The Mississippi case argued yesterday in the Supreme Court may have far reaching consequences not yet contemplated. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, war. War between the people of the U.S. A civil war.

The nation is where it was back in the 1850’s. Turmoil without pause. Leading to Civil War in 1861.

The same tensions exist today. Over a multitude of issues. Not just abortion. However the reversal of Roe v. Wade could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Women in very significant numbers will side with other pro-abortionists.

Persons who continue to recognize the breakdown in our legal and judicial system, will point to the reversal of Roe as a delegitimization of the Supreme Court. A bunch of political hacks who forgot the oaths they took when admitted to the bar and their sworn testimonies before the Senate Committee approving their nominations. The three most recent Supreme Court appointments, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, perfect examples.

Street demonstrations will neither be peaceful nor limited. All out war. Guns, bombs, knives, etc. I cannot see how the U.S. survives as it once was known. January 6’s will be common place. In state capitals and many other cities.

Many were not alive or have forgotten what life was like for women prior to Roe. Caitlan Flanagan in the 12/2019  issue of The Atlantic wrote a heart wrenching article showing what criminal abortion was prior to Roe. The title” “The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate.”

Pre-Roe abortions were painful and many resulted in the death of the woman.

One of the most popular methods was the inducement of Lysol into the womb. One huge shot or over a period of time. Those induced over a period of time were referred to as “vaginal douches.”

Lysol actually advertised its product for such use. Dancing around the term abortion. Suggesting rather it was an effective form of birth control.

Lysol advertised its “family planning” capabilities for over 30 years from the 1920’s into the 1950’s. Lysol and the illegality of abortions crossed paths in the 1950’s and prior to Roe.

Women used the Lysol on themselves at home or went to a doctor or mid wife type who would abort them.

Many women died from the use of Lysol as an aborting agent.

Other methods involved a combination of boiling water and soap being shot into the womb. Less “safe methods” included the use of knitting needles and metal hangers.

There will be a return to such methods without Roe v. Wade.

There are a number of women who support Roe’s reversal. Small in number compared to the many who believe in and support Roe.

Men primarily make the abortion laws. Men are the ones who are anti-abortion.

Too bad some male medical problem has not yet come up whose treatment is illegal. Something to do with a man’s penis or testicles. The illegal/criminal solution a shot of Lysol. See how quickly these men would change their minds.

A little pain never hurts.

Enjoy your day!


50 comments on “THE BRINK OF WAR


    • You’re right Marcia, better to kill the babies now, before birth, just in case no one will adopt them.

      If only you could do the same after they were born, right.

      • That is NOT at all what Marcia said and you should NOT be putting words in her mouth to make your own political point.

        Besides, that is usually what those against abortion and women’s right to choose are doing, helping to kill those babies once they are born! You ONLY care about a babies right to life, until it is born. In reality you are against women and their rights.

  2. Women, in large numbers are largely credited with voting Trump in back in 2016. It should be argued they deserve what they got, even if it took a few years.

    Stop complaining!

    • My name is Fred, I used that in my post, exactly as you used your name “Marcia” in your post.

      I am just pointing out that any women’s Vote for Trump in 2016, and Republicans in general, allowed Trump, even with his cheating, to min the election and control the government, leading to them being able to decide the Abortion issue. There are consequences to voting in Republicans, this is an example of that. You want to change that, you need to avoid electing people you don’t want to do things you don’t want. It is not as if you wern’t warned.


    • Here, I will help you out with that question Marcia.
      Is it a baby the minute it’s born?
      Is it a baby the minute before it’s born?
      Is it a baby the week before it’s born?
      Is it a baby 2 months before it’s born?
      Is it a baby at 15 weeks?

      With no intervention, what changed between 15 weeks and one minute before it’s born? Nothing. It is a human being, in development, which will hopefully continue to develop and look different, until it’s 90 years old.

      Viability is one answer. But science will eventually solve that issue as well. Viability is much earlier than it was at the time of Roe V Wade decision. If viability is on shifting sands, so is your position.

