Posted on 12/15/2007 9:54:07 AM PST by wagglebee
Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term, "September 11th", almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who chose to callously sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, January 22nd, which is not so well known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its two-hundred-plus year history - Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who "choose" to callously sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
It's not at all surprising that what public support there is for Roe v. Wade is typically rooted in a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is bliss, and blissful ignorance relative to Roe is by design. It's intentionally fueled through obfuscation and disinformation, fostered by pro-abortion activists and other like-minded leftists. Polls show conclusively that the more people learn about Roe v. Wade, the less likely they are to support it.
And so, in an effort to help educate the public about Roe, members from a coalition of pro-family organizations are asking America the following question: "Do you really know Roe?"
Concerned Women for America (CWA), Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council have designed a Web site with a brief online questionnaire to test your knowledge about Roe v. Wade. It's a Roe IQ test, and it can be taken in a few short minutes at RoeIQTest.com.
We've all heard the Biblical admonition, "A man reaps what he sows." With Roe, we have reaped a culture of death. The human toll Roe has taken is unfathomable and will only increase until people take the time to learn the truth about this convoluted ruling.
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war - the war for our culture - it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battle field, buried - unceremoniously - in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood.
Although we think of 1973 - the year Roe was decided - as relatively modern, there remained, even then, a raging debate over when life begins. To abortion proponents, the pre-born child was merely a "lifeless blob" or a "nonviable mass of tissue" which could be done away with at any time prior to birth without moral or legal implications.
To the pro-life side, human life begins at the moment of conception with all the associated legal and civil rights of personhood attached.
The Roe Court sided with the pro-abortionists.
But since that time, science and technology have proven pro-lifers right and the Roe Court wrong. Addressing that reality, CWA President Wendy Wright said, "Technology and testimonies have splintered support for abortion, paving the way for more protection for women and unborn children.
"Advances in technology, particularly 3D and 4D ultrasound, provide a window into the womb, a picture that this is indeed a human being, not - as many abortion clinics tell unsuspecting women - a 'blob of tissue.' Whereas Roe claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth."
History has a way of repeating itself. The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation. Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Court's shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right… life.
As with Dred Scott, Roe's fate is inevitable. It's just a matter of time. History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as it judged Dred Scott. But until that time, innocent children continue to die on a daily basis.
Knowledge is power, and as more people gain knowledge about Roe v. Wade, the less power the multi-billion dollar abortion industry maintains. Make no mistake, they'll do anything and everything to keep that from happening.
But their ghoulish zeal betrays their true agenda. By any reasonable measure the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is nothing to celebrate. It is a national day of mourning. The post-Roe highway is awash with the blood of countless innocents. And those who have lead these little lambs to the slaughter are responsible.
Even so, this will not stop the mainstream media, radical feminists and other pro-abortion Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left from celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. They'll break out the streamers and party hats and dance gleefully around the golden calf of euphemistic "choice."
But power is there for the taking.
Please visit RoeIQTest.com before January, 22 and answer the question, "Do you really know Roe," for yourself. Then, when you see the left celebrating Roe v. Wade and the culture of death it has spawned, you can rest assured that you refused to stay in the dark. You refused to remain powerless.
After all… isn't it your choice?
Even so, this will not stop the mainstream media, radical feminists and other pro-abortion Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left from celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. They'll break out the streamers and party hats and dance gleefully around the golden calf of euphemistic "choice."
And this what is most disgusting, the culture of death actually rejoices in the slaughter of 50 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
they didn't just come from nowhere. Were they circulated, in a different fashion, perhaps, but along the same lines as the anti-Semitic "humor" of the third Reich?
It's a chilling thought. That form of discussion didn't just appear out of nowhere and take on a life of its own. It has to be fed.
I’m not sure this guy really understands Roe. Even before Roe, abortion was legal in certain states, CO, CA, and NY, for example. Before Roe, abortion was not unconstitutional. It was simply up to the states. And if Roe were reversed, it would not become unconstitutional. The decision to allow or prohibit abortion would merely revert back to the states, as it had been for nearly 200 years.
If you read this article, you’d think that the Court decided in Roe that life does not begin at conception. The truth is that the law has never recognized that life began at conception. There were legal cases on the books back in Colonial times that said a fetus does not become a person until birth. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the states can regulate abortion even though the fetus is not a human being, according to the law. In Roe, the Supreme Court said “no.”
How they got that out of the Constitution, though, is beyond me. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from regulating abortion, and the states did regulate abortion for nearly 200 years, without any controversy. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a right to have an abortion.
“There were legal cases on the books back in Colonial times that said a fetus does not become a person until birth. But that is not the issue. “
Cite them.
“There were legal cases on the books back in Colonial times that said a fetus does not become a person until birth.”
As expected, you cannot cite them because their existence is a myth-one that you repeated and should correct.
Not even the proaborts and all their cronies, on or off the court, could find any such “legal cases.”
Try reading the “decision” for yourself before making such false statements.
” Even before Roe, abortion was legal in certain states, CO, CA, and NY, for example.”
That’s true, but by the time the Court decided Roe in 1973, the tide had turned against abortion. Not a single state further liberalized its abortion laws after 1970, and in fact, New York’s state legislature actually voted to REPEAL its abortion-on-demand legislation in 1972, only to be vetoed by Nelson “Blood on hands” Rockefeller.
Given that the public was turning away in revulsion from liberalized abortion laws by 1973, it’s quite possible that without Roe, state laws would be generally restrictive, with perhaps a few exceptions, and most of the nearly 50 million dead children of the past 35 years would not have been murdered.
As well, as the article points out, in 1973, technology hadn’t quite yet shown us the wondrous nature of pre-natal life. There was some, if only a little, excuse for thinking that the unborn child was a “blob of tissue.” This lie is no longer excusable to anyone whatsoever at all.
Now is the time to push for complete legal protection of the unborn.
But that can’t start until Roe is overturned.
It’s only the first small step in a long road, but it IS the first step.
sitetest
OK, I took up your challenge. I’ll concede that I was wrong that the dividing line was birth. However, it was not conception, either. According to the commentators on the common law, including Blackstone, the dividing line was “quickening,” which is essentially when the baby begins to kick. After that time, it was a misdemeanor to kill the fetus. Before that time, it wasn’t even that.
Finding a copy of a case that old on the internet would be nearly impossible, but I believe Blackstone when he says that was the law at the time. Afterall, Blackstone’s commentaries themselves were and are widely used by the courts as authority on the common law, and he had no ax to grind.
The reason that a fetus was not regarded as a “person” in those days was relatively simple: Most pregnancies did not end in live births.
Thank you.
Now, you might want to research Blackstone, and ask yourself why he was referenced in Roe.
For the record, Blackstones’s beliefs are irrelevant to the Constitution.
Human fertilization the was first observed under a maicroscope by Wilhelm Hertwig in 1875. In the following few decades, every state in the United States passed legislation to limit or outlaw abortions --- legislation not demanded by any church activists, but overwhelmingly by the medical profession and the feminists of the late 19th century. Why? Because they thought it ethically essential to protect pregnant women and their developing babies from injury and death.
Here is a very informative link on the legal history of abortion in the US. It reveals much.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT
I'd like to see some evidence for this puzzling assertion. It has often been claimed that the rate of early miscarriage (>2 weeks) is very high; I think that's debatable, but even assuming that were true, these would be undetectable early miscarriages because the still-miniscule embryo would be expelled in what would look like a heavy menstrual flow.
Most embryos with genetic or chromosomal abnormalities are miscarried before 6 weeks.
As far as I know, even in past centuries when miscarriage was more frequent than it is now, they were not, as you say, "more frequent than live birth" except in times of plague, famine, or war; some ancient writings use miscarriage as a metaphor for such exceptional times of distress.
On the other hand, abortion was forbidden by the major sources of Wesgern civilization --- Greek, Jewish, and Christian. This is evidenced by writings
But I'm open to learning. Sources, please?
Hey troll, I think you joined the wrong forum today. This is a pro-life site, you need to go to DUmmyland.
Actually troll, the "decision" was made when you got in bed with the man. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you have the right to commit murder.
An unborn child in the womb is not "your body," it's someone else's body inside yours.
If you don't want a man to hijack your body for 9 months, don't allow him to hijack your body for an evening in bed. It's really pretty simple: don't expect someone else to pay with her life for your refusal to use your sexuality responsibly.
BTW, I think you're on the wrong website; FR is explicitly pro-life.
Oh, and stop thinking in slogans, and start thinking.
They can't think, they are taught to regurgitate what DNC Politburo indoctrinates them with (for all we know, the troll was a man who doesn't even realize that this slogan only applies to women).
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.