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 ...
“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.”
There are four peer reviewed, controlled, scientific long term hospital studies of near death experiences in print, including the pioneer study printed in the British Medical Journal “The Lancet”, in 2001. All four of them have produced statistically similar results.
Those results are that about 20% of people experience a largely similar series of events at the time of clinical death, including departing their body, moving towards a light, encountering a being, having a life review, being told it is not yet their time, and going back.
This is four-times duplicated and verified (there are more studies being performed) scientific evidence which supports the idea of a detachable soul. The concept of a detachable soul is not proven, but it is not mere “magical thinking” there is controlled, peer reviewed science that is evidence in its favor. There is no published study which has contradicted these four controlled hospital studies. The evidence is there. Go look it up for yourself. Start with the first study, published in the Lancet. The others you have to pay medical publications to get, but you can review the abstracts if you wish. Or you could take my word for it, as I am not making it up.
There IS scientific evidence for a detachable soul.
If you're a good Christian like my wife, you take Mother and baby into your home and care for them until things work themselves out.
If you're asking what the States policy should be that's a different question.
Johnson's answer was welfare for Mom and child and a place for Dad In Name Only to live unmarried when he wasn't on a toot with bonuses for each additional child sired by Dad In Name Only. Which begat more Dad's In Name Only and even more Dad's In Name Only.
What do I think is the correct policy? I think the correct policy is to care for every person who can not care for themselves and to require Mom and Dad to contribute to same, by force of law.
Those experiences can be explained by natural means. Also, if that experience is caused by the soul leaving the body, and only 20% of people have that experience, does that mean only 20% of people have souls??? ;-)
Kill it? Is that the right answer? What do I win? Not a trip anywhere with you, I hope.
[/sarc]
“Those experiences can be explained by natural means. Also, if that experience is caused by the soul leaving the body, and only 20% of people have that experience, does that mean only 20% of people have souls??? ;-)”
No, the experiences are currently scientifically inexplicable. Do not take it on faith that you know what is in the studies based on your pre-existing belief system. Read the studies. Of particular interest are the cases of “halting” operations for brain aneurysms, in which the patients enter stage III brain death, with no brainwave activity, and the brain actually drained of blood in a 50 degree room. Some of THOSE people report ongoing veridical experiences - which is to say, experiences with reference to the external world in a way that can be time-and-place verified, which occurred when they were in stage III brain death. You will also read in those studies the interesting case of the congenitally blind who have never seen. Those who have never seen never see in their dreams. But their NDEs are fully sighted, and afterwards they are as formerly sighted people, who had eyesight but lost it. They comprehend, for example, the concept of color, which the congenitally blind do not, as they have never seen anything, and don’t know what color is (try to describe “color” in words that don’t use color).
The studies themselves conclude that certain phenomena are “Not scientifically explicable at the present time”. These experiences CANNOT presently be explained by “natural” means or scientific means. You may think that someday they will be, but THAT is faith.
As to the 20%, and only 20% “having souls”, who knows? Maybe? Maybe the answer is that others did not remember. Maybe the answer is that others did not have any experiences. Maybe the answer is that only certain people live after death, and the rest die and are gone. I can’t speculate as to the spiritual MEANING of these studies without writing fiction. I can say that the peer reviewed, controlled, long-term (10 years is the norm) published hospital studies with corroborating results are indeed science in the truest sense of the word, and provide evidence for cognitive activity going on despite the fact that include brains in deep brain death, and including, in some cases, enhancements such as experiences of eyesight which the brain could not manufacture as it had no memory of ever having had eyesight.
It’s not medically explicable, currently, and it’s evidence for a detachable consciousness. I have termed that detachable consciousness a “soul”, simply to use the term you did.
I’m not too sure that the sexual revoluation can’t be rolled back some in this society. As much as the sixties generation opened the barn door and the cultural collapse in the ensuing decades expanded the casual sex lifestyle, people are starting to awaken from this moral coma.
It’s encouraging to see, here especially, stories of college kids becoming more conservative and more children willing to take abstinence pledges (whether they follow through with them or not, it’s encouraging to see that a teenager would even say in public nowadays that they would try something like this when in the past they would have been ridiculed into silence). I don’t think the fight to reverse the sexual revolution should be given up yet.
But, like most of your posts have said, winning the information war and the war of ideas is the key. The Left has had generations to chip away at the moral base of this country and are still quite powerful with their control over the MSM. But, as generations pass and new mediums rise, conservative ideals can fill that vacuum of empty ideas and right the moral compass.
As for France’s abortion strucuture, I can’t help but think about the idiotic Clinton mantra of making abortion “safe, legal, and rare” (or some idiotic version of this sound byte). If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong, no matter if the numbers are 1 million, 500,000 or 1. As a Christian and a Roman Catholic, I can’t sit here and sacrifice even one innocent life in order to bring the overall numbers down. Each life is worth saving. Like the Left made it so easy and acceptable to murder children in the womb day by dy, court case by court case, generation by generation, we need to hold our ground and fight each and every battle.
Abortion laws are at their apex right now. For goodness sake, children are wriggling their hands and feet in front of a doctor before their skulls are crushed and bodies vacuumed from the uterus. Can we get any closer to infanticide than that? We are way past compromise. We have to continue to chip away in the other direction. And your ideas of ultrasounds for every abortion consultation is a good start. Let these mothers, even in the first and second trimesters, count their children’s bones and listen to their heart beats. In time, technology will even be able to let us peer even farther back into the birth process.
Information is the key and if we can continue to educate the newer generations before their minds are rotted by the MSM and our high schools and universities, then we may be able to reach the point where the abortion industry needs to shut down its mills because they are just not worth the hassle for them.
bm
If so, then any state should be able to decriminalize owning an African if they feel like it.”
“All Men are Created Equal”.
The Constitution does not address abortion in any fashion, therefor the Federal Government has no authority per (I believe) the 10th Amendment which states that a power not specifically vested by the US Constitution to the Federal Government shall be construed as a power or authority by the Federal Government.
It is a States Rights issue.
Plaintiff in Gonzales v. Carhart is LeRoy H. Carhart, board member of Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
One has to wonder where these people draw the line? And how can they consider themselves religious?
The law is reasonable. Intact Dilation and Extraction has no medical value. It was designed to circumvent murder laws (by turning the fetus to a breech position). Turning a full-term baby induces significant physical trauma, so it requires a physically healthy mother.
It's a fraud. Plain and simple. Partial birth abortion is primarily used as a form of eugenics, to rid parents of babies with Downs Syndrome and other diseases. But the eugenicists hide behind "women's rights". What cowards. Come forth and debate on what you really want.
Rush was right when he called abortion the sacrament of the left. They are indeed a cult of human sacrifice.
The downside of course is, by abusing the Commerce Clause in such a left-wing big government manner, conservatives have pretty much sold out any principles they might have once had. All for the sake of a ban that won't stop a single abortion. Yippee.
Why not bash Clinton or Durbin?
This is the problem of so-called conservatives.
They waste their time bashing a good man like Rudy.
They excuse away not voting.
In 2006, our soldiers were stabbed in the back because so-called conservatives did not vote. These selfish pretenders have given us a Lib congress that will stab our troops in the back.
Furthermore, conservative judges will not be confirmed.
If Rudy gets the nod and you stay home, you will guarantee that a hardcore leftist like Hillary will be President.
Every abortion wild be on your pure hands.
Please first put down the knife in the other hand that you used on our troops in 2006.
Great and profound sentence.
"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Amen.
The Founding Fathers didn't just cook up this phrase out of thin air. It was a reflection of their Christianity. This statement is the intentional echo of the covenant family of Jesus Christ and the inherited blessings which flow from the Father to His children.
Bite your tongue. Conservatives don't care about such trivia anymore.
“What do I win? Not a trip anywhere with you, I hope.”
A car trip. With me. Driving the trans-America highway from Tierra-del-Fuego to Point Barrow Alaska.
We can do sing-a-longs the whole way.
It will be fun.
The 14th Amendment.
You're wrong. This abortion ban has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. It's commerce clause legislation, nothing more.
Rudy is not a good man. He is a liberal and that makes him the enemy of Conservatives. We Conservatives do not want a liberal in the White House we want a Conseravtive. Get it yet?
I disagree. The 14th Amendment declares the nobody will be deprived of life without due process of law.
Babies are deprived of life without due process of law.
Therefore, abortion is unconstitutional, as a Federal matter which supersedes state’s rights considerations, as a matter of law.
That is the correct answer constitutionally, but it is an extremely bold step because it departs so far from existing precedent.
The plaintiff never addressed the Commerce Clause Sandy. That makes your point moot unless you want an activist court addressing issues not before it. However, there is hope, Scalia joined homas' dissent so maybe he is rethinking Raich.
All for the sake of a ban that won't stop a single abortion.
You don't know that. In fact, you can't know that. Yes, this law only addresses one method of killing second and third trimester unborn babies but it does make one thing quite clear. Those being killed are human beings and the SCOTUS states that rather clearly.
Yippee.
One small step for mankind and all that.
Well, we agree on your last post. Congress can certainly write a law that includes the unborn as persons.
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.