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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 92 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Unsk (View Comment):
    But my point is that the Freedom of Religion  is one of those inalienable rights

    This is (somewhat) another point of disagreement we have. Freedom of “religion” isn’t an absolute. We still say it’s illegal to perform animal sacrifice as part of your religious ritual (although we’ll arrest you under cruelty to animal laws or some such, not explicitly anti-your-religion laws). Same with the consumption of illicit, mind-altering drugs(?). 

    And here I will give perhaps my most unpopular opinion: I think there are Constitutional amendments that act as our Achilles heel in the face of Islamism, but most especially the neo-pagan, corporate fascism practiced by the Left. If we espouse an absolute “inalienable right” to practice aggressive, western-culture-destroying, homicidal (abortion/jihad) “religions,” you see what we get. 

    I don’t have an answer, although some circles I travel in advocate a Christian monarchy. . .

    The one amendment our Founders missed was the one that forbids the federal government to redistribute wealth (steal from some to give to others and buy votes), which would probably have resulted in a federal government 1/10 the current size, to @iwalton‘s point.

    • #61
  2. Tyrion Lannister Inactive
    Tyrion Lannister
    @TyrionLannister

    I’ve felt for years that Biden, Pelosi, and other pro-abort Catholics should be mass excommunicated.  

    @westernchauvinist I agree with you that the Democrats are evil.  I used to think they were just misguided, but years of their cynical evil behavior have changed my mind.  The great sort can’t happen fast enough.  

    • #62
  3. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    That protects the moral people.

    But destroys the moral principle.

    This is one of those things I’m fine with leaving in God’s hands. They don’t want to do the moral thing, so let me separate from  them. When God’s wrath rains down, perhaps he’ll spare my people because we tried to do what was right in his eyes.

    Its not like they don’t know it’s immoral.

    • #63
  4. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):
    But my point is that the Freedom of Religion is one of those inalienable rights

    This is (somewhat) another point of disagreement we have. Freedom of “religion” isn’t an absolute. We still say it’s illegal to perform animal sacrifice as part of your religious ritual (although we’ll arrest you under cruelty to animal laws or some such, not explicitly anti-your-religion laws). Same with the consumption of illicit, mind-altering drugs(?).

    And here I will give perhaps my most unpopular opinion: I think there are Constitutional amendments that act as our Achilles heel in the face of Islamism, but most especially the neo-pagan, corporate fascism practiced by the Left. If we espouse an absolute “inalienable right” to practice aggressive, western-culture-destroying, homicidal (abortion/jihad) “religions,” you see what we get.

    I don’t have an answer, although some circles I travel in advocate a Christian monarchy. . .

    The one amendment our Founders missed was the one that forbids the federal government to redistribute wealth (steal from some to give to others and buy votes), which would probably have resulted in a federal government 1/10 the current size, to @ iwalton‘s point.

    The Christian monarchy idea is an interesting one.  But man, America, with it’s thousands of Christian denominations, would have a difficult time reaching consensus on who this monarch would be.  

    Even among Catholics you’d get some who would want someone a bit like Pope Francis while others would like someone much more conservative in outlook.  

    • #64
  5. Tyrion Lannister Inactive
    Tyrion Lannister
    @TyrionLannister

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    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?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    The constitution doesn’t have anything to say about abortion, so it’s a state issue.  Right or wrong is meaningless- it’s the states decision.  I’d encourage you to read the leaked Alito decision.

    The constitution currently doesn’t say anything about abortion but an amendment could be passed outlawing it nationally, which I imagine most of us here would support.  

    • #65
  6. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Tyrion Lannister (View Comment):

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    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?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    The constitution doesn’t have anything to say about abortion, so it’s a state issue. Right or wrong is meaningless- it’s the states decision. I’d encourage you to read the leaked Alito decision.

    The constitution currently doesn’t say anything about abortion but an amendment could be passed outlawing it nationally, which I imagine most of us here would support.

    One issue that interests me is the issue of unenumerated rights.  Critics of Alito’s decision say that, sure, the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion, but the Constitution doesn’t have to mention every right a citizen has for it to be a right.  

    But then the question is how the US Supreme Court should distinguish an actual unenumerated right under the Constitution from a right some people think we ought to have, which means they should persuade their elected representatives to enact legislation in that area.  

    I’m no constitutional lawyer.  But I sometimes get the sense that these unenumerated rights that critics of Alito speak of are just items on the Lefty wish list.  “The folks at Mother Jones think this would be pretty cool, so let’s call it an unenumerated right.”

    • #66
  7. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    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.

    “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

    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.

    “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” -Yeats

    • #67
  8. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Heavy Water:

    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.  

    If that’s Alito’s reasoning we are in big trouble.  The 14th Amendment was passed in the late 1860’s.  The Equal  Protection Clause was part of it, but it specifically enumerated what most felt the Constitution meant:  we were all equal under the law.

    Some people have argued that the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion, ergo it’s a states rights issue. It doesn’t have to. The Constitution is a document that was never meant to list every single application to it’s  jurisdiction.

    The issue of abortion before viability  is a religious/moral issue. Those who oppose pre-viability abortions do so largely on religious grounds, so the issue falls within the purview of the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion, whether we like it or not. Abortion in the late 1780’s or the late 1860’s was a different thing politically and medically  than it is now. The issue of viability was not in play at all, for I believe the medically technology was simply not there.  To evoke the idea that some states had laws that prevented abortion in the 1860’s is a horrendous attempt at some sort of original intent analysis ; other states at the time also permitted slavery too.

    The issue of viability is an attempt to limit abortions with a pretty strong legal underpinning,  and to limit the scope of “right to abortion debate” to a much smaller subset; not an attempt to grant greater access to abortions.

    What these states rights clowns do not understand is that by throwing out the “Right to Life” issue, and relinquishing the issue to a contest before the electorate, the Court has opened the door to greater and greater abuses of abortions.  We will be falling down a very bad rathole which the Left will allow wanton murder  of babies all over the place.

    In that situation at best , in most cases, an abortion is only just a short drive away to another state which allows an abortion which is these days not even an operation ; it’s the application of a pill under a doctor’s care.

    I smell a Big Frigging Smelly Rat  in this decision. Pray tell  why Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett are so eagerly voting for this- those faux conservatives who seemingly vote against any   other  issue that defends our Constitutional rights.

    I believe those three got orders from on high to raise this issue because:

    A. The Commie Dems are in big trouble coming this November.

    B. This decision opens the door to even greater abortions; a big high paying special interest group for the Commie Dems.

    • #68
  9. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Heavy Water:

    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.

    If that’s Alito’s reasoning we are in big trouble. The 14th Amendment was passed in the late 1860’s. The Equal Protection Clause was part of it, but it specifically enumerated what most felt the Constitution meant: we were all equal under the law.

    Some people have argued that the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion, ergo it’s a states rights issue. It doesn’t have to. The Constitution is a document that was never meant to list every single application to it’s jurisdiction.

    The issue of abortion before viability is a religious/moral issue. Those who oppose pre-viability abortions do so largely on religious grounds, so the issue falls within the purview of the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion, whether we like it or not. Abortion in the late 1780’s or the late 1860’s was a different thing politically and medically than it is now. The issue of viability was not in play at all, for I believe the medically technology was simply not there. To evoke the idea that some states had laws that prevented abortion in the 1860’s is a horrendous attempt at some sort of original intent analysis ; other states at the time also permitted slavery too.

    The issue of viability is an attempt to limit abortions with a pretty strong legal underpinning, and to limit the scope of “right to abortion debate” to a much smaller subset; not an attempt to grant greater access to abortions.

    What these states rights clowns do not understand is that by throwing out the “Right to Life” issue, and relinquishing the issue to a contest before the electorate, the Court has opened the door to greater and greater abuses of abortions. We will be falling down a very bad rathole which the Left will be allowed wanton murder all over the place.

    In that situation at best , in most cases, an abortion is only just a short drive away to another state which allows an abortion which is these days not even an operation ; it’s the application of a pill under a doctor’s care.

    I smell a Big Frigging Smelly Rat in this decision. Pray tell why Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett are so eagerly voting for this- those faux conservatives who seemingly vote against any other issue that defends our Constitutional rights.

    I believe those three got orders from on high to raise this issue because:

    A. The Commie Dems are in big trouble coming this November.

    B. This decision opens the door to even greater abortions; a big high paying special interest group for the Commie Dems.

    So, would you prefer that the US Supreme Court not overturn Roe v Wade, but uphold the Mississippi abortion ban?  

    This, I think, is what John Roberts wants to do whereas Alito and Thomas want to overturn Roe v Wade. 

    • #69
  10. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    So, would you prefer that the US Supreme Court not overturn Roe v Wade, but uphold the Mississippi abortion ban?  

    yes.

    • #70
  11. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But man, America, with it’s thousands of Christian denominations, would have a difficult time reaching consensus on who this monarch would be.  

    Methinks that’s not quite how monarchy works.

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Unsk (View Comment):

    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:

    1. If it’s growing it’s alive (growth begins immediately upon conception with rapid cell division),
    2. If it’s parents are human, it’s human.

    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.

    Whether a fetus is “ensouled” before birth may be a religious question, but whether a fetus is a human life is not scientifically in doubt at all.  And since laws against murder are about life function, not souls, what reason is there for abortion to not be considered murder?

    • #72
  13. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But man, America, with it’s thousands of Christian denominations, would have a difficult time reaching consensus on who this monarch would be.

    Methinks that’s not quite how monarchy works.

    Well, lacking a consensus, establishing a monarchy might be a bit, um, chaotic?  

    • #73
  14. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    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:

    1. If it’s growing it’s alive (growth begins immediately upon conception with rapid cell division),
    2. If it’s parents are human, it’s human.

    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.

    Whether a fetus is “ensouled” before birth may be a religious question, but whether a fetus is a human life is not scientifically in doubt at all. And since laws against murder are about life function, not souls, what reason is there for abortion to not be considered murder?

    This is what I was getting at in a previous comment.

    If one person kills another person, the punishment is often many years in prison or even the death penalty.  

    But with abortion, the idea of putting the woman who sought an abortion in prison or having her put to death isn’t mentioned as a possible punishment in most abortion debates.  

    • #74
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    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:

    1. If it’s growing it’s alive (growth begins immediately upon conception with rapid cell division),
    2. If it’s parents are human, it’s human.

    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.

    Whether a fetus is “ensouled” before birth may be a religious question, but whether a fetus is a human life is not scientifically in doubt at all. And since laws against murder are about life function, not souls, what reason is there for abortion to not be considered murder?

    This is what I was getting at in a previous comment.

    If one person kills another person, the punishment is often many years in prison or even the death penalty.

    But with abortion, the idea of putting the woman who sought an abortion in prison or having her put to death isn’t mentioned as a possible punishment in most abortion debates.

    Maybe that’s part of the problem.

    It reminds me of the old “joke” about a guy who kills his parents then begs for mercy because of being an orphan.

    If a woman kills her baby and then expects mercy because she “lost a child” the reaction should be the same.

    • #75
  16. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    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:

    1. If it’s growing it’s alive (growth begins immediately upon conception with rapid cell division),
    2. If it’s parents are human, it’s human.

    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.

    Whether a fetus is “ensouled” before birth may be a religious question, but whether a fetus is a human life is not scientifically in doubt at all. And since laws against murder are about life function, not souls, what reason is there for abortion to not be considered murder?

    This is what I was getting at in a previous comment.

    If one person kills another person, the punishment is often many years in prison or even the death penalty.

    But with abortion, the idea of putting the woman who sought an abortion in prison or having her put to death isn’t mentioned as a possible punishment in most abortion debates.

    Maybe that’s part of the problem.

    I think there was a columnist who got fired because one of his columns talked about firing squads for women who seek abortions.  But I can’t remember who it was.  

