The Tyranny of Tolerance III

Afternoon Space fans!!

Let's continue with our survey of the Tyranny of Tolerance.

The end-goal of this series is to show beyond doubt that Men have NO rights that are to be respected when it comes to marriage and family issues.

And consequently, Men have absolutely NO obligations with respect to the financial or emotional support of women or children.

Men are non entities in the eyes of the law.

"No Taxation without Representation" was a cause for revolution once upon a time.

The sentiment behind this famous battlecry holds true today.

Because men have no rights with respect to the family, men have no liabilities with respect to entering or upholding institutions of marriage and family.

Would anyone, male or female, willingly subject themselves to indentured servitude?

Would a multi national corporation enter into a contract that burdens them with all the responsibilities, but none of the rights and protections?

So then, WHY should men enter into the grotesque contract formerly known as marriage?

Why should men incur the liability for illegitimate child support and other forms of forced wealth transfers, such as alimony?

Why would men agree to a bargain that, upon its inevitable termination, would subject him to loss of reputation, loss of wealth, loss of offspring, or quite possibly, loss of life and liberty?

Nay. Better for men to go their own way.

Live for God, and for themselves.

Let the government provide. Let the women have their freedom.

There is no profit for a man in these strange times.


The Tyranny of Tolerance.


Turning to the book, Judge Dierker writes:

“The Liberal (or, as your author thinks, the Cultural Marxist) fight for abortion is not just about the defense of baby butchery; it is part of the multipronged assault on the traditional family. Perhaps no court decision validated these left wing legal efforts more than the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

(Justice Sandra Day O'Connor)




(Justice Anthony Kennedy)




(Justice David Souter)

That case featured the infamous opinion written jointly by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, which held that a state could not require a wife to notify her husband of a planned abortion (Tyranny of Tolerance, Dierker, p. 58).”

This decision, dear Readers, is when men were disenfranchised from family life, undoing thousands of years of Male Headship.

With this ruling, our rights, along with our obligations, were stripped away.

Before we continue, I would like to present an argument as to WHY men, at the present time in history, have no obligation towards supporting women, marriage, and federally financed programs such as child support.


Why Child Support and other such programs are illegitimate.


In the words of a former Men's Rights Activist (MRA) who wishes to remain nameless:

"(Someone) brought up an interesting point,

No, they're (MRAs are) saying that neither happens (divorce due to molestation or abuse) - in terms of what causes divorce.

In other words, a divorce that occurs based on abuse is non-existant, and if not, then it's irrelevant because it's the woman's fault anyway.

Typical, 'wah, wah - she left me and now I have to pay for the children I'm 50% responsible for creating, so I'm bitter and all women are evil' male-chauvinistic blather. Well, at least from the admittedly small portion of their verbal diarrhea that I've read.

They clearly hate women, or have been scorned by women, thus cannot debate the subject objectively, so what's the point in even entertaining them?"...

Professional MRAs will note the numerous uses of Shaming Language and the refusal to read and consider evidence. All of the documented material I had posted in previous threads is disregarded as "verbal diarrhea".

But more important for our purposes is the attempt to place responsibility for the baby making on the Male, "fifty-fifty" as the Mortals say. While the man's sperm is required biologically for reproduction to occur, and while a Man's love and support are ideal for the raising of healthy offspring, men have no legal standing with respect to a woman's body.

Men have no rights, sexually or otherwise, to a woman's body that she is morally or legally bound to respect. Please keep this in mind.

In this post, I stated my ideas on changing our chaotic family law structure. I wrote the following,

To continue, marriage is a covenant, only to be breached as the last possible resort. To my understanding, if a couple wanted to get a divorce under a fault based system, they had to plead a specific reason, such as abuse, adultery, etc.

A fair and impartial judge would adjudicate the suit according to the letter of the law, and fault would be assigned.

If the man, after due process of law, was found to have broken the covenant, child custody, alimony and child support would be awarded to the offended party. This would send a clear message to men that marriage is to be taken seriously, and there are RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES that come along with being a husband.

If the woman, after due process of law, was found to have broken the covenant, child custody, alimony and child support would be awarded to the offended party. The judge would have no choice but to award the wronged husband to the fullest extent of the law, AND the judgment of the court would be fully enforced, the woman's sex notwithstanding.

No favoritism, no double standards. Men and women alike would be judged with impartiality, justice, due process, and equal protection under the law. Conduct and intent would be noted. Fitness to parent would also be taken into account. Special circumstances would be noted, but the circumstances would not be used to justify giving a party SPECIAL RIGHTS, INSTEAD OF EQUAL RIGHTS.

This would send a clear message to women, the sex that currently files for divorce three times more than men do, that the marriage covenant is to be taken seriously, and there are RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES that come along with being a wife.

In such a system as I recommended, a woman would be protected in the event that her husband broke the terms of the marriage covenant. Her claims for child support in this case would be legitimized. As the system stands now, her claims for support for "our child" are groundless.

Why? Because WOMEN BEAR 100% OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILDBIRTH.

How did I come to this conclusion, you may ask? Let's look at the response I gave to our friend Obvious,

This is post #400 that I wrote a few days back. We need to get something straight.

>>My point with the abortion and rape angle was to establish the fact that women control all stages of lawful sexual intercourse.

Since men, and rightly so, have no legal right to demand sex from a non-consenting female, we have no choice but to conclude this principle is true.

And since women control ALL lawful sexual intercourse, then they are ultimately responsible for ALL child bearing, unmarried or married. And women have been choosing, four times out of ten, to have babies outside of marriage. The man has no final say in the matter. If she knows ahead of time that she will receive no form of child support from the man, she will make double damn sure that she is securely wed to the father before she brings a child to term.

Remember, Roe v Wade establishes a woman's right to privacy. Her body, her choice.

If the goal is to reduce childbirth outside of marriage, and increase childbirth inside marriage, changing marriage and divorce law would be meaningless without removing the major incentive subsidizing unmarried child birth, namely Child Support.

Obvious, your assertion that Men and women are equally responsible for reproduction is DEAD WRONG.

As you can see, a woman has no legitimate claim for support of any kind from a man. The woman chooses if she is going to keep the child, or not. The woman decides if she is going to deceive the man as to the paternity of the child, or not to deceive him. She decides if she is going to have the child inside marriage, or outside of it. The decisions are hers and hers alone.

Consequently, the man is NOT responsible for the lawful decisions that a woman makes.

Or to put this in another way:

If a woman goes to the doctor, and the doctor finds that he needs to perform surgery on her, the doctor cannot operate without her consent. Only after her consent is granted, can the doctor do his job and perform. After the surgery, the woman decides that she does not want to carry the burden of the medical bill alone, and decides to sue the doctor to force him to pay for the operation he performed with her consent.

Is this fair? Is this just?

Of course no. There is no moral justification for it. The woman gave her consent, knowing full well she would be billed for the operation.

Therefore, Child Support outside of a binding marriage covenant, similar to the one I described above is not legitimate.

If she agrees to a public and legal marriage covenant which clearly gives rights and responsibilities to the father by legally enforceable means, and abides by the rules thereof, then and only then is she entitled to Child Support.

If the woman breaks the covenant, then is not she legitimately entitled.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Dear Readers, please remember these points as we turn to the actual Supreme Court ruling.


Planned Parenthood v. Casey


Now we move to the actual decision. At the end of this discussion, it will become plain for all to see that when I and the good Judge claim that men have no rights, it is because MEN HAVE NO RIGHTS.

Without further delay, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

U.S. Supreme Court

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

505 U.S. 833

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v.

CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 91-744

Argued April 22, 1992
Decided June 29, 1992 *

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 91-902, Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al, v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; 3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance with the foregoing requirements; and 3207(b), 3214(a), and 3214(f), which impose certain reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services. Before any of the provisions took effect, the petitioners, five abortion clinics and a physician representing himself and a class of doctors who provide abortion services, brought this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that each of the provisions was unconstitutional on its face, as well as injunctive relief. The District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, striking down the husband notification provision but upholding the others. ..

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained [505 U.S. 833, 834] and reaffirmed as to each of its three parts: (1) a recognition of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure;…

… (b) Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty." Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society.

The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 , family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , and contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 . Roe's central holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents. Pp. 846-853.

(c) Application of the doctrine of stare decisis confirms that Roe's essential holding should be reaffirmed. In reexamining that holding, the Court's judgment is informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling the holding with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling. Pp. 854-855. [505 U.S. 833, 835] …

Please note, that in a previous post, we determined that the legal reasoning involved in the Roe decision was as weak as water. Scientific evidence that was and is available both before and after the Court's decision, contradict the main premise of the Roe decision, that a fetus is not considered viable until AFTER a certain time period of the woman's pregnancy, and during the period of non-viability, abortion is permitted.

The evidence clearly shows that life does indeed begin at conception, and subsequently, the State, via its Police Power to regulate the Health, Welfare, Safety, and Morals of the citizenry, is fully within its power to enforce restrictions upon abortion procedures.

