We’re Edging Closer to Civil War - Die for Roe vs Wade


By Charles M. Blow

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a decision allowing abortion providers in Texas to continue challenging a new law that bans most abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy. But while the conservative majority didn’t close the door on abortion in Texas completely, the degree to which it is cracked open allows in only a sliver of light.
For now, the law in question, S.B. 8, remains on the books. Anyone who assists in providing an illegal abortion — from the provider down to the person who gives a woman a ride to the clinic — can still be sued. Roe v. Wade has essentially been overturned in the state, and soon that astonishing reality may not only become permanent there but may also spread to other states.
A key component of women’s rights and body autonomy is being snatched away as we watch.
In a dissent on Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to ‘veto’ or ‘nullif[y]’ any federal law with which they disagreed.”
I found the invocation of South Carolina’s Calhoun striking. Yes, he was a strong believer in nullification, the idea that states could nullify federal laws, but he was also a raging racist who went further than the slave owners who saw slavery as a “necessary evil,” seeing it instead as a positive good.

In 1837, Calhoun railed in a speech on the Senate floor that slavery had “grown up with our society and institutions and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people.” He continued:
But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding states is an evil: Far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the Black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically but morally and intellectually.
He would reiterate that slavery was, “instead of an evil, a good — a positive good.”
In fact, Calhoun’s stance on slavery and states’ rights was so severe that he has been called the father of secession and the man who started the Civil War, even though he died 11 years before the war commenced.

In Calhoun’s view, the states had the right to control and oppress Black bodies as they saw fit, regardless of any actions to the contrary on the federal level. States, he felt, should be able to choose whether or not they wanted slavery.
I see too many uneasy parallels between what was happening nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now. I see this country on the verge of another civil war, as the Calhounian impulse is reborn.
There are enormous, obvious differences, of course. The civil war I see is not the kind that would leave hundreds of thousands of young men dead in combat. That is not to say that we aren’t seeing spates of violence but rather that this new war will be fought in courts, statehouses and ballot boxes, rather than in the fields.
And this war won’t be only about the subjugation of Black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy.

It will seek to push back against all the “others”: Black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, L.G.B.T.Q. people and, yes, women, particularly liberal ones.
In some ways, the abortion battle now being waged in the courts is a test case. Can the states make an argument that a civil right can be reversed on the state level? Can they make the case that all that the Constitution has not explicitly spelled out should be reserved for the states?
The Constitution has been silent on quite a bit since it was written in 1787, and the last time it was amended was nearly 30 years ago, in 1992, when the states ratified the 27th Amendment. When did Congress first approve that amendment? In 1789! Having not gotten enough states to ratify it after passage, it simply languished for 200 years.
All of us should be very worried about what we see happening with these abortion cases — not just women who might need abortions or relatives and friends of women who might need them.
We should worry about whether or not we are at an inflection point for an age of regression.
 
>Charles M. Blow
This faggot writes the best bait articles out of anyone working at New York Times. Posting any article by him on A&N gives a 50/50 chance of there being at least 3 pages of replies.
 
Abortion sperging aside, this is literally the backstory to a shitty novel I read as a teenager.

The pro-life and pro-abortion camps become incredibly polarised and refuse to accept a compromise, and an American version of the Troubles breaks out that eventually degrades into a full-on civil war. Eventually the civil war ends when some scientists come up with a solution that allows teenagers to be aborted but in a way that doesn't kill them (it's not really explained in the book any better than that).
I approve of post-delivery abortions up to the age of 938 weeks.
 
For a dying and degenerated "Empire", the best thing for it is balkanization. Stop forcing antithetical tribes to live together in the spoiled salad bowl.
 
Grandpa, tell us about the civil war 2!

Well gather around as I tell you how i fought and killed my fellow country for the right to abort you.

**figment of grandchild fade into nothing as the room becomes silent. A lone cat enters for its afternoon feeding.**
 
Abortion sperging aside, this is literally the backstory to a shitty novel I read as a teenager.

The pro-life and pro-abortion camps become incredibly polarised and refuse to accept a compromise, and an American version of the Troubles breaks out that eventually degrades into a full-on civil war. Eventually the civil war ends when some scientists come up with a solution that allows teenagers to be aborted but in a way that doesn't kill them (it's not really explained in the book any better than that).
I know that book, I think I posted about it in a "horrifying book" thread. The teenagers get chopped into pieces because you can apparently flawlessly graft full limbs (also sometimes you only need part of a limb, like say from the elbow down, doesn't explain what they do with the chopped kid's useless upper arm since no one needs an arm without a hand.) And it's "justified" because the kid never really dies during the procedure, continuing to "live" while grafted onto other people.
It was actually pretty good horror for me as long as you ignore the third book and don't think too hard. Like how somehow every chunk of the chopped up kid's brain remembers their "unwinding" and it's depicted as being such a horrific fear and horrible experience that it brings brain bit recipients to tears when "they" "remember" and yet nobody thinks "Gee maybe this fucking thing isn't such a harmless experience after all"

People who are jonesing for a civil war will be the ones least prepared for an actual civil war.

What was the name of the book?
"Unwind" by Neal Shusterman. First and second books are good, ignore the third one.
 
Man, the Moloch worshippers sure are uppity today.

