Why can’t American women have abortions?

Spread the love

?????????? ???s?

The United States has taken another step towards the outbreak of civil war!


On June 24 local time, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling, overturning the “Roe v. Wade case” in 1973, ending 50 years of constitutional protection of women’s right to abortion. This means that abortion is a crime in some parts of the United States. Even if pregnancy is caused by rape and incest, children must be born.

In this case, the female right to abortion is just a prelude. In fact, the life and death struggle between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the United States is a super big infighting.


The statement of this court ruling is that it overturned the “Roe v. Wade case” in 1973.

So, what is “Roe v. Wade”?

The “Luo” in the “Luo v. Wade case” is a personal name, but an alias. Her real name is Norma McVeigh.


Norma McVeigh

This person is a woman at the bottom of the society, but her life is very corrupt. As a result, something happened: at the age of 22, she found that she was pregnant again.

Why do you say “again”? Because she had children when she was more than 10 years old. Although she never married once, she had two children. A single mother, with two children, became pregnant again, so life was naturally difficult.

So when she found out that she was pregnant again, it was like a bolt from the blue.

At this point, some people may wonder: what is this? Just knock it out?

The answer is: No.

Because abortion is murder in Dallas County, Texas, where Norma McVeigh lives.

Murder is naturally a crime and a felony. If found and prosecuted by prosecutors, the term of abortion may be longer than that of rape.

At this point, someone may have to say: what kind of bastard law is this?

But this is America. I can’t help it. Great America has its own national conditions.

I wonder if my friends still remember where Americans like to start when they write history? They usually start from the “Mayflower” and say “Puritan spirit”. Many people in China also like to play along.

What is the Mayflower? In fact, it was a small boat with few people on it. But it was said that it was amazing. The Puritans who sat on it and went to the new world established the Mayflower Convention on board, which was the first political convention for immigrants to the new world in the history of navigation. It is the original version of the US Constitution. What a surprise!

What is “Puritan spirit”? It is said that it is even better. It is said that these people live a simple life but are eager for success. They are full of the spirit of capitalism. They are simply flesh grown robots with unlimited spiritual power.

Moreover, these people are the basic spirit of the founding of the United States.

If we continue to blow, we should blow like this: the United States has this spirit. If it does not rule the world, it is simply unreasonable!

Of course, we all know that this is the boasting of the Americans after they gained power, and then fooling the world to boast together.

In fact, a careful analysis of the Mayflower, the Puritans who sat on the Mayflower and went to America to rob, and the Mayflower Convention on how to rob and how to divide the spoils after robbery, which was established before the robbery, will reveal that it is quite another matter.

The Puritans, who used to live in England, held the following basic view: “killing heretics is not murder, but merit.”. Repeat, “killing heretics is not murder, it is merit.”. That is to say, as long as people with different beliefs can be killed, they should be killed. Killing such people is merit, not murder.

Of course, the key is, what is different from their beliefs?

In principle, they all believe in Christianity, which is the same belief. However, you are wrong. At that time, those Puritans basically believed in Christianity. Then, in detail, even if they all believe in the same branch of Christianity, “Catholicism”, as long as they are different from them in specific views, it is also “different in faith”, that is, “pagans”.

At that time, the Anglican Church was an Anglican Church, a branch of Catholicism:

Originally, Britain and the whole Europe were almost Catholic. Then there was an English king who was worried that he would have no children, so he desperately wanted to divorce and marry another wife. It’s not pure philandering, because if the king wants philandering, he doesn’t have to divorce. The king of England wanted to change his wife and give birth to a child in order to inherit the throne.

However, the Catholic Church does not allow divorce. Of course, there is an exception, that is, the Pope’s special approval. But when the king wanted a divorce, he couldn’t get the Pope’s special approval. Because the Queen’s mother’s family was Spain. At that time, Spain was in the ascendant, and Britain was only a second – and third rate country. How could the Pope grant special approval? It seems that the Pope is also rich.

so what? The British king was kind enough to carry out a so-called religious reform in a rage. In fact, it has not changed anything. It is mainly to announce that the Church of England has broken away from the jurisdiction of the Pope, and that the supreme leader of the Church of England is no longer the Pope, but the king of England, that is, the king himself who presided over the reform. In this way, his own request for divorce will be specially approved by him, which can naturally be approved.

