Posted on 01/20/2004 2:15:21 PM PST by cpforlife.org
We can't declare a "Holy War" against our own laws.
In Federalist #51, James Madison, 'Father of the Constitution,' stated, "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." And in Federalist #78, Hamilton stated, "...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power." These statements are confirmed in the U.S. Constitution. The Advice and Consent / Appointments Clauses, Impeachment Clauses, Exceptions Clause, The Supremacy Clause, the The Loyalty Clause, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments EMPOWER the president & congress to fulfill their contract with America; by upholding their oath of office and forcing the Naziesque federal courts into compliance with the U.S. Constitution!
Lord, please forgive this nation.
2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
What does God think when he sees an entire nation cowed by 5/9 of "next to nothing?"
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person. Until the law is changed, it is not murder - in the legal sense.
When the annual slaughter was at 1.5 million, the equivalent loss of life would require a TWA800 tragedy to occur every 90 minutes around the clock every day of the year!
Bush needs to read your analogy!
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person. Until the law is changed, it is not murder - in the legal sense.
Mom Gets Away With Murder, But No One Else Does?
Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act -- January 8, 2004
The bill would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. The exact charge would depend on which federal law is involved, the degree of harm done to the child, and other factors. The bill would apply this two-victim principle to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence.
The bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment. Nevertheless, the National Right to Life Committee supports the bill because it achieves other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their own right: The protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and the punishment of those who harm unborn children while engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would it impose such a law in a state that has not enacted one. Rather, the bill applies only to unborn children injured or killed during the course of already-defined federal crimes of violence.
Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws (including criminal laws) "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had ruled that Missouri’s law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," and blocked its enforcement, but the Supreme Court nullified that ruling, allowing the law to go into effect so long as the state did not use it to restrict abortion.
Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House passed on a vote of 417-0 a bill that contained the same definition of "child in utero" and that embodied the same basic legal principle. That bill, the Innocent Child Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority may "carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero. . . .‘child in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The principle embodied in the Innocent Child Protection Act was obvious – carrying out the execution would take two human lives, including one convicted of no crime.
State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims -- June 23, 2003
As of January 5, 2004, twenty-eight (28) states have enacted laws which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes covered by state laws. Fifteen (15) of these states provide this protection throughout the period of in utero development, while the other 13 provide protection during certain specified stages of development. These laws are sometimes referred to as "fetal homicide" laws.
One Victim or Two? Results from Three National Polls
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019) would recognize as a legal victim an unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime against the baby's mother. A substitute amendment to be offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein would increase penalties for federal crimes against pregnant women - but would recognize only one victim, the mother, and without recognizing any loss of human life if the mother survives the assault. Sharon Rocha, mother of Laci Peterson and grandmother of Conner Peterson, has called such a single-victim proposal "a step away from justice, not toward it." But what does the general public say? If a criminal assaults a woman who carries an unborn child, does that crime have two victims, or only one? Here are three recent national polls on that issue.
It is not classified as "murder" no matter how much you want it to be.
As of January 5, 2004, twenty-eight (28) states have enacted laws which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes covered by state laws. Fifteen (15) of these states provide this protection throughout the period of in utero development, while the other 13 provide protection during certain specified stages of development. These laws are sometimes referred to as "fetal homicide" laws.
Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument.
The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others. The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights". A Woman's Right Over Her Body? addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body. Unplugging a Bad Analogy refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson. Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle. A Fetus is NOT a Parasite chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson. Begging the Question explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?
What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults.
I Was Once a Fetus -- mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss .The Real Problem with Abortion -- examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.
Gassing Jews wasn't "classified" as murder under Nazi law, but it was murder none the less.
The ruling of a Godless court may have changed the legal status of killing unborn babies, but it didn't have any affect on the morality of that heinous act. Under God's moral law abortion is murder no matter how much you want it not to be. And his is the only law that will apply in that higher court in which baby-killers will be tried.
Every abortion doctor knows full well that he or she is killing an innocent human being when they scald or hack the life out of a human "cell mass". They couldn't go through medical school and not know that. They will have no excuse for their heinous acts when they stand before the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
Abortion is not a crime because it is not prosecutable. Abortion, however, can be considered a 'sin."
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.