Replies

And neither is talking to you. Junk science? Now I know you don't know what you are talking about, LOL. The science is irrefutable.

Actually, it isn't even close to irrefutable--there are legitimate studies available to support either side. That makes it "junk science," because it isn't solidly established yet.

Poohbah, (Howlin, you too FRiend, and your crew)

Scott Peterson was just convicted of First degree murder of his wife, and Second degree murder of his UNBORN son Connor. It was just stated by the Judge on FoxNews that he could have been found guilty of First Degree murder of Connor. The Judge added that based on the evidence he thought that Scott should have been found guilty of First Degree murder of Connor and that Second in this instance seemed incoherent.

Now Poobah, in your 209 you told me:

"One has to be born in order to be a person in the eyes of common law.

This, in turn, means that 5th and 14th Amendment arguments are worthless for stopping abortion, as the underlying common law doesn't support the use of the 5th and 14th Amendments for that purpose."

Poobah, If Connor isn't a person under the law, how can someone be convicted of MURDERING him.

This seems contradictory to me--to a level of insanity. Of course I have no legal experience, but this seems to be taking something so simple and twisting it.

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 God—to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty—that 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

Actually, it isn't even close to irrefutable--there are legitimate studies available to support either side. That makes it "junk science," because it isn't solidly established yet. >>>

Wrong again.