Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,449 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 323690

Posts: 1306

My Comments: 22615

User Comments: 11253

Photos: 811

Friends: 16

Following: 14

Followers: 9

Points: 44077

Last Online: 1 day ago



No Recent Visitors

the war against freedom and for a form of sharia* law by a political biased Supreme Court

Added: Friday, June 24th 2022 at 6:41pm by scenefromtheleft

Let’s not mince words or buy the bull from the right. They don’t care about human rights nor do they call about freedom. All they care about is imposing their belief system on the entire country. I saw one or two of the right-wingers on this very website scream and holler about “sharia law”. What is hilarious about that is they are likely (I am 99 percent certain) all in on this ruling by the Supreme Court which removes the woman’s right to the agency in her own body.

Just because a freedom-destroying law doesn’t go as far as forbidding the right to drive or have a job doesn’t mean it is not a freedom destroyer. The sad thing is that this draconic law will not affect congress or the rich. They will do what they always did before Roe Vs Wade, fly someplace where abortion is legal and have one. No problem at all for them…likely including some of the very politicians that have advocated against women’s choice.

So what does that leave for those too poor to afford a plane ticket? Well, very likely we are going to have another generation of back-alley abortions. Hopefully, a poor woman will be able to find a doctor that will at least not use rusty instruments and endanger the woman as well as take the fetus. In addition, we may find women taking pills and tinctures to get rid of an unborn fetus. Because desperate people do desperate things, and having a baby is sometimes the biggest disaster a particular woman can experience.

To be consistent, the anti-abortionists need to work to create a way for the woman they are legally forcing to carry the fetus full term, a way of not losing income (further endangering the rest of her family) and having somewhere to send the baby once it become such. But no, these say people want to argue that “self-determination” steps in at that point and the woman is supposed to support the child and raise it. If they had minded their own business the baby wouldn’t be there to be a potential burden on society but they don’t see it that way.

What is at the bottom of this entire thing is that the right-wing in this country hates freedom. Well, let me correct that a bit. They don’t hate freedom when it is them that want to do something. All you have to do is remember the stupidity over vaccinations for Covid that we had to listen to for 2 years. They not only wanted but demanded, the “freedom” to get the virus and infect those of us who were trying to avoid a potentially life-taking pandemic. As of right now, well over a million people have died in this country because of Covid (1,015,773 per Johns Hopkins). Some of those lives would likely have been saved if the “freedom lovers” hadn’t refused to take precautions.

So, to sum up, these people want to keep the freedom to infect and spread a deadly pandemic but oppose a woman having the right to make decisions about the personal thing….her own body. What other true freedom are these people going to try to destroy??

As long as it doesn’t affect “me”, what “you” do is NONE of my business. And if that doesn’t apply to a truly personal thing like abortion, what does it apply to?? Compare that to Covid, where YOUR decision really could affect “me”.


*” sharia law” is, of course, more wide-sweeping, but the spirit is the same…ie limits women’s right to choose.

User Comments

The right-wing version of the Sharia law they claim to hate.

"the woman is supposed to support the child and raise it. If they had minded their own business the baby wouldn’t be there to be a potential burden on society but they don’t see it that way."--and men walk away without being held one bit responsible!!

Also does Thomas remember when he couldn't narry a white woman and could have been haqnged? Of course not because MEN chanmged the law!!!

I realized that my response to this comment didn't make much if any sense.  What I was trying to say is that if we go back to "the states have control of everything related to marriage as well as these other issues"...his marriage would be considered illegally in all likelihood in 15 states.

The Supreme Court ruling that letting the States institute and keep some a biased law was unconstitutional is the only reason his marriage is legal in all 50 states, so he can take his wife to any state in the union.  Let's let his logic endure,and see if some of those 15 states don't reinstitue miscegnation laws.  

I personally don't believe that individual state, part of the United States, should be able to abridge issues of freedom and civil rights.

Post A Comment

This user has restricted commenting to friends only.