      It continues to astound me that pro-abortion, who mostly care about every human, disregard the lives of the most vulnerable humans…the unborn children.

      • You can make all the political twists and turns you want to make, including labeling your opponents as PRO ABORTION, when the real issue is “choice”.

        Should the government mandate a ban on abortion (for any reason), or should that be the choice of the people involved?

        If you feel that government should be the one to control it, then you should advocate that criminal charges of murder for the mother and facilitator be mandated. If not that, then cut the crap and admit you are strictly a political hack trying to spin this with your crap.

          • Facts are hard. ???????

            What are you calling facts?

            I believe Abortion is appropriate when the mother’s life is in danger. That does not make me “Pro-Abortion” as that term is used politically (and as you seem to be using it)) it mean I believe abortion is appropriate in that instance – my choice.

            Your use of the term is strictly political and as such manipulative, not fact.

        • I mentioned nothing about government involvement. The question posed by Marcia is when does it become a baby.

          My answer was not political, it’s based on Science. Ask any credible doctor.. And I didn’t talk about how pro-lifers “don’t care about life after birth”. That was you.

          And if someone supports abortion, they are pro-abortion….not choice. Abortion is the real issue. A woman can make choices all day long, until their choice interferes with the life of another human being.

          • We all know exactly what you are trying to do, we all know you know how to wiggle out of ANY discussion, dodging anything and everything just to try and keep any discussion as YOUR “win” – no matter what.

            Words have meaning beyond YOUR chosen definition of them and pro-abortion is exactly one of them. Your pompous arrogance not withstanding.

            Stop trying to be the world’s “gotcha” queen and maybe try using the “I believe” every once in a while and maybe somebody will think you actually have something to say.

      • Your arguments for protecting “vulnerable humans” would be more credible if you also insisted on similar government intervention for any newborn after birth, with effect until such time it is able to survive out of the womb “on it’s own.” Without addressing this too, it is very hard to accept your insistence that you are at all sincere in insisting government mandate any abortion issues whatsoever.

      • It continues to astound me that anti-abortion, who mostly say they care about the most vulnerable humans…the unborn children, disregard the lives of almost every other human being.

  4. Within 12-15 weeks there is little human being inside the womb with functioning lungs, heart and is able to suck its thumb. Abortion video shows a little human being struggling, fighting for its life. We now know far more than we did in 1973.

    • Sure, make that case and let people decide for themselves, just don’t force it upon anyone with laws. That would also make a good case for other things too, like vaccines, etc.

      If religion was doing it’s job, you would NOT need to make laws, on this issue.

  5. I am a Republican and believe in most Republican and consertative issues, but I believe our anti abortion ideas are wrong.

    Most Republican support no abortion, but really we do that mostly because we see it as OUR issue and we will fight for what ever WE want, like control. On the other hand what we don’t need is more black babies on welfare, especially those that grow up and vote Democrat. Most unwanted children are from unmarried and irresponsible black parents who end up on welfare the rest of us have to pay for. The kids are almost always uneducated, don’t contribute to society and are responsible for most of the crime and other problems we are face with.

    It’s time to abandoned that which is bringing us down from a good society and a properly functioning government. We need to move away from preventing abortion and concentrate on building a better society. Let’s stop shooting ourselves in the foot and feeding our enemies.

  6. Ethan Crumbley, the 15 year old student who killed 4 and wounded others in the recent Michigan High School shooting, is likely to get off from any guilty convictions.

    Since Kyle Rittenhouse complete acquittal, Ethan can expect to have any gun possession charges dismissed, despite shooting at least 30 rounds and having 18 more live rounds still in his possession. It is not yet known if he bought the gun himself or if his mother bought that for him. It is also not yet known if she drove him to school with the gun. Beyond those details, the rest of the problem can be made to go away, if he just hires a Qanon lawyer, cries during testimony and claimed he felt threatened by those he shot.

