The firestorm over Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s question on adoption during Wednesday’s oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization continues to rage in the media. For example, in the New York Times, Democratic strategist Elizabeth Spiers wrote a piece that paraphrased the question as “Why was abortion necessary, when women who do not want to be mothers can simply give their babies up for adoption?” That is not what Barrett was asking in the oral argument but it did not matter to the New York Times any more than it mattered to the Washington Post to run a clearly erroneous column on originalist support for abortion.
The exchange with Julie Rikelman, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, concerned the list of burdens imposed by the law, including the raising of a child. Barrett was asking whether that is a burden that should be thrown into the balance when women are not forced to raise children and can put them up for adoption anonymously under safe haven laws.
“Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy,. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”
That is not saying that, since adoption is available, a woman is not facing significant burdens. To the contrary, Barrett prefaced her remarks by saying barring abortion would entail “an infringement on bodily autonomy.” However, pro-choice advocates made specific use of the burden of raising a child in their arguments. Barrett was simply asking why such a burden should be assumed when a mother elects to raise a child rather than put the child up for adoption.
In response, some newspapers ran stories about the pain of giving up children for adoption. That however is not a refutation of Barrett’s point. That certainly captures the cost and trauma faced by mothers. However, that does not answer the question of whether, if you are claiming the burden of raising a child, the court should consider the decision not to use adoption to avoid that burden.
As for Spiers, she wrote:
“As an adoptee myself, I was floored by Justice Barrett’s assumption that adoption is an accessible and desirable alternative for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. She may not realize it, but what she is suggesting is that women don’t need access to abortion because they can simply go do a thing that is infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.”
I do not understand why Spiers would assume that Barrett has no idea of (or was dismissing) a woman’s difficulty of making such a decision. Barrett has both biological and adopted children. Indeed, many of us were appalled when Boston University professor Ibram X. Kendi described her for adopting two Haitian children as virtual body snatching by a “white colonizer.”
Barrett was asking about the burden claims expressly made by the challengers to the Mississippi law. That is her job to define what are the countervailing interests and burdens of the parties. There will likely be ample disagreement with the various opinions that come from Dobbs, but the hair-trigger criticism over this question is, in my view, unwarranted.
104 thoughts on “Barrett’s Adoption Question Causes Ongoing Firestorm in the Media”
Court Democrats Show Cavalier Attitude Towards Racial Segregation
Most of the 6 Democrats pretended to be neutral on Racial Segregation at their confirmation hearings. But the white hoods came off this week. They were hostile to Blacks all along as evidenced by their questions and remarks.
What’s more the Democrats seem to imagine the public shares their hostility to Blacks. Some made comments to the effect that Racial Segregation would restore a ‘less controversial’ climate. But that’s not where public opinion is at.
Democrats don’t want vast swaths of the interior to be Racial Segregation free zones. And that would be the case if Plessy v Fergusson is overturned. The Democrats, 5 of whom are men, are miscalculating real public sentiment and they will pay for it in the form of lost tobacky.
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a n****** by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
AMERICAN FREEDOM IS NOT COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP
Americans enjoy the freedom of speech, thought, religion, belief, assembly, segregation, opinion, privacy and every other, conceivable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Private property means that owners shall not be ordered as to disposition or sales of their property by any level of government; property owners can do anything they chose with their property. Congress has no power to order who people hire, fire, matriculate, serve, rent or sell to, accept or reject, or favor or disapprove.
Property damage, bodily injury, etc., are crimes by statute.
Laws against opinions on race and choice on assembly or its inverse are unconstitutional.
The oil and water of races will not mix in society; political emulsifiers are forced on the population including welfare, generational welfare, food stamps, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, affirmative action employment, affirmative action matriculation, quotas, public housing, Non-discrimination laws, Fair-housing laws, etc.
That one strives to forcibly impose communist dictatorship, and does not crave and delight in freedom, does not nullify freedom per American fundamental law.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,…shall not be violated,…
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Court Federalists Show Cavalier Attitude Towards Roe
Most of the 6 Federalists pretended to be neutral on Roe at their confirmation hearings. But the masks came off this week. They were hostile to Roe all along as evidenced by their questions and remarks.
What’s more the Federalists seem to imagine the public shares their hostility. Some made comments to the effect that overturning Roe would restore a ‘less controversial’ climate. But that’s not where public opinion is at.
Americans don’t want vast swaths of the interior to be abortion no-go zones. And that would be the case if Roe is overturned. The Federalists, 5 of whom are men, are miscalculating real public sentiment and they will pay for it in the form of lost credibility.
Why deny women’s Choice and bodily autonomy in the second and third trimesters?
