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 ...
Big *If*.
We are human because of our DNA. Human egg and human sperm = human being.
Cells growing and dividing= life.
Stopping that life at any stage is murdering a human being.
Consciousness and self-awareness are arbitrary criteria in determining humanness, as is age.
The only reason that anyone would even want to question the humanity of the unborn baby is so that they can do as they wish with that child without (supposedly) fear of moral or legal consequences. If it's not *human*, then it's not murder and our conscience is clear. Except that it is human.
If someone did to a three year old what is done to those babies during an abortion, cutting them limb from limb, burning them to death in a chemical solution, sucking them apart, they would be considered a heinous, sub human monster with no conscience that would be deserving of the death penalty. Yet doctors can do it in the safety and security of an abortion clinic every day and they are protected. Except when they botch the abortion and the victim is born alive, then they can be sued.
So this is what you're in favor of?
Development isn’t a deciding factor because children develop both in and out of the womb.
Keep spinning though.
Just excerpting your excellent post.
You have spelled out the political and economic realities of abortion in America as clearly as I have ever seen. Kudos.
- John
take the house down...door jam by door jam, plank by plank...
“Well, you can pay my share of the taxes to support those deadbeats.”
The babies who are born to the deadbeats because we have outlawed abortion?
No, you’re going to have to chip in to pay for them too, I’m afraid. There’s no getting out of it. Outlawing abortion is going to be expensive. Our taxes will go up. They will have to, because the alternative would be to let the unwanted kids starve from neglect (it’s not like they can go get a job, and their mothers were irresponsible enough to get pregnant but were going to relieve us of the economic burden by aborting the baby. We made her have the baby by our law preventing her from aborting.) Also, all the crippled kids will be born, and our Medicaid costs will go way up. It’s just the way it is. The alternative will be to let these kids suffer and ultimately die for want of resources, and if we’re going to do THAT then abortion is far for moerciful than letting them be born and then turning way from their perpetual physical needs as they grow up. If we as a society override the mother’s desire to abort the child, then we, as a society, are going to have be ready to pick up the tab.
Wow, liberalism at it’s finest.
If they quit the handouts and paying by the baby, the birth rate would go down. If being married were a plus instead of a hinderance when it comes to paying taxes, the same would happen and these women would not be having children who are *starving*.
Let them learn to be responsible. The system doesn’t encourage it and as long as it’s in place, these people will not do anything to better themselves.
It’s a pretty sad way to justify abortion.
“So the 22 week old *object* that is delivered and put in NICU is what then? Is it a baby? Is it a *fetus*? Is it human or not?”
22-week preemies surviving outside the womb are exceedingly rare, even with modern medical technology. I did see a story about a 21-week preemie who survived for a year, albeit after experiencing severe problems. It was a black baby. Apparently, black preemies have a much better chance of survival than white preemies...something I find interesting..blacks develop faster in the womb, apparently. Although we make medical laws based on the average and not the 1 in a million miracle, I would not object to immediately moving the cutoff back to 18-20 weeks and perhaps further as medical science progresses. Of course, this leads us down the path of eventually reaching the point where a human mother’s womb is no longer necessary. We’ll be able to grow fetuses in artificial wombs...cloning...eugenics...made-to-order babies...The Island. That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms right there...
It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve posted soemthing to the wrong poster. Dehumanizing the alive unborn via location or developmental age is offensive to me. I tend to be rather ardent in my speaking out for the little ones.
We do not agree, but that was a good try to do what you defenders of this holocaust do so well, defend the evil you want to be legal.
They just can’t understand why we wont ride off the cliff with them.
Naah, I have been lurking FR for many years. I know exactly where it rears its head and where it does not. I happen to be quite happy with the SCOTUS recent ruling so naturally, I am going to want to scan reactions here. After all, Heebie Jeebies don’t last long — just a quick shudder and it’s over with.
Rudy Giuliani is a fiscal conservative...I am a fiscal conservative.
Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal...I am a social liberal.
Seems to be a good match, except I can’t get past his anti-gun stance.
Guns and the 2nd Amendment is MY hot-button issue.
It also reaffirms how important appointees to the Supreme Court really are. I'm so glad so many of us fught so hard to get Harriet Miers removed. We might not have won this one.
It is a major triumph, no doubt about it. : ) : )
This didn’t happen because of John G. Roberts, William Rehnquist would have made the same decision.
