PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[Cold Heat]

You see the facts as you wish them to be.

I don't see what you see. You are correct about that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The first "volley" was fired exactly eight responses into the thread.

You took umbrage with my post.

Telling...

[JeffAtlanta]

The states have codified the unborn as persons.

It doesn't matter what individual states have done. Individual states don't get to define who a person is for the purposes of the 14th amendment - its a constitutional issue.

[jwalsh07]

I don't see what you see.

Don't worry about it, hindsight is 20/20. You'll see soon enough. :-}

[Cold Heat]

Hmmmm......If it does not happen as you predict, I could say that both of us will be disappointed, but one of us more than the other.:-)

[jwalsh07]

It doesn't matter what individual states have done. Individual states don't get to define who a person is for the purposes of the 14th amendment - its a constitutional issue.

Really? Will SCOTUS overturn Petersons conviction for murdering his unborn son?

Does the Constituion constrain states from expanding individual rights?

When SCOTUS upheld the non personhood of black folk in Dred Scott, were they correct and within their power to do so?

[A Jovial Cad]

*I have never seen you comment on a Pro-Life thread*

Even if true (and it's not), that's relevant, ummmm, how?....

*Now you come on simply to criticize someone who is trying to hold the GOP to their stated values*

Wrongo, sport. I came onto the thread to criticize the language used by a so-called "Christian." No Christian I know (and being one myself, I tend to know quite a few) would ever think the phrase "Screw us" or any of it's variants to be acceptable language, especially in public--and in WRITING on an open Internet forum to boot! The *message* of the post I don't really have that much of a problem with (though it is stated in the manner of a petulant child); the specific *language* I refer to could sure use a cleanup, especially coming from a so-called "Christian."

*My first impression of you is one who moans and groans but does little or nothing to actually help or even offer constructive criticism*

Boy, that'll sure be keeping me up late at night, pacing the floors, worrying about *your* "first impression" of *me* alright...(snicker)...


*You offer heat but no light. I am singularly unimpressed*

Gee, that's funny...this whole thread has been one big flame-fest that *YOU* started, and here you are accusing others of offering "heat" but "no light." That's called "projection." And while we're wrapping things up, let us note that you have yet to address my point: what kind of "Christian" uses language like "Screw us," especially in public for the whole world to see? None that I know of, for sure...but nice try at a dodge.

[Cold Heat]

Really? Will SCOTUS overturn Petersons conviction for murdering his unborn son?

Ya know, this could become a issue for their plate.

If the death penalty is imposed as a result, it might, and I say might, be something they may look at.

They will certainly have plenty of time however. He would not be executed for more than twenty years or so.

[jwalsh07]

My only disappointment will be the lost lives of Americas children that occurs in the interim. Roe is destined to go the route of Dred Scott. Technology is helping in that respect. The advancing age of baby boomers is also helping, their progeny are more pro life than they were. States are passing laws protecting the unborn and the tide is moving in that direction. I'm an optimist.

You can never go wrong defending life and defending America amigo.

[JeffAtlanta]

jwalsh, I'm sorry, but individual states just don't get to define constitutional issues. You might not like it but its reality. Row V Wade may be wrong, but the decision stands until it is reviewed again or overturned by constitutional amendment.

Individual states just can't pass legislation that overrides this - they can try, but they just can't.

[Cold Heat]

I too am optimistic for the future of the human race, but my time frame is a bit longer.

Certainly things happen faster now then before now, but I would be surprised to see anything but tinkering.

I shall be watching intently however.

[Syncro]

Murder is a legal term. It is not in the bible.

Of course not. No English words are in the Bible.

But harag the Hebrew word is in the Bible, and it appears many times in different forms. One is specifically "murders".

In fact to further "harag" your argument here is one instance:

⁸ He sits in ambush in the villages; in hiding places he murders the innocent. His eyes stealthily watch for the hapless,

⁹ he lurks in secret like a lion in his covert; he lurks that he may seize the poor, he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.

¹⁰ The hapless is crushed, sinks down, and falls by his might.

¹¹ He thinks in his heart, "God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it."

¹² Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thy hand; forget not the afflicted.

Ironically, the verse I happened upon is fitting for this thread.

[jwalsh07]

You answered not a single question I posed Jeff. How come?

[Torie]

One of the many reasons I am not "prolife" as is commonly defined here is the abysmal conduct and frankly insane behavior of the more extreme factions of that movement.

The debate on abortion in the public square is mostly spam. That does not excuse each of us from reaching our own considered judgment, without being put off by the nutjobs on either side. I have had the same view on abortion since I was in college, when I was quite vocal about it. It should be legal in the first trimester, illegal in the third, and I'm not sure about the second. It should not be a matter for the courts to decide. It is a matter within certain limits, about which intelligent people of good will can disagree. We should not demonize each other within those limits, as being morally flawed cretins, one way or the other.

That is how I see it and call it.

[Torie]

States can expand the rights of the fetus, up to and until such time as Sandra Day O'Connor tells us that it intrudes on the Constitutional rights of the mother to abort. States characterizing killing of the fetus as murder without the consent of the mother is legally inapposite to this issue, even if otherwise apposite up to a point. Maybe SCOTUS will tell us that since a fetus is not human, killing it cannot be characterized as murder (because murder is only applicable to one who cannot be legally aborted) as a Constitutional matter. But if so, it will require other legal tools than pernumbra rights of privacy. It will require SCOTUS to tell us what the Constitution dictates are the essential definitional elements of the crime of murder.

[Luis Gonzalez]

[Cold Heat]

And from that you have determined that "Harag" means the same as "Murder" a English word derivative that means illegal killing.

I suppose it could be said to be a unsanctioned killing since permissions would have been needed for killings that did not meet the proper killing etiquette of the time, (if there was any).

But I thought "murder" was a bit of a stretch. As it comes from English law.

[JeffAtlanta]

Really? Will SCOTUS overturn Petersons conviction for murdering his unborn son?

No idea, its a different court now. They just might though. Does the Constituion constrain states from expanding individual rights?

Trick question. Not at the expense of someone else's.

When SCOTUS upheld the non personhood of black folk in Dred Scott, were they correct and within their power to do so?

Doesn't matter - it was still law of the land. An ammendment made that decision moot.

[jwalsh07]

The case, and others like it, will be the next battleground in the SCOTUS. You know it, I know it and the dems and republicans with half a brain know it.

Its the reason why the next appointment will be a bllod bat and why Bush needs to appoint a rock solid justice who will abide the Constituion and avoid the penumbra like the plague it is.

[Cold Heat]

It will require SCOTUS to tell us what the Constitution dictates are the essential definitional elements of the crime of murder.

And they most certainly are not looking forward to it.