We also know that Roe is flawed because feminists repeatedly call for a complete ban on the practice of Selective Sex abortion. If unborn children were nothing more than mere clumps of flesh that were useless to anyone and easily discarded, then feminists wouldn't care that the majority of fetuses targeted by Selective Sex abortion are female.

Based on scientific understanding, and common sense, the Supreme Court of the United States could have acted on the side of caution by banning abortion, or at the very least, declining to review this particular case.

But they chose not to, as rulings such as these advance the agenda of the Leftist elite, and raise the just noticeable difference level of the Western World just a little bit higher.





(Antonio Gramsci, Notorious Cultural Marxist Revolutionary)



As Marxist Revolutionary Antonio Gramsci would have undoubtedly noted, the Leftist elites of the Supreme Court used this case as the next step in the "long march through the institutions...", which ultimately, succeeded.

Gentlemen, make no mistake.

There was a war, and WE LOST. As of this posting, men have been officially cast out of the family by the Highest Court in the Land.

Once you say "I do", you are officially a slave.

Merriam-Webster:

slave
Pronunciation: 'slAv
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Anglo-French or Medieval Latin; Anglo-French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe during the early Middle Ages

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another

Wake up to the reality.

Moving on with the case decision:

… e) The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856…

… g) No change in Roe's factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for its overruling. Although subsequent maternal health care advances allow for later abortions safe to the pregnant woman, and post-Roe neonatal care developments have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier, these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests. Thus, any later divergences from the factual premises of Roe have no bearing on the validity of its central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal [505 U.S. 833, 836] life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on when viability occurs. Whenever it may occur, its attainment will continue to serve as the critical fact. Pp. 860…

… i) Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases, and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. Pp. 864-869…

So many lies... so little time!

When contrasted to the information I have provided in previous posts, it becomes clear that Roe was decided erroneously, and that serious damage has already been done to the Court's role as an impartial arbiter of justice.

The audacity of these ruffians in black!

Not only have these fools stripped men of the rights we has enjoyed since the beginning of recorded history, they then proceed to rub salt in our wounds!

… a) To protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, see id., at 162, the undue burden standard should be employed. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability…

… d) Adoption of the undue burden standard does not disturb Roe's holding that, regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability…

… 2. Section 3209's husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden, and is therefore invalid. A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely. The fact that 3209 may affect fewer than one percent of women seeking abortions does not save it from facial invalidity, since the proper focus of constitutional inquiry [505 U.S. 833, 838] is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to this Court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69 . Pp. 887-898…

Gentlemen, this says it all.

Compare this reasoning with previous Tyranny of Tolerance postings.

Compare this reasoning with the lies and the brainwashing you as a man have received since you were a little boy.

Then accept that...

MEN HAVE NO RIGHTS IN MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE.

THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST IN MARRIAGE, CHILDBIRTH, OR THE FINANCIAL OR MORAL SUPPORT THEREOF.

None. Zip. Zero.

"This Court's Understanding" has "liberated" Men from their families and offspring, forever and ever.

Nevermind that such a ruling violates the laws of God, and previously to the mid 1970's, the laws of men.

… JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER, joined by JUSTICE STEVENS, concluded in Part V-E that all of the statute's recordkeeping and reporting requirements, except that relating to spousal notice, are constitutional. The reporting provision relating to the reasons a married woman has not notified her husband that she intends to have an abortion must be invalidated, because it places an undue burden on a woman's choice. Pp. 900-901…

…JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE THOMAS, concluded that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child is not a constitutionally protected "liberty," because (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. See, e.g., Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 520 (SCALIA, J., concurring). The Pennsylvania statute should be upheld in its entirety under the rational basis test. Pp. 979-981.”

So, what rationale did the Court use to deny men the rights they have had for centuries?

The author of Tyranny of Tolerance informs us that:

“Relying on “scientific” data—really extrapolations of statistical extrapolations grossly exaggerating the incidence of spousal abuse (indeed, the data clearly show that spousal abuse is trivial in comparison to abuse by unmarried cohabitants) (Tyranny of Tolerance, p. 59)…”

Ah.

Once again, "Domestic Violence" is the battle cry of the Leftists.

As seasoned MRAs know, not only do women commit intimate partner violence on par with men; women far and away beat and kill their children.

Next time, we dig deeper into the Death of Men's Rights.

If you think that this information was useful, please feel free to copy and paste this to any message boards, blogs, or websites that you see fit.

The Tyranny of Tolerance, part IV, coming soon!