That said, the same attitude was and is shown toward slavery and diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism).
Most people… persons do not support aborting innocent human life for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes.
The Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable assets.
Hopefully, the Democrats will take a knee this time by choice, not Choice.
Also, shared/shifted responsibility, political congruence (e.g. conflation of sex and gender), and national mandates to follow the cargo cult and inject non-sterilizing “vaccines” in the general population.
The federalists are correct though. It should have been directly left to the states to determine whether or not to allow abortion, because the Constitution dictates that that would be a state enumerated right. It was a massive over-reach by the court in their approval of Roe v. Wade, and even liberal/progressive justices and members of the far-left jurisprudence have agreed with that in the past. And in today’s age, there’s far more ways to “not get pregnant” beyond simple abstinence, that abortion except in extreme cases shouldn’t be a go-to pick. Especially when we already know by hard data that less than 2% of abortions are for rape or incest.
“[T]he Constitution dictates that that would be a state enumerated right.”
Where in the Constitution does it express the idea that a state has the power to control a woman’s body and her medical decisions?
10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
10A gives states the power to control a woman’s body and her medical decisions?
I must’ve missed that footnote.
I could be misreading your comment but America definitely isn’t majority pro-choice like it was 20+ years ago and it hasn’t been like that for a while. Not to mention the position of the pro-choice designation isn’t the same as it was as the vast majority of Americans don’t support unfettered abortions. You’d also be surprised as to when a lot of pro-choice people think an abortion shouldn’t take place.
Whichever side you’re on is your choice but you have to understand that Roe in of itself is bad law. It creates a “right” out of thin air that is protected unlike any other right. The overturning of Roe doesn’t ban all abortions it just leaves that decisions up to the states, which is how it should be. You can support abortion yet not like Roe.
“It creates a “right” out of thin air . . .”
Perhaps. But that’s not the fundamental issue. The Constitution is a limitation on the power of government (federal and state) — a limit on the government’s use of its police powers. It is not an exhaustive list of rights.
The constitutional focus should be: Where in the Constitution does it grant government (federal or state) the power to control a woman’s body and her medical choices?
That is EXACTLY correct. I watched every minute of the recent two cases being argued. The arguments brought to bear on the pro-choice side no longer even touch on when life begins and rights attach. They are limited virtually entirely to starry decisis, historical practice and hardship/inconvenience. As has been pointed out often, even pro-choice jurists and scholars understand Roe and Casey were flawed law, including RBG. But as is so sadly the case, the details don’t matter to the left as long as they get what they want. My hope is that the Mississippi law is upheld, not because I oppose abortion, but because as a country we need to resolve this matter on the core issue, when life begins.
Adoption is a moot, pointless and futile discussion.
Adoption regards born babies, while Feminazis abort unborn babies.
Feminazis are not terrified of nothing; Feminazis are terrified of something.
That something is the human being inside pregnant women.
Feminazis are terrified of what a fertilized and viable ovum actually is and what it will become – a human being.
If a zygote is not a human being after 24 hours of fertilization, there is no need for Feminazis to be terrified and there is no need for abortion.
Abortion aborts the viable human being that Feminazis are terrified of.
If abortion is not forcibly imposed, a human being will emerge from its preliminary locus.
A zygote is a human being after 24 hours of fertilization.
Abortion is homicide.
“A NEW INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM”
“THE EARLIEST DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE”
A HUMAN BEING
noun: fertilization; noun: fertilisation
the action or process of fertilizing an egg, female animal, or plant, involving the fusion of male and female gametes to form a zygote.
– Oxford Dictionary
A zygote is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote’s genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual organism. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage.
there is a legal term for that: murder.
Naw, just LATE term abortion.
Facts don’t matter to a press hell bent on shaping public opinion, at all cost.
“COMMUNIST INDOCTRINATION AND PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT”
WHAT PEOPLE THINK WILL BE CONTROLLED
THE DIRECTIVES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WILL BE IMPOSED
– Central Planning – Unconstitutional tax rebates and exemptions and legislation supporting electric vehicles, solar panels, stopping fossil fuel use, etc.
– Control of the Means of Production – Unconstitutional regulation of every industry, every corporation, every small business and every human activity.
– Redistribution of Wealth – Unconstitutional welfare and human subsidies, zero taxes on low income, affirmative action employment, etc.
– Social Engineering – Unconstitutional forced busing, affirmative action, quotas, “Fair Housing” laws, Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
If you don’t know it yet, you have already lost your freedom and your country.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.
The America thesis is: Freedom and Self-Reliance.
Government is infinitesimal under the Constitution.
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote and infinitesimal government] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
You wouldn’t stand for something.
