Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Aquinasfan
An unborn baby in its mother's womb is a human being. That's a fact, not a judge's "whim." A law that regards an unborn baby as less than human is an unjust law, which is to say, no law at all.

There is no law saying unborn children are not human. Roe vs. Wade removed the penal destraint on performing abortions in the name of a misguided liberty, it did not say unborn children are not human, nor is it a law.

In reality, most laws criminalizing abortion are still on the books. They are simply unenforceable until such time as the Supreme Court rejects the judicial legislating in Roe v. Wade.

153 posted on 11/12/2004 10:53:36 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]


To: Hermann the Cherusker
There is no law saying unborn children are not human.

In effect, it did. It was up to individuals to define the meaninging of life, and all that.

The judges' failure to protect innocent unborn life in law is a grievous sin of ommission equal in magnitude to a positive command to mass murder. Agnosticism in the face of evil is as bad as, if not worse than, a positive embrace of evil.

"I wish that you were hot or cold..."
--Jesus

160 posted on 11/12/2004 11:03:11 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; r9etb; churchillbuff; MikeA; hchutch; Howlin; shield; lara; tame; ...
From Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion

Nathan Schlueter:

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 Steinberg 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.

From Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion

Robert Bork:

Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

_________________________________________________________

Abortionists commit first degree murder.

From the law dictionary:
n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, or involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder, are established by statute in each state and by the U.S. Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.

Abortionists clearly act with malice aforethought.

From the law dictionary:
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Does this qualify as "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others"? It is estimated that this murder method accounts for about 10+% per year or 140,000 per year on children from early 2nd trimester on. BTW, their hearts were beating at three weeks and they start sucking their thumbs at around 12 weeks.

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests For Life touring one of three former abortion rooms at the NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL in Baton Rouge, LA. It was open from 1986 – 1994. 30,000 children were aborted there. This was not the only abortion mill in the city. The “doctor” had this building built special to maximize his time and PROFITS.

Notice the kitchen sink with the garbage disposal. There were three ways for the “doctor” to dispose of the babies, an expensive biomedical incinerator, expensive biomedical waste pick-up (charge by pound) or a rather inexpensive garbage disposal. Every day God’s precious children were ground up in that disposal and flushed into the city’s sewer system. Thing is this doctor of death did late term abortions, so an assisting demon had to literally cut up the bigger kids to feed down the disposal.

I have given tours of the place a few times. It is like walking in a nightmare. The suction machine in one room is still plugged in and it works when you turn it on for the visitors to see and hear. This place is much like an abandoned Nazi death camp. It’s the only Memorial like it in the country. It’s a testament to America’s (and humanity's) darkest potential.

Some time after the mill was closed down, the doctor of death aborted himself with a bullet through the head.

I worked hard to help President Bush get re-elected. I don't know yet if this Gonzales matter is a major problem. I'm one of the "Value Voters" and I will not stand idly by if I think Bush might be working against ending the holocaust of abortion. And that's what it is--every damn bloody day--another HOLOCAUST.

184 posted on 11/12/2004 11:33:26 AM PST by cpforlife.org (Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson