Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dude Isn’t Just Wrong, He’s Evil
It’s long been said that the Left believes the Right is evil and the Right believes the Left is just wrong. Well, I’m over that. Joe Biden is evil and he’s the head of the party of evil. The Democrat party is historically the party of slavery and currently the party of racism (disguised as anti-racism) and murder. Yes, Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud (h/t Robert Spencer at PJMedia):
“The idea that we’re gonna make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court I think goes way overboard.”
Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.” That’s the only truthful part of the statement. The rest is just a Big, Huge Lie, since overturning Roe will not outlaw abortion, but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs. New York City can continue its genocidal abortion of more black babies than are born, Colorado will allow you to kill your child at the point of crowning, and California can pay to fly you in from another state to abort, abort, abort. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is.
But, Biden gets worse. He tells an even bigger lie, if possible, about the historical view of religions toward abortion:
“Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”
First off, could he be more incoherent and dishonest? Mainstream religions have concluded that the start of human life is inconclusive? And that’s why we should be allowed to kill children? Because we don’t know when life begins? Wouldn’t that mean, ethically, since we don’t know, we should err on the side of caution and not kill children at any stage of development??
And secondly, the Catholic church — Joe Biden’s church! — couldn’t be more clear conclusive. Life begins at conception (it’s science, duh!) and must be protected from conception until natural death. The Left will surely take to the streets in the coming days and weeks, but I can tell you, the scandal in the Catholic church will be momentous if the bishops don’t have a serious response to this. I will join my fellow Catholics camping outside the chanceries of our dioceses in protest until the bishops make clear that Joe Biden’s position is anathema to Catholics, both historically and in the present, because it is the longstanding teaching of the church established by Christ that “thou shalt not murder.” Joe’s position is, in fact, mortal sin. It is soul-killing. This is literally what excommunication is for –“to awaken an individual’s conscience to repentance” (canon 1312 & 1331).
Get on it, your excellencies. Joe Biden better not be receiving communion this Sunday. Our Lord is too precious to be so defiled and we won’t stand for it after these vile, scandalous statements.
Published in General
Let us pause here for a lesson from a cancelled priest.
Returning power to the states, huh?
Does that mean Obamacare will no longer encourage infanticide? That the Department of Education (Indoctrination) will no longer tell our children that infanticide is a “right”? That my Federal tax dollars won’t end up at Planned Parenthood?
I suspect just the opposite. That all that will happen more so.
First, it is government for the people, by the people.
And the people are not in one accord on this issue. We are clearly and unequivocally divided.
To put this at the highest level of government, abortion wins and we are all culpable. To put it at the states, some states get to be more moral than other states because their people are more moral than other states.
That protects the moral people.
Unless you want a divorce. Do you want secession? Because the only way for a heavily divided nation to be held together peacefully and without totalitarianism is to allow for federalism to flourish.
I tend to discount the fact that most people I am dealing with are evil. I believe evil exists, but most people do evil because they are going along with the crowd rather than because they actually choose it.
We are getting a taste of how slavery divided our nation, how some justified it, and how such a divisive issue was resolved. This isn’t the thing that resolves abortion • it is just a step toward ending an evil, like some of the compromises passed from the ratification to the civil war.
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph, said Burke, is for good men to do nothing; and most good men nowadays can be relied upon to do precisely that. Where a reputation for intolerance is more feared than a reputation for vice itself, all manner of evil may be expected to flourish.”
― Theodore Dalrymple, Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses
I would just add here that abortion is hardly unique in this regard. Under our Constitution, the federal government has certain enumerated powers, while the police power and enforcement of common and civil law has always been left to the states. Murder, rape, assault, and theft are defined by state law codes plus legal precedent.
Now broadly of course all states outlaw such things, but the details may vary from state to state. Take age of consent laws, for instance: morally speaking, it’s incoherent to say that it’s fine and dandy to seduce a willing 16-year-old in State A but it’s rape if you happen to cross the border into State B. But legally speaking, we leave it up to the messy democratic process in each state to draw these lines.
No the problem now is that what used to be considered good is not considered evil. So the good are unsure what to do since they may be wrong and confused about it. Add that to the fact that we have a very bad issue with the good going after the active good more than the bad.
Is it consistent to say that the Constitution states when it comes to the right to bear arms? But there is no right to life in the Constitution?
Check the 14th. Second sentence, 3rd clause.
The reason many don’t think that gives the federal government the power to protect the unborn is: That sentence of the 14th only applies to the unborn if they are persons, and we might need a law to specify that they are persons, but the power to make that specification is not given to the federal government.
Not only that. But normally if you kill another human being, you can either get the death penalty or spend years in prison.
That sort of punishment doesn’t seem to be debated in the abortion debate. The worst thing that happens to a woman who seeks an abortion is that her physician gets punished.
I can understand that I suppose, even though it makes no sense that we still can’t figure out what a “person” is – but whatever they are, they have a right to bear arms. And run the government.
And we know how “history” has judged those compromises.
Me too. Believe me, me too.
In the United Kingdom, the tide seems to be turning. It might take a few years (or more) for the tide to turn here in America.
Late to the comments, but I wanted to add this language from the 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion:
Murder is a state issue. You can only be tried by the feds for murder by the feds if you kill a federal employee or kill someone on federal property.
But if states don’t equally protect all persons from murder, then that’s a federal issue under the second sentence of the 14th Amendment.
A 14th Amendment argument for Congressional abortion bans, or for a SCOTUS strikedown of California laws protecting abortion, looks to me like a viable option . . . if we don’t need any laws to confirm when personhood begins.
But that’s a big if.
