Skip to comments.
Mo. Prison Overruled on Inmate Abortion (Clarence Thomas grants stay on earlier ruling)
AP ^
| 10/14/5
| DAVID TWIDDY
Posted on 10/14/2005 10:12:46 PM PDT by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-107 last
To: Hoodat
Kind of goes to show why some of us would like a bit more assurance in regards to Ms. Miers. I mean if the Gipper could have one come out this badly . . .
To: John O
I believe your interpretation is correct as with Ex 21:12. "Kill" in the first instance of Ex 20:13 meaning an action, rather than as a punishment for the act itself, i. e., "put to death." Does that make sense to you.
102
posted on
10/17/2005 6:25:29 PM PDT
by
gpapa
(Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
To: gpapa
If you are saying what I think you are saying yes. The bible makes it abundantly clear that execution of those who murder is allowed. It also makes it abundantly clear that if you murder you shall be executed (Put to death).
The key point is that execution is ONLY allowed for those who are guilty. The bible condemns strongly the shedding of innocent blood Which makes abortion even more of an abomination as it sheds much innocent blood.
103
posted on
10/18/2005 6:25:11 AM PDT
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: SmithL
Missouri state law forbids spending tax dollars to facilitate an abortion. However, U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple ruled Thursday that the prison system was blocking the woman from exercising her right to an abortion and ordered that the woman be taken to the clinic Saturday.
Judge Whipple should realize that a prisoner has already been deprived of freedom of movement. Depriving a prisoner of the "right" to kill her child is hardly an imposition.
To: Pepper777
Because judges have gutted the husband's rights out of the marriage contract by elevating a personal right of privacy over the rights and duties of a freely entered into contract.
The laws are now a bizarre patchwork. An unmarried woman cannot put a baby up for adoption without the biological father's consent, yet a married woman can abort her husband's child without his consent.
Basically enforcing an non-existant contract in the first instance and voiding a signed one in the second.
105
posted on
10/18/2005 9:10:19 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
(Crush jihadists, drive collaborators before you, hear the lamentations of their media. Allahu FUBAR!)
To: SmithL
Yeah, this is a typical abortion scenario.
To: SmithL
If Bush and the Republicans had any balls they would expand the number of circuits to 11 along with 11 justices and appoint the balance.
Seven to four has a nice ring to it.
107
posted on
10/21/2005 9:07:21 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-107 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson