New in PJ Media:
Putative Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at the Essence Festival in New Orleans on Saturday, where she seized the opportunity to explain to us all why it is so bad, catastrophic, dangerous, and downright frightening that the Supreme Court has allowed individual states to decide to outlaw murdering children. The overturning of Roe v. Wade was, she said, a new manifestation of the U.S. government’s sorry legacy of “trying to claim ownership over human bodies.” She would have us believe, in other words, that allowing for the outlawing of abortion is just like slavery. This is one of the most embarrassing statements she has said yet, as reality is exactly the opposite.
Harris did say one thing that was correct: “This is a serious matter, and it requires all of us to speak up, to speak out, and to be active.” The activism the supposed vice president has in mind is unlikely to be anything pro-lifers would or could endorse, but her rationale for it was even worse. According to CNN, Harris repeated the Left’s founding anti-science assertion, that abortion pertains only to the mother’s body and not the child’s: “The statement has been made that the government has a right to come in your home and tell you as a woman and as a family what you should do with your body.”
The learned vice president’s point was that outlawing abortion was just like legalizing slavery: “We have to recognize,” she said, “we’re a nation that was founded on certain principles that are…grounded in the concept of freedom and liberty.” And now, she claimed, those principles were threatened: “We also know we’ve had a history in this country of government trying to claim ownership over human bodies, and we had supposedly evolved from that time and that way of thinking. So this is very problematic on so many levels; the impact that it is going to have on women without means.”
That “ownership over human bodies” bit was unfortunate in the extreme and demonstrated that the illustrious vice president’s grasp of history is tenuous at best. If anything, abortion is the assertion that one human being has ownership over the body of another, and we have been here before. On March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, published its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a case that had been brought by Dred Scott, a slave who had been taken into free territory and argued that, as a result, he was now free. The court voted 7–2 against Scott. In his opinion, Taney wrote that blacks were a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” who “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
There is more. Read the rest here.
Infidel says
Actually, that argument about the “ownership of human bodies” has already been destroyed over the last 3 years by St Anthony Fauci. And w/ it, the hypocrisy about “my body, my choice” – somehow fine when it comes to abortion, but invalid when it comes to MRNA vaccines
John Nolte wrote a fine essay a few days back on how public mood shifted on this issue over the last few years. In fact, in 2016, I believed that it was a settled issue, given that there were no legal obstacles to abortion. Until the mainstream culture started celebrating it, and doing things that were never intended. Even though I still am not by definition pro-life, since I do want abortion to be legal up to some point, which a state can decide, I no longer support the so-called “pro-choice” crowd
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/27/nolte-11-ways-democrats-helped-overturn-roe-wade
CogitoErgoSum says
At some point I was a little kid and at some point I turned into an old man. I wish I knew what the point was because I still feel like the same “me” that I’ve always been – but maybe I’m not. When I reach the point that I’m no longer me, what will I be? Will I become what I once was – nothing? How does nothing turn into something – and what is the point? What is the point?
mortimer says
The ‘point’ is that almost all countries in the world believe that there should be regulation and restrictions upon abortion and upon who is allowed to use it.
Every religion disapproves of abortion of convenience. Even Islam only allows abortion ‘before the soul enters’ which is a few weeks in Islam’s opinion.
Many countries restrict abortion after ‘quickening’ when the mother feels the fetus moving.
CogitoErgoSum says
The people of almost all countries and all religions believe there is a point to fixing a point after which abortion is restricted. Either both points exist or life itself is pointless. Without a point to life the reason for killing someone is as valid as the reason for not killing someone. In that case, I suppose if there would be any point at all for not killing another person it would be because it may make someone still living angry and then that person might kill you. That’s as good a point as any for not killing people .. but some people just don’t care because to them life is pointless.
Reality check says
The Dobbs decision did NOT outlaw any abortions at all. It simply eliminated the federal imagined “right” to one, and turned the matter properly back to each state to decide for itself.
somehistory says
An unborn baby has always been a separate person. To argue otherwise shows one of two things; One is to demonstrate how stupid and ignorant is the person making the argument that “it’s my body,” or “it’s not a person until birth,” and “it’s just a clump of cells.” These are all stupid and ignorant statements.
Two: The person making these statements, if they know them to be false but argue for them anyway, is just plain evil.
