Mr. T would like to comment on your strawman post:
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 ...
“That’s the best you can come up with? LOL.
I see you’re either afraid or too incompetent to answer the question.”
I am neither afraid nor incompetent, but perhaps you are. You expanded the definition of “viability” from its original meaning in the discussion of fetal development and abortion to encompass subjects not originially argued in an attempt to strengthen your position in the argument, which is known as a strawman. You are the one who brought up physical/mental disabilities and cancer patients who cannot walk, not me. The discussion was about unborn fetuses, not people who are physically or mentally disabled or suffering from cancer. Apples and oranges, dude.
If you can’t stick to the subject at hand, then there is nothing to be gained by debating you, because your arguments are not “viable”. ;-)
“You really have a problem answering direct questions, don’t you?
I would think as a person who obviously reveres “science” you could come up with something...anything, but instead, it’s bs and misdirection.”
Pot, meet kettle...
My condolences on the loss of your precious little girl.
Gimme a break. Dubya got virtually everyone he wanted through the Senate, by being tough.
Thank God
Now lets save the rest of the babies.......
The congress had plenty or right to do this undr the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Mr. T would like to comment on your strawman post:
Thank God.
Mostly I concur. It was the spending, the corruption, Iraq and (most of all) the sixth year of a two term presidency. Anyone who uses it to try and move the party to the Left is operating in panic mode.
Not everyone who supports arson is anti-fire safety.
Not everyone who supports drunk driving is anti-traffic safety.
Not everyone who supports massive tax hikes is anti-tax cuts
See, I can do it too. It's kinda fun!
The answer to the breathtaking judicial activism of Roe v. Wade is not to become judicial activists ourselves.
Judicial activism is about writing new law from the bench. Affirming the clear right of the Congress to pass this law is not judicial activism.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is it a contract hit on small children. With your legal mumbo jumbo you strain out a gnat but swallow a dumpster full of dead babies.
Lets Put the decision of the next President in the Hands of God to serve his will and once again as a Nation respect the Inalieable Rights given by GOD and Written in our constitution.
Mr. T. has a comment about your strawman post:
You are wrong.
Imagine a man. Let's make him about 40, with salt and pepper hair and wire-rimmed specs.
Let's give him a job...he runs a bookstore. His wife and son help him. He has a formal manner that his customers like and he wears a suit to work.
Now, you have no doubt in your mind that this man is both a human being and a person, right? Keep that in mind.
Let's give the bookseller an accessory for his suit: A yellow, six-sided star sewn onto the left lapel.
You see, only an idiot would doubt his personhood...but they still put him, and six million people like him, on the cattle cars headed for Auschwitz and Treblinka. And we could play this mental game with genocides from all over the planet...Rwanda, China, Ukraine, Armenia, Cambodia...
Our law calls the child in the womb a non-person so we can kill them. Any philosophical debate on the matter springs from the same well.
Actually, it's only the chimp that we share that much DNA with. Except for the other great apes, no other animanl is even close.
Great post!
A person hires someone to rip a small child apart and dump them in the trash. This is murder, unless it takes place in a specific location, in which case it's a protected right.
That makes sense to you? Seems to me it's a prime example of how legal systems can sometimes not remotely resemble reality. As I said before, your legalism strains out a gnat, but swallows a dumpster of dead babies.
I thought it was becoming more like DU every day because of the many whiny posts from abortion apologists who feel they're being persecuted anytime someone stands against the murder of small children.
Once upon a time, some Whigs opposed slavery, some didn't want to talk about it, and some were quite happy with it.
Only one set was right.
Wow...feel the paranoia!
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.