in

Why outlawing abortion is insane.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

Eric Zuesse

An insane belief is one that is so blatantly false so that even pointing out scientifically proven reality won’t change it. The generalized opposition to abortion is an excellent example of a common insane belief. Like most of the common insane beliefs, it is usually a reflection of a religious or other philosophical school-of-thought. Specifically, in the case of abortion, believers typically view their own position on the subject to be “spiritual,” and view the supporters of an individual right to abortion as being “materialistic” (and therefore supposedly inferior to themselves).

Abortion is generally opposed because people confuse the meanings of such terms as “life” and as “consciousness,” and because the majority of people don’t think or care about their own ‘philosophical’ assumptions and about what harms or even evils can result from one’s having false assumptions at the very foundation (or basis) of their ethical viewpoint. But, in fact, even genocides can result from such falsehoods — ethical falsehoods.

(Some people might be evil because they have no consciences, and so are “psychopaths”; but others are evil because they have ethical assumptions that are false, such as “Blacks are less ethical than Whites,” “Jews are less ethical than Christians,” “Muslims are jihadists,” or other types of bigotry. Having false assumptions at the basis of one’s ethical viewpoints can produce an individual who is as bad as, or even worse than, a psychopath, but that person might very sincerely be committed to his/her false ethical beliefs. It’s not ONLY psychopaths who are evil. Often, people who are driven by their ethical convictions are evil or even extremely so.)

An example will here be analyzed, so as to provide a case that clearly demonstrates the point and that boldly exhibits its scientific violations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prhRsvWsm0I

“Self Discovery Series (Part 2 of 26) by Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa Chris Butler”

4 March 2014

At 4:19– he says that a scientist “has no definition for the word ‘life’.” But that’s false. A scientist has a definition that’s applicable to every form of “life,” and it is: “self-replicating (self-reproducing) molecules or ‘organisms,’ such as on our planet Earth entailing DNA and/or RNA, but possibly being of other molecular structures on other planets.” For the possibility of life without DNA or RNA, see this article from late 2014, which described the first scientific evidence for that possibility:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26641-synthetic-enzymes-hint-at-life-without-dna-or-rna/

However, not all forms of life are conscious, because consciousness is a higher-order, more complex, phenomenon, which entails a functioning nervous system. All animals — on both land and sea — possess a functioning nervous system, and therefore are conscious, but certainly viruses do not, and perhaps all or most non-animal life-forms also do not. 

Therefore, for example, a human zygote, or fertilized two-cellular fused organism, is alive, like a vegetable form of life is, but only after around 20 weeks in the human case, is the nervous system formed and starting to function and therefore the formerly existing fetus has at that stage become a conscious being, a baby:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/04/when-does-your-baby-become-conscious

So: Mr. Butler doesn’t understand science, though he talks about science and pretends to be capable of understanding it, which is misrepresentation about himself, and not only about science.

The only actual basis in America’s Constitution for rationally or scientifically interpreting what the nation’s Founders intended to be legally the meaning of “life” is the document’s own Preamble, which states the objective that all the rest of the document is intended to serve or advance, and which therefore takes precedence over all the rest of the document, which Preamble, for any U.S. Supreme Court jurist to violate, would consequently constitute treason, or war against the very intention of the document’s and American nation’s authors, the people who collectively produced it: 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

Nowhere in the Constitution does the word “life” appear except in an irrelevant context, where the Constitution (in Article 3, Section 3) asserts that “no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

The word “consciousness” appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Consequently, given that there is no clause that specifically pertains either to “life” or to “consciousness,” the U.S. Constitution provides nothing that specifically pertains either to life versus death (which could be applied even to a tree or other non-animal form of life) or to a pre-conscious versus post-conscious fetus (which could be applied to the permissibility or impermissibility of abortions).

Consequently, if there were a basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule regarding abortions, then it would necessarily be a ruling that would refer ONLY to the document’s Preamble, because there exists nothing in the document that pertains specifically to abortion.