Therefore, this so-called religious reform is not about how many doctrines and beliefs have been changed, but about Catholicism. It’s just that the Catholic Church in Britain is “independent”. Of course, its specific name is “Anglican Church”. Logically speaking, it is exactly the same as the faith of Puritans who believe in Catholicism.

However, Puritans did not like the Anglican Church, so in their eyes, “the Anglican Church” became a “heretic”. As long as the “heretic” hat is put on the “Anglican” people, the Puritans can fight the “Anglican” people in the name of “killing heretics is not murder, but merit”.

However, the ideal is very full, and the reality is very skinny. The Puritans wanted to clean up the “pagan” — “Episcopal Church” in their eyes. Instead of cleaning up others, they were cleaned up by others. Of course, there were a small group of people left.

There is no way but to run. The remaining few Puritans went to Holland to settle there.

After arriving, I found that the believers there were the same as them. They believed that “killing heretics is not murder, but merit”. This seems to be a good thing. It seems that Taoism is the same. However, this is actually the biggest bad thing, because although they all believe that “killing a heretic is not murder, but merit”, they all think that the other party is a “heretic”. How bad is this?

Moreover, generally speaking, people who believe that “killing heretics is not murder, but merit” are more powerful.

As a result, it is conceivable that this small group of Puritans who ran from Britain to Holland could only flee.

But where to escape?

I can’t stay on land. I can only escape to the vast sea. However, we can’t always drift on the sea, so we finally reached America. Before landing in America, we agreed on how to seize the territory, how to divide the territory and how to get along with each other after landing on the “Mayflower” boat. This is the “Mayflower Convention”.

After they landed in America, they did not encounter the strong opponents in Britain and Holland at first, because their opponents were Indians, and the strength of Indians must be weaker. In this way, they have a foothold in America. Later, it gradually became the present America.

We can imagine what these Puritans who believe that “killing heretics is not murder, but merit” will do in America. We can understand why when they first set foot on American land, the number of Indians was 5million. By 1900, the number of Indians was only 250000, and the Indian population decreased by 95%. It seems that this group believes that “killing heretics is not murder, The Puritans who counted merit did what they said.

However, today we review the founding history of the United States. The focus is not on accusing them of genocide against Indians. I would like to say that the history of the founding of the United States is inseparable from religion. Therefore, in western countries, the United States has always been the country with the strongest religious atmosphere. The religious atmosphere in Europe is actually quite strong, but it is far from that in the United States. For example, the proportion of atheists in the United States is only half of that in Europe. Especially in the Midwest of the United States, the religious atmosphere is very thick.

Therefore, the United States is a strange country. On the one hand, science and technology are very developed, leading the world in science and technology; But on the other hand, there are many, if not most, people in the United States who believe in religion. Because they believe in religion, many of their understandings come from the New Testament 2000 years ago, or even earlier, the Old Testament 3000 years ago. Chinese people call it the Bible. 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, there was no modern science and technology in human understanding. Therefore, they think that the earth is not spherical, but actually flat; They believe that human beings are not evolved, but created by God.

Then the problem arose. Because from the perspective of the Bible, man was created by God. When did God create a person? Not from the time a person is born, but from the time a woman is pregnant. Therefore, although the fetus was not born, it was already a man of complete meaning created by God, with God’s image and plan in him. Moreover, God dominates everything, and naturally also dominates the baby’s right to life. Therefore, doctors or parents have no right to decide the life and death of the fetus. If the doctor or parents let the fetus die, it is murder. Such killers are naturally “pagans”.

Simply put, as long as you have a baby, you have to be born. Unless it is stillbirth or spontaneous abortion, because God doesn’t want it to survive. If any pregnant woman dares to have an abortion, it is murder.

After making such a big circle, we have finally explained how desperate Norma McVeigh, the woman mentioned at the beginning of today, is single and pregnant with a third child. There is really no way.

Just then, someone came forward


Who? Two progressive lawyers. After the name is translated into Chinese characters, there are too many characters to remember, which is omitted here.

The two lawyers went to tell Norma McVeigh: don’t be afraid, we have a way.

