Prequel: Tyranny of Tolerance part II.

Moving on with the groundwork.

My MRA friend wrote:

Now we turn to the next step in the Cultural Marxist master plan to separate Men from their families:

ABORTION.

Judge Dierker, in his masterwork The Tyranny of Tolerance writes:

“…in 1973, in a masterpiece of revisionist legal history, the Supreme Court decided that abortion is a constitutional right. Criticism of Roe v. Wade has been unremitting and unanswerable since the decision was handed down.

Unfortunately, unlike the famous rulings in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which also ignored established law in striking down a statute disliked by a majority of the Supreme Court, and in Plessy v Ferguson, which ignored the plain language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, Roe remains on the books (p. 56)."

“Roe purported to identify a corollary to a right of privacy, subsumed under the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the rationale of Roe evolved, however, it became clear that what was at issue was not the right of privacy. What privacy is there in the destruction of unborn life? A pregnancy, absent intervention of a syringe, requires the participation of two people, and results in the creation of a third—who had, even in the womb, formerly enjoyed legal protections and indeed legal rights, foremost of which had been the right to inherit (p. 57)."

Let's break this down.

The classic feminist argument for abortion is “My Body, My Choice.”

And I must acknowledge that feminists and pro-abortioners are, in general, are very eloquent in their arguments.

As an example, my good friend Renegade Evolution argues:

"A Woman’s Right of Domain over Her own Body:

To me, this goes so above and beyond the right to have a safe, legal abortion, but we will start there. Surprise! I believe in every woman’s right to have a safe and legal abortion. That is a big decision, a life altering choice. But it should be her choice to make.

Such a choice does come with great responsibility though. I think a woman in a relationship owes it to her partner to discuss these things, to hear his opinion and consider it and take it into account. It takes two people to make a baby, and in some cases, I really think it should be two people deciding what to do if egg and sperm hook up in such a manner.

Yes, ultimately it is her body and her decision, but her life is not the only one that will be affected by that decision, be it to have the baby or not, and she needs to consider and remember that. That being said, it is not the government’s choice, or the churches, or society as a whole. It is hers. All those other folks need to keep their laws and morality off her body and out of her decision."

Her words are a very good articulation of the typical pro abortion view on this topic.

However, I have to say that this line of reasoning is quite wrong.

Even the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which we will examine shortly, does NOT acknowledge that a woman is a law unto herself with respect to this issue.

It is my position that even feminists understand the ultimate reality of abortion... that it is the untimely killing of unborn children.

I wrote previously:

“…By lobbying against selective abortion, feminists prove what the pro-life folks have been screaming for years:

That aborted babies are not lifeless clumps of flesh, but actual human beings, deserving of legal protection.

This admission diametrically opposes the idea that a woman has the "right to choose". A woman does not have the right to choose murder, because no woman is justified for murdering another human being. Women ARE NOT special people who are exempt from the laws of God and man.

This admission, that these girl babies are human beings with a right to exist, is an implied acceptance of the fact that a woman, upon accepting a man's life-giving sperm and being impregnated by his seed, is no longer sovereign in her person.

She becomes just one piece of a Triad: Mother--Father--Child.

Her body is no longer her own. The unborn child, and the father of that child, via a sacred marriage covenant, both have claim over her. She is no longer autonomous, but beholden to both.

The Mistress becomes a handmaiden.

This is something that no feminist can ever accept. To the feminist, a woman is an autonomous being beholden to no one.”

It is understood that a woman is NOT sovereign over her body once she becomes pregnant. This misunderstanding is the result of deliberate lies advanced by zealous advocates of abortion.

The role of men in reproduction was very much acknowledged as sacred for untold ages until Roe v. Wade and similar decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court.

So much so, that male fertility was worshipped by the ancients, and the idea of man as the giver of life is embodied even today in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions.

Legal codes have acknowledged the special relationship between Husbands, wives, and children for thousands of years.

When the fullness of time and human experience is brought to bear on this, the most sensitive of topics, the slogan of “My body, My choice” is nothing more than an extreme display of selfishness, narcissism, and delusion of the highest order.