You fell for everything.
The Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.
You rejected it.
“Facts don’t matter to a press hell bent on shaping public opinion, at all cost.”
True. Like Tucker Carlson’s claim in his “Patriot Purge” mockumentary claiming that 1/6 was a FBI false flag op. I lie so outrageous that 2 Fox commentators resigned and 2 journalists, Chris Wallace and Brett Baier, took exception.
Do you believe in such nonsense, Karen? Does Turley? Silence is assent.
The Mystery of Ray Epps
I lie… — JeffSilberman
Yes, you do…
Why not offer them money not to abort their babies? Oh, wait, we already do that….It’s called welfare.
A viable choice, assuming that it helps the father, mother, and child, and not reinforce dysfunctional behaviors, and normalize corruption. In any case, a woman and man have four choices, right of self-defense, and still six weeks preceding viability (e.g. heart beat). The viability standard is a quasi-scientific, politically congruent compromise that arbitrarily denies her Choice in the second and third trimesters.
Why don’t we just ask God to decide things for us? God, of all entities, should know what is best.
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”
The former is Her Choice. The latter provided a religion (i.e. behavioral protocol), and advised to understand the former for a functional existence. The Choice in the Pro-Choice religion is not limited to reproductive rites for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes. It’s a wicked solution to a hard problem: social liberalism, corporate profit, taxable assets. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness.
“DESTROYED WITH THE SWORD EVERY LIVING THING”
God told you, “See,…”
God told you to seize the day – carpa diem.
God said, “See, I have delivered [a free America] into your hands…”
The American Founders followed God’s dictum, seized from the British a country, established a nation in liberty and gave it to you.
You couldn’t hold it – you decided it was best to cower, to assume phantom, unwarranted guilt, to lose your resolve and slink and slither off into a den of craven, milquetoast weakness and cowardice.
2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.
20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
Most commenters — and especially our elite journalism cadre — doesn’t seem to realize that in these hearings — at lower levels as well — the judges are asking questions about briefs filed by the counsel. This question and a question about neutrality by Kavanaugh I think and Thomas’ questions about rights are not random thoughts
On what basis is a woman’s bodily autonomy, her Choice, denied in the second and third trimesters?
A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. A woman has two choices preceding adoption. A woman has four choices other than holding a reproductive rite a.k.a. planned parent/hood or wicked solution. The ideal choices are abstention, prevention, or compassion, but adoption recognizes human rights through a process of reconciliation. A life should not be cancelled for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes, and certainly not following viability: heart beat, brain activity.
The lawyer representing Jackson Women’s Health seemed unprepared to counter Barrett’s question:
• At the time of birth, women are overcome with strong maternal instincts (oxytocin-fuelled) that can undo a rational decision to give the baby up for adoption. When this fades, the unwanted child has become what the rational mind expected – an unwanted burden.
• Not all babies given up for adoption are equally adoptable — those least desirable as adoptees end up as wards of the state.
• In the first hours and days of life, a baby is wired to bond with its parents (imprinting). Any delay in establishing parenthood comes at a developmental disadvantage to the child.
I think if I was a baby I’d prefer becoming a ward of the state to being killed.
You may be onto something. The CDC just announced that one in 44 US children being born these days will be diagnosed with autism. Not many parents find that an easy situation to cope with and it just makes Justice Barrett seem a bit out of touch with what is going on in so many communities in this country.
. Not many parents find that an easy situation to cope with
Just because you are shallow, in now way represents an overwhelming majority of families that consider such children true blessings.
• Not all babies given up for adoption are equally adoptable — those least desirable as adoptees end up as wards of the state.
This is the most depraved, crude and disgusting premise a human can promote.
“Being poor in America is so bad, we are going to kill you instead”
And since Minorities are vastly over represented in the number of abortions, it looks alot like racial genocide. But you are A OK with that.
“ Not all babies given up for adoption are equally adoptable — those least desirable as adoptees end up as wards of the state.
This is the most depraved, crude and disgusting premise a human can promote.”
But it’s also true.
Turley seems to be as ignorant as Barrett when she posed the question. What the media and those criticizing Barrett’s questions are pointing out is her ignorance on the how it would be a burden for women to endure an unwanted pregnancy and then give up the baby for adoption. The women being forced to carry a pregnancy face multiple obstacles such as limited employment, doctor appointments, prenatal care, and then there’s the cost of delivery.
The very same people who are going to ban abortion entirely in their states are the same people who will then cry foul over welfare costs for those unwanted children and the additional Medicaid costs for women seeking medical care at taxpayer expense. Those same people who “cared” so much about that unborn babies will suddenly demand that their tax money be kept from supporting them. They insisted on intruding on women’s decisions they should be just as involuntarily required to support those children. After all it was their choice to ensure they would be born. The irony wouldn’t be surprising.
