By Tom Gilson Published on July 10, 2018

Trump has nominated a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. Speaking a few days in advance, Nina Totenberg of NPR called it “the end of the world as we know it.”

Which world is that? Not the same one conservatives live in. Conservatives see this Supreme Court moment as a move toward restoring government as it’s meant to be.

No one — we need not worry about the fringe exceptions — thinks we should return to a world where blacks are discriminated against. That’s the big fear. No one thinks we should return to the world my generation grew up in, where a woman had five career paths to choose from: nurse, schoolteacher, secretary, retail clerk or homemaker. Injustice is not a conservative principle, despite the rhetoric you’ve been hearing.

The ‘Constitutional’ World Progressives Have Been Living In

But the world liberals have been “living in” is one where all injustice can be cured through government intervention. They’ve forgotten that our Bill of Rights was written to support justice and freedom by limiting government.

The world they’ve been living in is one where the Constitution contains a “right” to abortion and gay marriage.

It’s a world where the Constitution gave the Federal government power to decide such things for all the states.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

It’s a world that foolishly supposes these matters are for judges to decide, not legislatures. It’s a place where somehow this represents the rule of law rather than the rule of men — even though it took but a simple majority of nine unelected persons to make these decisions into law.

It’s a world where liberty means the freedom to disagree with progressive social norms, provided you confine your disagreement to private conversation. You may never allow it to influence public action.

The Religious World They’ve Been Living In

It’s a world where belief in God should be contained and controlled; where faith is a gnat, an obstacle, an annoyance thrown up irrationally against them, on their way toward crafting a society of their own their liking.

It’s a world in which their new religion has overtaken all the old ones. Faith in this world means belief in government. Ethics in this world are entirely relative … except for rules they decree unyieldingly absolute. Guilt in the religion of this Progressive World adheres only to people of “privilege,” whose salvation is achieved only through shame.

It’s a world in which even the courts — and the Constitution itself — are to be no hindrance.

It’s a world where freedom of any other religion is allowed only the most private terms possible: “freedom of worship” and “freedom of belief.” Freedom of public expression is not included, for that would be a hindrance to their Progessiveness.

It’s also one in which even the courts — and the Constitution itself — are to be no hindrance.

The All-or-Nothing, Black-and-White World They’ve Been Living In

It’s also — most ironically, given their public penchant for diversity — a black-and-white world, without gradations. Rick Moran’s compilation of progressives’ comments shows just how all-or-nothing their world is.

Rachel Maddow said the banning of birth control could be imminent. Where’d she get that from? Best I can tell, if abortion goes, everything goes, for she lives in an all-or-nothing world. Al Sharpton’s warning was, “All human and civil rights are at stake.” Not just some. All.

Their world is a world of exclusion, where only their ideas are allowed.

Meanwhile commentators at MSNBC called for “panic” and “freaking out,” as if that were ever a good idea. But this, too, reflects the world they live in: one in which the give-and-take of winning and losing under Constitutional processes is acceptable only when they win and conservatives lose.

Which leads to the greatest progressive irony of all: Their world is a world of exclusion; a world where people of every color are valued — albeit grudgingly and shamefully, in the case of whites — but only their progressive ideas are allowed.

The Adult World They Haven’t Been Living In

And it’s these last aspects of their world that reveal its true character. People who view themselves as adults living in a diverse world of other adults tend to respect one another accordingly. They know how to win and how to lose; they can accept either one graciously and move on. Conservatives generally did that in 2008. Progressives in 2016 and since? Not so much.

Am I implying something rude and judgmental here? How about this: I’ll just leave it with those observations, and let you draw your own conclusions.

I don’t mind if progressives disagree with conservatives. They’re adults, they have that freedom, and we all ought to work through our differences together. But we can only do it if we live in a world of adults together.

Their world may indeed be coming to an end. Given the way that world looks, I sincerely hope so.

 

Tom Gilson is a senior editor with The Stream and the author of Critical Conversations: A Christian Parents’ Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens (Kregel Publications, 2016). Follow him on Twitter: @TomGilsonAuthor.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • GLT

    Accurate and concise. Excellent!

  • tz1

    Add Euthanasia.
    When the red wave gives 60+ GOP senators in 2019 expect Starbucks to introduce Hemlock Lattés. Or if Ginsberg kicks the bucket early.
    They imagine they are in a B Nazi holocaust movie.
    There was a scene from Wilder’s Willie Wonka where he said, sotto voce, No, don’t, stop. For now I wish to encourage all the bizarre insanity up to and possibly including violence on the left to split things, but the broken people after the midterms, I wish to sotto voce say no, don’t, stop, while handing them a copy of Final Exit.
    Who Knew Hillary was a reincarnation of the Jim Jones cult?

    • Karen

      You do hate us. If I am so wrong to worry, why not just say that you will not create the Republic of Gilead?

      • The Republic of Gilead is a liberals’ dream world. You don’t live in the real world if you think that’s for real. Get a grip!

        But I’ll say it anyway, since you asked. We will not create the Republic of Gilead. I’ll add that it looks even more awful to me than it probably does to you, because it’s such a horrific distortion of things I care about. It’s awful. I don’t want it. I never met a conservative who does.

        But I have encountered liberals who want everyone to think that’s what conservatives want. Know what that’s called? Lying.

        • Karen

          I am glad to hear that. The men I grew up around would have LOVED Gilead. Wife-beating was a daily event, and those who didn’t beat their wives insulted them constantly. I have really never known but one or two men who really enjoyed the company of women or respected our abilities. I see nothing in conservatives any different.

          • I am so sorry for what you have had to witness and experience. I do understand how that could color your perceptions. It is not widespread reality as you think it is, though.

        • Ken Abbott

          Agreed. I read “The Handmaid’s Tale” several years ago, well before it was turned into the current television series. The nightmare that Atwell described was sickening, contrary to everything I believe the Bible prescribes regarding marriage, family, and the conduct of communities.

          • Karen

            Please tell how the laws of Gilead contradict conservative doctrine regarding the role of women? If we are to be nothing more than childbearers and domestics, why should we know how to read? Why should we be educated at all? Why shouldn’t we be sold off to whomever our fathers find at age 15?

          • Chip Crawford

            People here are not responsible for your poor choice of reading material or your deranged interpretations of the same. How about getting an appointment with your doctor and have him take a look at your meds, if maybe they need to be adjusted some.

          • Ken Abbott

            Okay. According to NT Christianity, men and women in Christ are ontologically equal in the eyes of God (the old distinctions are gone–neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free–all are one in Christ, heirs and co-heirs with him). There remain appropriate roles for men and women following the pattern of Christ’s relationship to his church. The man is to be the head and the woman is to be subordinate to him in role, but the man is to treat the woman as Christ does his church, whom he loves and for whom he gave his life. There is a wide range of activities and ministries available to women that go well beyond childbearing and attendance to domestic issues. Several women in the NT were tradespeople and businesspersons. All believers in Christ are encouraged to study the Scriptures, so education (which has always been highly prized in Christian communities) is a priority. And finally there is NO sense in which women of any age are considered property of their families to be bought and sold at will. I think you will find that all of that contradicts the so-called “laws of Gilead,” a society I find quite as strange and nightmarish as you do.

          • Karen

            That ‘lover her as Christ loves the church’ is quite vague. Lots of the Bible describes the punishments God inflicts even on believers; there is no good reason husbands can’t punish wives other than it would make your ideas of family relations unpopular.

          • Ken Abbott

            Go to the New Testament and show me where Christ ever treated his church with anything other than sacrificial love. Show me what “punishments” he meted out to people who believed and trusted in him.

          • Karen

            The entire book of Revelation? All that stuff about Israel, God’s Chosen People, getting punished for failing to follow the commandments?

          • Ken Abbott

            Revelation has 22 chapters. I don’t recall any instances therein of Christ punishing his church. There are warnings, there are consequences for sins, and there is corrective discipline given in real love, but no beatings or jailings or executions. You’ve made serious charges, Karen, and you should provide specifics to back them up.

            Israel was warned at the inception of the consequences for breaking the national covenant with God. The people fell repeatedly into idolatry, or spiritual adultery, and were judged for it, and yet God continually called them back. Eventually, they were cured of idolatry–there is no record of relapse after their return from the captivity in Babylon.

          • Bryan

            The context of the verse Ken Abbott references is Ephesians 5:25-30. I’ve included 25, 28-30 as the most relevant parts: “25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, … 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.”
            Verses 26 and 27 talk of what Christ is doing with the church.
            These are two specific descriptions of how a husband is to love his wife: by giving himself up for her and by nourishing and cherishing her.
            It does not play out like this at all times in all situations. Men and women are selfish and self-serving from the Fall. But this is the aim. When someone is not living this way, they are to be called out and held accountable. Again this is not done perfectly either. But that does not diminish the standard or make the standard bad or evil. It means that those who should strive to meet it are sinful like everyone else.

          • Karen

            If men fail to live up to this standard, then women need the legal right to kick them out. Women need our own money and our own jobs; no woman should ever be dependent on a man in any way, shape, or form.

          • Bryan

            You’ve heard of no-fault divorce right? You have your own job, probably your own bank account? If you don’t like your husband, what’s stopping you from leaving?
            The fact that some Christian or conservative couples have joint accounts or live on one income from the husband doesn’t mean that those decisions weren’t reached mutually between the couple? I’m sure that there are plenty of cases where those things are used as oppression. That’s wrong.
            There are many conservative or Christian counseling personalities that recommend those things (joint accounts, one income if you can manage it, etc.) to people as ways to live well with their spouse. They are not saying that if you are in a bad situation, that you can’t do something to get out of it. In a setting where there is more accountability between the counseling personality and the person asking for advice, they would probably tailor it more specifically to that situation. But in the general sense many times those are good things if the money works out and the couple is good at communicating about money.

      • tz1

        I wish an anarchocapitalistic society, one where every man and woman with reason and free will can be free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others and take responsibility for their actions.
        I don’t hate you, I hate that you would enslave me by continuing to take my hard earned wealth, by regulating everything I do including forcing me to file papers that violate my privacy worse than whatever Griswold overturned, that DUIs and simply driving seem to deprive me of all rights, etc.
        Why do YOU want to CONTINUE to rob me, harm me, harass me, and enslave me by government proxy? You don’t even have the decency to do it directly yourself.

  • Karen

    What delusion allows you to believe that conservatives accepted Barak Obama?? Have you never heard of Birthers? Did you live in a world that lacked those charactures of President Obama with a bone through his nose? Because the reality I endured between 2008 and 2017 was one where conservatives started on Day 1 of his presidency trying to ensure he achieved nothing.