What can I do? It is to let Norma McVeigh sue the county prosecutor whose name is Wade.

At that time, in order to protect the privacy of the single woman who was pregnant with her third child, the woman’s name was alias “Luo”, and the name of the prosecutor prosecuted by the woman was “wade”. Therefore, this case was later called “Luo v. Wade case”.

Why did the two lawyers let the single mother with her third child sue the prosecutor named Wade? Because before, Wade prosecuted all those who dared to abort.

The logic of these two progressive lawyers is that as long as we win Wade, the single mother Norma McVeigh, who is pregnant with her third child, and the woman whose pseudonym is “Luo”, can have a successful abortion. So the lawsuit began. However, the lawsuit was not smooth, so we had to fight up layer by layer, and finally reached the United States Supreme Court.

By january22,1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a majority of 7 to 2, announced that women’s decision to continue pregnancy was protected by the constitutional provisions on personal autonomy and privacy. That is, women have the right to decide whether to continue pregnancy.

In fact, in detail, this ruling is a bit lame. Why did Norma McVeigh Sue Wade? I want the court to decide that women have the right to decide whether to have an abortion. Results the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to decide whether to continue pregnancy.

Strictly speaking, this is not the answer. However, the question was answered.

Why did the U.S. Supreme Court make such a detour? Why not answer the question directly?

In fact, the United States Supreme Court is not easy. Let’s go back to the topic we just mentioned. The religious atmosphere in the United States is too strong. Many people believe in God and believe that the fetus has been created by God. The birth and death of the fetus can only be decided by God, and women have no right to decide. If the court says bluntly that women have the right to decide the life and death of the fetus, it is directly against religion. To oppose religion is to oppose God. That’s good?

Fortunately, however, the question was answered. So, this is a landmark decision. Moreover, this is the ruling of the United States Supreme Court, which is very authoritative.

By the way, this ruling originated from the complaint of Norma McVeigh, the single woman who was pregnant with her third child. The purpose was to request abortion. However, the lawsuit took too long because it was fought layer by layer. By the time the ruling ruled that the woman had the right to abortion, the child in her belly had already been born. Children don’t wait, let alone legal procedures! Therefore, the ruling of the “Roe v. Wade case” had no meaning to the litigant at that time.

What’s more funny is that later, the woman who wanted to have the right to abortion became a firm anti abortion person. She often appeared at various religious gatherings and told all kinds of people how insidious and cunning those who insisted on abortion were and how young and ignorant she was. That’s why the two lawyers cheated her. Then she would raise her arms and shout: resolutely oppose abortion and the support of the U.S. Supreme Court for her.

But now that the case has been decided, her objection is invalid. Who let her sue that year? The court is not privately run.

But is it as simple as a case?

The answer is: No. Behind this, there is a more complicated political struggle.


At the beginning of today, it was said that on June 24, the US Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. In 1973, the ruling in the “Roe v. Wade case” was that women had the right to abortion. On June 24, the ruling was overturned, that is, the ruling on June 24 meant that women had no right to abortion. The history of the United States has gone around a big circle and returned to the path of Puritans hundreds of years ago. That is, even if a woman becomes pregnant because of rape, she still has to give birth to her child. Abortion is considered murder, and the sentence may be regarded as murder, which may be heavier than that of a rapist.

In the United States, some people are happy and others are sad about this ruling. However, under normal circumstances, women are happy and women are worried, because pregnancy, childbirth and abortion are all women’s business. But there was a man who was very happy these two days. And an old man. This old man is former US President trump.

Why is trump happy? As it boasted itself, if he had not appointed three Supreme Court judges during his term of office, the case of Roe v. Wade, which has been adjudicated for nearly half a century, would not have been reversed.

Where do you begin?

As we all know, trump is a Republican. Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has been trying every means to overturn the “Roe v. Wade case”. Simply put, the Republicans advocate that women have no right to abortion. We often say that the Republican Party is conservative, which is evident.

After the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on this case in 1973, people in the religious circles or those who are devout in religion, of course, shouted abuse because the court ruled that women can have abortions; The so-called progressives, of course, were jubilant and felt that they had won a great victory. In short, it is very torn, because for Americans, it is a major issue of right and wrong.

