THANK YOU LORD! Thank you for the swing vote, Justice Kennedy!!! Bless the justices who voted for Truth, Lord!!
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 ...
IMHO he is a flaming liberal across the board.
THANK YOU LORD! Thank you for the swing vote, Justice Kennedy!!! Bless the justices who voted for Truth, Lord!!
“Will your unscientific definition of human life change when medical technology changes and the unborn child can survive outside of the womb at 20 weeks? Then 16 weeks? Etc.? The fact of the matter is that the scientific definition of human life demonstrates that an unborn child is a human life shortly after conception. You’re the one who claimed to use the scientific definition - now use it.”
I already addressed this in the second part of my post, which you conveniently left out of your reply. Please go back and read it again and you’ll have my answer.
Hardly. But you are exposing your ignorance about what abortion on demand in America 2007 is all about. A woman can get a legal abortion in America today, at ANY time of her choosing. This why todays SCOTUS ruling upholding the ban on PBA today, has the pro-abortion forces running scared.
>>>>>Bonus question (which I dare you to answer): who was the California governor who signed that state's first liberalized abortion law?
Well I double dare you to act like an adult. LOL Anyway.
When Reagan signed the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act, he said he did it out of sympathy for the victims of rape, incest and for those women who may be facing health risks or worse, death from childbirth. Reagan did not sign it out of political expediency. There was no flip flop in it. Though it was an action Reagan came to regret within a year and a decision that haunted him for the remainder of his life.
Reagan held a conservative position that life was precious and the unborn child should be protected and defended by a right to life amendment to the US Constitution. Reagan even wrote a famous essay on the subject called, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. I suggest you read it, you might learn something.
The SCOTUS decision today was a BIG victory for the pro-life movement in America.
Now this is great!
So Breyer spins it as some kind of ban on thought.
Are bans on stealing therefore an undue burden on a woman's right to make a larceny decision?
Is this guy a juror, or a propagandist?
Dirtboy, that sentence, at least to me, is not clear. Are you saying that Rudy supported the ban or that he supported Clinton's vetoing the ban?
Oh, let's be greedy. I'd like two more. A constructionist Supreme Court is our only line of defense when our elected leaders let us down. (And I don't even care about abortion that much. It's the thousand other reasons that I'm more worried about.)
So let me understand...your definition of life, unlike the scientific definition, is based upon the current state of medical technology. So, according to your definition, would an unborn child at 26 months of development be considered a human life in America where sufficient medical technology is available to allow him or her to survive but not so much a human life in a third world country where such technology is not available? Would your legal definition of human life have to change every time younger and younger preemies survived outside of the womb?
ANTI-ABORTION ANTHEM -— http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1819628/posts?page=1
Thank you President Bush, Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito!!! God bless America! This is a beautiful day.
How true, yet the "slippery slope" can also work in our favor!
Wonderful news! Thank you, God!
------------------------------------------------------------
Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?
Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.
Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)
“While I am well prepared to pay more taxes to stop the killing of unborn babies, overriding a mothers desire to murder her baby does not free her or the father for responsibility for taking care of that baby until the age of maturity.”
It does not free her from the responsibility, no. She is responsible, and remains responsible. The PROBLEM is that in the real world, in which we live, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people of childbearing age are NOT responsible, and a substantial number of them are not going to BECOME responsible.
I know this, because it’s obvious.
In countries where there is no welfare at all, teenage women still get pregnant, still have the kids, and then the kids starve to death.
So, yes, absolutely the parents are always responsible.
But also yes, absolutely, there will be a few million who do not rise to their responsibility. There will be about a million more babies born a year than are born now, to totally irresponsible parents who don’t look after themselves, and don’t have the means or the will to look after their babies - babies which they would abort if they could, because they don’t want them.
That is reality, and it is ineluctable reality. It cannot be made to go away. Abolish abortion, and there are going to be that million or so kids born to poor, irresponsible women who don’t want them. And unless we step in, quite a number of those children will be neglected. Some will even starve and die without social welfare. You cannot make who were irresponsible enough to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place “become responsible” by saying they should. They WON’T. Some are so drugged out they CAN’T anymore. Others would abort, precisely because they have no will to care for a child. Saying they are responsible is nice. They are. So what? They won’t DO IT. So, what then? We put them in jail, perhaps, at considerable expense. And then we end up raising the kid.
The one piece that we end up with is that we come to a point with millions of children where either WE take over the responsibility for feeding them, clothing them, housing them and educating them, or they don’t get any of those things and die of neglect. That’s reality. It cannot be made to go away by intoning pious nostrums about responsibility. Yes, it’s WRONG that we have to take care of these people.
But what’s the solution?
Refuse to do it and let the babies starve and die? Is that it?
Pretending that if we speak sternly to them and take away abortion rights that they will become responsible is a fantasy. Millions WILL NOT.
Which leaves us precisely two - not three, not five, not twelve - just two - options: withhold the help and let the children die, or provide the help through social welfare.
If we’re going to abolish abortion, we have GOT TO BE mentally prepared to bear that extra welfare burden, because we are GOING TO BEAR IT. We are going to bear it because there is another reality, and that is that there is no way in hell to maintain the political strength to opt to let the babies die.
After all the piety is done, you end up with a feed/don’t feed decision involving kids. And the only Christian answer is that you have to feed them. Period. You cannot withhold the aid to children to teach parents a lesson. Well, you CAN, but it’s not Christian. And if you’re not a Christian, why care about abortion at all?
Dear OldPossum,
Mr. Giuliani explicitly supported Mr. Clinton’s veto of the ban of partial birth abortion, even though it contained language permitting exceptions in cases where a woman’s life was genuinely at risk.
sitetest
Here you have Congress passing legislation which is their job. This offsets an activist judicial branch which should have never passed a ruling to keep the States from banning abortion. Your post is yet another example why rules-based Libertarians can not be entrusted with running government. They have SFB.
Johnson gave us the Great Society and he destroyed the urban family for generations to come. You seem to think that was good policy. It wasn't and Pope John Paul understood that totally. Johnson's policies destroyed the dignity, liberty and individuality of generations. Pope John Paul was a Christian one would think. So am I.
Opposing policies that have failed as miserably as the Great Society is not only not unChristian it is the duty of a Christian to oppose those policies because it destroys God's creation and denies His greatest gift, freedom of will, spirit and body. As Christians we are called to support policies that promote family, individual responsibility, freedom and equal rights and justice for all in Caesars world. We are also called to give to those who are in need. We are not called to support failed policies that destroy families and the human spirit.
One can oppose abortion and support policies that require responsibility from parents Vicomte. The two are not mutually exclusive. And one doesn't have to be a Christian to do that either. I, like you, am a Catholic. I would suggest you review Centesimus Annus.
Not life...viability.
So, according to your definition, would an unborn child at 26 months of development be considered a human life in America where sufficient medical technology is available to allow him or her to survive but not so much a human life in a third world country where such technology is not available?
A human life? Yes. Viable outside the womb? No.
Would your legal definition of human life have to change every time younger and younger preemies survived outside of the womb?
Not the legal definition of "human life", but rather the legal definition of "viability", which gives "personhood" to that human life, along with all the associated legal rights.
Viability = Personhood = Rights
Non-viability = Not a person = No rights
Unless of course you believe humans have souls. I do not subscribe to that belief. It has no scientific basis and is nothing more than magical thinking.
What do you do when there is a baby born to a mother who doesn’t have the means to care for it?
Right is right.
Amen to that.
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.