A Slippery Slope

I have written about this in comments to a friend’s post but thought I would post it here. I believe the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a slippery slope for Americans.

What’s next? Banning birth control? Gay marriage? A woman’s right to vote? A woman’s right to inherit property?

Clearly we are on our way down the rabbit hole without any way back out so it seems.

To me, a man, any man, even a Supreme Court Justice is not emotionally or morally qualified to decide what happens to a woman’s body. He has not lived through a monthly period since the age of 12 reminding him of the god given right of childbirth. He has not worried about a potential pregnancy when his period is late several days. He has not suffered the extensive trauma of a terminated pregnancy either planned or unplanned. A man seeking to tell a woman what to do with a pregnancy is not an empathetic being and is only set on controlling the outcome. What happened to “liberty” and the protection of certain rights? Lose one and perhaps lose them all….

God did not ordain the Supreme Court Justices. Man did. The Supreme Court members are thereby not entitled to act as God in this respect which is what they are doing.

12 thoughts on “A Slippery Slope

  1. I came across an interesting social media post sarcastically saying that maybe now that they’ve taken away women’s control over their bodies, they’ll start forcing people to get vaccinated, which of course wouldn’t happen in a million years. I’m sure there’s a fair bit of overlap between the people who are anti-choice when it comes to abortion but also adamantly anti-vax. Throw in the overlap with pro-gun and it’s all one big mess of insanity.

    Like

  2. I agree completely! If the Supreme Court is going to uphold gun laws based on their read of the Constitution and is going to deny abortions based on their read of the Constitution, why don’t they honor the Constitution when it claims “life” and “liberty” for the people? Surely people who don’t own guns have the same liberties as people who own guns. And that means they are equally entitled to ensure their own safety by whatever means possible – even if that means restricting guns from others Both sets of citizens have the right to be protected not just gun owners.

    Like

  3. Surely the intent of the Second Amendment is to ensure citizens can protect themselves from intruders by carrying guns and from others who threaten their safety. This same sort of self-protection should be provided to non-gun owners as well. Non-gun owners have as much right to limit guns if they feel gun ownership infringes upon their protection as gun owners have to self-protection provided in the the right to bear arms.

    Like

    1. This one is really problematic for me, in part because the Justices have sworn they would not be influenced by their faith as Catholics. Clarence Thomas’ playbook is right out of Catholic dogma. I don’t have anything against Catholics – I am all for Freedom of Religion – until they start to use their beliefs and their power to eliminate my rights and my own religious choices and freedoms.

      Like

  4. I was under the impression that the Country was founded on Freedom of Religion. Maybe I got that one wrong or maybe the Ghost in the Machine changed things when I wasn’t paying attention…..:) lol….

    Like

Leave a Reply to MentalHealthBlogger Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s