But destroys the moral principle.
States already don’t define murder in precisely the same way. What can be murder in one state may only be manslaughter in another.
The left knows they are persons. That is why they use weasel phrases like choice, reproductive rights, etc. Don’t let them get away with it. AlwYs refer to it as killing an innocent baby.
jaWes: Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?
Damn Straight.
First of all, Roe vs Wade from the standpoint of the inalienable right to life of the unborn child is far superior to current law (yes, Roe vs Wade was overturned for something more evil decades ago) and to what I have read of this new Supreme Court states rights abortion ruling.
Roe v Wade recognized that when a fetus is viable to live outside the womb, then in 1973, at six months, ( now 20 weeks) the fetus had an inalienable right to life. Fifth Amendment …… the right to LIFE, liberty and property. It is in the Constitution! Also how can one baby be born at 20 weeks with all the rights of a citizen where another of the same age be denied those same rights? Equal protection would seem to insure the equal rights of both.
This new ruling does virtually nothing to prevent abortion; it is a pyrrhic victory of sorts because only allows some states to ban it while it essentially opens the flood gates to aborting of born babies in other states, because you know now there is no inalienable right to life.
That is the problem with this court. It refuses to enforce the Constitution . We are not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic where one’s inalienable rights trump the will of the voters, but this court consistently allows our inalienable rights to be trampled.
Yes, I believe abortion to be immoral. But there is a difference between what should be moral and what should legal. The first Amendment with the both the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of speech demands that we as citizen respect the religious practices and opinions of others and we are absolutely not to impose through the law our religious practices upon others, but that is what the pro-life and pro-abortion side both do.
The founding fathers knew that relgious passions needs to be diffused, and understood the value of respecting the practices of others to diffuse those passions. . There had been horrible religious wars in Europe in both the 17th and 18th centuries where millions died., because each side refused to respect the religions of others, so the founding fathers were well aware of unrestrained religious fighting could do.
continued
The issue of whether a baby before viability is a human being is a moral question, and we are called to respect the rights of others to make that choice. That is not to say, other improvements cannot be made to Roe that would limit abortions big time in a way far more successfully that this proposed ruling.
Why for instance, is there a women’s right to choose? Shouldn’t it be that both the father and mother have to agree to abort a child? But if that were the law, wouldn’t a whole bunch of young people be a lot more conscious of the repercussions of sex? Casual sex would quickly become a thing of the past.
Also, if both sides of the abortion question were respected then abortions could no longer be promoted in school or by health agencies, or could they be financed by the government. Abortion on demand no more.
But in the end, the best way to reduce abortions is to change the attitudes of so many young people that young fetuses are disposable. That is the way to reduce abortions.
Too charitable, James. Biden has said stuff like this all his life.
No, I disagree. The issue of whether a baby before viability is a human being is a scientific question quite easily answered as follows:
Period. End of issue. Every person alive on the planet was once a pre-viable human being. It’s science, not morality. No one gets to choose her own scientific facts, whereas people can and often do relativize and subjectivize their moral sensibilities.
Joe Biden said one truthful thing among all the lies: abortion is killing a child. I think the pro-abortion Left is fast approaching the moment when they won’t even deny it anymore. Certainly, Joe Biden has pushed them in that direction.
Paraphrase Denny Greene, Biden is who we thought he was. The man who created “Borking”, harassed Justice Thomas, said Mitt Romney will put you back in chains would be a demagogue on this issue.
Western Chauvinist:
No, I disagree. The issue of whether a baby before viability is a human being is a scientific question quite easily answered as follows:
Period. End of issue. Every person alive on the planet was once a pre-viable human being. It’s science, not morality. No one gets to choose her own scientific facts, whereas people can and often do relativize and subjectivize their moral sensibilities.
In many ways I tend to agree with your points. From a moral point of view certainly. But my point is that the Freedom of Religion is one of those inalienable rights that doesn’t give you, if properly decided and enforced ,everything you want, and that was done on purpose by the Founding Fathers to diffuse religious passions. The issue of whether a baby before viability is a human being, while you make some very fine points, is still a very contentious and inflammatory moral/religious issue no matter how you slice it . Religious issues, unfortunately in this world, are often not reconciled by logic or scientific proof.
I read some of Alito’s decision yesterday and one of the points Alito made is that the Constitution does not mention abortion, does not provide a right to abortion and, therefore, the elected branches of government have the power to decide abortion issues.
One of the things Alito mentioned was that at the time the 14th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified (the amendment where some have argued that the right to abortion exists), many states had restrictions on abortion. So, Alito seems to argue that 14th amendment was not understood as providing a constitutional right to abortion.
Maybe it’s more complicated. Some folks have excess power so their self interested behavior has greater impact and most of it is negative if the power is political. We’ve reached a point where political power and commercial industrial power overlap and that’s a fundamental problem, but not new, it’s the way the world worked until we came along with our bottom up commercial society and transformed the world. We lost that division and behave as if we hadn’t. Political power, if we remember, was known to be ignorant and dangerous, so we wanted it limited and as close to the people as possible. But we let it grow and states accumulated excess power and were inept and corrupt but instead of reversing it we moved the power to orderly more civilized appearing federal bureaucrats and organized them with rules and limits. Now we have unaccountable, self interested (they are human after all) folks that obviously can’t run the most complex diverse spread out country in history from their limited self interested place so we don’t know what do do. It can’t be fixed with better people, we are what we are. We have to figure out how to eliminate 90% of the bureaucracy. It’d be easy if we didn’t face China, we’d just decentralize and some would eliminate dead weight and the rest might learn.