    • Hey Lou, The Michigan kid had psychological issues and was illegally in possession of a handgun. Kyle legally had a long gun and was defending himself against those who were trying to harm or kill him. Don’t try to connect the two.

      • YOU don’t get to decide, especial;y with details YOU make up.

        He was NOT legally in possession of a legal weapon, unless he was hunting, and even then it would have been debatable, he not being a resident of Wisconsin. But the issue is moot as the judge would not let that go to trial, apparently for fear that he might have been convicted.

        Quit spinning sh*t YOU are not qualified to judge.

        The two issues are not being connected, outside of your spinning post, apart from the common denominators, with included guns, children, dead people, armed aggressors and unarmed victims. Oh, one more thing – idiots like you, trying to spin tragedy into “no big thing.”

          • ANYONE under 18 in Wisconsin (using a rifle) does, and THAT is the whole point of the discussion.

            Quit trying to change/spin things!

            • Under 18 in Wisconsin can own and possess a long gun. does not need to be hunting. Could be in possession at a shooting range. Could be in possession sighting in the gun on thousands of Wisconsin’s public land. Could be in possession in Kenosha at a BLM mostly peaceful protest (with the exception of 3 criminal who want to kill him).

              • Not true. The law states a minimum age of 18, but was amended was made, to admit 16 and 17 year olds “for the purpose of hunting.”

                Rittenhouse was not a Wisconsin resident and Kenosha was not hunting.

                Quit trying to change/spin things!+

  7. God seems to be killing off evangelical preachers and their flock at a higher rate than normal people. He mist be really pissed.

  8. Hey Lou, It’s offensives to think only women should be able to have abortions. Lou, your democrat party and the loony left believe men can get pregnant also! Still unsure how the baby is delivered out of the penis peehole?

    • So what, he can still get off. Don’t try and deny that Rittenhouse didn’t have “issues” either. Doesn’t matter, just say you felt threatened, FOX news will do the rest and in the end there won’t be a jury that will convict you!

        • No, wrong again. Rittenhouse claimed he felt threatened and “scared” – which the jury accepted, resulting in a aquital.

          It should be noted that this was a claim he made AFTER he was represent by an attorney and basically the ONLY defense he could make!

          It should also be noted that is common with 17year old teenagers, which is why the army or the police won’t accept teanagers – they are just to easily spooked. He (Rittenhouse) was also the only armed person in Kenosha that shot his rifle at anyone that night. NO One else, including the cops needed to take any such action.

  9. No, you are wrong and obviously didn’t watch the trial. Or have serious comprehension issues. He was threatened and attacked. Video proved it.

    • No that’s what YOU want to believe and the story the defense attorney pushed on the jury. This 17 year old highschool drop out, out after dark, provoked a situation, then got scared (like an underage child is likely to do) and shot a bunch of people, one by mistake when he fell and an unarmed skateboarder who tried to disarm him.

      BTW, I didn’t know the trial was televised.

  10. Had you been smart enough to figure out that the trial was televised you could have seen for yourself that he was threatened and attacked which was proven by video. The jury watched/ listened and properly acquitted.

    • The trial was streamed and that was NOT available to everyone. I happened to see parts of it, including those parts his attorney’s SAID were in self defense. The jury believed those attorney’s arguments. I don’t think so. It looks to me as though this kid was seriously trigger happy. Sure he was scared, he was a 17 year old ARMED child who shouldn’t have been there to begin with. Lots of people were pushed and shoved but no one was shooting at Rittenhouse. He however shot three people. Bad choice. Afterwards his ONLY choice was to CLAIM he was fearing for his life. He was the only one who shot anybody.

      You can believe what you want, but he shot three people, killing two. That’s a fact and the trial proved that. The only issue is if he did it in self defense. I say he did it with VERY BAD JUDGEMENT, and that GOD will punish him eventually.

      The video’s I’ve seen didn’t “prove” anything. Except of course that three people were shot and two murdered, all by Kyle Rittenhouse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *