Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
I think you can leave out the "could."
There is no escape from this, unless it is by the pedantic point that "well, the Supreme Court isn't LAW, so passing some feel good measure that is swatted down the next day under Roe is sufficient"
Right. And for the record, I'm not entirely sure how Specter is going to play out, i.e. will he backstab conservatives or not? But this kind of reminds me when the President gambled the First Amendment to CFR and the Courts and lost "Big Time" (as Dick Cheney might say). Why take that chance with Specter?
I am not dangerous, and neither is narses.
You are not discussing "elective" abortion, except in the case of the abortion for "health" and possibly for "rape."
If we could get the courts to understand that "health" and "life" are not synonymous, we could limit 96% of all abortions.
3% of abortions are due to your reasons. And those which are carried out after 15 weeks are statistically more dangerous than carrying the child to delivery. After 20 weeks, there is no reason to kill the child to terminate the pregnancy. There is never a reason for 'partial birth abortion."
Take a look at the pro-aborts' own statistics:
http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
Most Important Reason Given for
Terminating an Unwanted Pregnancy
Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%
Too young; not mature enough 11%
Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%
Other 4%
Average number of reasons given 3.7
Source: Torres and Forrest, 1988
(1987 data)
and on minor's right to consent
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.html
Sure Tex. Just off those grandkids. You're a real hero. Just like John Wayne or something...
Don't confuse them with facts. It makes them foam at the mouth...
As I said, you and yours had better NEVER try to get between me and mine.
Pretty short step from offing the kid to offing me, I suppose.
Ah, you're reduced to bodily threats. Interesting.
Oh PLEASE. You begged for that.
Your body is in no danger from me as long as you keep it out of my and my family's business.
Threat? Hardly, although you're trying to make it into one.
I begged for him to tell me how much he would enjoy killing me?
You people have lost your minds.
You took issue with his wanting to protect the women in his family...how the hell do you EXPECT him to react to that?
My goal is to keep people from killing little kids, through law.
Conscience alone should prevent it, but some folks have seared their own to the point of uselessness.
Hence the need for government.
You're even more sick and twisted then I gave you credit for.
You didn't type that?
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.