In other words: for politicians, including members of the Supreme Court, to allege that there exists in the U.S. Constitution a basis for ruling upon abortions, constitutes fraud, unless that allegation is arguing solely upon the basis of interpreting the Constitution’s Preamble.

Roe v. Wade would have met this requirement if it had specifically referred to the Preamble, but it didn’t. Instead, they might have been ASSUMING IT in the passage:

94: In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes ‘compelling.’

95: With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the ‘compelling’ point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

96: This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this ‘compelling’ point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

97: With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

So: they were evading the foundation of their ruling, if there actually was any. In my own personal view, they would have been able to justify those conclusions on the basis of the Preamble; but Constitutional interpretation had already long-since become largely divorced from the Constitution; and, so, they felt no need to. American democracy had already long-since been destroyed. Of course, this made it easy for a merely political change ultimately to override that decision — or any other.

Whereas the Supreme Court’s ruling to allow abortions as Roe v. Wade did, could reasonably have been cogently defended upon the basis of the Preamble, no ruling that would overturn such a ruling can be, except by asserting things that — scientifically speaking — are lies. If that’s not outright fraudulent, it is insane, because any definition of “insane” has to assert and be based upon allegations 100% of which are scientifically defensible, and no one yet has argued against the Roe v. Wade conclusions on such a basis. All of those arguments have been either fraudulent or insane.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

-4 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom
Tom
May 3, 2022

Abortion is murder. Simple as that. Millions have died due to so called liberty of choice for the mother in question. This is not the real reason coz the mother was denied the right to refuse the Covid jab. Mandatory remember? Abortion is depopulation something globalists love to talk about all the time.

Orion
Orion
Reply to  Tom
May 3, 2022

Sorry to say you are completely wrong. Abortion is and should ultimately be a womans choice. Only she can determine whether she has the ability and the right circumstances for bringing a child into this world. People are far too quick in judging and condemning the womans choice before knowing her reasons.
What if their reasons for their decisions are due to rape, illness, lack of financial support, malformed or defective child? Would those who protest against abortion volunteer to look after these unwanted babies? I very much doubt it.

Diana
Diana
Reply to  Orion
May 4, 2022

I agree that there are far too many men commenting on something that should be a woman’s decision. I remember the time when women had to go to back street abortionists, perhaps because they couldn’t afford another mouth to feed. I know of someone in the early 1960s whose abortion went wrong. She was rushed to hospital where her horrified mother was the senior nursing sister on duty. There have been cases in Ireland where women have had to go to the north or to England. There was one very well-publicized case where a young girl had been raped by… Read more »

Diana
Diana
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
May 4, 2022

To you perhaps because you’re not a woman.

Orion
Orion
Reply to  Diana
May 4, 2022

How did I generalise?

mxanti
mxanti
May 3, 2022

Shut up, baby killer.

Leif Sachs
Leif Sachs
May 4, 2022

Roe vs Wade is being dusted off? We must be an election cycle, with the DNC feeling the squeeze.

People on the left and the right are threatening to crawl out of their designated culture war trenches to find common ground on issues like mandates, inflation and free speech. Cue the dropping of the mother of all political bombs, Roe Vs Wade, to make sure they get all emotional and politically tribal enough to want to crawl back into their trenches.

Whatever your thoughts on abortion, don’t fall for this stunt.

Last edited 3 months ago by Leif Sachs
Schaden Freude
Schaden Freude
May 4, 2022

The draft opinion of Justice Alito does not give any opinion on abortion itself. Rather, it states that the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over abortion, and therefore there is no legal basis for the USSC ruling in Roe v. Wade. Justice Alito’s draft opinion rules that it is the individual States of the USA that have legal jurisdiction over abortion, and it is up to each State to deal with the legality or otherwise of abortion in their State, by democratic means. If the USSC rules that Roe v. Wade is overturned, then it will be up to… Read more »

Canadian General in Azovstal? Russian media warns UK. Ukraine warns Orban. Update 1

Ukraine Rejects Negotiations with Russia, Demands Total Surrender Russia Continues Donbass Offensive