by Eric Zuesse

An insane belief is one that is so blatantly false 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 the common insane beliefs, it is usually a reflection of a religious or another 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 on 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:

“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:

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:

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

Abortion Issue ignites massive passions

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 the 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; the licensure of that person; the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or maybe a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

 

The Supreme Court leak outlining the coming ban will affect 100 million American women and their families

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 mere political change ultimately to override that decision — or any other.

Eric Zuesse

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.

SOURCEVTN

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

15 COMMENTS

  1. Why do people lie to themselves so they can ignore reality? A fetus is an individual organism and not a part of a woman’s body. You can honestly refer to them as being a Parasite. People now think nothing of devouring other human beings as a way to both make money and to placate their conscience. Convenience is their God.

  2. The insanity does not end there. The same people who thought their freedom to not wear a mask or travel with virus in tow from town to town, was more important than other peoples lives, now want to abscond with peoples actual freedom of choice.
    The insane counter argument is to put it into a mirror and make them stare into it, by making masturbation illegal, and even a felony. All those viable sperm are surely gods seeds.
    there is actually biblical basis for it, as god killed one dude for spilling his semen on the ground. The pouty stompers who cannot use their words, are more childish each day it seems.
    They live to control others as they feel controlled.

    • David did you know that women can get pregnant through their rectums ? No ?

      Then where do you think these regressive republicans come from ?

  3. The more I look at the women demonstrating against abortion, the more I think it’s a great idea, and wish their mothers had felt the same way. Another thing, those women are so damned ugly and obnoxious that no man in his right mind would impregnate them anyway.

  4. The execrable garbage of the Talmud gushes out of your pores Jud….
    I’m opposed to abortion, but in your case, and being where you’re from… I would have accepted it.
    What’s more… I would have paid for your abortion.

  5. “If there is no God, everything is permissible,” as Dostoevski’s Ivan Karamazov said. But if there is a God, and there is, then killing the unborn child is an unspeakable crime, an egregious offense against the Creator, against the unique, newly created and ensouled human being in the womb whose life is snuffed out, and against humanity as a whole. It is only decaying and corrupted societies that do not defend those who cannot defend themselves. Abortion is willful murder, one of the 4 sins that “cry to heaven for vengeance” according to the Bible, the others being oppression of the poor, depriving the laborer of his wages, and sodomy.

    Is this Eric Zuesse by chance meant to be a Jooish counterbalance to the Christian and rational Jonas Alexis?

    Abortion also takes a very heavy psychological and emotional toll on the woman who aborts. Those who do not repent of their sin often become fanatical abortion zealots or manifest their repressed guilt in other unhealthy, irrational, and/or self-destructive ways. The proverbial “return of the repressed” is an unpleasant reality for those who violate the divinely established moral order by either having an abortion or by promoting it.

  6. As we women said in earlier days. We are boss in our own bellies. And men better leave debating this subject to women, instead of writing BS as in this article. I am furious, livid. I am 71 years old, and victim of an abortionattempt with pills. A female Italian researcher has done research and written a book about those that survived abortionattempts. A life long of suffering, CPTSD/DID, the most severe Attachment Disorder or even RAD. No adequate help available for services in the NL help the easy clients first as more money is being made on them and leave the clients that are struggling the most to their own devices. And yes i am and have always been pro Abortion. My Motto Every child deserves to be a wanted child. But pushing the timelimits further and further abortion now sometimes equals murder. When at the same gestation time babies survive being born premature. A Morning After Pill, Abortion Pill, 10 days after missed period abortion all make late abortions, unless medical totally unneccessary. Educate your daughters as i have mine. Broken condoms of Durex, the most expensive brand here.

    • All you people who are for the right to kill the child in the womb-it’s a shame your mother didn’t kill you………………A little different when the shoe is on the other foot, is’t it?

    • DA Gaddis, Next week you will be advocating for the death penalty in theft cases, and remaining silent as millions are displaced and killed by war. But, if you want to send the argument into the realm of ” being thankful for your past” then it is past time for reparations and compensation for black or indigenous people who have been experiencing genocide at the hands of the same anti-abortion crowd. But there, you will argue that it wasn’t you. Who died and made you god ?

  7. Sickening this false information on when an embryo, foetus gains consciousness. There are those who as adults remember their conceptions. Whose preverbal memories cause CPTSD and a life of suffering. And here some idiot writes up false science to support his pro abortion point of view. Now there are even those promoting after birth abortions. A scientific theory research written years ago. Traumatherapy about Developmental trauma disorders has made huge steps. There are now more children speaking out on remembering Inutero experiences and even past life experiences of being murdered etc. There is only one logical and empathical reason to be pro Choice.And that is the theories of dr Alan Schore about the love and care a human being needs to thrive in life. Parents who cannot offer that should terminate a pregnancy. But then in the first few weeks a woman is overdue and not at a timelimit that is equal to the time premature babies have been saved, kept alive. That is murder.

  8. They’re not outlawing abortion they are leaving it for the states and people to decide under the 10th Amendment. Are you all Constitutionally ILLITERATE?

    • The red states will immediately pass laws. In fact 13 of them have already passed laws that as soon as the SC says Roe is overturned abortion becomes illegal in June. Which will continue to become law in 24 states that are deeply red. That’s just a start.

      Taking away the rights of women to control their own bodies in half of the country might sound constitutional literacy to you but when the underpinnings of its constitutionality weaken in that half it leads to much broader changes everywhere that ultimately makes regressive people very happy.

    • You can’t take away “rights” under the Constitution that don’t exist. Ironically it’s those compassionate and tolerant blue states that are willing to commit infanticide who take away rights that do exist such as freedom of speech because it might be considered “disinformation”.

Comments are closed.