Posted on 09/29/2007 9:06:55 AM PDT by wagglebee
Pro-life organizations are trying to build support for the legal definition that an unborn child is a person to exploit a weakness that was cited by author Harry Blackmun when he wrote the creative Roe V. Wade abortion precedent in 1973.
But their work has generated a huge argument within the pro-life movement: whether it's better to chip away at the opportunities abortionists have to conduct their business or a challenge should be mounted to confront Roe's very premise that the unborn are only tissue.
WND reported earlier when several pro-life organizations launched an advertising campaign that was critical of other pro-lifers for their praise for the U.S. Supreme Court's partial birth abortion decision, which said some procedures could be restricted. Groups including Focus on the Family noted it was the first court opinion in years that actually supported abortion restrictions and said it was a moral victory, while others including the America Life League countered that the court ruling actually would not prohibit a single abortion, just a way of doing them. That argument has been raised to a new level now, with opinions from some of the top legal experts in the pro-life camp squaring off in a sort of debate at the Personhood.net website.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Rape is a trauma and a tragedy, but a child is not.
I have a cousin who was raped, became pregnant, and had the child. I would never dream of telling that little girl that she was never conceived, or is less of a person because she is the direct result of the rape of her mother.
And perhaps "tough Roes to hoe," also: Each State's courts could involve themselves in the matter just as unwisely as did the Federal Supreme Court. And some most certainly would. I'm especially thinking of the Supreme Court of Florida.
Why doesn't this fit the definition?
That's why, for example, reporting of child sexual abuse is mandatory - except if the child is having an abortion. That's why a child needs parental consent for a tylenol but not for an abortion. That's why you are free to speak in public, except if you are speaking near an abortuary. That's why killing a human baby in utero is a felony - unless the mother wants it dead.
This peculiar institution will fall - must fall - in its time - but it won't be done in by clever wordsmithing.
“Does this mean that you would deny D&C treatment for someone who was raped?”
There are several in the pro-life movement that would by force of law, FORCE that rape victim to bear her rapists child. I am not one of these people however I can understand why they feel the way they do.
Well, since the USSC has already ruled that under the 4th Amendment (i.e. Justice Blackmun's argument accepted), I don't know what a mere act of Congress (which is unlikely to pass in any event: Democrats aren't stupid, you know) would do to change that. Of course it would improve the standing of Duke Cunningham's buddy, the Duck Hunter, with one issue pro-Lifers who might vote in GOP primaries (if they're not sitting the primaries out 'cause they're mad at the GOP for some other real or imagined "slight" by that time). Other than that, however, I'd have to say that the 4th Amendment (even as interpreted by pro-Abortion, politicized "Jurists") would trump Duck Hunter's political stunt.
Rape is repeatedly brought up as a justification for infanticide. The reality is that that only than 3% of rapes result in pregnancy, this amount to less than 8000 per year.
http://www.missthemess.com/statistics/rape.php
Yet there are over 3500 abortions performed EVERY DAY in the United States.
But even with these 8000 pregnancies, under what just system of laws has any society ever deemed that a child must pay for the crimes of their parent?
So according to the abortionists we are all just walking, breathing tissue. Because if the child in the womb from conception is just tissue then we all are. Maybe simplist, but it just goes to reason and logic. Logic and reason the evil can not and refuses to follow.
Senators Boxer and clinton argued on the floor of the Senate that choice means a woman has a right to a dead baby! Rick Santorm was so shocked that they admitted this was theior belief that he had themn clarify it. Sure enough, they are demanding the right for a woman to kill her alive unborn baby! cpforlife.org has the transcript of the excnage and may have the actual video archived. I watched that debate live and could not believe it was ignored by the media. Theleft are ghouls, plain and simply GHOULS.
“The libs wouldn’t dare argue that their preferred method of execution is cruel and unusual.” Sure they can! They have assumed the godlike right to kill whom a woman chooses to kill since the alive child is in her body ... no matter that the child could be brought forth alive and given life support apart from the demonically deceived woman, the left believes she has a right to kill without mercy! THAT is the truth about the democrat party empowerment scheme.
Of course, and when that adult tissue becomes inconvenient we can kill it too. Let's call it "euthanasia": that's a nice, antiseptic sounding term.
I saw Sarah Weddington (lawyer for Roe in Roe v. Wade) speak at the University of Maine (with a group of Catholic students who were protesting against abortion) a few years ago. Amazingly, she did more to expose the weaknesses of Roe v. Wade than anyone else I’ve seen before of since of the subject . Of course, she was speaking from the, “don’t let this happen perspective.” During her lecture she revealed that her biggest fear was that conservatives would eventually pass laws recognizing the unborn at persons because would thoroughly undermine the legal arguments behind Roe v. Wade.
After a positive pregnancy test..
Who says, I’m having a fetus???????????????
Isn’t it,
I’M HAVING A BABY???????????????????
"More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life -- infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true.
Personhood at conception would invalidate Roe v Wade AND make abortion illegal.
Should you be hung if your Father commits murder?
You need to read R. V. W a little closer. It was the lack of definition of when life begins that aided and abetted this decision.
Repeat ConLaw 101, you were sleeping the first time. Congress legislates not the bench. The 5th and 14th Amendments are quite clear, the life of "persons" are protected. If Congress defines persons to include the unborn, the distinguished oligarchy in robes would have no choice but to overturn Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.
The rape arguement is a bit of a red herring. The number of babies conceived during a rape vs the abortion rate would tell us quickly that most abortions are not done on rape victims. They are done for the convenience of the mother (or under pressure from the father).
Don’t lose sight of the tragedy that is abortion.
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.