Posted on 11/01/2018 8:50:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In upholding a lower court’s fetal-homicide ruling, Alabama Supreme Court justice Tom Parker urged the U.S. Supreme Court to address the “logical fallacy” he believes is inherent in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established a constitutional right to abortion.
Jessie Livell Phillips, who was sentenced to death after being found guilty of a double homicide for killing his pregnant girlfriend, appealed the decision, arguing that the fetus was not legally a separate person, and that he should thus have been charged with one count of homicide instead of two.
The Court, however, rejected Phillips’s appeal, finding that he was indeed guilty of killing “two or more persons” per a 2006 Alabama law that extended personhood to children in utero.
As part of his concurring opinion, Parker wrote that it is a “logical fallacy” for the state to treat a fetus as a separate person subject to equal protection for the purposes of charging Phillips with a double homicide, while making an exception in the case of a woman seeking an abortion.
“I urge the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider the Roe exception and to overrule this constitutional aberration. Return the power to the states to fully protect the most vulnerable among us,” Parker wrote.
Parker goes on to cite cases in which the court held that fetuses can be considered legal parties to estate settlements and trusts, which are often adjudicated after a legal guardian has been appointed to represent the interests of the fetus. He made a similar argument in 2013 while writing the court’s opinion upholding the state’s right to prosecute pregnant women who use drugs for endangering their unborn children.
“Today, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion,” Parker argued in 2013, “and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.”
It’s true, but laws are not held to any logical standard. One law’s basic assumptions contradicts anothers’. Internal inconsistencies don’t bother anyone.
That is how the liberal mind works. It is perfectly capable of holding two contradictory thoughts at the exact same time.
Besides, the vast majority of American voters have no idea what we are saying here.
The question then is: Should every woman who has had an abortion be convicted of murder?
Back in 1984, I was helping to set up a pro-life problem pregnancy center. We ran across some information from the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion industry's scientific arm.
They ran a study in which they asked women if they would still get abortions if it were not legal.
The answers came back -
90% would not seek an abortion if it were illegal, which means they would go ahead and have the baby.
10% would still work to get an abortion.
This point of information should be made known to a wide audience. For some reason this study is not on the Guttmacher website.
So, yeah. Women should be held accountable to some extent. The real culprit though should be the hired gun, the doctor doing the deed.
There is no logical way to justify that abortion of a decision. Its liberal agenda-driven reasoning was based on obsolete science, unfounded assumptions, and a tautology to begin with. The irreconcilable conflict between these two decisions is apparent. But just watch the USSCT fail in its essential purpose as it continues to ignore the fallacy. After all, none of these very human justices are so principled that they want to be the match that ignites the inevitable civil war fomented by left wing politicians, media, and academia.
Meanwhile, this country has institutionalized the slaughter of over 60 Million human beings since 1972. If you believe in a just God as revealed through His word, you know how this will end for America, even if the world itself continues for a time. We’re already seeing the fractures in our society and the widespread abandonment of that piece of parchment that once held us all together— the one that the USSCt was supposed to follow and protect.
Unlike Ireland who unbelievably voted for abortion.
The real crux of the matter is this - is the baby in the womb human or not?
The only logical answer is that "it" is human, therefore "it" should be treated as a human being.
Are the pre born citizens?
yes - we do establish and ordain these rights for us and our posterity or something similar... means all offspring of legal US residents.
But that's like saying that the person who makes an appointment with a hitman, drives the victim to the hitman, then pays the hitman, is less the "real culprit" in murder than the hitman and should only be "held accountable to some extent." If abortion is murder, then the woman who has an abortion should be guilty of murder and punished accordingly, up to and including the death penalty. It's the only logically consistent answer.
and so it begins...
No but the physician should be
Why is the hired killer more culpable than the person who hires them and delivers the victim to them?
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.