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]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, at least you stopped short of making math skills and reading comprehension part of the criteria.
Ok. But of the 2 million abortions every year, about 1 million are the underclass. Abolishing abortion means millions more children on welfare, and tens of thousands more handicapped children on Medicaid. That’s what it means. I agree with you: that’s ok with me. I am not as poor as a church mouse, but I am willing to pay more taxes if that’s what the money is going to be used for. I am also willing to make everyone else pay more taxes to provide for these children, whether they want to or not, because ultimately it’s a question of infanticide or no infanticide. I say no infanticide, and I am absolutely willing to impose my moral view on this subject on society. It’s a fundamental matter of right and wrong.
I have no desire to co-exist with these people. None.
There are about 2 million abortions in the US every year. About 1 million are to the underclass. There will be a lot more welfare babies if we abolish abortion. So be it. Spending extra money to support living children, some of whom will grow up and out of poverty and do great things, is an expense I am willing to bear. Letting them be killed is not something I am willing to tolerate.
I just think we have to be realistic and accept that we are going to be imposing a burden. Remember, the folks on the religious right are convinced, but in order to get rid of abortion, we have to convince others too. France proves that even liberal, libertine people can be a lot more hostile to abortion than we are. Liberals care about social welfare for the babies, and make claims like “Republicans are willing to force the baby to be born, but not to support them.” To which the answer must be: No, babies are a treasure, children from God, OF COURSE we will support them, if they need it. And OF COURSE we will even raise taxes to do it, if that’s what it takes. We get it. We understand. That will go a long way. There are folks in the center and on the left who do not love abortion, but can’t see a way around it. We can make it easier for many of them by CONCEDING them the welfare and health care and education of the children business. It’s a Christian duty anyway, all three things, so it’s not as though we’re giving anything up.
“First you say that environment has nothing to do with it,its about development.
Now you are back to environment because your first argument gets shot down.
You are going to spin yourself into the ground...lol”
You are the only one spinning here...my original discussion with Spiff was about a developing fetus in the womb. Again, not an environment issue, but a developmental one. You seem to have a diffiCULT time grasping this simple fact.
Let’s let Planned Parenthood know how we feel today. Here is the membership email below. It was the only one I could email a note to other than the media relations person.
“And I would submit that breathing aside, everything you state about that fetus can be applied to a month old infant.”
100% WRONG...a one-month-old infant is conscious, as can be empirically proven by the alpha wave complexes (the indication of human consciousness) in that infant’s brain wave patterns. A fetus does not exhibit such alpha wave complexes prior to the third trimester.
Diamond, what you are saying is unrealistic.
Latin America forbids abortion, and is devout. God doesn’t feed their poor or provide them with medical care and education. Indeed, as the Christian Bible points out in the stories of King David and of Moses, God very, very explicitly lays the DUTY of charity for orphans, widows, the poor, the sick, SQUARELY upon all other men AND upon the rulers of the state. God provides THROUGH human charity, and human charity is NOT, in the divine plan, simply an optional individual thing. King David, King Solomon, and Moses the ruling Prophet all three had the burden of providing for the poor, the weak, the sick, the orphan in their realm.
You are right: welfare is inefficient. And people who collect it are generally screw-ups, and there is not much hope for rehabilitation of adults (there’s a lot more hope for children, if we educate them properly, which costs money). It’s always going to be a bloody mess and an inefficient bureaucratic nightmare. So is the Catholic Church. So are all Churches, for that matter. So are most charities, in some fashion or other. All of the weaknesses and foibles of fallible man are on full display.
It doesn’t matter: we have to do it anyway. We have to do it anyway, because otherwise vulnerable people will die, and we ARE our brother’s keeper. Our King in heaven has said so, and even though His charge is queer, and wasteful and practically hopeless given our idiocy and inconstancy, we still have to do it. We have the save the babies from death. It’s our moral duty. And that means not just death under the knife, but death from starvation, or freezing. That means money. And money means both private charity and public taxes. We can rage against God for making us so stupid and evil that we can’t do it efficiently, and for making men so weak that they keep having illict sex and spitting out babies. We can be mighty unhappy with the whole business: abortion comes about because of moral failings of men and women.
But we still have to save the babies and provide for them, because God said so, and he didn’t make it optional for us.
The only way OUT of that obligation is to not believe in God. In which case there is no argument against abortion. There also is no argument against torturing criminals to death in public for lurid entertainment, or harvesting prisoners for their organs. If there is no God, whatever the powerful want is the law, and the moral law doesn’t exist other than as a matter of opinion.
Welcome to FR.
“If it is our consciousness and self-awareness that make us human, wouldn’t murder be legal through toddlerhood, possibly beyond?”
Nope...wrong...you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Then you might as well close your account on FR cause you'll encounter it everywhere.
“From approximately 26 weeks since conception until several months after birth at 40 weeks, the only thing the child is doing is growing larger, without actually adding any new capabilities.”
I see we agree, after all...
Well, you can pay my share of the taxes to support those deadbeats.
Welfare sucks and needs to go.
This is a major triumph. And it vindicates Bush’s choices on Federal judgeships.
Anthony Kennedy is far from perfect, but it’s a mistake to label him a reliable member of the Court’s left wing.
BUMP for sanity, finally!
This is why I get sick and tired of hearing conservatives bash Bush.
Yes he spends too much money. Yes I wish he could use the bully pulpit and be more articulate.
But getting Roberts and Alito on the court will save peoples lives.
It just frosts me that so many prominent conservatives go on and on and on about how perfect Ronald Reagen was while ae the same time backing far away from GWBush. Reagen was a great one...but he ain’t perfect by any means....He appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy onto the court. That’s a big win for GWBush against Reagen when you compare their appointees.
I wish conservatives will start giving GWB the respect he deserves, especially when they all unanimously sing the praises of Reagen. Spending a bit too much pales into comparison to 2 bad supreme court appointments!
“GWB made the right choices.”
Hopefully, he’ll get to make another choice. If it’s appropariate, people of faith should pray for another voluntary vacancy.
We can fine tune the 'system' by imprisoning fathers who 'fail to provide', even reduce the comfort level of welfare recipients, but to the level where the child is hurt?
But as you state, we have to recognize that the goal of stopping abortion is going to cost via the increase of children whose parents want others to pick up the tab.
Guess we'll have to swallow hard and do it.
The anti-birth candidates Clinton, Obama and and pretty boy Edwards arent happy at all.....
No. YOU are wrong on this. By stating this, you are demonstrating your _lack_ of knowledge as to what Roe is about.
Harry Blackmun's opinion in Roe specifically broke a pregnancy into three "trimesters", and Roe acknowledges that the state has a increasing stake in the right to regulate abortion as a pregnancy progresses.
In the first trimester, Blackmun said the state has next to no interest.
By the second trimester, there are competing interests between state and the woman.
Roe specifically recognizes that by the third trimester, the fetus has developed to the point where the state now has sufficient interest in the developing life to regulate abortions.
Today's ruling does not threaten Roe.
Quite to the contrary, it actually reinforces it.
Bonus question (which I dare you to answer): who was the California governor who signed that state's first liberalized abortion law?
- John
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.