I’m really sick of people such as this harris…lying, immoral, stupid, devilish…and their ghoulish desires to murder innocent babies. As the lady from MI has said, it is a sacrifice to satan, just as ancient people sacrificed for their ‘gods’ to give them some manner of prosperity; the ghouls today argue for the same thing. They argue for their ‘lifestyle’ not to change, they don’t have the time or the money, or they want other things about their sorry lives to continue and a little child ‘would just get in the way’ of all that.
stacy says
Whether it is a separate person is a red herring. Having a right to life does not guarantee having the right to be given the use of another person’s body. The State has as much authority to require a women to transfer her tissues to an embyro as it has to require you to transfer your kidney, blood, bone marrow, cornea, etc., to me. Even a drunk driver cannot be required to replace his victim’s bodily parts. Furthermore, abortion is the “separation” of the embryo from the woman’s body, not the “killing.” The abortion pill produces a separation.
Abortion is also the absolute right of the woman to defend herself against physical pain, nerve damage, toxemia, pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes.
Anti-abortion laws also constitute theft of services. Incubation is the a service for which the State must contract and pay the contract price. What other service can the State require of an individual without proper compensation.
Nowhere is the text, structure or history of the Constitution can there be found a right to incubation.
The issue is not does the woman have a Constitutional right to an abortion, but rather, Does a fetus have a Constitution right to a woman’s body? The shift in the burden of proof is itself an Equal Protection violation. Let the fetus sue for use of the woman’s body the way anyone else has to sue for use of another person’s body. Case Dismissed. Failure to state a cause of action.
somehistory says
Howdy Doody would say now we have heard from the peanut gallery, but that would be insulting to peanuts.
Hoi Polloi says
Forgetting the fact that a fetus did not wander along and install itself as a squatter in the woman’s body. Two humans ~20 years or more senior caused its journey through life to begin. So by the above logic, any human can choose to eliminate any other individual differing in age by ~ 20 years who is demanding taxpayer support, or whom they perceive to benefit from unequal distribution of compensation, or who is in possession of a job or a house they covet and believe is a resource that should be theirs by right to be used by them in some superior manner. After all, such a claim is of higher standing because the claimant has no direct fault in the initiation of the inequality.
somehistory says
I had some chores to do, but was thinking about the idiot comment as I did them. This is at least the second time the same has been posted on JW.
with the anti-logic used to say the mother has a right to compensation if she has a baby, is like saying that people who raise animals…for food as in chickens, hogs, cattle, or for sale like dogs and cats, they need to start compensating the animals they are using to make profits.
and the “case” …is ignorant of the law in general. Everyone, before they are executed, gets “due process” when the law is followed. Children who are in a family where the parents are fighting over custody, have a rep assigned, an advocate, to argue for their rights before the court.
in the scenario above, the unborn would not be allowed “due process” or have an “advocate” to argue on his/her behalf. Therefore, the court needs to follow the Constitution and not stupid non-reasonings.
Hoi Polloi says
It seems to be a favorite, often very dramatically developed “case.” It’s extremely flawed and, as you and others here point out, it flies in the face of established legal practice.
In order to expand health insurance to a wider range of inhabitants, many of our “rights” were signed away. Our “lifestyles” are now under unrelenting scrutiny as insurance corps and employers now have additional “rights” to our health info that we have lost (the privacy biz is a pro-abortion justification), to monitor our health stats, and to use that to price offerings. But it’s fine for leftists to be judging my “lifestyle” to their own ends.
Overuse of quotation marks to emphasize terms they’re using in their pro-abortion arguments.
somehistory says
those who are in favor of killing babies…and it extends to those already born…have no real argument to support their selfish, murderous ways. so, they make up stuff, hoping an idiot is on a bench in some courtroom and will rule in their favor…and against the children.
As for “privacy” who really has any. My phone gets turned on, or off without me touching it. My computer gets turned on or off without me touching it. and if I mention something to my daughter…doesn’t matter what it might be…it appears on my computer as an ad.
and any time we wish to buy something, or have a service of some kind, we must give them all of our personal info…which they then sell.
and you are so right about he insurance and health issues. Otherwise, we wouldn’t get ads about the meds we might need or be taking…how else would they know what to market to whom…profit and the bottom line are what it is all about.
and so, too, baby-killing …all for the money that is made in that slaughter and selling parts.
