ABORTION MAP OF THE UNITED STATES - 2004

CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE ^ | 1-20-04 | Kevin Jeanfreau

[auboy]

When the annual slaughter was at 1.5 million, the equivalent loss of life would require a TWA800 tragedy to occur every 90 minutes around the clock every day of the year!

Bush needs to read your analogy!

Bush and everyone in America needs to read this analogy.

EVERYONE!

[Veracious Poet]

"Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person. Until the law is changed, it is not murder - in the legal sense."

Under Hebraic Law (the only one that matters IMHO) murder is defined as the killing of an innocent person - Who could be more innocent than an unborn child?

[Diamond]

...Has anyone been prosecuted for murder for performing an abortion since the Roe decision? If not, why not?

...The USSC has no ability to stop a state from prosecuting murder. Get your local prosecutor to indict, and hold a trial..

First, abortions are not "performed". They are committed. Surgery is performed, but abortion-killing cannot normally be rationally likened to anything resembling the life-saving procedure of a surgery. Clean up your language. This is a family forum.

Would it be that it such killings be prosecuted, but the practical outcome of any conviction, from a prosecutor's perspective, would be the overturning of the judgment by appellate courts, which in turn renders such prosecutions untenable.

None of the above regarding the raw power of the court changes the inherent evil, baseless irrationality of the Roe and Bolton decisions.

Cordially,

[tpaine]

In Roe the USSC said that states could not ~decree~ early term abortion to be the crime of murder. The facts must be prosecuted before a jury using due process.
The USSC has no ability to stop a state from prosecuting murder. Get your local proscutor to indict, and hold a trial.

Can you or anybody on your side explain, in a straightforward and coherent manner, why we should accept and respect Roe as a valid interpretation of the Constitution?

Because we cannot allow fed, state, or local governments to have the power to prohibit 'sinful' behaviors.
No matter how morally repugnant a majority may find certain acts or objects, we must observe our bill of rights in regulating them, in a reasonable fashion.
Criminalizing early term abortion as murder is an unreasonable prohibition; -- states have no such power..

I have the same opinion on our RKBA's, as evidenced by a post I made earlier this morning:

The right to reasonably 'bear' [carry] property of all sorts -[including arms] about our land is inalienable, to rational men..
The concept that a state has the power to absolutely prohibit carrying such benign objects is repugnant to our constitutional principles on its face..

Thus the concept that a state must show reasonable & 'compelling needs' for any such regulations, before adopting them using due process.
Fiat prohibitions on carrying arms are not enacted within the due process of constitutional law.

[cpforlife.org]

"Never, never will we desist till we. . .
extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic,
of which our posterity, looking back to the history
of these enlightened times will scarce believe
that it has been suffered to exist so long
a disgrace and dishonor to this country"


William Wilberforce:
Member of Parliament who led the fight for the
abolition of slavery in Great Britain.

[verity]

Can you or anybody on your side explain, in a straightforward and coherent manner, why we should accept and respect Roe as a valid interpretation of the Constitution?

You do not have accept nor respect Roe as a valid interpretation of the Constitution. Whether or not it is a bad law, the fact remains that it is still the law of the land and will remain so until overturned.

If you can relax long enough, you will realize that I am not defending abortion.

[verity]

Semantics!

[cpforlife.org]

"...you will realize that I am not defending abortion."

Just what are you doing here? What then is your point on this thread?

[Diamond]

The right to reasonably 'bear' [carry] property of all sorts -[including arms] about our land is inalienable, to rational men..

But the right to LIFE isn't?

The concept that a state has the power to absolutely prohibit carrying such benign objects is repugnant to our constitutional principles on its face..

So why is it not equally Constitutionally repugnant for the USSC to deny the power of a state to absolutely prohibit the killing of innocent human beings who may one day carry these beign objects, a right which you yourself correctly describe as inalienable? Without the right to life, the right to carry is meaningless and void. Of course the only difference is that the pre-born are not big enough to defend themselves, with or without firearms. But if you wish to relegate abortion-killing to a matter of pure arbitrary power of one human being over the life of another human being then please don't talk to me about inalienable rights, including the right to carry, or for that matter, one's own right to life. If one does not respect the right to life of others then one has no reason to demand that selfsame respect from others.

Cordially,

[I got the rope]

Bookmarking.

[Diamond]

If you do it accidentally, it is manslaughter. If you do it intentionally it is murder.

Cordially,

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Diamond]

Whether or not it is a bad law, the fact remains that it is still the law of the land and will remain so until overturned.

Is this semantics, too? Tell me, if you can; what is the purpose of law in the first place? Tell me: in your view, can there be any such thing as an unjust law, or any case where the law is applied unjustly?

Cordially,

[Centurion2000]

bump

[MHGinTN]

SCOTUS stepped beyond their Constitutional provisions when they chose to ignore the millenia of scientific evidence in order to dehuamnize the unborn and llok only at 'women's bodily privacy ... the unconstitutional Blackmun court chose to ignore the life of the unborn in any but a 'pre-human status so that court could issue a ruling based on a specious penumbra of the Griswald case. In Griswald the correct right of a woman to control her fertility (with contraception) was 'miss-applied' to stretch contraceptive privacy out into the right to kill an already alive second individual human being ... unless you consider abortion serial killing as contraception.

[MHGinTN]

Actually, verity isn't defending abortion ... and the Roe specious fiat ruling did establish the right for women to hire a killer to off their alive unborn children. It is very bad establishment of law that the SCOTUS had no right to establish, much less negate all state laws dealing with abortion of alive unborn children. It is time for the Roe unconstituional ruling to be set aside and the establishment of murder statutes be returned to the individual states where the true sovereigns of America can then have a say in the legalities of the unborn's right to life they are already in possession of!

[tpaine]

If you want the state to regulate abortion by pure arbitrary power of decree, then please don't talk to me about our other inalienable rights , including the right to carry.

If one does not respect the right to life, liberty & property of their peers then one has no reason to demand that selfsame respect from others.


And can the "Cordially" bit.. -- Its pretty obvious youre not being cordial.