Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff
Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm talking about Congress having the authority to ban PBA because persons are being deprived of their life without due process of law. My point has nothing to do with the brain-dead baby-killers on the '73 Court.
That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one... If it were scientific, it would have been resolved already. Many people seem to make an implicit distinction between “human life,” and “personhood.” Then, many people seem to judge killing a “human life” as less wrong than killing a “human life” that is also a “person.”
An embryo, e.g., is clearly a human life. It is less clear whether an embryo qualifies as a person. I believe this is the root of the disagreement.
Arguments about viability, the potential of the fetus, etc. are all philosophical nonsense IMO. The question would be decided easily if we could just:
1) resolve what characteristics a life must have to qualify as a person, and
2) resolve at what point a fetus attains those characteristics.
I won’t hold my breath.
When you say "baby" do you mean a fetus or a baby that has actually been born? You may not see a distinction but the law does and always has.
If Rudy has an ounce of political sense, he won’t say anything.
Since Rudy is a paid lobbyist for Hugo its a dumb question.
Rudy must like him to work for him.
Rudy Giuliani treats life as if it is disposable and irrelevant - he is disgusting.
Rudy saddened.
Since Rudy does not share Chavez's pro-life stance your statement is a dumb one.
And you are wrong about the Constitution not recording pre-born Life.
It certainly does.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Posterity = the UNBORN
And don't give me that stuff about the preamble not counting: it is the PURPOSE statement of the Constitution. Therefore, as it's PURPOSE STATEMENT, it cannot be interpreted in contradiction to that STATED PURPOSE.
It says that the UNBORN are INCLUDED!
There is no way around it: Abortion at its worst is premeditated murder, and at its best it is homicide.
We must win the votes of independents and others who'll switch such as Regan Democrats. You may think that we can't do that with a conservative (elections prove otherwise) but there is no reason in the world why an independent should change their vote from one liberal to another.
Great news. Thank God.
IMHO, the Supreme Court appointees are/can be more important than even POTUS. Also, imho, Roberts’ legacy will go down as one of, if not the best, Chief Justices in US history.
So this will be used to blame us "social" conservatives when the RINO's loose in 2008. Got it.
“VIRTUALLY ALL successful abortions kill an individual with unique DNA, and it’s not the pregnant woman. Biology at its most basic.”
The problem with taking that position is that you fail to differentiate between potential humans and actual humans. Every time a man ejaculates, approximately 400 million spermatozoa, each with a unique DNA signature, are released. Jack off and kill 400 million potential humans. Not to mention that many eggs die before being fertilized, or are miscarried, often without the mother even being aware of the miscarriage. More potential humans dead.
DNA is not the thing that makes us human...every animal on Earth has DNA, and we share something like 98% of it with all of them. It is our consciousness and self-awareness that make us human.
This is my opinion. YMMV.
Thats what he has his cell phone for, remember? LOL
Pres. Bush will have a good legacy as a pro life president. The person who should really be ashamed is one William Jefferson Clinton, who twice vetoed the ban.
ONE very good news ! We’re keeping praying.
God bless President Bush !
“The only way the 14th wouldn’t apply is if someone made the ludicrous argument that a baby is not a person.”
The question of whether a fetus is a person, or at what point it becomes one, is the only true (or at least, honest) question in this debate; and it isn’t entirely ludicrous.
In the absence of external morality, there is no real reason why a fetus should be considered a person. It lacks every characteristic we associate with individuality and personhood, except possibly consciousness at a late stage. No self-awareness, no higher cognitive function, no ability to communicate, no capacity for self-motivated action. It takes external morality to view an embryo as any more a “person” than any other unicellular organism.
Perhaps when the balance of the court leans farther to the left (God forbid), the same consideration will be given.
(I'll not hold my breath though...)
A better question would be who is more liberal, Rudy or Hugo Chavez?
Both are authoritarian gun banners but Hugo is pro life. Tough call. /sarc.
When an astronaut is inside the spaceship or space station, he/she is a human being. When the astronaut puts on a space suit and steps outside the ship for an EVA, he/she is *still* a human being.
When the baby is in the uterus, it is a human being. When he/she is born, the baby is STILL a human being.
Environment changes don’t change a damn thing, regardless of what the ‘law’ says. Laws have been wrong before.
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.