Hoi Polloi says
Further, the more obvious problem with:
“the right to be given the use of another person’s body”
“require transfer of tissues to an embyro as it has to require you to transfer your kidney, blood, bone marrow, cornea, etc., to me”
“theft of services. Incubation is the a service for which the State must contract and pay the contract price. What other service can the State require of an individual without proper compensation”
“the absolute right of the woman to defend herself against physical pain, nerve damage, toxemia, pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes”
In a country and an era which grants a month to party hard for rainbows but barely acknowledges veterans and doesn’t set aside a day for law enforcement or firemen who die on the job, you’ve so easily and completely ignored the issue of the draft, which requires that men only lay down their lives. Not just a little tissue for a limited time, as a consequence of their own actions.
George Finland says
Radical Muslims also oppose abortion
mortimer says
To GF: correct. See my comment above. Sharia applies to all Muslims.
George Finland says
Muslims also oppose abortion.
CogitoErgoSum says
They oppose it after a certain point – after “ensoulment” takes place. Can you tell me when they think that happens?
PMK says
One source says the Islamic rule is 134 days (19 weeks + 1day), which suggests that it’s forbidden in the 20th week or later.
However one school of Islamic law (Maliki) forbids abortion for any reason, citing a Quranic verse.
. And do not kill the soul which God has forbidden except for the requirements of justice……” [Glorious Qur’an, Al- An’am 8: 151].
CogitoErgoSum says
So the Muslims can’t agree among themselves. What a surprise.
CogitoErgoSum says
The reasoning of these pro-abortion people escapes me. They can’t say when a human being becomes a human being. When does the magical transformation from glob of slime to human being occur? What does science say on the matter? What does the all knowing Dr. Fauci have to say about it? All I hear is “”Duh.” We are dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. I see why my comment about them taking a certain noise-making device and sticking it where the sun doesn’t shine was deleted. Some of them might actually try it so as to give themselves an abortion. Really. They are that stupid.
somehistory says
I saw your comment on the ‘left really does hate America” about that thing you mention in this comment…is still there.
CogitoErgoSum says
Oh, okay. Thanks. Yes, it appears I can be stupid myself sometimes. My excuse is that I’m old and my memory is slipping. What excuse do the young lefties have?
somehistory says
you are welcome. and, they don’t *need* an excuse and they certainly don’t have a *reason*…but they conjure up things so they may feel justified. Somewhere along the way, it became okay, hunky-dory, to drink the poison.
Celtic Rebel says
None! The baby interferes with their loose style. Might be a much better choice (If they want to mess around with sex) for both boys & girls to have their tubes tied. Not cut but tied, that way when they get married & decide they want a child the ties can be undone, hence it would cut down on the murdering of the unborn child. BTW I was brought up a Christian, & was taught that life begins at conception, EG: Begins when the sperm enters the egg, so NO time limits for these anti-life women, because IMHO there should be no abortions Unless the child is a health risk to the mother OR the female gets raped or for any other medical reason, NOT because they scream “MY BODY, MY CHOICE!”! What about the baby’s choice? They ARE living beings & they didn’t ask to be conceived! I am a Christian so I try to abide by God’s commandments, especially the 6th.
CogitoErgoSum says
When they say “My Body, my choice” wouldn’t that mean that they see a fetus as being part of the mother’s body until it no longer isn’t, i.e., when the umbilical cord is cut? If that is so, they are advocating for abortion even to a time when the baby is outside the mother’s body. Are they really giving any thought to what they are saying because I am and it leads me to some additional, very ugly thoughts. I can’t help seeing these pro-abortion people as extremely repulsive – or else they are people who just don’t think very much.
Bjoern Kumlien says
The question is simple and central:
The fetus who has come to be in mothers womb and which nature has provided with an incredible drive to live (my experience as neonatologist) is it ‘something’ or is she/he ‘someone’
Bjoern Kumlien says
The question is simple and central:
The fetus who has come to be in mothers womb and which nature has provided with an incredible drive to live (my experience as neonatologist) is it ‘something’ or is she/he ‘someone’?
somehistory says
Someone, absolutely. And precious.
Walter Sieruk says
Kamala Harris might just the very worst pro-abortion argument ever, but on the other hand her is herself one of the very best pro-abortion arguments. It’s a sorry shame that the woman that was pregnant was her didn’t get an abortion . This nation would have been better off without her.
This might sound like a joke but I’m not kidding ,In fact I’m very serious.
Jerry says
Kamala Harris is a living reminder that sometimes there maybe some merit in abortions especially if one could have save the US from her.
OLD GUY says
If Abortion of a babies life is so easy to rationalize, why the problem with the DEATH penalty for those who murder others or pump the DRUGS into our children bodies killing them.