    FWIW, you DO want to ban contraception; you refuse to admit it because you know that would be seriously unpopular. You want to make laws depriving married women of property rights and the right to our own money, because that is the only way to create the kinds of brutally hierarchical families, with Dad In Absolute Charge and everyone else grovelling under his boot. You will repeal the Voting Rights Act and make it as hard as possible for anyone who isn’t a white, property-owning male to vote, because that was the world we all lived in before progressives obtained a tiny bit of political power and that is the world you want to return. I will fight you with every breath in my body. I do not trust any conservative at all. You hate us; why should we trust you? The world you want locks all of us into slavery to you.

    • Chip Crawford

      You are sick chick – the one seriously deluded.

    • Patmos

      Get a grip. Your hyperbolic delusions are off the charts.

    • This is a sad demonstration of the point of my article. So sorry to see you think any of that is true. Only in your world, which isn’t the real one.

      • Karen

        So tell me, do you support the right to contraception? That wives have the right to tell their husbands to take a flying leap? Have our own money? Or do believe in that men are the head of the household crap?

        • I support the right to contraception, provided it doesn’t kill an embryo. I support the right of women to tell their husbands whatever needs saying. I support women’s right to have their own money.

          What I don’t support is anyone propagating the absurd lie that conservatives want to do what you say. I’ve never heard of it! And I do hang around with conservatives. Tell me — where did you hear it? From conservatives? Or from liberals telling you what we think?

          If you didn’t hear it from conservatives — and I know you didn’t! — then you’re parroting distorted views. You should know better than to treat fellow human beings that way.

          (Fringe people still don’t count, any more than they did in the article when I wrote it. They’re, well, fringe, meaning mostly irrelevant except those rare occasions when they try to get others excited.)

          I believe in men as the loving, self-sacrificial head of household, which in our home means we make decisions together, and I break the tie when that happens once every five or ten years. It also means we have a solid, stable, loving marriage relationship, in which I do everything I can do to help my wife thrive, and she does likewise for me. If that sounds like a bad idea to you…. ??

          • Karen

            I read lots of conservative blogs: Doug Wilson, Dalrock and the men to whom he links, First Things, Anthony Esolen.

            And if you have a real stable marriage, then you are NOT the head. Authorities have the right to punish those under them, which means that the head of the household gets to beat his wife. You cannot have authority without that ability. You sound decent enough, but every man I have ever known who claimed to be the head of the household beat or shouted at his wife for every tiny error and his family lived in terror of him. That is what traditional families always are. To the extent that your family differs, it is entirely do to the influence of feminism that teaches that women are human.

          • The websites you mention did not present conservatism the way you see it. You got it from others’ distortions.

            You do not know the difference between authoritative and authoritarian, and you know nothing of my family history. My dad, who married Mom right after WWII, did not treat her well due to the influence of feminism.

            The Bible teaches that women are human.

          • gladys1071

            I have, i have met conservatives that would love to take a woman’s right away to vote. I was told recently by one that i had a “duty to have a healthy baby”.

            So as a Christian, i am neither conservative or liberal, but i am very weary of Conservatives and yes, i do believe that they would take women’s rights away if they could.

            I would rather the liberals be in charge, knowing that they are not going to try to insert themselves in the most intimate of decisions “terminating a pregnancy” .

            I know that with liberals they support the right to my own body and don’t view me as an incubator.

            So as a Christian i would rather liberals be in charge.

          • Hmmm…

            What about God’s right to life and death? What about the baby’s body? It’s not your body; it’s theirs as well. Proverbs 24:11-12 ESV – Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back
            those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work? God loves women; that’s why he doesn’t want us in the butcher shop, then carrying that remorse for the rest of our days. No one is fulfilled when usurping God’s rights. Jesus raised up women. This kind of hyped hysteria only lowers women. It’s lies. Where I am, women are treated very well. I see no other. Men drop their wives off to go into church, park the car and join them, as a matter of course and other caring and respectful deference. If you are will treated, you might examine how you are treating others. That is a huge factor. The “progressives” you seem enamored with are very short on personal accountability. They like everyone else to pay for them. It’s piggish behavior masked as victims being denied rights. Like everyone around me said when Hillary was running with all her vacancies and absurdities like yours: Does she think we are stupid? We have since found out that she does. That’s part of their problem. We all see through this.

          • gladys1071

            I am not enamored with liberals or conservatives. For right now Conservatives are a threat to my bodily rights.

            I hate both parties really.

          • Hmmm…

            Do you have verses for your right to personally deny a baby’s bodily rights? Where are your justifying hate scriptures? Is Jesus your lord? Does he have any rights to you, including your body? 1 Corinthians 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

          • Anne Fernandes

            No, Gladys, no. Although you and I differ regarding a woman’s rights to her body, you, as a woman, are as important to my conservative mind as are unborn babies. Equally, and truly. I was there when Roe v. Wade was enacted, and I celebrated as an active member of N.O.W., the National Organization of Women. But, I’m going to tell you that forty-five years later, I am less protective of MY rights and more thoughtful of the rights of others, including the unborn.

          • gladys1071

            Actually this is not just about me, i am entering menopause, so i am no longer fertile. But i do care about the rights of the women that are still in childbearing years like my sister.

          • Anne Fernandes

            Oh, yes, I care, too. We are talking about two different laws Gladys, Roe v. Wade and God’s
            law. I understand the law of man, but I know that God has unchangeable,
            immutable absolutes, rights and wrongs. You spoke of a woman’s protection of herself. If a
            woman were pregnant and her life were at risk, or if she were a victim
            of abuse and pregnant, then I might waver in my reaction to abortion.
            Probably not, though. However, for the motives of self-fulfillment,
            self-actualization, self-determination or any other self, I cannot bring
            myself to agree. Isn’t everything a choice: kindness, toothpaste,
            vehicles, education, drugs, birth control? When our kids were young,
            we would tell them, at certain junctures, “you win or lose by the way
            you choose.” In an “unwanted” pregnancy, it’s the mother, yes she is
            already a mother, making the choice for a baby. Are there not other
            choices than abortion, or is it truly all about self? I am NOT judging,
            Gladys, and if a woman were a victim of abuse, I would pray, not judge.

