Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
My my, and do we know that?
They routinely are. Read your newspaper's crime section.
However, the Constitution does not outlaw murder, except by the government. The only crime specified in the Constitution is treason. Murder is not outlawed by the Constitution. Murder of federal officials and employees is outlawed by federal statute. Murder of other persons is outlawed by state statutes. The punishments vary from state to state. Some states, for instance, impose the death penalty, and some do not. Some states require "special circumstances" to be present before the death penalty may be imposed. The specific "special circumstances" that make a murderer eligible for the death penalty can and do vary from state to state.
because giving the other side this bone will smooth the way for appointing decent supremes?
The point stands that the meaning of the word "born" is not consistent with your interpretation.
However, please also note that the 14th Amendment cannot be construed to criminalize abortion.
It most certainly DOES. By your line of reasoning, the 14th amendment cannot be contrued to criminalize murder or any number of civil rights violations. Do you actually believe this. If not, what would be the difference?
The 14th Amendment does not outlaw murder. That is still up to the states.
So then any person CAN be deprived of life, liberty or due property without due process of law???
False disjunct fallacy again. the 14th amendment outlaws murder, while the states set penalties.
An unborn baby IS a person in the case of Connor "in the eyes of common law", BUT if Laci Peterson decided the week before she died to abort Connor, somehow he would then NOT be a person.
So if I understand this correctly an unborn baby IS WHATEVER his mother and some black robed monkeys say he is.
Poohbah, could you please enlighten me again as how this can be.
And since you have been so helpful in enlightening me I will share this with you. Perhaps you will find it enlightening as well:
72. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.
73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to Godto whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereigntythat the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".
Pope John Paul II-- Evangelium Vitae, (The Gospel of Life ) 1995
Murder of person A by person B is not a civil rights violation, unless person B is acting under color of authority.
The 14th Amendment forbids the government from murdering you.
So then any person CAN be deprived of life, liberty or due property without due process of law???
Not by the state.
Consider this: a burglar breaks into my house. I shoot him. I have denied him due process of law, as I have denied him his right to life and did not grant him "substantial due process."
Kindly note that the state is not actually aborting babies.
False disjunct fallacy again. the 14th amendment outlaws murder, while the states set penalties.
Good grief.
You've just taken a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't understand your points and the points in the article. I agree with another poster that says this sort of thing could marginalize efforts.
Gonzales says that he upholds the law. Sadly abortion is legal.
He doesn't make the laws.
I don't see this makes him in any way unfit for AG.
The real efforts need to be directed towards the legislators, not someone whose job is just to uphold the law.
What part of "the attorney general doesn't write laws" don't you understand?
The part you're missing is that they WANT all things to be about abortion and they WANT anything that isn't to be marginalized.
It is one hell of a stretch of the law to conclude that all abortion is thus instantly prosecutable as murder.
The law does not make a lot of sense. But nonsensical laws are not a priori unconstitutional.
Very well said.
1. I see NO evidence that Gonzalez is not pro-life.
2. I see many folks who have been waiting to come back out of the woodwork and attack the President for reasons that most likely have nothing to do with this appointment.
3. I see a President who has done many, many things in four short years to reduce the number of abortions, and to return value to the unborn and weak, and create in this country a culture of LIFE.
4. I am praising the Lord for the victory of this pro-LIFE President and the progress that will be made in the coming years because a man of God is in the White House.
5. I am urging his critics here to pray for him that God would continue to guide his steps, and give him the wisdom that he seeks to make decisions that are pleasing to HIM.
It's only going to get worse when the Senate acts against their wishes and gives Spectre the chairmanship.
I want to be on your Pro-Life List.....I just sent FAX'S to all the Congressmen about NOT approving Specter for the Committee Chairman of the Judiciary......Now I understand, correct me if I heard wrong, that Gonzales is NOT PRO-Life??
This is disturbing to me.......
If Specter gets the chairmanship, he's going to be on serious probation.
Bush and those senators will never give it to him unless they are POSITIVE he's on their side.
STUPID TROLL!
Are you aware of the "Laci and Connor Law" signed by President Bush?
So then, Christians should not have abortions.
Single issue? 1,460,000 human beings a year in the US alone! They sure as hell can't speak for themselves.
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.