This happened because of Samuel Alito taking over Sandra Day O’Connor’s spot and because of conservatives who stood up and fought for a conservative pick when Bush picked Miers and stood up and fought for Alito when Bush gave us that conservative pick. A great day.
Like my mother always said, "I don't care what your friend's parents allow them to do; you're not doing it."
These dissenters are heartless ghouls. It's unconscionable to murder a viable child by crushing its brains out. Sounds like the ritual sacrifices of the ancient Aztecs.
This, of course, is fallacy. While I am well prepared to pay more taxes to stop the killing of unborn babies, overriding a mothers desire to murder her baby does not free her or the father for responsibility for taking care of that baby until the age of maturity.
You are far too willing to except socialism rather than embrace personal responsibility. To tell the truth, I don't get it Vicomte.
To limit abortion is to place responsibility on the Mom and Dad, not for you to gladly accept it on everybody elses behalf.
Where does it say in the constitution you can kill babies?
I believe you're right. It wasn't just the fact that Miers was unqualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, but it was her lack of demonstrated positions, rulings and interpretations on important issues. I did not feel confident that she was pro-life. I'm glad we fought the good fight and got Alito in there instead of Miers. He is a much more solid Justice than she ever would have been.
Will your unscientific definition of human life change when medical technology changes and the unborn child can survive outside of the womb at 20 weeks? Then 16 weeks? Etc.? The fact of the matter is that the scientific definition of human life demonstrates that an unborn child is a human life shortly after conception. You're the one who claimed to use the scientific definition - now use it.
Nope. It’s reality at its worst.
You say “If they quit the handouts and paying by the baby, the birth rate would go down.” That’s true, but it is an incomplete thought. The birth rate would go down, BUT NOT TO ZERO. It would decline, but there would still be a lot of babies born. Remember, we are not talking about abolishing abortion here, so the babies we would be saving would be ones that are not born right now.
Anyway, let’s cut to the chase: quit the welfare and the birth rate will probably drop, but not to zero. There are CURRENTLY no women or children starving in the USA BECAUSE OF the handouts. Quit the handouts, and there WILL BE women and children starving in the US. That is a guarantee. Yes, the starving women and children will be a deterrent to other women having children out of wedlock, but by no means a COMPLETE deterrent. Look at India. Look at Bangladesh. Look at Latin American or African cities. Children DO starve in those places, but a certain substantial number of poor and irresponsible women spit out babies anyway.
That’s just reality. It cannot be changed or willed away.
To cut off the payments means to cut off the means of sustenance of a certain number of women and children, condemning them to die in our midst of hunger. That is not Christian. We cannot do it. It goes too far. There comes a point where, like it or not, our basic morality and ethical belief system COMPELS us to provide assistance to people EVEN THOUGH it is subsidizing immoral and irresponsible behavior (to a degree - it’s still no prize to be on welfare and in the Projects, and few people with other options will choose that; having welfare for the past 50 years has not converted a large portion of the population to welfare cases, because welfare is sustenance. It’s not comfortable.).
You say “let them learn to be responsible”. The babies? The babies of the irresponsible mothers cannot learn anything for many years. They can’t work. They cannot do ANYTHING for themselves at all. They are dependents. If we abolish abortion, there will be more such babies. And if we cut off the aid, a certain number of them will starve because their mothers are idiots, drug addicts, mentally deranged, etc. That’s what cutting off the aid means, in the final analysis.
And we cannot do that. We simply cannot do it. It is immoral and wrong, and Americans won’t vote for it in numbers to keep it viable, precisely because it is unChristian. There comes a point where you have to support people who don’t deserve it, because there are other innocent young people dependent on them, and in the final analysis we are Christians, we are not barbarians, we don’t have to let irresponsible people live in the lap of luxury or have any of the finer things in life, but we absolutely cannot let them starve. And that means social welfare. And it is not liberal at all. It as old as the Ten Commandments, and the command to do it is contained in the same book.
We cannot lay aside that duty. We have to buck up and do it. And if we abolish abortion, we’ll have to do a lot more of it. That’s just the way it is, like gravity.
My view is that we have to abolish abortion to save the babies, and then we have to pay for the additional welfare to raise them. It’s expensive and it’s too bad. We can concentrate education and other efforts to try and break that cycle, but we can neither allow the abortions, morally, nor cut off the food.
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.