    • #76
  17. Tyrion Lannister Inactive
    Tyrion Lannister
    @TyrionLannister

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    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:

    1. If it’s growing it’s alive (growth begins immediately upon conception with rapid cell division),
    2. If it’s parents are human, it’s human.

    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.

    Whether a fetus is “ensouled” before birth may be a religious question, but whether a fetus is a human life is not scientifically in doubt at all. And since laws against murder are about life function, not souls, what reason is there for abortion to not be considered murder?

    This is what I was getting at in a previous comment.

    If one person kills another person, the punishment is often many years in prison or even the death penalty.

    But with abortion, the idea of putting the woman who sought an abortion in prison or having her put to death isn’t mentioned as a possible punishment in most abortion debates.

    Maybe that’s part of the problem.

    The doctor and the mother, and the partner if he puts her up to it.  I know many people are afraid to get this “extreme”, but if we are serious that abortion is murder, the death penalty should be on the table for all involved.  I’d support it.

    • #77
  18. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Tyrion Lannister (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    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:

    1. If it’s growing it’s alive (growth begins immediately upon conception with rapid cell division),
    2. If it’s parents are human, it’s human.

    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.

    Whether a fetus is “ensouled” before birth may be a religious question, but whether a fetus is a human life is not scientifically in doubt at all. And since laws against murder are about life function, not souls, what reason is there for abortion to not be considered murder?

    This is what I was getting at in a previous comment.

    If one person kills another person, the punishment is often many years in prison or even the death penalty.

    But with abortion, the idea of putting the woman who sought an abortion in prison or having her put to death isn’t mentioned as a possible punishment in most abortion debates.

    Maybe that’s part of the problem.

    The doctor and the mother, and the partner if he puts her up to it. I know many people are afraid to get this “extreme”, but if we are serious that abortion is murder, the death penalty should be on the table for all involved. I’d support it.

    Where it would get “interesting,” in a CSI sort of way, is when a woman talks to a few friends about having an abortion but then decides not to have an abortion.  But then the woman suffers a miscarriage.  One of her friends suspects she had an abortion and provides testimony to the local authorties.  

    I might have to start writing a novel.  I need some extra income.  

    • #78
  19. Richard O'Shea Coolidge
    Richard O'Shea
    @RichardOShea

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But man, America, with it’s thousands of Christian denominations, would have a difficult time reaching consensus on who this monarch would be.

    Methinks that’s not quite how monarchy works.

    Youthinks correct.

    • #79
  20. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But man, America, with it’s thousands of Christian denominations, would have a difficult time reaching consensus on who this monarch would be.

    Methinks that’s not quite how monarchy works.

    Youthinks correct.

    If America did end up with a monarchy, I wonder if we would end up with someone like Kim Jong Un.  You know, someone with a big weight problem.  

    • #80
  21. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    The one amendment our Founders missed was the one that forbids the federal government to redistribute wealth (steal from some to give to others and buy votes), which would probably have resulted in a federal government 1/10 the current size, to @iwalton‘s point.

    That was actually kind of there in the original Constitution.  It was altered by the 16th Amendment.

    • #81
  22. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The doctor and the mother, and the partner if he puts her up to it. I know many people are afraid to get this “extreme”, but if we are serious that abortion is murder, the death penalty should be on the table for all involved. I’d support it.

    Where it would get “interesting,” in a CSI sort of way, is when a woman talks to a few friends about having an abortion but then decides not to have an abortion.  But then the woman suffers a miscarriage.  One of her friends suspects she had an abortion and provides testimony to the local authorties.  

    I might have to start writing a novel.  I need some extra income.  

    If in a hypothetical alternate universe abortion was punishable by death, I doubt a woman would casually talk to a few friends about having one, any more than a wife today would ask her book club “anyone here know of an odorless, untraceable poison?  I only ask b/c I’m thinking I might slip some into my husband’s martini one of these days.”

    • #82
  23. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The doctor and the mother, and the partner if he puts her up to it. I know many people are afraid to get this “extreme”, but if we are serious that abortion is murder, the death penalty should be on the table for all involved. I’d support it.

    Where it would get “interesting,” in a CSI sort of way, is when a woman talks to a few friends about having an abortion but then decides not to have an abortion. But then the woman suffers a miscarriage. One of her friends suspects she had an abortion and provides testimony to the local authorties.

    I might have to start writing a novel. I need some extra income.

    If in a hypothetical alternate universe abortion was punishable by death, I doubt a woman would casually talk to a few friends about having one, any more than a wife today would ask her book club “anyone here know of an odorless, untraceable poison? I only ask b/c I’m thinking I might slip some into my husband’s martini one of these days.”

    You’re right.  I need to work on my plot line.  

    • #83
  24. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Western Chauvinist: 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).

    I was thinking of writing a post on the absolute milquetoast response of the American Catholic Bishops to this evil that the Democrat Party and Joe Biden, et al, fully support and want to codify. But before doing that I came back here to read this again. And I found that I really don’t have much to add except for this:

    I disagree with your wording “Joe Biden’s church“. We all know what you mean when you say this, but in reality it is Christ’s Church. Now, in practicality we may get to the point where it is “Joe Biden’s church” if the bishops continue to maintain their collective silence by not publicly calling out and calling to repentance Joe and all those purported Catholic politicians who continue to support and push abortion – and they are legion.

    It is beyond pathetic that Bishop William Edward Koening, of the diocese of Wilmington, Delaware and Archbishop Wilton Gregory of the archdiocese of Washington D.C., haven’t publicly condemned Biden. All we hear out of these supposed men is that they “don’t want to get drawn into partisan politics nor do they want to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Catholic Church teachings”. Or they say they “think they will get a lot more mileage out of a conversation trying to change the mind and heart as opposed to a public confrontation”. Well, neither of those have worked. We’ve heard this same trope over and over. One would think that a bishop, a successor to the Apostles, would be more afraid of his particular judgment on this issue than he would be of confronting a politician.

    It is beyond maddening.

    • #84
  25. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Warning, the demons will be out on Sunday, Mother’s Day.

    • #85
  26. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Scott, I can’t like that last comment, but I want to share with you my evil genius plan for addressing this with the clergy.

    I’m going to start with my pastor who, fortuitously for my purposes, is being moved to the chancery on June 1st to become the director of something or other and obviously has the ear of our new, fairly young bishop. I’m going to use Stina’s language and ask, “Don’t you think it might be a stumbling block to people who hold to the Church’s perpetual teaching on the sanctity of every life who are looking to come into the Church if the bishops don’t respond to Biden’s callous statement about abortion killing a child?”

    And, if something doesn’t come out soon from our bishop, I’ll escalate either directly to his office or through the opinion page of the diocesan newspaper.

    We have to keep after them. Ask Catherine of Siena be our patron in the effort.

    • #86
  27. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    • #87
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Well, we can’t all have Bishop Strickland for our bishop. Sadly. 

    • #88
  29. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    • #89
  30. Ray Kujawa Coolidge
    Ray Kujawa
    @RayKujawa

    Western Chauvinist:

    … 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.”

    Misrepresentation. SCOTUS is not making a decision that nobody can do this. They are deciding to return the ownership of this decision to the states. It would only be SCOTUS jurisdiction if it pertained to a federally protected constitutional freedom. Go ahead, just try to make that case out loud. I notice that Biden is being honest in mentioning that this case has to do with aborting a child. At least he didn’t avoid it. But when you are open about the subject matter like this instead of using euphamisms, you can see how difficult this would be to frame this in terms of being a contitutional right. There will never be a constitutional right to abort a child. It been accomodated by virtue of inserting the concept of right to privacy. Saying it’s the ‘law of the land’ is really tiring. It’s not a law. It’s a precedent based on a flawed decision. The states can take this back very easily.

    Take the Neo-Confederate Blue State of Washington. Very little chance of making abortion illegal. Expect there to be an abortion tourism industry instead.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.