          • gladys1071

            That is fine you are entitle to your opinion, though i respectfully disagree. I know their are other choices then abortion, but abortion is also a valid choice.

            You might consider abortion a wrong choice, but it a choice nevertheless.

          • Anne Fernandes

            Hi, Gladys. Don’t we choose most of our actions? Do I choose to watch my carb intake, or suffer the consequences of low or high blood sugars? Do I choose to pay my taxes, or suffer the consequences of losing my property? Do I choose to watch my speed on the highway, or suffer the consequences of going too slowly or too quickly? Do I choose to study for the test? Choices often produce either negative or positive consequences. Most things in our paths are choices, and you’re correct. Abortion was made legal in 1973….a very long time ago. And we cling to what we believe to be ours. However, abortion’s legality neither affirms nor denies its consequences. Maybe the word “valid” is in the eye of the beholder? Listen, you have been kind to allow me to voice my very strong opinion, and I am grateful!!!! Till next time!

          • gladys1071

            i agree the legality of abortion says nothing of the consequences, but it is still a choice that women should be allowed to make whether we agree with it or not.

          • gladys1071

            All i am saying is you say abortion is a wrong choice, that is your opinion, and for you it maybe a wrong choice but or another it may not be.

            Part of life is making choices and sometimes the consequences are negative, sometimes they are positive that is life.

          • Hmmm…

            The government has to protect those at risk, like placing abused children in foster homes. It is not just you involved. Roe v. Wade is a most unfortunate piece of jurisprudence, a mistake from those involved. The Constitution does not afford any such “right.” How about some responsibility? Government has a commission to look out for those at risk from the ruthless and selfish. You might take responsibility for your cohabitation and enough womanly grace to nurture to birth a child conceived thereof, even if giving up for adoption.

          • gladys1071

            How about you don’t get to dictate to anyone whether or not to carry to term a pregnancy.

            The government has no right inserting itself into a woman’s uterus. Is the government going to look into my menstrual cycles too?

          • Hmmm…

            IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. IT’S ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON. Abortion stops a heart, you know? Thou shalt not commit murder. You have a GOD to answer to. Society has a responsibility to curb the ruthless among us and protect the innocent who cannot protect themselves.

          • gladys1071

            Yes it is about me, i am the one doing the gestating, it is my uterus that is being occupied.

            Why don’t you worry about where you stand before God, and don’t worry about where i stand before God.

            Again my uterus, my body that is being used, so yes i can get decide.

            What part you cannot force someone to remain pregnant that does not want to be do you not understand!

          • Hmmm…

            What part of THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER don’t you understand?

            Monster, you are fighting for your right to use your God given free will to commit murder.
            Again, you will stand before him and give account.
            Christians are required to warn and caution those who are destroying their own lives as well as others.
            Sleep well.

          • gladys1071

            Answer me, what part of you cannot force a woman to remain pregnant if she does not want to be?

            What are you suggesting, that all pregnant women be chained up for 9 months to make sure they give birth?

            How exactly do you propose to force a woman to give birth and stay pregnant? please explain.

            is a woman just an incubator to you only, she has no rights or feelings about the matter, is she invisible to you now.

            Worry about your own self, where i stand before God is NOT your concern.

          • Hmmm…

            Yes it is. In general and with prompts are we responsible to share truth and persuade those heading for destruction to stop and let the lord gather them up. You will blush with shame at this, but then he will deliver you from that and share his wonderful plans for you and his higher life. IF you choose him. If not, the devil who has you by default and is working his deceptions and will on you. You are not free at all, just deceived into clinging to this … right? God knows what he’s talking about when he refers to the lost as poor, pitiable and naked. He just wants to clothe you with grace and his beauty.

          • gladys1071

            thank you for NOT answering my question, about are you willing to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will? and how far are you willing to go to force a woman to give birth?

            Are you willing to violate a woman’s bodily autonomy and freedom of choice to make her give birth?

            tell me exactly what you propose to do about the millions of childbearing women out there. Do you want a registry of all pregnant women and for them to be monitored to make sure they REMAIN pregnant and GIVE BIRTH?

            Are you for inspecting a woman’s menstrual cycle to see if their is an embryo in there?

            How far are you willing to go? PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME?

          • Hmmm…

            Because I’ve gone tilt with this idiocy. Feeling rather soiled, I’ll move away and refresh now. Good night.

          • gladys1071

            Oh so you are not willing to answer my questions, i mean if you want to stop a woman from terminating a pregnancy, i want to know how far you are willing to go?

            darn, i really wanted to hear your answer to my question.

            I am not surprised that you would not answer me.

          • gladys1071

            You might consider abortion not a “valid” choice, and that is fine, for YOU.

            You don’t get to make that determination for me or anyone else.

            You can advise, try to persuade, help out, but the choice is up to the pregnant woman.

            Leave the option legal for those that are not against it.

          • Removing women’s right to vote is a fringe thing. Some people are weird. That doesn’t mean conservatism in general is. As for abortion, our position isn’t as intrusive as a woman’s allowing a doctor to come in and kill her baby.

          • gladys1071

            It is intrusive if you are trying to stop a woman from getting the procedure done by either trying outlaw it or make her jump through hoops.

            A woman has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. A woman seeking an abortion is seeking to become unpregnant.

          • Karen

            It may be fringe now, but there is no guarantee that it will remain there. Plenty of mainline conservatives think wives ought to vote the same way as their husbands.

          • gladys1071

            interesting, i told my husband that, he would not even dream of telling me how to vote.

          • Bryan

            The fringe is fringe for a reason and getting more fringe daily. You can’t stop people from having ideas. But you can encourage better ideas to take their place. What do you think is the actual percentage of people who think wives should be forced to vote the same way as their husbands or that removing a women’s right to vote should be a thing? Do you think that percentage is growing or shrinking?
            Plenty of people in general think that everybody should vote like them. That doesn’t prove conspiracy. There are wives who vote the same way as their husbands because they agree with each other. The same could be said reciprocally as well: There are husbands who vote the same way as their wives because they agree with each other.
            If someone asks you who you vote for do you tell them who and why you think they should vote that way as well?
            The deeper issue that you are fearful of is being controlled by a man (or anyone for that manner). That’s a reasonable fear as far as fears go. But in general (not all cases, not all men, not all etc.) most conservatives want less government control, want everyone to have the same freedoms, and generally want to live and let live. In abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights back in the 60’s, it was Christians leading the charge. Yes, there were Christians opposed to each of those as well. But in each case their opposition was not founded on scripture, even if they did quote a passage to try to justify their point. It was Christian back then that took those scriptures and, just as they are doing today on this site, showed the flaws or that the passage was taken out of context.

          • gladys1071

            It is Christians that want to take away a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

            How is that limited government?

            Having a right to our bodies is fundamental.

            I will fight you all tooth and nail

          • Bryan

            Many Christians want to see an end to abortion because we believe it’s murder. That’s a reasonable argument whether you agree with it or not. You (and many others) want for abortion to remain legal. Ok, you have your reasons. I probably don’t agree with all of them but you have them. Fine.
            Tell me which is a more limited government, keeping in mind that limited government typically and traditionally means limiting the federal government: Nine un-elected judges declaring a Constitutional right for women to abort a child or the citizens of each state deciding by legislation whether to allow the practice of abortion and the circumstances surrounding that practice (when, how late, where, etc.)?
            Personally I believe, if Roe v Wade were overturned (that’s a huge if by the way), the result would not be the immediate outlawing of abortion. It would mean that the issue would be looked at by Congress and the Legislative branch of each state. If it’s a law, that’s where it’s supposed to come from anyway. If the majority of people really believe it’s right, then it’ll become a law. If it becomes a law, it’ll be harder to remove than if it only takes the simple majority of a panel of nine judges.

          • gladys1071

            Ok, so your issue is with Roe, not with abortion itself?

            Let me ask you if Roe were to be overturned (hypothetically) and all 50 states voted to keep abortion legal , you would be ok with that, even if that included the state you live in?

            Would you leave it alone then?

            Somehow i don’t think so, you want to legislate your view, which in turn conflicts with my rights.

            The way it is now is better, that way each person can decide for THEMSELVES if they will have an abortion and nobody is forced to have one. Each person has the right to carry to term all of their pregnancies, and those that don’t want to can have an abortion.

            By keeping it legal, you can live your convictions and i live mine.

          • Bryan

            Actually I have issue with both but from a legal standpoint, I think Roe is a bad decision.
            I also believe abortion is murder. I would want to see if limited to extreme cases and alternatives given more consideration.
            If my state voted to keep abortion legal (which is quite possible in my state), I wouldn’t like it but I could live with the law. I live with it now as a judicial decree. I would advocate for changing the law but not by a court. Rather by changing the opinions of my neighbors in my state. If you lived in my state, I would gladly be your neighbor.
            I’m sure that if you lived in my state and by a miracle it did outlaw abortion, I’m sure you would do the same to advocate your position and try to change the opinions of your neighbors as well. I’d still gladly be your neighbor.
            Aside from the murder issue, I disagree with the concept that abortion is right for any reason. (The child might have Downs, abort it. The child is a girl, abort it. The child is a boy, abort it. The child has 12 toes, abort it. Etc.). I disagree with the concept that a child can be aborted up through the 9th month of pregnancy. I disagree with the concept that abortion facilities should not have the same standards applied to them that any outpatient facility has to comply with. Each of these could be dealt with via legislation better than by court decision.

          • gladys1071

            Ok, you appear to more reasonable than most. Though i do feel uncomfortable with later term abortions just like you do, i still would not agree with banning it completely. I would be willing to compromise on this issue, but most people i talk to want a complete ban all the way up to conception, and i just cannot agree with that.

            I think that it is best for persuasion on an individual basis is fine with me, if you want to try to convince someone not to have an abortion, i have no problem with that.

            I have a problem with trying to outlaw it outright because that takes away the choice from the woman completely.

            The way the law is now, women can choose to NOT abort without coercion and woman that choose to abort to do so without breaking the law.

          • Hmmm…

            Having care for the helpless in your own womb is entirely more fundamental. It is unnatural to do otherwise. Even the animals care for their young.

          • gladys1071

            You do animals will let their young die if it sick or defective in anyway.

            You do know animals are promiscious too, all of that is NATURAL.

            So do you really want to debate natural and unnatural?

          • Hmmm…

            It is the condition of your heart. No amount of mental gymnastics could answer that. You need to be born again, given a heart of flesh for that stony heart. You will look back on these things you are saying in wonder and be humbly grateful to the Lord for delivering you and bringing you into his family.

          • gladys1071

            so you are not able to refute my argument about what is natural or unnatural, so you go to religion.

            Why not address how a lot of the things that we do are unnatural. Like it is unnatural to fly in a plane? We were created to walk not fly.

            It is unatural to stop someone’s heart and take it out and do surgery on it and then put it back and restart it.

            I can go on and on.

          • Hmmm…

            It is not unnatural to fly in a plane. The law of gravity is superseded by the laws of lift and thrust. Animals cannot heal their sick and deformed young or members. They do not set upon them to gouge them out of the shelter of their wombs. Since you are Godless, you are ignorant of him being the center of all of this. It is what he says about these things that is uppermost. You are rebelling against him, pitting your puny little mind against his enormous intellect which designed and created the infinite minutiae that exists in our realm. It is not religion. He is the creator, the all in all. No man or woman is sovereign in themselves. You either have Jesus as your Lord or you are in the devil’s purview. Everyone draws the judgment of their god at the end of their days. Your free will is suspended at that point. It is for you to choose your god now while you still can. It is life and death, and more, beyond. The foolish little things you want to debate or so beneath the over arching magnitude of who is your god and where you will spend eternity. The god of this world, your god until you choose Jesus as your lord, has blinded your eyes. I pray light will penetrate that and the scales drop from your eyes, so you will not continue to stumble about in the darkness.

          • gladys1071

            Again you are using religious belief and not addressing my question.

            Do you know how many different religious beliefs their are?

          • Hmmm…

            It’s “there are.” The God of the Bible is the one. You know that; you are trying to maintain your little kingdom. God is the answer to all questions. You are scratching around on the ground with the chickens, insisting that is the real realm. When you get ready to mount up with wings as an eagle, God will equip you to do so and you will have the perspective that answers a;;. You know what to do. I’ll not come down and scratch with you in the dirt. Enjoy your meaningless “last” word. May your soul be saved in the day of judgment.

          • Ann Morgan

            The thing to understand about biology is firstly that ALL species are overly prolific, in that they produce far many more offspring than can possibly survive. This starts at the gamete level – most sperm will not survive, and continues on through young childhood. Our technology has managed to make a very nice place for us to live, where we have pushed that back to birth, such that MOST infants born in industrialized countries, will probably live to adulthood. This is actually counter to most of history, where 80% of born infants died before age 5.

            Unfortunately, the fact that we have managed to make a nice place to live, where most born infants get to dance around merrily, has created a fantasy mindset in a lot of people, where they think they can extend that to conception. We can’t, for several reasons, including the fact that the dancing babies are actually a direct result of abortion. The ones that aren’t going to dance merrily after birth, are aborted while still mindless. Banning abortion won’t make sure that those little zygotes dance merrily after birth. Nature is a b*tch, and if there are only resources for a certain number of dancing babies, then there are only that many resources, and forcing the woman to give birth won’t mean they aren’t going to die. In almost all cases, what it will mean is, they will die, and they will do it after birth, when they are able to suffer.

            The second thing to understand about nature, is that the purpose of reproduction is to make sure that the parents pass on their genes to ALL subsequent future generations, not merely the single next generation represented by a fetus or infant here and now. Investing resources in a fetus or infant is only ‘worth it’ in a biological sense, if there is firstly a good chance that the fetus/infant in question will reproduce themselves, and secondly, if their presence does not strongly detract from the chances of any siblings reproducing. If either of those things are not true, then investing resources on them is WORSE than a ‘waste’ in biological terms, and nature is screaming at the mother to kill or abandon the offspring in question, no matter how sad some people are about it.

          • Chip Crawford

            Total crock.

          • Ann Morgan

            Really? So your assertion here is what? That species reproduce at LESS than the replacement level? How is it they have managed not to go extinct then? Do angels periodically bring several million new animals of all species from heaven, when their numbers get too low? Is that what happens?

          • Jackie

            Wow, one of the saddest comment heard.
            You are basically saying that babies don’t have a right to their bodies and you keep yours.
            Tell that to all those aborted babies.
            Now just picture an unborn baby being aborted at the exact time you say
            in your own words,
            “I will fight you all tooth and nail”
            Cruel and Sad.
            Born again Christians see through the eyes of those unborn aborted babies.
            Repent and Christ will Forgive.

          • gladys1071

            Let me ask you, if you had to choose between a 5 week embryo or your sister or mother, which would you choose?

            don’t say both or try to skirt the question. Who do you value more and who would you choose SHOULD COME FIRST?

            Again answer the question honestly, do not try to dodge it?

          • gladys1071

            i will put it more simply who’s rights to you think SHOULD COME FIRST, your sister, loved one, friend or a 5 week embryo?

            don’t answer with both, if your friend loved one told you that they did not want to carry to term a pregnancy, who do you think should come first in the equation?

          • Chip Crawford

            Sadly, you hold a claim on Christianity very, very cheaply and ignorantly

          • gladys1071

            code word for i don’t conform to your way of thinking or believing.

          • Chip Crawford

            I used no code; my words were clear. Obviously “Christianity” is a code word for you, employed here to represent yourself as the same as everyone here, just with a different view. Bogus. I hope you will indeed come to Jesus as your lord and savior and look forward to Heaven as your home, and allow him to work out his wonderful plan for your life. It is narrow indeed, the only way whereby man can be saved and be received by the one, true God of the bible. Hell is real and has to be opted out of, being the default, unless you accept God’s remedy for the condition that takes you there – failing to make Jesus as your substitution. That would be that he took your sins and gave you his righteousness – activated when you enter into his salvation, his lordship. It’s going from death to life enhanced for this life, and definitely assuring a living and loving eternity. These are God’s words and thoughts that you indeed will be conformed to, not mine.