The progressives don't like when lawfare is turned against them. Doubly funny when they have cheered the flouting of federal laws pertaining to drugs and immigration for nearly 20 years now.
 
Grandpa, tell us about the civil war 2!

Well gather around as I tell you how i fought and killed my fellow country for the right to abort you.

**figment of grandchild fade into nothing as the room becomes silent. A lone cat enters for its afternoon feeding.**
Adorable that you think there's just one.
 
Abortion sperging aside, this is literally the backstory to a shitty novel I read as a teenager.

The pro-life and pro-abortion camps become incredibly polarised and refuse to accept a compromise, and an American version of the Troubles breaks out that eventually degrades into a full-on civil war. Eventually the civil war ends when some scientists come up with a solution that allows teenagers to be aborted but in a way that doesn't kill them (it's not really explained in the book any better than that).
The irony of killing people because you believe killing the unborn is wrong is forever lost on both sides of this retarded debate.

Besides, if you outlaw abortion, how will global megacorporations feed the future people in the absence of meat farms?
 
I know that book, I think I posted about it in a "horrifying book" thread. The teenagers get chopped into pieces because you can apparently flawlessly graft full limbs (also sometimes you only need part of a limb, like say from the elbow down, doesn't explain what they do with the chopped kid's useless upper arm since no one needs an arm without a hand.) And it's "justified" because the kid never really dies during the procedure, continuing to "live" while grafted onto other people.
It was actually pretty good horror for me as long as you ignore the third book and don't think too hard. Like how somehow every chunk of the chopped up kid's brain remembers their "unwinding" and it's depicted as being such a horrific fear and horrible experience that it brings brain bit recipients to tears when "they" "remember" and yet nobody thinks "Gee maybe this fucking thing isn't such a harmless experience after all"


"Unwind" by Neal Shusterman. First and second books are good, ignore the third one.
Holy shit that takes me back. I believe that was required summer reading for my freshman year in highschool. I even autisticly remember some details too.
 
In a dissent on Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to ‘veto’ or ‘nullif[y]’ any federal law with which they disagreed.”
This statement demonstrates two things: 1) we need a way to recall supreme court judges for engaging in political activism and 2) apparently you don't have to understand the constitution and the 10th amendment in order to be considered a valid candidate for a position on the supreme court.

Roe V Wade was a bad decision regardless of whether or not you support abortion. It injected meaning into the constitution that wasn't actually there because the pro-abortion side knew they didn't have the support for an amendment which would allow abortion. Letting individual states make laws about abortion is literally what the constitution indicates the solution should be. If people want an expanded definition of personal rights that includes abortion then they need to get a new amendment passed.

The idea that anyone would want to fight a civil war over abortion is pretty exceptional.
 
William Henry Harrison, the guy whose inauguration speech was so long that he caught pneumonia and died 30 days later, was a proponent of state rights. They always use extremists to argue that it's a bad thing. The idea is that one is more loyal to their state than their country. You can read the whole thing
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4938/pg4938-images.html#link2H_4_0013 it's badly formatted but the best take away
If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror.
All political parties are bad.
 
The irony of killing people because you believe killing the unborn is wrong is forever lost on both sides of this retarded debate
There is a moral distinction that the pro-life side has, though. They can argue that taking the life of an abortion doctor intending to (in their view) murder a child is not just acceptable, but a moral duty.
 
What was the name of the book?
Unwind by Neil Shusterman.

It wasn't a great book and the author was about as subtle as a sledgehammer when it came to putting his stance on abortion across, but it kept me occupied during a summer holiday in France as a secondary school kid.
 
The pro-life and pro-abortion camps become incredibly polarised and refuse to accept a compromise, and an American version of the Troubles breaks out that eventually degrades into a full-on civil war. Eventually the civil war ends when some scientists come up with a solution that allows teenagers to be aborted but in a way that doesn't kill them (it's not really explained in the book any better than that).
They're getting worked up over something that doesn't even affect them whatsoever.
 
It's ironic that the fat Latina cited Calhoun. His arguments in favor of slavery translate almost directly to the arguments supporting abortion today.

"Not only is slavery not wrong, but it is a positive good. Blacks are better off being our slaves than being free in their barbaric homeland."

"Not only is abortion not wrong, but it is a positive good. Babies are better off dead than living with mothers who don't want them."
 
I wouldn't be so eager to engage in a civil war with people who fully believe that they're saving babies from being murdered. That's some holy-war shit that you don't want to allow to become violent.
 
Abortion is just a line on the list of grievances between two sides in this argument. I would argue it's not even the biggest one.

The biggest issue is the left is a horde of brain dead idiots who actually have no clue what they are fighting for beyond just repeating NPC talking points about equity and justice. If you actually ask them what they want specifically you just get more generalities. For example.

I could fly this flag on my porch right now.

FLG-CSB15_Confederate_Stars_and_Bars_10x15_flag__39349.1587921791.png

Those on the right would know immediately what I am trying to say here and why. The people on the left would have no fucking idea and would need to be told by their "priests" what this flag is and why they need to be mad about it.
 
Última edición:
The fact that people on both sides are focusing so intently on abortion instead of the economy, taxes, crime and immigration just makes me lose even more faith in the country.

Even though Roe v. Wade may be a bad legal decision, I don't really see any benefit to overturning it as it will just add more fuel to the fire. I mean, it's been ~50 years since the initial Supreme Court decision.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo