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

Skip to comments.

FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Fox News Channel ^ | 18 April 2007 | Fox News Channel

Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff

Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 921-933 next last
To: Aquinasfan
"This is no different from the Holocaust.".... That is so true!
601 posted on 04/18/2007 11:18:44 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Some of you must be ticked off that Rudy agrees with this great ruling.....


602 posted on 04/18/2007 11:18:54 AM PDT by Fawn (http://www.hartzvictims.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Abortion is deliberately ending a human life. That is also known as murder. If you are for abortion, you support murder and murders.


603 posted on 04/18/2007 11:19:31 AM PDT by ukie55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Most people feel that Roe is safe and don't really care that much about abortion.

I mentioned only single-issue voters on abortion, not "most people."

604 posted on 04/18/2007 11:20:28 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Lawdoc
Stare decisis true, but the Sct does overrule itself. Two words- Dred Scott.

Two words - 14th amendment.

The part of the Dred Scott decision that actually affected the person, Dred Scott, was constitutionally sound. Under the constitution (due to compromise to ensure ratification), slaves were treated differently and individual states have never had the power to grant citizenship.

What makes the Dred Scott decision so notable is Taney's idiotic decision to editorialize and say that blacks were inferior to white and so forth. Apparently he had hopes that this would end the slavery debate once and for all.

605 posted on 04/18/2007 11:21:32 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
The charge that anyone would prefer a tyrant to secure life and liberty is ludicrous.

Then you haven't been following this thread.

606 posted on 04/18/2007 11:22:32 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
If that makes you feel better, go for it. You said what you said.

And you didn't follow the thread enough to properly understand it.

607 posted on 04/18/2007 11:23:45 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

The political consensus in DC would never lead to a federal law banning first trimester abortion for adult women. This partial birth thing is a whole different ball of wax - especially when viability can be scientifically demonstrated at 20+ weeks.

The States is where this belongs, for many reasons. The country is too divided to have a uniform abortion law (again, we’re talking about adult women before 20 weeks). Let the States have a crack at it, let’s see what political consensus they can hold for State based bans. Send it to the States, and this will also free the national Republican party from the litmus test on this issue, so we can focus on other issues regarding government.


608 posted on 04/18/2007 11:23:46 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Check out my post #206.

The “personhood” of the unborn is not recognized in U.S. law...

That was another one of Harry Blackmun's factual errors, to say nothing of his bizarre and tortured misunderstanding of even basic grammar, logic, science or philosophy. It was not and still is not correct, even currently. See for example Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741, 745-47 (N.D. Ohio 1970) or Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 801, 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1325 (1984) (construing vehicular homicide statute). Even if it were correct, though, and it is not, it might also be that there aren't any cases holding newborn infants to be persons. Does that mean therefore that they are not? Positivist notions of law such as this are alien and completely antithetical to the natural law concepts of the Framers of the Constitution.

Since when does the law create natural persons or the inalienable rights of natural persons? Are natural persons natural persons only by virtue of being recognized by some statute or case law?

Human beings are not persons because they can prove that they should be included as persons under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; they are already included as persons by virtue of their humanity.

Since when do courts have the power or authority to create substantive exceptions to fundamental rights where no such exceptions appear in the Constitution, and where such exceptions abrogate the inalienable rights of natural persons?

Cordially,

609 posted on 04/18/2007 11:23:55 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
Some of you must be ticked off that Rudy agrees with this great ruling.....

Most of us see through Rudy's agreement as nothing but pandering on his part, given he supported Clinton's veto of a PBA ban.

610 posted on 04/18/2007 11:25:39 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

Comment #611 Removed by Moderator

To: Spiff
Proof there is a difference between Democrats & Republicans!
612 posted on 04/18/2007 11:27:16 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Oh boy. First of all, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. Secondly, the constitution allowed slavery and slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a person.

You didn't read my statement. The Declaration of Independence framed the argument by which we based our claim to freedom from the crown. The argument was that we have rights, by God, and that no human authority can justly infringe upon them.

It was on the basis of that argument that slavery was abolished.

And it will be on that basis that abortion will be banned.

You wish to argue that human beings can determine the value of life. Did you think through where that premise leads?

613 posted on 04/18/2007 11:27:23 AM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
The blue dogs claim they're conservatives, but they'll dance to Pelosi's tune or be bribed into going her way with pork.

Don't know about the House, but surely it was the Dems that ran as conservatives that stayed Reid from calling for more gun control after VA Tech. Maybe not -- maybe Reid's just against hysterical screaming for more gun control (but I doubt it!). ;-)

614 posted on 04/18/2007 11:28:02 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
“I supported Clinton’s veto of the partial birth ban. But I also support the decision to uphold the ban by Roberts and Alito.”

This is not inconsistent. It's possible to be opposed to a law without believing it's unconstitutional.

615 posted on 04/18/2007 11:29:06 AM PDT by murdoog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

I completely agree with you here.

I don’t really want Rudy if another more conservative winner shows up... but will definitely prefer him to most of the lib Demodogs.


616 posted on 04/18/2007 11:30:12 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: maryz
I mentioned only single-issue voters on abortion, not "most people."

You're not getting my point. That fact that most people feel that Roe is safe allows otherwise pro-abortion voters feel safe to use other issues to decide their vote.

Once these voters get the feeling that Roe is under serious attack and close to falling then these voters are going to suddenly become single-issue voters.

Most of the women I know don't think much about abortion but want the right to chose for themselves. Even so, they currently vote GOP because of the perception that it is the less socialistic party.

If they began to believe that Roe was about to fall then they would become single-issue voters and go for the dems.

617 posted on 04/18/2007 11:30:18 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Send it to the States, and this will also free the national Republican party from the litmus test on this issue, so we can focus on other issues regarding government.

Great post.

618 posted on 04/18/2007 11:31:21 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

He was born April 20, 1920 — so that would make him 87 in a couple of days.


619 posted on 04/18/2007 11:31:35 AM PDT by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Bump for life.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

620 posted on 04/18/2007 11:32:09 AM PDT by mware (By all that you hold dear..Doing real on this good earth... I bid you stand! Men of the West!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 921-933 next last

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.

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