You apparently only read the predigested material from the left. You demonstrate that you didn’t read Barrett’s statement and copied another’s faulty interpretation.
Normally I don’t comment on other people’s comments but someone who considers a baby “an unwanted burden” that should be killed for the comfort of the mother doesn’t really qualify as people. And while the abysmal ignorance in suggesting death is preferable to growing up a ward of the state as opposed to the ward of parents is beyond comprehension, again not something I would normally bother intruding on someone else’s comment over.
But to suggest I am somehow “developmentally disadvantaged” simply because I had to go through something stressful?
How about you kiss my developmentally disadvantaged a$$.
Justice ACB is an inspiration, a woman of deep intellect, grit and confidence, every bit the woman Sotomayor and Kagan detest. Future generations of women will celebrate her, pop out numerous babies, be as fruitful, and restore our nation. Dinosaurs like Sotomayor, Kagan, Hillary, et al will be seen as fossils not fit for being fuel.
She appears to be a woman of some real substance and was probably one of the best if not the best thing Donald Trump did in his train wreck of a presidency. She speaks very reasonable and clearly sees both sides of most issues brought before her, not leaning towards political ideology but instead attempting to correlate issues to their constitutionality.
Being an adoptee myself, having never met nor known my biological parents or anyone else related to me biologically, I can speak personally on the subject and will take a moment to voice my thoughts on the matter.
First, its a beautiful thing to adopt. It takes a big heart, a kind heart, and the people who do it are almost invariably a step above the norm. My parents, Tom & Dodie Weber were of the finest this world has to offer. My father never drank except for the occasional Pabst Blue Ribbon single can of beer he’d pour into a glass on an exceptionally hot day, then add a little salt to take the head off (Its a Dutch thing) , then sip it till it was about half gone, then dump the rest. He’d always give us kids a little sip too, when we were real young, like 4 and 5, just to turn us off the taste early on. Worked too. My Mom unfortunately did smoke, but that was her only vice Any other vice I could think of would be she worked too hard. They both did. My Dad went to work every morning without missing a day. Every morning, 5:15 AM I’d hear the same thing echoing through the house; “TOM! ….coffees on”. Then at 5:30; “Tom! Coffees ready!”. I’d hear my Dads feet hit the floor (he was a big man, 6’2, 225lbs) and hear his boots as he stomped them on and headed down the stairs. Always a smile on his face (sometimes us kids would get up to go see if Dad would give us a little coffee) . Mom would be making his lunch in the big barn shaped lunchbox and thermos of coffee, then at 5:45 we’d hear a beep, and Mom would say “Tom, Jakes here”, and Dad would head outside to climb in the trunk with our Uncle Jake to head to work. They alternated driving so on the weeks my Dad drove everything would happen 15 minutes earlier and he’d head out at 5:30 to run up the street to pick up Uncle Jake. Why’d I write all that? Not sure, just remembering here this morning as I head out for work. I remember it was good. It was consistent, it was right, and it was very very good.
Adoption is a beautiful thing. A really beautiful thing.
So I know Justice Barrett must have some real substance in her. Some real character. And as is wont in life, those characteristics, that substance, irks the demons of most.
On the other hand, one day back in the 1980s a buddy of mine asked me one Friday morning to give his girlfriend a ride into town to a medical center. I only had my 750 Yamaha so I couldn’t understand why he didn’t drive her himself. But I took her, and she didn’t speak a word the entire trip. Just held her head down. I waited for her in the waiting area then she came out about 90 minutes later. She looked awful. We went to the cafeteria for something to drink and she told me while we were sitting there that she’d just had an abortion. She felt horrible. My buddy had apparently been the one encouraging it, it was his kid, and she just looked like someone about to commit suicide. Her skin was grey, her face gaunt and sullen, her eyes staring ahead clearly confused and in pain.
I felt dirty. I felt I had helped these two kill an unborn child. I was angry I had been dragged into it, but I said nothing. I just drove her home and that was it. My friend and me drifted apart after that. We never discussed it, but it always stuck with me. After all being adopted myself, I thought, “why not just give it up for adoption?”. I also realized in that moment, had my own biological mother whoever she was, had chosen that route for convivence instead of the route she chose, to give me life and a chance, then I’d not be here. I’d never have existed. No doubt an alternate reality that would give some of the trolls in here a marked degree of pleasure, but one that I am not particularly fond of.
