The Fallacy and Sheer Stupidity of Roe Vs Wade -- Case in point, Scott Peterson

Abortions -- The Truth ^ | 11-20-04 | Frank Joseph, M.D.

[horizondb]

You are right it is not part of the Constitution. It is the foundation on which our country and government was born. In it the Declaration is vary specific on the limitations of that that government. The Constitution is the walls of our Government "house" if you will. Built by the on the foundation. To disregard the foundation and look solely at the walls leads us into a quagmire and a crumbling house.

This is were we find ourselves in the Woe v Wade dilemma. The ruling only looked at the walls and the Court deliberately ignored the foundation on which is sits.

[MHGinTN]

What the 1973 court did was dehumanize the entire of the unborn in the human species. This, just to make it easy to then grant an evil right to hire these human beings killed at the whim of a pregnant woman. And how was this specious 'right' served to the American 'palate'? In an unspoken agreement that a woman has a right to self defense. Oh, to be sure, the way to say that has many many forms, but they all come down to protecting a woman's right of self defense. So, if the unborn are innocent alive human beings, how is it that they do not have the same inalienable right that the pregnant woman has? And in fighting to save them, are we engaging in the defense of those tiny selves? Is there a way to reconcile this schizophrenic situation?... I believe there is, by openly admitting first that abortion has some foundation in a woman's right to protect her life ... but that ought not mean a killing is warranted for another innocent human being, unless of course Blackburn, et al are allowed to once again establish 'the law of the land'.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well put.

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[cpforlife.org]

Special PING V!

[TChris]

...and since we are talking about a human life, the only time abortion should ever be considered, IMO, is if the mother's life is clearly at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. This situation then becomes exactly like any other case of self defense. If the continued development of the child in the womb will kill the mother, then there are some very serious and heartrending decisions to be made. Such decisions must be made with the utmost sobriety, seriousness and reverence for life. May the Spirit of God guide the parents and their physicians in such a situation.

Any other circumstance, to me, does not justify ending the baby's life. Perhaps in the case of rape or incest resulting in pregnancy there may be consideration as well, but I'm still undecided there. I suppose I'm not really qualified to say, since I have never been and probably never will be in that situation.

</$0.02 worth>

[cgk]

Pro-life/pro-baby ping...

[RightMindedMom]

You can't have it both ways. Either taking the life of an unborn child is murder or it isn't. If it is murder, then abortion is also murder. I'm surprised the liberals haven't been all up in arms about the Peterson verdict. Maybe their logically reasoning skills haven't figured this out yet.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Brian Allen]

<< i must admit i like this 2 murders from the peterson case.

as soon as this sinks in, you're going to hear a lotta screaming from the radical feminists! >>

Gunna be tough -- given that their were-gunna-be progeny are all gunna be dead -- for that strain of anti-creationist moron to evolve, too!

Poor Charly Darwin must be spinning in his grave with the FRustration of it all.

BUMPping

[lainde]

bttt

[Aquinasfan]

The majority of people I know who vote DemoRat do so because they are Pro-Choice.

It's a sobering thought to look around and know that every other person believes that it should be legal to turn unborn babies into hamburger.

"For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. ..."

[Aquinasfan]

The good doctor is too hung up on the term "human being" - it's lawful to kill a fully grown human being under certain circumstances - a fact which anyone who carries a defensive firearm is well aware.

I've never known a baby to attack its mother or an abortionist.

[Designer]

"If only our judiciary would rely on science and not make up things as they go along,..."

Dr. Joseph is wrong about that. Roe v. Wade was a very weak case, and decided incorrectly, but science had nothing to do with the argument. I believe the Supremes were simply following their leftist agenda when they made this evil decision.

Also, don't forget; in order for any "revised" decision to come out of the Supreme Court, there would have to be another "case" upon which to base a different decision. If there are major changes in the court, look for a landmark "test case" to come up.

Furthermore, if Congress would reach down and grab some cajones, they could withhold jurisdiction on matters of abortion (and marriage, etc.) from the federal courts. Simple, but not easy, based on the fact that we have to rely on politicians, and not all of them will agree to do that.

[mvpel]

You can't have it both ways. Either taking the life of an unborn child is murder or it isn't. If it is murder, then abortion is also murder.

Taking the life of a deadly assailant in self-defense is not murder, but taking the life a fleeing suspect usually is. Taking the life of a person who jumps out in front of your car at the last minute is not murder, but driving on the sidewalk to run him down usually is.

Like it or not, there is a similar distinction in the law for unborn children - hiring a doctor to kill him with your consent is not murder, but a non-doctor killing him without your consent usually is.

[MHGinTN]

Legal to hire a serial killer to 'cure' pregnancy? Yes, but it is schizophrenic in the main since the unborn child is not an accident threatening the woman nor is the alive unborn child in any way guilty of a crime. That the subpreme court made this serial killing legal is not in question ... whether that is correct to exist 'as is' IS the question. The ONLY rationale upon which the right to hire an alive unborn child slaughtered in the womb is the notion of a woman's right to defend her LIFE, not her liberty or her pursuit of happiness, her LIFE. And if that be true then the right to LIFE for the alive unborn ought enter the equation immediately also.

[mvpel]

Legal to hire a serial killer to 'cure' pregnancy? Yes, but it is schizophrenic in the main since the unborn child is not an accident threatening the woman nor is the alive unborn child in any way guilty of a crime.

Hence the title of this thread.

[Donna Lee Nardo]

Excellent piece. I am e-mailing it to many.

[beautiful_mind]

Thank you for keeping the responsibility between both partners. Many do not value human life, but would expect themselves to be protected. So many people desire children and cannot have them. Why can't we protect the innocent lives that need and depend on us the most?

[beautiful_mind]

Considering that killing a child is not only a legal issue, but also a moral issue, your argument has no standing. My children had detectable heartbeats at 8 weeks. Does that mean they are not human beings? What's your definition?