Why has this become a major issue? Or because of the strong religious atmosphere in the United States. Because, whether a woman can have an abortion means that you are pious about God’s faith and whether you can enter heaven after death. This is, of course, a cardinal issue.

Since ordinary Americans consider this to be a major issue of right and wrong, political parties should naturally be involved in this matter. Because, for political parties, this will affect their votes. In the final analysis, it was originally a social problem, but the impact was huge. Politicians felt that it was profitable, so they got involved.

However, when the two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party of the United States, joined in, both parties found that things were troublesome, because some of their supporters actually supported the ruling result of the “Roe v. Wade case” and some opposed it, that is, they advocated that women had no right to abortion.

This will have to be abandoned.

The current democratic party, that is, Biden’s party, advocates that women have the right to abortion. The Republican party opposes whatever the Democratic Party supports. Therefore, the current Republican Party, that is, Trump’s party, advocates that women have no right to abortion.

But funny to say, in 1973, more Republican supporters supported women’s right to abortion than Democrats. At the beginning, the then chairman of the Republican National Committee delivered a speech saying: this ruling is great! We support! Because this ruling supports women’s right to abortion.

Then they thought something was wrong. The religious atmosphere in the United States is so strong that it must follow religion to get votes and a future. In 1976, the Republican National Committee held a meeting and decided to stand firmly with the religious community and resolutely oppose women’s right to abortion from now on. In other words, they changed their minds.

After the Republican Party changed its mind, it began to take a clear stand against women’s right to abortion. What about those who originally supported women’s right to abortion in the Republican party? Of course, he resolutely broke away from the Republican Party and decided to change jobs to the Democratic Party.

What about the Democrats? We must oppose whatever the enemy supports; We must support whatever the enemy opposes. So we decisively announced that we support women’s right to abortion! Then a large number of people in its party who opposed that women should have the right to abortion switched to the Republican side.

Since then, every time the US general election or other major elections, the Republicans and Democrats have a big quarrel over whether women should have the right to abortion. It can be said that the basic infighting has reached the level of human brain turning into pig brain. What’s more, after decades of persistence, it has become the basic position that the two parties must adhere to. Therefore, if you are often confused about the ideas of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, simply remember: the Democratic Party is an abortion party, that is, it supports women’s right to abortion; The Republican Party is an anti abortion party, which opposes women’s right to abortion. It’s easy to remember. It doesn’t burn your brain.

In fact, for a long time, anyway, as long as you are a Democratic Party, that is, Biden’s party, you must support women’s right to abortion; As long as you are a Republican Party, that is, Trump’s party, you must oppose women’s right to abortion. As for why we must insist like this, I’m sorry, everyone has forgotten. We must persist anyway. This is the extent of Party strife in the United States.

It is normal for people to support and oppose the right to abortion, but it is not normal for it to become a basic principle of both parties in the United States. Because the party’s propositions should have focused on some major issues related to the well-being of the people. This aspect reflects a feature of the political struggle in the United States, that is, making issues, picking bones in the eggs, and everything can be said to be bigger than the universe, because only in this way can we get votes! It is reasonable to say that political parties are problem solvers, not problem makers. However, in the United States, some things, political parties do not participate, may not be a big problem. Once a political party participates, the small problem or no problem turns into a big problem or even a deadlock.

However, according to the United States, party struggle is good. They call it democracy, freedom and human rights. Then let them fight. In the American political system, there is a stabilizer that can eliminate differences at the last moment. This institution is the United States Supreme Court.


After inspecting democracy in the United States, French politician Tocqueville left a famous sentence to the effect that almost all political problems in the United States will sooner or later become judicial problems and be solved.

As we all know, the United States is divided into three powers: executive, legislative and judicial. The executive is the government, and the legislative is the two houses of Congress. In fact, these two powers are very politicized, that is, they fight fiercely. The U.S. Supreme Court, I have to tell you the truth, was actually better for a long time in the past. In fact, this can make up for the serious struggle in the US political structure. This is one reason why the United States has changed from a wilderness in North America to a superpower.

However, this organization has changed and is fighting. The concrete manifestation is that the Supreme Court of the United States has become another battlefield for the fierce political struggle between the two parties.

This is actually a matter of recent years.

It starts in 2016. Because of his old age, Scaria, a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, died in office. Of the nine judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, exactly four are conservative, that is, they tend to the Republican side; Four people make progress, that is, they tend to the Democratic side. Scalia’s position is right in the middle.

At that time, the president of the United States was Barack Obama of the Democratic Party. The judges of the United States Supreme Court were nominated by the president. The Senate decided that the president would formally appoint them. Therefore, if Barack Obama of the Democratic Party is a little selfish at this time (of course, it is not his personal selfish heart, but the selfish heart of his Democratic Party), he can seize the opportunity to quickly nominate and appoint a judge who favors his Democratic Party, which is naturally good for the Democratic Party.

Democratic Barack Obama intends to do the same. However, at that time, the leader of the Republican Party in the US Congress was McConnell. He jumped out and said: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, No. the general election will be held in nine months. You are about to step down. How can you nominate a Supreme Court judge?

As a result, Obama gave up. It is generally believed that this shows that in Obama’s mind, the Supreme Court should be a pure land and should not become a battlefield for bipartisan struggle. After all, in the United States, everything, in the end, depends on the Supreme Court.

Of course, some people also analyzed that at that time, although the Democratic Party’s Obama was about to step down, from the opinion polls of the election, it was the Democratic Party’s Hillary Clinton who could win the election immediately. So Obama doesn’t care.

In short, Obama did not have a strong horse to eat the car. The overlord bent his bow. He seized the last nine months of his term and appointed a judge who favored his Democratic Party.

The result was unexpected: trump was elected. Trump and Obama are not the same party, trump is the Republican Party!

As a result, trump quickly nominated a man named gosaki as a judge of the Supreme Court, which immediately reversed the situation of the U.S. Supreme Court. Five judges supported the Republican Party and four supported the Democratic Party. Obama’s Democratic Party is in a bad position.

Since then, the Supreme Court of the United States has no longer been a pure land, but a battlefield for bipartisan struggle in the United States.

In 2018, judge anthonykennedy, aged 83, announced his retirement.

It seems ordinary, but there is much behind it.

Because judges can work to death, there is no need to retire early. Why didn’t the judge work until he died and retire while he was alive?

You want to? If he works to death, he is inclined to the Republican Party. If the Democratic Party happens to be in power at the time of his death, the Democratic Party will immediately recommend a Democrat as soon as he dies. Isn’t that the loss of the Republican party?

Therefore, the judge who favors the Republican Party retired technically in time when the Republican trump was president. In this way, the Republican president trump took the opportunity to recommend a judge who favors the Republican Party to replace him, and the Republican Party would not lose. The actual plot is also true.

This kind of technical retirement already has a clear-cut calculation of the political parties’ struggle for power and profit.

By 2020, there will be another judge named Ginsberg, who has not retired, but has gone to the West. This is an old lady. She had cancer for a long time, but she was unwilling to quit. As a result, she died in office. The old lady was inclined to the Democratic Party. However, trump, the Republican Party, was in power at that time. However, it was september2020 and only two months before the general election.

In order to prevent president trump of the Republican Party from using two months to force the Supreme Court of the United States to insert a judge who favors the Republican Party. The old judge who vacated this position was originally the Democratic Party. Therefore, the Democratic Party came out and said:

When Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, was president in 2016, judge Scalia, who favored the Democratic Party, was more than nine months away from the general election. You, the Republican Party, said that the general election would soon be held and judges could not be appointed. President Obama, the Democratic Party, was very moral and did not forcibly appoint new judges. This election is only more than two months away. Will we wait for the election results before appointing judges?

As a result, John McConnell, the Republican leader who told Barack Obama that he could not appoint new judges by force in the upcoming general election, and trump haha, the then Republican president, laughed: is there such a thing? The appointment of Supreme Court judges is the power of the president. Does it have anything to do with how long it is before the general election?

The Democrats were so angry that they almost vomited blood.

Trump quickly nominated a man named Barrett as a judge. Naturally, this man is inclined to the Republican Party. McConnell quickly cooperated with Congress and passed the appointment.

Since then, the ratio of the U.S. Supreme Court judges’ preference for the Republican Party to the Democratic Party has suddenly become 6 to 3, and the Republican Party is obviously dominant. Even worse, among the six, trump of the Republican Party appointed three as president. What’s more, the three appointed by trump are very young and can work long, long and long

Of course, the Democratic Party is extremely angry and thinks that the Republican Party is really not honest. But there is no alternative.

Since trump began not to talk about martial virtues, the Democratic Party has also begun not to talk about martial virtues.

After Biden of the Democratic Party came to power, there was an older judge who favored the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party said that he would retire before he died, so as to free up a place for a young judge who favored the Democratic Party So that when this old man retires, it happens that the Republican Party is in power again, and another one tends to the Republican Party. If this goes on for a long time, the Democratic Party will have no one in the Supreme Court. How can the Democratic Party muddle along?

However, even with the Democratic Party’s technical operation, the number of people who prefer the Republican Party in the U.S. Supreme Court is still 6, and the number who prefer the Democratic Party is still 3. Therefore, there is no doubt that the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the right to abortion is in favor of the Republican Party’s claim: it does not support women’s right to abortion.

Since trump of the Republican Party took the greatest credit for the fact that the Republican Party won a 6:3 absolute advantage in the U.S. Supreme Court, after the Supreme Court ruled on June 24, he said bluntly: how could this case have been so cool without me!

However, behind Trump’s pride, we found that the impartiality of the US Supreme Court’s ruling has been seriously questioned. People have found that whether things are reasonable or not depends not on the law or the spirit of the law, or even the “Mayflower Convention”, but only on the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Who is the winner of the fight over the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court?

Therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States is actually not neutral, and can no longer serve as a stabilizer. It is also seriously politicized.

The United States Supreme Court, the last piece of pure land in the United States, is not clean. The United States as a whole can no longer find a pure land without struggle or a place to reason.

What does that mean?


Here we must talk about a term: political ethics.

Ethics is not a law, and it has no force. But he is important and plays an important role.

Tell me about ancient Chinese examples:

Han Xiandi, the last emperor of the Eastern Han Dynasty, was finally forced to abdicate to Cao Pi. Then what? He was crowned Lord Shanyang. Shanyang is a county with a large area. Although he is no longer an emperor, Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty has a good life. Many years after Cao Pi’s death, Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty passed away and died normally. After the death of Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty, the Cao Wei regime, whether it liked it or not, at least pretended to build a mausoleum for him according to the emperor’s specifications. The emperor of the Cao Wei Dynasty also took his ministers to offer sacrifices.

Later, during the Three Kingdoms period, when the Shu Han dynasty fell, what treatment did Liu Bei’s son Liu Chan receive after he was taken to Luoyang as the emperor of the subjugation? He was granted the title of Anle Gong. Anle is a county, which is not as good as Shanyang County, which was granted by Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty. However, there are 10000 households in liuchan’s food town. In addition, Liu Bei is from Zhuozhou county. Anle county is nearby, which can be regarded as the root of liuchan. Therefore, he has a good life.

SUN Hao, the last emperor of the eastern Wu Dynasty, had a poor life. He was granted the title of “Gui Ming Hou”. This title was insulting and was specially designed for him. He was only given 3000 mu of farmland. However, he could still collect 5000 yuan of grain every year, with 500000 yuan and 500 kg of cotton. His life was not good, but he could still live on.

Later, the Wei Dynasty was replaced by the Jin Dynasty. The last emperor of the Wei Dynasty was granted the title of King Chen Liu by the Jin Dynasty. Chen Liu was a county, so his life was not bad.

Why rob other people’s territory, but also pretend to give others a decent treatment? No reason. To say the reason, there are only four words: political ethics.

The core of this political ethics is: I still think he is the former leader, but it is destiny. Now I am the leader. Just as the current leaders are kind to the former retired leaders, their successors will be kind to him when he retires in the future.

This is ethics, not necessarily regulations, but in people’s minds, it works very well, sometimes even better than regulations.

Let’s see what happens after the loss of political ethics.

