Posted on 04/18/2007 8:32:50 AM PDT by jacknhoo
“This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v. Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If partial-birth abortions are unconstitutional, then all abortion should be as well. There is little difference between a second-trimester partial-birth abortion and a 12-week suction abortion. In fact, the suction abortion is probably more gruesome because it involves complete dismemberment of a live baby.”
This is really good news. Praise God!
Yes! I’m pro-choice. I choose LIFE!!!!
I think you’re right—if Roe is perfect, then women like Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, etc. should have the right to be free and not be convicted of crimes for killing their children.
Of course, those were living, breathing, actual children. To the pro-babykillers, a fetus in the womb doesn’t qualify, so it’s okay to kill ‘it’ before it can actually breathe oxygen outside the womb.
Yes, the main precedent to Roe v. Wade was Griswold v. Connecticut, which found that married persons cannot be forbidden from buying contraceptives, because they have a “right to privacy.”
There is, of course, no “right to privacy” as such in the Constitution. There are rights against search and seizure and so forth, but certainly not a right to kill other human beings privately. So when Roe v. wade was passed they babbled about a “right to privacy” in the “penumbra” or shadow of the Constitution. And of course there was talk about “ownership of your own body” and so forth, with the pretence that the embryo is not, scientifically, a separate person.
That’s what I’ve been saying...GWB gets credit here...
And he did pass tort reform, as well.
There are a lot of pro-aborts on the forum. I don’t think any of them identify themselves as conservative.
I can say something really disgusting and offensive, but I won’t.
But, unless I am misreading it, the court upheld the right of Congress to ban partial-birth abortion, so the court did the opposite. They are imposing the law on the states.
Where did Congress get the authority to ban abortion?
BTTT!
I couldn’t agree with you more! I Love George W and I am glad I voted for him twice! I also think he is a great President!
Overturning Roe won't end legal abortion, but it will take the issue out of the courts and put it back to the people via the state legislatures. IMHO the best we can hope for if Roe is reversed would be perhaps 2/3 of the states would ban abortion on demand, but most would allow abortion for rape, incest, and life of the mother cases.
Personally, I would allow abortion to save the mother's life, but I would require a consensus opinion from a broad panel of medical doctors that her life is in imminent danger if the pregnancy is not terminated. But IMO killing an unborn baby because it's father was a rapist or an incestuous relative amounts to killing the most completely innocent party involved in the crime. (Not to say that rape victims bear any guilt for the rape, but she can't be any more innocent than the unborn baby) If the mother is too traumatized or otherwise unable to keep the baby there are hundreds of thousands of eager couples waiting to adopt newborn babies. We shouldn't allow compounding the original crime by aborting the innocent baby.
In 1995, Mother Teresa sent a letter to the U.N.’s Beijing Conference on Women:
“Those who deny the beautiful differences between men and women are not accepting themselves as God has made them ... I have often said, abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today, and those who want to make women and men the same are all in favor of abortion.”
?
Have at it. I'm armor-plated. If the mods find it too offensive they'll deal with it.
i would be curious as to the % of libertarians that take a pro-choice position. i would expect it to be very high. i am mostly a libertarian and, while still a bit on the fence and waiting for a convincing argument against abortion, take a pro-choice position. in my opinion, birth provides the most logical threshold for a limit.
She was a truly brilliant woman. The world could use several thousand more like her.
We have no rights more basic than the right to be born. Without that right, we have nothing.
If these are valid before birth, why not after birth too?
1. A baby conceived outside of wedlock, can be killed.
2. A baby with Parents incapable of caring for baby, can be killed.
3. A baby who will have an inferior quality of life, can be killed.
4. A baby not able to survive outside body of mother by itself, can be killed.
5. A baby conceived of a raped mother, can be killed.
6. A baby with physical incapacities, can be killed.
...............................................
The whole idea of killing these little defenseless boys and girls is preposterous.
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.