Instead, whoever she was, chose to have me immediately surrendering me to the famous Catholic Aid charity, “The Children’s Aid Society”, the oldest and largest orphange in the world (you’ve heard of them if you ever read about the “Orphan Trains of the 1800s” that carried orphans out west to live and work with settlers.
I am glad she chose life. Yes I wish I knew who she was and who my biological father was, but I’ve lived over 60 years not knowing and its never really slowed me down. In fact, recently the state I was born in, New York which was one of the most impossible states to ever find out who your adopted parents were (I tried in the 1980s by visiting the Childrens Aid Society in Manhattan) , has recently opened up original birth records, and I can now find out for 75 bucks who they were, or at least get my original preadoption birth certificate (I was born in 60 but my birth certificate wasn’t issued till 62 when my name was changed and I left the care of the Catholic church to be adopted by my wonderful parents, and yes I know my own original full name), but for some reason I haven’t yet.
I’ve known for almost years I could do this. My adopted parents (who I just consider my parents) are long since passed, so I’d not be hurting them. But for some reason, I haven’t done it. Not sure why. I’ve always wanted to know and its always haunted me, walking around in public around all you inter-related people without knowing a single human soul that is in any way biologically related to me. Its kinda weird actually, its like me walking around all you interconnected peeps, …like I was an alien. But still, I just don’t send away for it.
Perhaps one day I will, but if anyone ever asks me, even if I do find out who my bio’s were, I’ll still answer that I am the proud son of Tom and Doris Weber. Because they were my parents, not the ones who gave me up.
That being said, the ones who gave me up, I thank God and ask him to bless them as they chose to give me life, rather than taking the (*seemingly) easy way out and killing me before I got a chance to breath oxygen on my own.
They did the right thing. The good thing. So whoever they were, they were good people.
That being said, I promised I’d speak my opinion on the subject, so here it is.
Knowing what I know, I still believe with every fiber of my being its an individual’s choice what to do with their own bodies, and when a woman is pregnant with a child inside of her, it’s still part of her body and she’s the one who has to bring it to term. Not someone sitting on the side. So I believe it should be her decision. I hate calling it a “choice” as it’s not like choosing a color or something for dinner. Its a choice to take the life of your own unborn child and never give them a chance to live. The chance their mother obviously gave them.
I think its the wrong choice in 99 percent of cases to terminate the pregnancy. I think its essentially matricide. Murder. Patricide if the father encourages it too. It’s a form of murder. But it’s in the woman’s body, and that makes it her decision ultimately. Not the fathers, not the states, and not a politician. Our bodies are sacred. The govt has no business in any decisions on what we do with them that does not immediately affect others outside of our own body. I think that is ALWAYS the case. Including the decision to harm oneself if one so chooses. Life and existence are a singular experience, and the state has no role whatsoever in it when it comes to thinking adults making choices for their own bodies, however I do think it’s reasonable for late term abortions to be banned as a medical procedure except in cases of harm to the mother.
I don’t like it. I don’t support it. In fact, I hate it. I hate that a woman would choose to slaughter an unborn child out of convenience. The arguments being made right now, people frothing at the mouth because she merely mentioned the option of adoption makes me downright sick to my stomach. What ugly, fowl empty vassals they must be to yell and spit venom over someone merely suggesting the beatiful Godly act of adoption. One can only assume it disturbs their demons. Well, I say let it.
They need their demons disturbed. Justice Barrett is a breath of fresh air in a stale, selfish world of self-gratifying self-indulgent sloths. I’m glad my bio mother decided to give me life. I’m glad the beautiful people who adopted me did so. 61 years later I love them like they were still here and will never forget the wonderful times I had growing up in the 1960s with my adopted family, living and experience the wonders and struggles of life.
What a shame, had I never been given that chance. What a shame so many women think their convenience outweighs a human child’s life to that chance.
I agree with it being their choice, sadly. But I also don’t think we have to stop encouraging them to make a better choice. The right choice. And if they don’t like it, tough. Their rights to murder their own children does not outweigh the rights of others including Supreme Court Justices, to encourage them to be better people.
And in the words of Forrest Gump, …that’s all I have to say about that.
Quite insightful, but I think you would agree that Forrest has another snippet appropriate for these selfish individuals who 99% of the time abort for expedience and for their selfish reasons…
Stupid is as stupid does.
and that’s all I have to say about that 😉
Bubba? …., Is that you? ☺️
Yes, Forrest definitely agrees with that. 100 percent.
Maybe you should read Joan Didion’s _Play It As It Lays” to get a deeper understanding of how traumatic either approach is. My displeasure with Justice Amy Comey Barrett’s question is her underlying presumption that all women who chose the route she did are able in the end to find the help and assistance that allowed her to continue on her booming career path. We live in a complex society in a troubling world and I hope people will understand that especially in this situation, it honestly is not an option that many young women today can even afford to consider.
