Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
Indeed, this issue is a bit hot. I do not mind working with hot stuff, but it seems some posters want to make it personal. I may have lumped you in, as you so stated.
Dear tpaine,
I don't think any of your posts demonstrate that any Supreme Court decision from Roe on prevents any woman from seeking and procuring an abortion at any time during her pregnancy.
The Court has permitted a few inconveniences. But no abortions are forbidden, even a partial birth abortion at term.
But again, I thought you had given me the last word between us?
Couldn't abide by that, huh?
sitetest
"I believe that life is valuable, even when it is unwanted, even when it is physically imperfect. I believe our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the weak. And I believe our nation should set a goal: that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law. This is the ideal: a generous society that values every life.
I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy is ruled by consensus, not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded."
Source: www.georgewbush.com/News "Parental Notification Law" Jun 7, 1999
______________________________________
To bad that Bush didn't sum up this way:
'I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy [republic] is ruled by consensus [under constitutional law], not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded.'
Was my 'bumpkin' place-marker pulled because of an abuse complaint from you Graveyard? -- Get a life. I meant no disrespect to Bush.
That merely proves that Alan Keyes threads deteriorate into flame wars quickly. It certainly doesn't prove that a "militant" with an itchy trigger finger on the abuse button will get you suspended or banned.
I think the powers-that-be are a little more fair-minded than that.
Nope. I'm a big boy, I don't do the abuse thing. I just called you a jerkoff.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled half-assed assumptions.
Right.
Well, when it comes to getting people banned or suspended, I guess I'll have to defer to your expertise.
Here's my answer...go seek help from the DNC, see how far your "warning" will get you.
You folks have certainly thrown enough insults my way, but the "credibility" thing is new.
You are what you are, Howlin. Disparaging me won't give you a makeover.
Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.
Not true. Read the courts opinion. States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby.
[The Roe decision also stopped States from prosecuting only ~early term~ abortions as murder.]
Peterson was just convicted in CA of [late term] murder of an unborn baby.
Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?
You need to read what I wrote before responding to it. States may permit the prosecution of folks OTHER THAN THE MOTHER who harm unborn children.
Specious claim. States have always had the power to prosecute criminal acts.
Are you really this illogical?
What I said was, "Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion." I will expand, if you did not catch my meaning, "Roe permits no real restrictions on induced abortions procured by the mother."
That is not true. States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.
What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."
Gee, who would have guessed..
In fact, in approving the most mild regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, etc.), Justice O'Connor has pointed out that any regulation that had the effect of actually denying a woman of any abortion at any time during pregnancy would not pass Roe's scrutiny. sitetest.
Justice O'Connors opinions can be challenged by any State. Feel free to get your State to do so.
sitetest rebuts:
"States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby."
So long as it doesn't prevent a woman from procuring an abortion. A distinction without a difference. The ultimate fig leaf of semantics.
That's it? You answer all my arguments above with a bit of 'semantic' bull?
Typical. -- You spout off reams of quasi-legal BS in nearly every post, but when factually challenged you cave.
Whatta joke.
sitetest relies with another qausi legal opinion:
I don't think any of your posts demonstrate that any Supreme Court decision from Roe on prevents any woman from seeking and procuring an abortion at any time during her pregnancy. The Court has permitted a few inconveniences. But no abortions are forbidden, even a partial birth abortion at term.
Do you have a point that rebuts any of mine above?
-- The fact remains.
States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.
no not venting -just commenting on your unwavering pro-life concept lacking practice.
I would suggest you are pro-whatever happens...
Some jerkoff pushed the button.
And you can take your own "half-assed assumptions" and shove them, "big boy".
Yep, I am what I am; never denied it or tried to "color it up." Never tried to blackmail anybody with my vote.
Looking at this thread, I'm happy with the people on "my side."
We may differ on how to get there. In fact, I am quite sure that we differ.
But, barring annihilation by things either controllable or uncontrollable, that goal will probably be achieved, but likely not in my lifetime.
I am an extremist, I make no bones about it or apologies.
Well, it wasn't this jerkoff.
If you want to avoid this sort of ugliness in the future, maybe bookmarking posts with one-word cheap shots (seemingly) directed at other posters is a practice you should abandon.
Unless you enjoy this.
well said sir.
Well thanks!
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.