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 ...
No. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You asserted that it is our consciousness and self-awareness that make us human--those are your words.
What are we before we are conscious? before we are self-aware?
What about the brain-damaged individual who may achieve physical consciousness but never attains a sense of self? Are they ever human? It seems to me that your criteria for what makes us humans is incredibly vague. Maybe that's just something we'll never agree on, because I abhor vague.
I sure hope I've made it perfectly clear that those are not my views.
I know where you stand now, td--I actually want to thank you for admitting that you're a social liberal. I can get back to my life now.
FINALLY!
“So very true.”
Finally after a half a dozen replies from Rudybots telling me I’m wrong, someone who agrees.
Prayers for the unborn.
Fred Dalton Thompson
This is really wonderful news.
:) Thank you.
“Fred Dalton Thompson”
Bumper sticker already on the family car.
Since it’s a human, it is homicide. Kill a human, and you’ve got homicide.
There’s the justifiable kind and the non-justifiable kind. The first incurs no penalty, the 2nd requires some action.
Who cares if it's her desire to abort. Lots of people have desires to do lots of things and it's not society's job to pick up the tab on those things. It's their baby, not mine. They pay for it.
Abortion is allowed and those deadbeats are still having babies because it pays to have more kids. They don't feed or take care of them. Those kids roam the streets dirty, hungry, underdressed and unsupervized while the tramp mothers are inside drinking, doing drugs, or doing tricks.
It's not my responsibility to take care of a bunch of lazy good for nothings because they won't grow up, get off their butts, and go out and earn a real living.
Welfare just encourages dependency. These teenaged girls want to get out from under their irresponible parent(s) thumbs so they go out and get pregnant so the DSS will put them on welfare, provide them with an apartment and a welfare check. They don't finish high school and so become another leech on society thinking they deserve handouts because that's the way they were rasied and that's the way they're going to raise their kids.
They are some of the most arrogant, self-rigtheous, martyr complex people I've ever met. I have yet to see an exception to this rule and I lived in a welfare town for 18 looooong years. I saw it all.
Welfare is a curse on society and the family. It needs to go and using it as an excuse to promote abotion is dispicable.
Those *parents* don’t feed those kids anyway. If it weren’t for free breakfast and lunch deals at the schools, some of those kids would hardly eat. I knew these families and fed their kids. Those kids talked to me and told me things I didn’t dream of. It’s not the money.
As for asking for opinions, if JimRob or any other member of the FR staff personally asked you to come to FR and promote the murder of small children, please go ahead and forward me that message via freepmail.
The criteria for what determines “value” among the human species has changed throughout history, depending upon who is in charge. Slavery is an example, once perfectly legal in this country and throughout the world. Also, every atrocity that was perpetrated by the Nazi’s was done legally through their court system. As other posters have pointed out, genocide's have occurred throughout history and the world, each group believing it “justifiable”.
From a philosophical and moral standpoint, either all human life has value, even in the womb, or no human life has value, but is dependent on “circumstance”.
You miss the point here. In Roe the SCOTUS used the Constitution as a pretext to make abortion an unassailable federal constitutional right. Here there is plenty of actual authority for Congress to pass the PBA ban.
Furthermore, if Roe is overruled, Congress should have authority to proscribe abortion under section 5 of the 14th Amendment. It is also possible that SCOTUS could hold that states may not allow abortion since the 14th Amendment states that "no state shall . . . deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To me, if a state proscribes the murder of its born persons, and fails to do the same for its unborn persons, then it has violated the equal protection clause.
Don't kid yourself. This is not purely a state issue. There are plenty of textual grounds in our Constitution for the federal government to delve into this area. It just happens that Roe was an illegitimate use of judicial authority, thereby creating the big mess (and holocaust) we have today.
It didn't make any difference in my response, Jeff.
What you said was inexcusable. Not to mention stupid......
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Yes this is wonderful news! Thank God! Thank you, President Bush! Now let the abortionists who do this infanticide be arrested and jailed if they do one more partial birth abortions!
Yes. Thanks be to God.
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.