- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,874
- 62,626
- 3,605
.
Thanks for the Dissenting Opinion ...
They should be careful when they are a Supreme Court Justices and try to avoid all the caterwauling and hyperbole.
It might have served them better if they had attempted to find some Constitutional or legal grounds for their dissent.
It's what happens when Justices think they are politicians ...
.
The right is celebrating, b/c they are all for protecting the life of the unborn child. The left is up in arms, because they feel this is an affront to a woman's right to choose.
IMO? I don't think this decision was about either. Yet, the decision itself, was written, for public consumption, and the pundits, are discussing it, as such.
We should look back in history, and remember, how the establishment was able to, and was prepared, to create, "medical martial law," when COVID finally hit, and what this ruling portends for the future. We should also remember, it was a conservative court that originally gave us Roe v. Wade in the first place.
The ruling classes, and the oligarchy, in the end, don't really care about the masses, not really. What they care about, is government and corporate power, and the long range agenda.
After that whole, hoaxed anthrax false flag, right after 911, which was traced back to one of our own bio-labs, legislation was written by Johns Hopkins elites, for all the state legislatures for, "medical martial law," which was what, in essence, was used, for the COVID authoritarian "medical martial law," measures, which were used to subvert people's constitutional rights. This is what led to medial lock-downs, mask mandates, restricted business closures and all of that other non-sense. Folks wondered, "where did all that power of the state come from?" Those rules and that legislation was written right after 911, it was clearly unconstitutional, but they were emergency state measures, which were given to STATE health authorities.
The same possibilities exist here, to take reproductive and family planning rights, and give them to corporations and genetic technology firms. The rights to start families could, conceivably be taken away from families, or be licensed by the state with this ruling, as infertility is projected to increase to over fifty percent of the population by the year 2050 due to micro-plastics and endocrine disputers and PFAS in the environment. (IOW? The state will deem who is worthy of reproduction.)
So, yes, in essence, you are right. However, it would need to be done on a state by state means, and, one would assume, this would be done by corporations writing this legislation, and having their bought and paid for politicians, introduce these bills, and manipulating the system to do something only their technology can be used for human reproduction.
It is something have been very concerned with.
It allows for the nexus of corporate power controlling the populace, where there is no clear guarantee of Constitutional rights.
If folks REALLY want to understand why this ruling came down now, and why it is important?
I would recommend the following reading.
Transhumanism: A Final Corporate Takeover of Humanity
"Humanity is now at a crossroads. With the exponential growth of technology, we have the capability to bring a great turning or destroy the world."
Transhumanism: A Final Corporate Takeover of Humanity | Common Dreams
"Humanity is now at a crossroads. With the exponential growth of technology, we have the capability to bring a great turning or destroy the world."
www.commondreams.org
Delinking the “human” from human rights: artificial intelligence and transhumanism
The development of artificial intelligence and transhumanism are challenging what it means to be human—and who (or what) constitutes the “human” in human rights.
Delinking the “human” from human rights: artificial intelligence and transhumanism
The development of artificial intelligence and transhumanism are challenging what it means to be human—and who (or what) constitutes the “human” in human rights.
www.openglobalrights.org
The War Over Life, Liberty and Privacy Rights: From Abortion to COVID-19 and Beyond
The War Over Life, Liberty and Privacy Rights: From Abortion to COVID-19 and Beyond – Investment Watch
www.investmentwatchblog.com
". . . In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Roe when it prohibited states from imposing an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
Thirty years later, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court is poised to revisit whether the Constitution—namely, the Fourteenth Amendment—truly provides for the right to an abortion.
At a time when abortion is globally accessible (approximately 73 million abortions are carried out every year), legally expedient form of birth control (it is used to end more than 60% of unplanned pregnancies), and considered a societal norm (according to the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans continue to believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases), it’s debatable whether it will ever be truly possible to criminalize abortion altogether.
No matter how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs, it will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical and scientific minefields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity.
Here’s what I know.
Life is an inalienable right. By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights. The abortion debate—a tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—lays the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights: the disabled, the aged, the infirm, the immoral, the criminal, etc. The death penalty is just one aspect of this debate. As theologian Francis Schaeffer warned early on: “The acceptance of death of human life in babies born or unborn opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it’s purely arbitrary.”
If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection. There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others. Out of that mindset is born the seeds of eugenics, genocide, slavery and war.
There is no hierarchy of freedoms. All freedoms hang together. Freedom cannot be a piece-meal venture. My good friend Nat Hentoff (1925-2017), a longtime champion of civil liberties and a staunch pro-lifer, often cited Cardinal Bernardin, who believed that a “consistent ethic of life” viewed all threats to life as immoral: “[N]uclear war threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale. Abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale. Public executions are fast becoming weekly events in the most advanced technological society in history, and euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated. Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality. They cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.”
Beware slippery slopes. To suggest that the end justifies the means (for example, that abortion is justified in order to ensure a better quality of life for women and children) is to encourage a slippery slope mindset that could just as reasonably justify ending a life in order for the great good of preventing war, thwarting disease, defeating poverty, preserving national security, etc. Such arguments have been used in the past to justify such dubious propositions as subjecting segments of the population to secret scientific experiments, unleashing nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, and enslaving fellow humans. . . ."
Operation Warp Speed: Your One-Way Ticket To Total Surveillance
Operation Warp Speed: Your One-Way Ticket To Total Surveillance
"Incredibly precise... tracking systems... very active pharmacovigilance surveillance system." These are not idle words, but express a decades-old plan to track and monitor every person on earth. The COVID vaccine will open the door into a surveillance nightmare worthy of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
www.technocracy.news
Are we now prepared, for the States to have total control, over who can, and cannot become parents? To issue "parenting licenses?" Are we prepared to have to apply for authorization from the States to get "in vitro fertilization" services, like we get building permits? Are we ready for a world where only the well off, the genetically healthy, the rich, well connected, and politically "right thinking," are allowed to raise families? Are we ready for a world where big corporations edit and own your DNA?
IMO? THIS, is what this ruling now opens up that possibility for. . . . as much as the sanctity of life folks applaud it, it may, actually be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Think about the agenda of the DAVOS and WEF crowd, and the necessary legal framework of what they need, in the context of this ruling. . .
Last edited:
