Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Baloney.
Yes I do. But I believe the federal judiciary’s even hearing the case was a travesty. They needed to refuse on grounds it was not a federal matter. Therefore, any 14th Amendment argument or any other federal argument is irrelevant.
It is not a federal matter, period, end-of-story.
Too bad you can’t see that it is not baloney but reality.
Come back in a few months after you’ve sharpened up. I will not spoonfeed adults that should know better.
In the end analysis, the protection of unalienable rights is the ONLY federal matter that matters.
The protection of life and liberty is the only legitimate reason governments are even instituted among men.
This fact is self-evident, or at least once was to all Americans.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
I'll believe you've answered the questions when you link your previous posts.
I'll never vote for Fred Thompson. Ever. He's a constitutional ignoramus.
Wow, you really know how to blow the air around don’t you?
So I take it you would tell a doctor performing an abortion to save the life of the mother, the unborn or all that you are going to see to it they get hanged in federal court for not getting a court order?
What a putz!
Uh huh...coming from you? I think not.
Abortions to “save the life of the mother” are a pro-abort myth.
Re: your post #257:
I’ve rarely seen so many empty words used to justify a pro-baby-killing ideology.
Read this and look at the links.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder. Ron Paul
No wonder people are confused when they then find out that he doesn’t support the God-given, unalienable right to live for all American children...just for those fortunate enough to have a mother who is physically located in a state that doesn’t allow abortion.
I find his views to be quite schizophrenic, actually.
In the mid 19th Century, a movement began to tighten abortion regulation. Spearheaded by the medical community, by the late 1860's this movement had succeeded in establishing uniform abortion prohibition in England and throughout most of the United States. Outside of necessity to preserve the life of the mother, abortion was prohibited. These laws, or similar successor provisions, would remain in place in all fifty states until the 1960's.
It’s obvious you are impaired. You cannot or are unwilling to distinguish between abortion and abortion-on-demand.
Do you know what a Ceasarian or C-Section is? Do you know how old it has existed? Do you know what it is used for?
I support the right of a mother to protect themselves, if it came down to that, as do most pro-lifers.
Only thing is, the need for such a choice almost never occurs.
C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General, an obstetrican who delivered many thousands of babies, said that neither he or any of his associates had ever seen such a case, ever.
This is just one of the excuses the pro-aborts use to justify abortion-on-demand.
As they say, “hard cases make for bad law.”
One other thing: The mothers I know would rather die than kill their own child.
Perhaps it is your perceptions that are a little "off."
You cannot or are unwilling to distinguish between abortion and abortion-on-demand.
The baby is still dead, no matter how much spin you put on the "procedure." Nothing else matters.
Do you know what a Ceasarian or C-Section is? Do you know how old it has existed? Do you know what it is used for?
It's used for delivering children. Duh.
What more could he have possibly done to end abortion on demand in this country? And why is the pro-life movement nor getting behind Ron Pauls Sanctity of Life Act? This Bill which has been introduced in the House in itself moves the goal of the pro-life movement in the desired direction more so then anything that any other candidate has done in their entire political career.
H.R. 1094: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007
HR 1094 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress—
(1) the Congress declares that—
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof—
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates—
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.
SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.
Mothers do die and children live because of abortion procedures. Abortion is not necessarily about aborting a child but aborting a pregnancy.
Now get your facts straight. What you are objecting to is about abortion-on-demand, not abortion. You just admitted it.
Get it straight:
Abortion
vs.
Abortion-On-Demand.
There is a big difference.
Jim Robinson for President!
A C-Section was not developed for delivering a child but for saving life. A child may already be dead in the womb. The C-Section is a life-preserving procedure that is also now used electively. But that was not always the case.
Duh.
I am beginning to see you have the brain of a teenager. So I will stop responding now as there is no possibility of penetrating the thick head of an incorrigible youth.
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.