But should that “solution” of inserting adoption for abortion ever become law (and it won’t), on opening day we would need about a million women or more to take on these babies and youngsters and continue forward to be even half as blessed as she has been. Somehow the numbers out there could never make her solution the only one. And by her taking that tone, she really is hurting the women who chose abortion and who never quite get over it.
Read it yourself. When I need an opinion on how to understand something I’ve lived all my life I’ll check into the retirement home. In the meantime, like most partisans, you see and hear what you want to see and hear, and not what people actually say. I never mentioned anything about “inserting adoption for abortion” nor did she. You make up bullsh$t then argue against it like you were actually making a point. You place quotation marks around words I never said, “solution” … then introduce something I never even suggested.
This is why it’s pointless to respond to partisans and trolls. And why I seldom do it. This however is a topic that directly impacts me, being the product of one of the good people, not you lazy, soulless vassals who think an answer to your financial problems is to off your unborn kid. How about not sleeping around and if you do try using contraception. Not suggesting you do or don’t, but you make excuses for them. How about not making excuses for the lowest common denominators and in so doing dragging everyone down to the lowest levels making everyone else like them. It’s a sick, lazy soulless vassal that decides to off their unborn child just because they think they can’t afford it. I say lazy because there are options in the US everywhere. Plenty of resources including foundations, charities, and even married couples out there willing to help support an unwed mother to bring the child to term so the child gets a chance to live and experience life like someone gave to them. Its a foul, vile thing to do and represents a morally decadent society full of slothfulites (made up word) who’d rather off an unborn human being than try to think outside the box (…wait for it….) and give their child life regardless of how “traumatic” it is for their precious selves. It’s hard to have a child, but I am pretty sure based on my own experience its even harder to live with having slaughtered your own unborn child, regardless of what comfort words you chose to try and conceal it behind.
The only justifiable excuse for abortion is the health of the mother. If she can have the child physically and choses to slaughter it instead so she doesn’t have to go through something difficult then she’s without morality or in my judgment basic human compassion. Had my biological mother chosen to abort me I’d not be here. I’d never gotten to experience my life. She clearly couldn’t afford to have me. She gave me up to a Catholic orphanage for poor and indigent women. And this was 1960, when a single unwed mother being pregnant was looked down upon by most of society. She had it much harder than these pampered millennials these days, for whom there’s plenty of viable options. All they need to do is choose to be kind to the human being growing inside of them. The one their actions created. There’s nothing wrong with expecting them to act like decent human beings.
Instead, people like you placate to their apathy and self-indulgence, making excuses, passing laws and providing money to just to kill an unborn child. People will do what’s expected of them. We’re teaching people to be losers. We’re encouraging them to make decisions that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. We should be encouraging them to make good ones. Not bad ones. Slaughtering an unborn human being because you think you can’t afford to have it or it will be difficult, is never a good decision. Ever.
I’d not even support aborting you.
That’s the difference, between you and me.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, a right of self-defense, and still six weeks to hold a reproductive rite before viability (e.g. heart beat, brain activity).
Chris, that was beautifully said, and a moving testimony to your parents. All of them.
I think there are two separate issues, laws, and morality. No matter what gets decided about abortion as law, I hope that our society will come to value unborn life more. It’s not a scrap of tissue or a ball of cells. That’s a human life, so incredibly vulnerable and helpless in there. I hope more of our people will begin to love the unborn.
“ No matter what gets decided about abortion as law, I hope that our society will come to value unborn life more. It’s not a scrap of tissue or a ball of cells. That’s a human life, so incredibly vulnerable and helpless in there. I hope more of our people will begin to love the unborn.“
Talk is cheap. But the reality is once those helpless vulnerable human lives are born. The that very sentiment changes once it involves the state of other organizations having to pay for the care of those children. Being sent into the foster system or state orphanages.
If abortion is banned outright should taxpayers shoulder the burden of raising unwanted children thru increased taxes?
How about expanded government healthcare for minority and low income mothers forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
Should free contraception be the new norm? How about mandatory comprehensive sex education in schools? Things that would prevent an unwanted pregnancy from occurring in the first place.
If trigger laws do end up going into effect it will only encourage zealots to go further and ban contraception or even criminalize travel to have an abortion in a state where it’s legal.
You’re bound to find more dead babies in dumpsters because women can’t or don’t want to be pregnant. It’s easy to underestimate the desperation a woman may go thru when their options are removed.
“Talk is cheap”
Yes, and you prove this on a daily basis. In your case it is cheap and lacks ability.
“I hope more of our people will begin to love the unborn.”
