-offs, flip-flops, and carrying a Mauser 98.
Who was it that said of the Marines in Hue during the Tet Offensive that the most dangerous weapon in the world is pissed-off nineteen year-old Marine?
Row v Wade- Excellent treatise. I too could never scan the differentials in application of the law, never made sense. For me abortion is acceptable when the mother’s life is in danger. It’s rare, but that one exception is reasonable. Kill/murder a mother with child, that’s TWO. Abort (aka murder) an unborn child, that’s ONE, not NONE. Pretty sure God would agree.
Unthinking people don’t like their long held beliefs challenged, they get testy. R v W has been around for so long that advocates somehow believe it is acceptable, therefore untouchable, regardless it is clearly “bad law” that wasn’t based on the original case but what those wanting to push societal norms to use as a springboard to kill the unborn. They tortured every word-play trick in the book (still do) to obfuscate the truth; it’s murder. Anything to reverse or reduce this abomination is a good thing. But removing personal responsibility is the Left’s biggest ploy, couched in syrupy words that defy God’s truth; these are His creations and Thou Shall Not Murder.
Baltimore- People WANT to believe in systemic racism in America yet the facts do not support their outcry. Smollett is on trial for generating yet another racist stunt hoax. He’s black, and apparently oppressed. Truth be told, he’s a self-centered moron needing constant attention to feel good about himself, as are most of these types. He fails to grasp that “One cannot become a victim of something they have directly caused”. But these types always try — Baldwin didn’t pull the trigger, the revolver magically went off by itself!
Military- Like college, not for everyone. But, MrsPaulM has always thought young men could benefit from 2 years of service. I agree with her, despite having not served myself…but I sometimes wonder what it might have done for my life’s trajectory.
I nearly took a job in Baltimore but turned it down. Weird, eh?
Once you remove the emotion from the equation, the SCOTUS ruling is based solely on the law and the constitution and science. (Well, it should be) It’s not 1976 anymore, medical science has progressed in leaps and bounds (Ultrasound, EEG, ECG, etc.) to nullify the arguments in favor of abortion for all at any time as it is “Just a bunch of cells.” The term “Viability” is being tossed around, which can be now used against the pro-abortion crowd because it’s almost routine for preemies to live outside the womb. There is no “To save the mothers life” excuse. Ask any pediatrician or obstetrician. Caesarean and vaginal cutdowns are used to safely remove a distressed fetus, again….it’s not 1976. SCOTUS has three choices: Uphold the Mississippi case, but go no further. Uphold the case and by extension, nullify R vs W as the viability issue is moot. Punt the decision and rule against Mississippi for the sake of societal peace, which is why they made up R vs W in the first place. The three lib judges have already made their case based on emotions and how the ruling will effect society, the law be dammed. We’ll have to wait until around June 2022 unfortunately.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/12/mississippi-abortion-case-roe-v-wades-flight-93-oral-argument-for-sotomayor-breyer-kagan/. My go-to site for trials/legal analysis.
Comments are closed.