          • gladys1071

            again your paragraph is code for= you either conform to our view or you will be be punished in hell for all eternity.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are not happy with God’s plan of salvation. You’ll need to take it up with him. It’s generous of me to give my time to you to present to you what you don’t as yet care to hear. You’re welcome.

          • gladys1071

            Oh so now you are praising yourself for your threats of eternal punishment? for not conforming to what you believe? patting yourself in the back for being self-righteous, i think you already have your reward.

            Yes i will take it up with God, thank you very much!,

          • Chip Crawford

            Loving the unlovely goes with the territory. It’s an action, giving, sharing. I’m glad to hear of the last and wish his highest and best for you.

          • gladys1071

            You think you are being loving, you are not , you are being “religious” and using religion to try to get me to think and believe as you. It is called “religious control”

            That has been going on for thousands of years, this is not knew.

            I am glad that i live in a country where i am free to believe as i want, and not be told what to believe or not believe.

          • Chip Crawford

            Great

          • Karen

            I think you very badly misread Dalrock, et alia. They constantly discuss the need for men to exert control over their wives, including physical punishment. I would think being married to any of those men or anyone who agrees with them would be a living hell.

          • Chip Crawford

            I think being married to you wouldn’t be anybody’s idea of a treat either.

          • gladys1071

            Gee how loving of you, is this how you represent Jesus?

          • Chip Crawford

            Jesus called some folks vipers, whited sepluchres and more. I haven’t gone there yet. You probably share the unbiblical sloppy agape, greasy grace view that slides down, but comes up later. You’ve got a lot to learn about who Jesus is in the first place, much less how he should be represented.

          • gladys1071

            yeah he called religious leaders that, the ones that thought themselves better and “religious”

            You made my point.

          • Chip Crawford

            You didn’t have a point. Mine was that Jesus said what he meant and told people truth where they were. It’s this wicked and perverse generation that insists on being affirmed and agreed with as love and not able to hear anything else. Snowflakes is one description of the college group. So, don’t melt whatever.

          • gladys1071

            he told the truth to the “religious”, the ones who thought they were righteous like you.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are actually delivering the garden variety religious understanding yourself. I don’t just think I am righteous; I know it. Jesus made me righteous. that’s a key element of salvation. We have been made the righteousness of Christ – those who take Jesus as their savior. Jesus spoke truth to his disciples, reproving and sharply at times. When he preached, he did not mince words. He was very straight with the woman at the well. The Bible needs to be read like we used to read our newspapers or anything we have confidence in. We also need the benefit of teachers who are called and have an anointing to do so. Insights come that way. One can see into things that are usually just read over.

          • gladys1071

            you are the one that brought “religion” into this topic not .

            I have my views on religion and you have yours, just let it be that.

          • Chip Crawford

            I have NO respect or interest in religion and never introduced such a loser into any conversation. Christianity is not a religion. A religion has been made out of it. Religion is man’s reach to God; Christianity is God’s reach to man, to which we just enter in, receive. That’s where you are hanging up. Christianity is a relationship. It is coming to Jesus and then God becomes your Father, not just your creator. You have your views; I go with God’s word. That’s the difference.

          • gladys1071

            funny, you are not Jesus, so you have no right to call anybody anything. You should be glad that grace is greasy, it is too expensive, you cannot buy grace, Jesus paid for it.

            So you can get off your high horse

            You want to play religion with me, i can play that game too.

          • Chip Crawford

            Hit a nerve, huh? And you do know some scripture … but so do the devils, we’re told. You have to act on it, be a doer of the word, not a hearer only. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

          • Anne Fernandes

            What would Jesus say to Karen? He might say, “Come and talk with me awhile.” Then, “I hear you Karen, but you are wrong. Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
            before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Karen, I knew you, as I have known each of my sons and daughters before you were formed. I knew you. You were mine, Karen, before you were born.” But Karen CANNOT understand because the god of this age has blinded her with self, individualism, and secularism. I weep for her singularity and pain, and I pray for her awakening, don’t you?

          • Lisa

            You sound like my husband, who is also a good man. Because he loves me, I trust him to lead our family and break any ties that come up in our decision making. Being head of our family is a huge responsibility and I try to lighten his load and make him feel appreciated.

            I feel sorry for liberal women who equate killing unborn babies with “rights.” It must be miserable to focus on such negativity.

        • Alan

          Sounds like you have either, grown up in a tyrannical household, or have an abusive husband. If neither are true, it’s puzzling where this misinformation is coming from.

          • Karen

            My husband is not abusive but does have a temper. My father had a much worse temper.

          • Alan

            My four sisters and I lived under a violent alcoholic. Only after I became a Christian as an adult was I able, with God’s help, to forgive a father who never received any love and could not give any. Many have released themselves through forgiveness. There are many, usually Christian, men who have done the same. I pray you will be able to do so also.

      • gladys1071

        If we do not have a right to our bodies, then we have nothing. Women will become a slaves to their biology

        Yes you are going to say that sex is a choice, sex is not just for reproduction. Sex intimacy in a marriage that bonds people together. It is a psychological need for both men and women.

        We want to be able to enjoy intimacy with our husbands without having to constantly worry about being pregnant.

        Yes birth control does fail, so we need the option there for abortion to stay legal.

        You want to take that away.

        • Anne Fernandes

          We seek to preserve life…only, not to deter your “rights”. Although that might be a threat to you, your reproductive rights, who, then advocates for the life within?

          • gladys1071

            This is the part that i think many pro-lifers either don’t understand or they ignore.

            You say you want to preserve the life within, i get it, but if the woman does not want to remain pregnant, then you CANNOT violate her rights to try to protect that life, and force her to stay pregnant.

          • Hmmm…

            It is unnatural and pitiable that you imagine this core element of life to be reduced to semantics.

          • gladys1071

            you can seek to preserve life all of you want, but you don’t get to interfere with my rights. If i am pregnant, you can advocate, persuade, but that is all you can do.

            Ultimately it is the pregnant woman’s choice

            You trying to take that choice away is a threat

    • benevolus

      Better get fitted for your chains, girl!

  • Philmonomer

    “Conservatives see this moment as a move toward restoring government as it’s meant to be.”

    So you, too, seem to agree that it’s the end of the world as we know it.

    • Patmos

      Seem? No, your hysteria does not count as another person’s reality.

      • Philmonomer

        My hysteria? I have no idea what you are talking about.

    • It’s the end of progressives’ lock on a certain kind of Suprene Court philosophy, which isn’t exactly the same as the end of the world, and hardly worthy of all the panic.

      • Philmonomer

        The end of the world “as we know it.” You seem to agree that the world is changing.

        I think you are over-reading Ms. Totenberg.

        • benevolus

          A lot of babies are going to be very happy when they find they are alive only because sanity was restored to the Supreme Court. As for pro-choice women, who cares what they think? Most of them are damned anyway.

    • benevolus

      I sure hope so. Your side is so fortunate that we are Christians who have been taught the ways of peace and the prohibition of murder. We have the vast majority of the private firepower in society, and the biggest temptation of many of us is to exterminate your side. Just give us a good reason.

  • Philmonomer

    Am I implying something rude and judgmental here? How about this: I’ll just leave it with those observations, and let you draw your own conclusions.

    I conclude, based on this article (and others), that you live in a fearful world full of liberal/progressive boogeyman, who are out to destroy all that is good and right about Christians and this Country.

    It is, ironically, the conservative-Christian (near) mirror image of the far Left.

    • Next question: Given each of our concerns, who’s dealing with it in a more adult manner? Hint: Read the context.

      • Philmonomer

        I think the side that feels like they have a lot to lose is going to be the side that flips out

        For comparison, see Christian conservatives and the “end of the world” when same sex marriage became the law of the land. In that case, some thought it was literally the end of the U.S. as we know it, for surely God is going to bring his judgment down on us.

        • gladys1071

          I agree, women can lose their rights to their bodies. I don’t find that to be an exaggeration. Conservatives really do want to ban abortion.

          • Philmonomer

            Even if Roe were entirely overturned, much wouldn’t change in this country for middle/upper class women. They would simply have to travel to another state to get an abortion. It would be a huge inconvenience, but that’s about all.

          • benevolus

            Damn straight! Don’t like it, emigrate! Or get a coat hanger and bleed to death, Jezebels.

        • benevolus

          I believe He is, and would be fully justified if He did. And if executing the lot of you would placate that judgment, I would be in favor of it.

          • Philmonomer

            You should seek professional, medical help.

          • gladys1071

            very Christlike of you.

  • Roaring Aardvark

    The Left: “It’s The End Of The World As We Know It!”
    Me: “And I Feel Fine!”

  • Craig M

    I remember Obama saying the Supreme Court hasn’t been radical enough in removing the “roadblocks” the Constitution presents. Words of wisdom from the great “Constitutional scholar.”

    • Chip Crawford

      Everything solid contradicts their march to tyrannical control. Watch what they most strongly oppose is practically a recommendation to its positive worth.

      • gladys1071

        Tyrannical control?

        How about you inserting your nose in my uterus, you cannot get anymore tyrannical then that.

        I mean how much more do you want to stick your nose in my most intimate decisions?

        You cry about tyrannical control, and you are blinded to your own desire to control others, how they think , what they believe and their menstrual cycles.

        • Chip Crawford

          Your various obsessions and paranoia about yourself have blinded you. This thread does not address or concern you or any of your absurdities.

    • glenbo

      >>”the Supreme Court hasn’t been radical enough in removing the “roadblocks” the Constitution presents.”<<

      Is in fact abusing the constitution to put roadblocks in place.

      • Craig M

        I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

        • glenbo

          >>”Are you agreeing or disagreeing?”<<

          Can you please answer my previous question first?

          • Craig M

            Sorry, I must have missed it. What was your question?

          • glenbo

            >>”What was your question?”<<

            It was on another discussion.

          • Craig M

            Um, not to be picky but .. you didn’t answer my question. ☺

          • glenbo

            >>”Um, not to be picky but .. you didn’t answer my question. ☺”<<

            I asked mine first.
            When you answer mine, I will answer yours.
            Ones discussion at a time.

          • Craig M

            Omg. How old are you?

  • benevolus

    I can only wish for the Left the horrors the Supreme Court has been systematically inflicting on the Right since the days of Chief Justice Warren. May they scream obscenities at their TV sets regularly from the first Monday in October to the last day of June. May they feel the legal regime values everyone except them, and considers them the source of all the world’s problems. Then may they act out massively in temper tantrums, so we can prosecute them and put them in prison camps.

Inspiration
‘How Small a Whisper We Hear of Him’
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us