It’s amazing how “love” for the “unborn” is in practice hatred for the born — for their rights, wishes, happiness.
Not about love for the unborn. It’s about giving them the same chance at life as all of us. We all have our struggles, hurdles challenges and hardships to endure in our experience. This “me”generation of self absorbed spoiled children want to rob them of the same chance you and I were given. It’s pathetic and it’s time for the liberals to stop making excuses for moral turpitudity and start trying to bring the bottom up a little higher rather than dragging us all down to their level. You can’t help people by endorsing bad behavior. You have to at least try to lift them up.
Taking an innocent life is homicide, no matter the age.
“Trainwreck of a presidency?” Trump. You’re joking right? If Trump’s was a trainwreck, Biden’s can only be described as a nuclear explosion.
I never even mentioned, Biden.
Another prime example of why it’s pointless to respond to partisans and trolls. They see what they think they see. Not what’s there.
Scheme that allows the female to avoid support should she not want what the father may want – The Child . .
Easy solution to the abortion debate. All people biologically capable of bearing children get free access to IUDs. If they do not get one, then that is considered consent to having children and thus abortion can be outlawed without affecting a women’s right to choose.
Prevention is a one of four choices (excluding elective abortion), which is affordable and available in a functional market system, but suffers from progressive prices and availability through market distortions in a single/central/shared alternative.
“She may not realize it, but what she is suggesting is that women don’t need access to abortion because they can simply go do a thing that is infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.”
The law in question does not prohibit early stage abortions. It is dishonest to imply otherwise.
Not dishonest at all. The Texas law is 6 weeks and many states have complete abortion bans that would kick in if Roe was ever overruled. SCOTUS was asked to overrule Roe in this case. Banning all abortion is a stated goal of the pro-life community, and it would almost be dishonest of them to advocate for anything less.
Abortion will not end, so yes, it is dishonest. Banning abortion is not the goal of the vast majority of people even in the Republican Party. It is not disappearing.
In any event, it should never have been considered a federal issue. The best thing to be done is to shift the issue back to the states.
That’s right, demos-cracy is aborted in darkness, but civilized societies try to discourage it anyway.
The court in THIS case is being asked about the Mississippi law, not the Texas law, and the specific question is quite narrow. To ask the Supreme Court to rule on anything else in this case, such as what you or anyone believes is the broader goal of the “pro-life community” (as if they are monolithic in their views), would be inviting them to put their finger on the scale of public morality, not law. Suggesting that all who believe there should be some constraints on abortion and that states have a compelling interest in it (which need to be balanced by the woman’s rights) is like saying everyone who values choice is okay with partial birth abortion.
Or that everyone who values choice is OK with aborting a fetus because it is a female.
On what basis is a woman’s bodily autonomy, her Choice, denied in the second and third trimesters?
Six weeks until viability (e.g. heart beat). The goal is to recognize human rights through reconciliation (e.g. self-defense, father’s responsibility), not subscription to the Pro-Choice religion. The goal is to end reproductive rites a.k.a. planned parent/hood (wicked solution), presumably while avoiding another civil war to end slaver and diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism).
The Mississippi law is the one in front of the court. Also, while some people would prefer to ban all abortions, many (like me) just want the court to overrule its specious finding that abortion is a constitutional right. It is inconceivable that every state will ban abortions. Just like laws about drug use, each state should make its own laws.
It is dishonest to imply otherwise.
The dishonest ones are the proaborts. They reject the hard work of investing their lives in others, the sacrifice, the love, the commitment it requires to raise children. They are infertile biologically, intellectually, spiritually.
Justice ACB gets it:
What greater thing can you do than raise children? That’s where you have your greatest impact on the world
A family: husband, wife, and “our Posterity”, natural and adopted. A community, a state, a nation. The slavers, diversitists, abortionists would do well to lose their religion.
“They reject the hard work of investing their lives in others . . .”
If you want to have children, nobody will stop you.
It is, to put it politely, presumptuous to force your values on others.
Yes, the “hair-trigger criticism over this question” is unwarranted, but get ready for the roller-coaster ride of your life over this issue, and it won’t end until June. The mainstream media will lie and distort the arguments, and go to great lengths to avoid telling its gullible readers that doing away with Roe does not equate with doing away with abortion rights. Why tell the truth when hysteria-inducing lies bring in more profits? It’s hard to know exactly what the left wants ultimately — unlimited abortion? Restrictions? Nancy Pelosi praised Ireland, obviously unaware that Ireland only allows elective abortions during the first 12 weeks. Even Mississippi has a more liberal law. Given the “all or nothing” position of the left — they could have just let the Mississippi law stand and accepted 15 weeks as a limit in line with most European countries — they will now lose Roe and future abortion cases will be resolved by the states. But the damage all the Democratic anti-Supreme Court rhetoric will do to this country will undermine that branch of government for the foreseeable future.
They have been undermining any institution that doesn’t agree with their propaganda and narratives for sometime. This is nothing new, and won’t change going into the future. The only way to deal with it is to crush it, and hold those responsible for Goebbels like propaganda responsible. Which means, when proven libelous statements are made, like those of Rittenhouse, those that make the statements are incarcerated and put where they belong, in jail.
…hold those responsible for Goebbels like propaganda responsible. — Voice of truth and not yo mama
LOL, so you want to break US intelligence into “a thousand pieces”?
Someone else considered that idea a while back, which ended badly, and ultimately gave rise to the term conspiracy theory.
Two points to consider…
First, it is impossible to have an informed electorate in a national security state where official secrecy is pervasive.
Second, a relatively small, well organized and financed minority can politically dominate the unorganized majority in a democratic republic.
You speak the truth, but if there is not to be a total abandonment of the rule of law (perhaps Leftists have already achieved this?)
then those judges that will necessarily become useless tools of the politically expedient need to step up…
You are right, I too believe, that our system may have been so corrupted by the likes of Clinton, Obama, Biden, that there is no hope
left to go back to the rule of law… yet look to the east on the third day as the sun rises 😉
…. perhaps Leftists have already achieved this?
Rightists are no better. They abandoned natural law decades ago, and this from supposed Christians.
Left wing, Right wing, Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives, Traditionalists, all one and the same. Its all about them first, all else tertiary.
If we have learned anything at all in the last year, compared to the four previous… I think ye be a bit myopic to suggest that “they” are all the same…
Now that we KNOW from a recent book that Nixon was NOT guilty in the supposed Watergate so called scandal (through the Freedom of Information Act that released all of the
Grand Jury testimony) where is the outrage??? I guess kind of like the Russian Hoax that has evolved to clarify the role of HRC and her accomplices in the MSM (all actively purging the books
and articles that now show them to be the accomplices that we all knew they were)…
Kind of like Orwellian me thinks… Napoleon was CLEARLY a Democrat 😉
Yes, Watergate was a burglary by actors independent of the president. Nixon was unfavored by “America, second” special and peculiar interests, and goaded into a cover-up. If we followed today’s precedents, the whistleblowers would have been imprisoned, and WaPo et al office and journalist homes would be ransacked and under investigation.
Abandoned natural law that begins with a woman, a man, and “our Posterity”? Develops through a process of reconciliation in family, community, state, and nation.
It’s quite clear that pro abortion activists are literally fabricating things to attack individual justices regardless of actual truth so cherry picking the words of a conservative leaning justice out of context and twisting them into personal smears is right up the immoral alley of pro abortion activists. Pro abortion activists are going to do everything they can to intimidate the Supreme Court by smearing them in the court of public opinion with lies.
“they can to intimidate the Supreme Court by smearing them in the court of public opinion with lies.”
I agree and think they and the left can intimidate all persons in the public eye. Statements, such as provided by Turley, “Ibram X. Kendi described her for adopting two Haitian children as virtual body snatching by a “white colonizer.” can be tweaked. The NYT can easily say a prominent professor called Barrett a “white colonizer” without lying. That can be tossed around throughout the MSM. Those reliant on the MSM will believe whatever spin the MSM places on it. After all, the MSM made many people believe that Rittenhouse attacked and killed ‘black people.’
Johnathon Turley was not one of them, read the article
Don’t know what you are saying. I read the article. Reread my comment.
I hope by now, any Cognitively functional human being, does not take into consideration what the far left media, New York Times and Washington Post in particular, has to say… They are, and have been, nothing more than blowhards for Marxist talking points and have no interest in journalistic integrity and truth.
As Pontius pilot once said in response to Jesus, “what is truth?“
I think we can answer that question in modern times…
Whatever truth may be, it certainly doesn’t come from the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other far left Marxist blowhard, that have only their narratives and propaganda to push.
Somehow, we will all find a way to bypass these pitiful institutions of distortion and deception.
Come to think of it, Most cognitively functional human beings already have 🙂
As Pontius pilot once said in response to Jesus, “what is truth?“
If you recall, Jesus provided no answer. I’ve considered it was because He obviously already knew the answer. He just wanted humans to see if the could figure it out. I believe the answer was provided in the outcome. It was crucified.
It is typical for the left and MSM to paraphrase what others say so that the left doesn’t have to argue the facts.
Where da white women at?
— Blazing Saddles
we right here!
Comments are closed.