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 hope you don't make that statement on your bar exam. That is overreaching a bit. It will earn you a 55 on any Con Law question.
The 14th Amendment was intended only to superceed the parts of the constitution that the framers intended it to superceed.
BTW when you read the 14th amendment it reaffirms the right to life and by doing so it is in complete agreement with the purposes of the constitution as set forth in the pre-amble. The Preamble sets forth the intention of the founders and is the building block upon which the constitution was written. No amendment can overturn the preamble except by express mention of that intention in the amendment.
The 14th amendment did not state that it was the intention of the amendment to overturn the principles as set forth in the preamble to the constitution. Therefore the fourteenth amendment must be interpreted in such a way that it is in conformity with the stated intentions of the founders as stated in the preamble to the constitution.
The preamble is as much a part of the constitution as any amendment. Securing the blessings of liberty for our posterity is something that we cannot hope to acheive if we are engaged in a wholesale slaughter of our posterity on the altar of economic prosperity.
Wow. That was a low and disgusting blow against those of us who value human life, Jeff.
You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.
Since when did law grant man the authority to determine when human life has value and when it does not? Only God has that prerogative.
Man-made law must equally protect the right to life.
Your life began at conception. That is beyond dispute.
And I would submit that breathing aside, everything you state about that fetus can be applied to a month old infant. The *can't survive outside the womb on its own* argument falls flat as well, because if someone did not put food into the baby's mouth, it would die. Even a two year old can't survive on its own.
Age is a pretty poor criteria on which to base whether a person is human or not.
If it has human DNA and is growing, then it is a human being and it is alive. If you stop that process, aka kill it, then you have murdered.
Sure I have - in fact I've written about it many times here on FR. The parties are badly misaligned and need to be reformed.
I respect your activism, but to most it's not the most important thing in the world. There should be a Christian party, a socialist party and fiscal conservative/limited government/liberty party.
He might just do that :) I hope Stevens lives a long life and hopefully changes his ways. Right now I just wish he would retire.
Abotion is still legal up to the 9th month. It’s only this procedure that’s banned. It’s really not much of a “win” for babies or pro-lifers.
Killing a human being is murder, no matter what the age.
Pro-abortion is pro-murder.
Empower a tyrant to protect human life?
That's an oxymoron.
Tyrants, by definition, rule by their own will, not by respect for God-given rights.
You should be ashamed of yourself for not keeping up with the conversation in it's context.
That's potential. A fertilized egg, within what...72 hours of conception? has a unique strand of DNA, separate from its parents' DNA. That is scientific individuality. We are human long before we are aware that we are human.
And no, I don't believe that a miscarriage is on par with an abortion, if you were wondering that. A miscarriage has more in common with death by natural causes of a post-natal human individual.
If it is our consciousness and self-awareness that make us human, wouldn't murder be legal through toddlerhood, possibly beyond?
Good post. This isn’t much of a win. As your post said:
... it is highly unlikely that even one single child will be saved using the language of this “ban.”
Or kill a baby! People get so caught up in the legal gobbledy-gook that they forget that we're talking about dismembering babies. This is no different from the Holocaust. The gov't must end abortion now. Any way. Any how.
Um, pretty much from the beginning - especially in english common law.
LOL! I’d have to ask my son which team it was. Poor guy saddled with a name like that.
My favorite DUmmy post so far:
The ENSLAVEMENT OF WOMEN by the forces of Big-Brother Government and Big-Brother Religion has begun! God help us all!
Personally I fully believe everyone knows, in their heart, this is evil. Many deny their hearts.
Dr’s and mothers choose who will live and who will die.
Within hours, these children’s little remains are to be burned in ovens, ground up, or thrown into a dumpster. To achieve abortion on demand a deliberate campaign was set into motion to dehumanize the preborn child. The argument is made that the preborn child is just about anything but human. It was a ‘zygote’, ‘blob of tissue,’ ‘fetus’, ‘product of conception’, part of a woman’s body’, reproductive health, etc. etc. It was argued that these ‘subhumans’ and non-humans could be done away with, if anyone so chose, without any moral consequence.
I’m pretty confident in my views on the subject, but it isn’t a very important issue for me.
There is no philosophical middle ground... Either a human being is a person (whose unjustified killing would constitute murder) from conception, or a human being is not a person until it attains higher cognitive function, the capacity for self-motivated action, the ability to communicate, self-awareness, etc.
If one believes the latter, then a human being is not a person until even well after birth. This would not allow killing infants though, as even a human being which is not a person has rights, and those rights would no longer be in conflict with the woman’s (who can give the baby up for adoption).
My logical conception of personhood leans toward the latter, but I’m afraid of the consequences were that view to take hold among people at large. I think the pro-life view is best for society, even if I question its philosophical basis.
I will vote for president. But God has chosen our next president and ultimately it is out of my hands and I dare say out of yours. But you do have a choice in what kind of Government we will be blessed or cursed with. And by your exercise of choice you will make it clear to God whether your are chosing life or death, blessings or cursings.
I, for one, will not dirty my hands by voting for a foolish Turk when I have the opportunity at the primary level to vote for a wise Christian.
And I will not dirty my hands by washing them in the river of compromise over the abortion issue.
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.