No mortal human being is autonomous. Not one.

Ten Thousand Rivers flow into the Sea. Even the tiniest raindrop causes a ripple.

The sooner that all people remember this, the happier we will all be.

But, I digress.

Getting back to the Tyranny of Tolerance, we find out why Roe is so important to Cultural Marxists and Feminists alike:

“No, at stake with Roe were the “reproductive rights” of women, to the exclusion of husbands and fathers, and perforce to the exclusion of traditional ideas of the family. Part and parcel of the marriage contract is the procreation of children. This is not some artifact of Roman Catholic doctrine; it was a real and vital part of the marriage contract under the law. To be sure, no one could be compelled by the government to procreate, but certainly a great object of the marriage contract was children, born and reared within the marriage. Roe nullifies the central purpose of the marriage contract, and the correlative rights on obligations of the husband and wife in that regard (p. 57).”

Notice, dear readers, that Mr. Dierker references the word CONTRACT, something we discussed previously.

Marriage, up until Roe v. Wade, was a contract between the Husband and the wife, with rights and responsibilities thereof.

At this point, I want to review the concept of Just Noticeable Difference and the ideal of Bastardy:

“In psychophysics, a just noticeable difference, customarily abbreviated with lowercase letters as jnd, is the smallest difference in a specified modality of sensory input that is detectable by a human being or other animal. It is also known as the difference limen or the differential threshold…

…The jnd is a statistical, rather than an exact quantity: from trial to trial, the difference that a given person notices will vary somewhat, and it is therefore necessary to conduct many trials in order to determine the threshold. The jnd usually reported is the difference that a person notices on 50% of trials. If a different proportion is used, this should be included in the description—for example one might report the value of the "75% jnd"...

... This modern attack on the family as the fundamental prop of society surely began with the employment of the liberals’ favorite tool, the equal protection clause.

This weapon was used to attack the very essence of the family, the idea that children of a marriage occupied a status at once different from and superior to illegitimate children. (Oh, by the way, the modern, politically correct law school profs don’t use the term “illegitimate,” since that term is obviously “insensitive” and even worse, “normative.” The old law frankly used the term “bastards,” but now we use the phrase “nonmarital children,” so that we don’t imply that bastardy carries any sort of taint.)

In the 1968 case Levy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that barred unacknowledged illegitimate children from filing actions for the wrongful death of the parent. Delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice William O Douglass wrote: “[W]e have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights and have not hesitated to stike down an invidious classification even though it had history and tradition on its side.” This is liberal law in a nutshell. History and tradition count for nothing; the language of the Constitution itself counts for little; the only criterion is whether a ruling will advance the liberal agenda (p.52-53)."

One will note the creeping effect the decision on bastardy (which I am one, by the way, so don’t get all offended). If one were to argue that the children of unmarried parents should be called Bastards, they would look like Darth Vader stealing candy from babies.

And yet, the concept of children born in wedlock, vs. children born outside of it is of crucial importance to a host of legal, moral, and philosophical issues.

Just. Noticeable. Difference.

The first step: remove the differentiation between out of wedlock and legitimate children.

The next step: use the concept of on demand abortion to lay the groundwork for stripping Men of the marital rights that they have enjoyed for millennium.

Baby steps.

Slow and steady wins the race right?

The crucial thing to remember in all this is that woman is sovereign over her person UNLESS she surrenders some of it to her Husband via the Martial Contract.

The great bulk of the Rights of Man rests on this very idea.

So of course, this pillar of the law was next in line to be liquidated. Here is where the Rights of man became terminally ill.

Roe v Wade was nothing but the pretext.

The prophet Muhammad said; "War is deceit."

Don’t ever forget it.

Let’s look at the actual Roe v. Wade decision shall we?

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life...

... A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies.

Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:

1. While 28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125...

…Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.

She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated…

…On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights. The court then held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does' complaint, declared the abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive relief. 314 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (ND Tex. 1970).

…The appellee notes, however, that the record does not disclose that Roe was pregnant at the time of the District Court hearing on May 22, 1970, 6 or on the following June 17 when the court's opinion and judgment were filed. And he suggests that Roe's case must now be moot because she and all other members of her class are no longer subject to any 1970 pregnancy

…But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid.

Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).

We, therefore, agree with the District Court that Jane Roe had standing to undertake this litigation, that she presented a justiciable controversy, and that the termination of her 1970 pregnancy has not rendered her case moot.

… Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion…

... The third reason is the State's interest(via it's Police Power to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals--) -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone...

... The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra…

…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.

There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.

The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life…

…B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned.

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly…

…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.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly.

The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67-72.”

The reasoning of this case, as any man can see, is as weak as water. The outcome, even more pathetic.

No wonder feminist groups are so worried that it will be overturned! The Roe v. Wade decision isn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

Clearly, Justice Blackmun and company were grasping for straws.

Consider what the Concerned Women for America has to say about the Roe v Wade decision:

In his preparation to write the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun spent an entire summer studying the international history of abortion law and reading textbooks in the Mayo Clinic medical library.

Blackmun identified the salient issue that stood in the way of Roe prevailing on the theory that abortion is a constitutional right. He wrote, "If this suggestion of personhood (fetus) is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed by the Amendment."1

In order to deny the unborn status as "persons" protected by the 14th Amendment, the Court first had to dehumanize them. The majority did so by pretending that no one could agree on when human life begins.

Blackmun penned a statement that reads more like that of a high school student who flunked a biology exam than a jurist looking for truth:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.2

One of many pro-fetal-life sources Blackmun cited and dismissed was the American Medical Association's (AMA's) Committee on Criminal Abortion Report of 1859, which referred to "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being." The AMA adopted resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws.

In 1970, an AMA Committee noted "polarization of the medical profession on this controversial issue." It was "felt to be influenced by the rapid changes in state laws and by the judicial decisions which tend to make abortion more freely available."3

And it gets worse. The unborn, Blackmun decreed with a straight face, are merely "potential life" until "viability," the time when "the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."4

Not subject to cross-examination, Blackmun wasn't made to explain how "potential life," i.e., non-life, is capable of development.

Blackmun's inconsistency could hardly be more obvious when compared to this statement about the "developing young":

[T]he pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy or bedroom possession of obscene material or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstaub and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned.5

You'd think that Blackmun, former general counsel for the Mayo Clinic, would have found persuasive Dr. Hymie Gordon, the Mayo Clinic's chief geneticist, who wrote:

From the moment of fertilization, when the deoxyribose nucleic acids from the spermatozoon and the ovum come together to form the zygote, the pattern of the individual's constitutional development is irrevocably determined, his future health, his future intellectual potential, even his future criminal proclivities are all dependent on the sequence of the purine and pryrimidine bases in the original set of DNA molecules of the unicellular individual.

True, environmental influences both during the intra-uterine period and after birth modify the individual's constitution and continue to do so right until his death, but it is at the moment of conception that the individual's capacity to these exogenous influences is established. Even at that early stage, the complexity of the living cell is so great that it is beyond our comprehension. It is a privilege to be allowed to protect and nurture it.6

Blackmun also "missed" Louis Pasteur's work on biogenesis:

The superstition that life arose from nonliving matter was scientifically disproved a long time ago by Louis Pasteur and others. It became a principle of science, we read in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology under biogenesis, "that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e., that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material" (Oxford University Press, 2000).7

Life begins at conception, period.

And the fetus, barring termination, miscarriage, or stillbirth, WILL become a little boy or a little girl.

Feminists know the evil they do when they advocate abortion as if the unborn child was nothing more than a mass of tissue.

As an example, every time a feminist rails about the evils of Selective Abortion, where girl children are aborted in favor of boy children, they acknowledge that those “little clumps of cells” are indeed, living, potential human beings…

Worthy of legal protection.

Roe v. Wade, in other words, is meaningless LEFTIST BULLSHIT.

And the claims of feminists, and even conservative women, that abortion is, "My body, My choice", are absolutely WRONG...

Ok then!

The prequel is officially over.

Next time:

Introductions, Mission Statements, babes, and more Tyranny of Tolerance!

Thanks for reading, make yourselves at home, and Godspeed.