Sima Dewen, the last emperor of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, was forced to cede the throne to Liu Yu, the founder of the Southern Song Dynasty, and was also crowned king. When Liu Yu, the founder of the Southern Song Dynasty, ascended the throne, he was a little old. He was always worried that after his death, someone would jump out and support Sima Dewen again, and his descendants would be in danger. So he started first and secretly sent someone to kill Sima Dewen.

However, it was against political ethics after all, so Liu Yu had to do it quietly. After that, he had to pretend to be very sorry, and did the same thing as Cao Wei did to Han Xiandi.

However, it seems seamless, but in this world, where is the airtight wall? Before the establishment of the Southern Song Dynasty, although the emperor of the subjugated state was no longer an emperor, he could at least get a fief and have a meal. But Liu Yu broke this rule. Since then, when a new dynasty was established, the former Emperor and his descendants could hardly survive.

This is the result of the destruction of political ethics. When you destroy it, it is irreversible, and from then on it runs at the next level. Whether ancient or modern; This is how political ethics works in both China and foreign countries.

Well, trump is now elated. He feels that over the years, the “predecessors” of the Republican Party have been trying to break through the “Roe v. Wade case” and have not been successful. However, under the layout of his presidency, the proportion of judges in the U.S. Supreme Court has changed. As a result, he has succeeded at one stroke. This is his great achievement.

On the surface, it is. But look deeper? You will find that this so-called success is very expensive. Because the Supreme Court of the United States could at least successfully disguise itself as a neutral institution even if it was a little disguised, but now this disguise has been torn off. Everyone knows that it has become a political thug, and everyone knows that it is no longer the kind of holy palace that everyone at least pretends to imagine.

In that case, there will be no sacred palace in the United States, and there will be no authoritative place to convince the people.

What this shakes is: the foundation of the United States.

Any country inevitably has many problems, but the people must have a place to trust and rely on. This place is based on political ethics. Political ethics is a spiritual thing. Without it, the result is that the people have no faith and the country has no hope.

Accordingly, those in power naturally have no bottom line. In the future, the political struggle between the two parties in the United States will be more unscrupulous, which is quite dangerous for a country. Judging from the reactions of all parties, this is indeed the case.


For example, American female singer Phoebe Briggs is holding a concert in Britain these two days. When she heard that the US Supreme Court ruled that women do not have the right to abortion, she cursed on the stage on the spot. She swore a lot of dirty words on the stage. I have no law. In the United States, there is also chaos. Many people are extremely angry and shout slogans that are different from those in the past. For example, in Washington, D.C., thousands of Americans took to the streets. Many people shouted, “burn the constituency to ashes in every city and town!”

On the day of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, demonstrators in Phoenix, Arizona stormed the local government building to protest the ruling, while the local police fired tear gas at the protesters from the windows of the local parliament building to disperse the demonstrators.

The wave of protests across the United States is also surging: there are large numbers of people protesting in Los Angeles, Washington, New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Seattle. Under such a chaotic situation, the “beautiful scenery” described by Pelosi will almost certainly reappear.

What’s more, after the U.S. Supreme Court made a historic ruling overturning the “Roe v. Wade case”, Alexandria ocassio Cortes, one of the four golden flowers of the Democratic Party, directly shouted the slogan of “uprising” in front of the media.

This is a bit serious. Before, people still cared about eating pictures, but now they don’t care about eating pictures. Republicans were also blunt, calling her a “leftist insurgent”. It’s a mess anyway.

This matter is still developing. Judging from the current situation, the United States does have a tendency to move towards civil war. Of course, it is generally believed that there is little possibility of civil war now. But what about the future?

Countries like the United States are originally composed of people of multiple races and cultures. It is difficult to deal with internal contradictions. If the vicious struggle between the two parties in the United States continues to spiral down, and if political ethics continues to fall below the bottom line, there may be a civil war in the United States. Once the civil war broke out, the United States would inevitably fall apart.

Fortresses are always destroyed from the inside.

Rome was not built in a day. But it takes only one day to destroy Rome. Because, before that, too much has been accumulated.

We are waiting for this day.

One thought on “Why can’t American women have abortions?

  1. I’m very happy to uncover this great site. I wanted to thank you for ones time for this wonderful read!! I definitely appreciated every bit of it and I have you book-marked to look at new things on your blog.

Leave a Reply

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