Replies

ffusco, Hank Kerchief, MHGinTN, et al.,

There is such a thing as objective truth—it is independent and eternal. It remains so regardless of what the whole world may think otherwise.

Three years before Roe v Wade, another case was decided at the federal level that was consistent with the objective truth (as well as biological-genetic-scientific truth) that life begins at conception. See complete excerpt and link to full article below my comments.

The case went to the extent to say that legally, Human Personhood Begins at Conception : "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."

Simply put, Freeper MHGinTN and the entire Pro-Life movement cannot “agree to disagree” because we know the truth and WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE, we will not turn ourselves into liars—period.

When it comes to life and death—THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE.

A VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO FREEPER REMEDY FOR POSTING THIS!

Constitutional Persons:An Exchange on Abortion

The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court. In Stenberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology." "Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it." Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier! The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death;
do not stand back and let them die.
Proverbs 24:11

"Can reasonable people disagree over cannibalism in order to permit cannibalism, without doing violence to civilization?" If one opposes cannibalism, it would not be reasonable to leave the debate at 'agreeing to disagree'. Agreeing to disagree accomplishes the goal of those who don't want opposition to their chosen behavior. In this case, by withholding opposition to cannibalism, or agreeing to disagree without action to prevent it, the techniques of this form of cannibalism will become part of the active medical armamentarium.

There are people in the scientific community actually trying to achieve this 'acquisition by our default' by obfuscating and dissembling, because they believe at present our society will not easily embrace their form of cannibalism. If we in the pro-life movement don't act now to emphasize this relation to cannibalism, the society will be drawn into accepting cannibalism/therapeutic cloning under the guise of utilitarian value.