Posted on 06/07/2004 1:07:40 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
I am sick of ridiculous federal court rulings and I'm angry. It's about abortion, unborn babies and court rulings beyond "wrong."
I know. Nothing today is "wrong." Nothing is a "lie."
Anything goes because limitations offend people. The "offendee" can force others to eliminate the "offense." In fact, offending someone is the worst sin of all.
Oops. Sorry. No such thing as "sin" either.
It's so hard to know what's right and wrong.
Uh oh. Sorry, again. There is no right and wrong.
If it feels good, sounds good and offends no one – do it.
No one will stop you, and if anyone tries, the issue will hit the courts so fast your head will spin – and I don't mean exorcism.
Even that wouldn't work since you don't need exorcism when there's no good or evil, God or the devil, morality or ethics.
Don't even go there.
But a lot of people do go there.
The majority of Americans are there. They believe in right and wrong, good and evil and certainly believe (and hope) our courts administer justice.
They don't believe courts should make law or twist reason to make rulings reflecting the judge's personal views.
I believe the majority of Americans are sane. I can't say the same about liberals and I certainly can't say it about our left-leaning judiciary.
Left leaning, my foot! The courts – especially the federal courts – have leaned so far left, they've fallen over. It's disgusting.
Two latest "rulings" by federal judges shows the incredible stupidity and immorality of the system.
It's about abortion and unborn babies. Babies. Not fetuses. Not blobs of tissue. But, babies – living and growing in their mother's body, preparing for birth, which is what pregnancy is all about.
Unless, of course, you don't want to be pregnant and you don't want that baby born.
Oops, sorry. In that case, it's not a baby. It's a fetus.
In those instances, according to our courts, it's perfectly legal to end that child's growth. It's called abortion and our justice system says it's OK, essentially, to kill the baby-fetus any time during the 9-month gestation.
According to our "justice" system, the woman (with the baby-fetus growing inside her) takes precedence over the growing child. To make this palatable to the public, that life inside the woman is never called a "baby" and the woman is never called a "mother." Unless, of course, she wants to be pregnant; then she is called a mother, the fetus is called a baby and the OB-GYN says there are two patients.
Huh?
It's bad enough early abortions involve cutting the baby-fetus apart and removing it – piece by piece – but the woman is not told exactly what is happening.
Not a pretty picture, is it?
That's why most media refuse to describe the truth or show actual pictures. That would be offensive.
Speaking of offensive, that's why the person destroying unborn life is called an "abortion provider," not an abortionist.
Here's another offensive picture – one the mainstream media simply refuse to discuss clearly so the public can know exactly what happens during a "partial-birth abortion."
If, late in pregnancy, the woman changes her mind, abortion is still legal, but it's harder to pull out those body parts and it could be dangerous to the women. So the "provider" can reach into her birth canal, turn the baby-fetus, pull it out feet first, except for the head.
Then, using a tool like a nutcracker, crush the skull, siphon out the brain and voila – it's done. Life is gone, the birth wasn't complete, the abortion is legal and the "provider" can't be accused of murder.
Or should he? And should the woman be an accomplice?
The courts don't want to address that, but the fact that Scott Peterson is on trial in California, accused of killing his 8-month pregnant wife Laci, and their unborn son – named Connor – complicates things.
Uh oh.
Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and President Bush signed it in November. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, decided a challenge to the law, in San Francisco, last week. She ruled it unconstitutional and a threat to women.
What about the baby-fetus? Never mind.
But Congress also passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, called the "Laci and Conner Law," which gives unborn children equal protection under the law.
Steady now!
Because of that law, Senior U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright ruled last week in Kansas City, that a 5-month pregnant woman, fighting deportation to Mexico, must be allowed to stay here because her unborn son is an American citizen!
W-h-a-a-a-t?
The woman, born in Mexico, is accused of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship when returning from a trip. If the baby is born before any appeals are settled, he will automatically be an American citizen. But the judge says, even before birth, he's a citizen!
The father said "Our baby is a person now."
Before birth? Hmmm.
Let's see: Kill a wanted, 8-month unborn baby and you commit murder. A 5-month unborn baby is an American citizen. It's OK to suck the brains out of an unborn baby up to 9 months.
This is justice?
She should also mention that the Constition specifically states:
Amendment XIV: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Thus the child of the immigrant would need to be born to be a citizen, and is not a citizen until then. What do we do with a judge who possesses such flagrant contempt for the law?
I don't know how any "judge" can look themself in the face in the mornings.
Judges are sworn to protect our posterity, a constitutionally mandated oath. In a sane nation that truly does uphold the Constitution, any judge who betrays our nation's posterity, the unborn, would be impeached, removed from the bench, and ostracized.
Somewhere along the line, someone replaced in the Judge's manual the word "posterity" with "posterior".
What if she now decides she wants an abortion? Talk about muddying the waters.
Excellent article showing the blatant hypocrisy of our courts.
Posterior protection by liberal judges.
Are you sure you aren't Reagan? Some people see Elvis. Why can't I see a little Reagan in all conservatives?
I thought it was a poorly written piece attempting to express a good idea.
I thought it was a poorly written piece attempting to express a good idea.
Today I was discussing our Election going on up here, and the young lady I was discussing it with went absolutely mad when I brought up our conservative candidate, Steven Harper, She freaked out saying she wouldn't vote for him because he's a [b]sick, evil pro-lifer![/b].......excuse me missus, but [i]he's[/i] the sick one?? What kind of twisted logic are we dealing with here? It boggles the mind what left-wingers are capable of bringing out in people. These are the same people up here that are against capital punishment for child rapist/murderers......
But, doesn't that make *THEM* "pro-lifers"?
And, if you just stop and think of the absolute insanity that is required for any human being to be critical of the label 'pro-life'....it's totally looney!!!
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.