Posted on 07/19/2008 5:08:23 PM PDT by Interposition
Perhaps they failed to express themselves very clearly. That ahppens.
“..and the baby has to be taken early, which sometimes results in his demise.”
That’s not an abortion, and health care workers will do all they can to save the baby in that case.
As Mrs. Don-o said, that is “double effect.” My husband taught that when he was an adjunct philosophy instructor.
Another example of “double effect” would be if a mother receives treatment for her cancer which causes her baby to die. The cancer treatment wasn’t to cause an abortion, but to save the mother’s life.
Some mothers do forgo treatments so that their baby will live. A waitess in my area had cancer, and didn’t receive chemo, and she died, but her baby lived. A brave woman who loved her preborn baby more than her own life.
That’s a tricky question; because Douglas Kmiec is a pro-life conservative Catholic law professor, who stated he is voting for Obama.[1] He served in both Reagan and the first Bush administrations and has testified in Congress against Roe v Wade and for expediting confirmation of judges. It was reported that he was denied communion over that grievous announcement. McCain isn’t any better than Obama. Kmiec could have said that he was going to abstain, or vote for himself; or kept his mouth shut about his evil plan to vote for Obama.
Many years ago, I thought McCain was one of the best the GOP had in the Senate; but over the years he has proven to be one of the worst Evilcrats. I’m forced to agree with Jim Robinson: “McCain is insane and there are many good reasons not to choose him, but I'll list just five: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, the Keating 5, and the Gang of 14. No thanks. McCain is out!” [2]
The following quote is only a sample of Jim Robinson’s elaborations on McCain-Feingold:[3] “John McCain, you treasonous bastard, I challenge you or any of your traitorous cohorts to find even one thread, one post, one paragraph, one sentence or even one lousy word posted to this web site that is not fully protected by the First Amendment! Your McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation is a treasonous act. You and your cohorts are attempting to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America, the very same constitution that you swore an oath to defend, so help you God! That makes you a domestic enemy of that great document and a traitor to your country. You miserable excuse for a two-bit political hack, you're not even qualified to shine Ronald Reagan's boots. It'll be a cold day in hell before a traitor like you ever receives my vote. You can take your fascist campaign finance laws and the jackbooted FEC anti-free-speech enforcers you are empowering and put them where the sun don't shine.”
Clearly, McCain is not a conservative. The best that could be said of McCain is that he is a bipartisan Obamacrat: “Attn McCain Apologists: Talk all you want! But he's still a constitution trampling RINO and unless he repeals McCain-Feingold, repudiates amnesty and global warming, drops all support for embryonic stem cell research and stops talking about partnering up with the Democrats and instead swears to fight the evil bastards he won't be getting my support. You kicked the conservatives to the curb and nominated your RINO, now all you gotta do is get him elected.”[4]
That’s more than enough reason for any sane conservative to avoid McCain. Conservatives don’t have a horse in this bipartisan race on the road to perdition. There really isn’t any need to mention that McCain voted for confirmation of Ginsberg and Breyer to the U.S. Supreme Court; because pro-lifers already know that McCain is the Republicans for Murder (Choice) second choice for President.[5] Ginsberg and Breyer prove the point that McCain will do more of the same as President, when vacancies arise on the court. It’s hard to imagine McCain appointing worse than Ginsberg and Breyer; but he has a proven capacity for “treasonous” bipartisanship; ‘“But certainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations,”’ said John McCain as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 20, 1999.”[6] The Republican National Coalition for Life confirms Jim Robinson’s observations: “John McCain supports abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest and is an outspoken supporter of embryonic stem cell research, having voted to extend federal funding for such experiments.” [7] The best that could be said about McCain’s position on life is that it no different than Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare.”
On the issue of life, McCain is a Clintoncrat; and on everything else, he is an Obamacrat. I guess conservatives could sell their consciences on e-bay, vote for McCain or Obama, then buy them back; because they both reek so bad that nose holding won’t do in this race. Bob Barr admitted that abortion is murder and immediately followed that comment with one assuring the reign of death during his administration. So, as far as the Presidential race is concerned, three political parties have anti-life / anti-American candidates. The focus should be on Congressional races in conservative partisan opposition to the evil triumvirate running for President.
[1] http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/06/06/news/news5.prt The story, first circulated among the Catholic community in online blogs and posts mid-May, was taken up by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. and National Public Radio this week
[2] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962819/posts January 31, 2008 | Jim Robinson
[3] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts March 22, 2006 11:58:42 PM by Jim Robinson
[4] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994885/posts Monday, March 31, 2008 11:57:22 PM by Jim Robinson
[5] http://www.republicansforchoice.com/ We do support Rudy Giuliani's contention that given the folks left in the race after Rudy's withdrawal, McCain would be the best one for the Republican nomination.
[6] http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2006/spring/ A Republican victory requires a committed, dedicated, pro-life, philosophical conservative standard-bearer, whose ideas strongly contrast with Hillary’s liberal/socialist world view. John McCain does not fit that description
And you forget that involuntary manslaughter can consist merely of “recklessness.” There need be no intent to hurt another for this to be found. And simply because this has not been found to date for this situation, it does not mean that the law can’t be interpreted to make this so, going forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
It wasn’t until the past century that abortion was “found” in our laws to be legal. Without a constitutional amendment that finally disallows only abortion, then the courts are left up to interpreting what they want from other cases and laws.
We either want someone who will interpret as they did originally, meaning abortion was never allowed based on original intent, or a constitutional amendment that stopped this new practice, in the absence of the Supreme Court overturning it based on some case.
As for prosecutors not wanting to go after a crime, they are required to do so, even if they don’t want to.
This is simply not true. The whole system --- cops and police chiefs, forensic investigators, prosecutors, grand juries, judges, etc. --- depends on the willingness to enforce, investigate, and prosecute, and on the practical setting of priorities. This means that some things are pursued with Inspector Jarvet-like relentlessness, and somethings are, by unspoken consensus, allowed to slide.
It's like the question of whether prostitutes are likely to be arrested on 6th Avenue, at the Star Lite Grill, at the State University Student Lounge, or in Church Square. It's all going to depend on a complaint being lodged, and that means that in some venues, either the working girls take care not to flagrantly attract offensive attention, and/or nobody gives a damn.
Bottom line: many laws are simply not priority for the system. And I repeat: nobody will investigate a miscarriage unless the woman has a traumatized cervix, an uncontrollable hemorrhage, or a septic womb.
Do you really want your policy on abortion extended to other issues?
In the final analysis only the murderer can prevent murder, not the Constitution nor the politician
In the final analysis only the child molester can prevent molestation, not the Constitution nor the politician
In the final analysis only the arsonist can prevent arson, not the Constitution nor the politician
Anti-terrorism should not be a political issue
On the other hand, you reinforce a proven point made centuries ago: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[i]
[i] http://www.wallbuilders.com:80/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63 (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
We want to change the culture and “the laws” but it seems to only get worse.
3.Now public schools are lost.
4.NO CATHOLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM that I have looked at teaches in any serious way what the Church itself has taught since the time of the Apostles on the sanctity of the life of the PreBorn. I’ve looked into many Protestant school systems and found the same thing. Catholic and Protestant schools could have turned this culture around if they would have begun comprehensive Pro-Life education Pre-K through 12th grade. But I’ve found only a handful nationwide.
I’ve spent many years making this very program and it’s free at my website. Sadly, i’ve visited many school systems with no real success.
Unless and until a sizable number of future voters are steeped in the Traditional Christian teachings on the sanctity of life marriage and family we will not win.
I go into more depth on this in THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT with links to my free Respect Life curriculum which you can use at home or bring to your school and try having it used there. If you do I’d appreciate feedback.
Those are excellent points of light. The following only addresses the first three points of light.
It is far more difficult to persuade pro-lifers to believe the Constitutional text than it is to get pro-murderers to convert to pro-life. They have been led to believe that text is beyond comprehension; because no matter how many times they read it, it hardly matches court majority opinion. Obviously, the demigods in black robes must be geniuses; and anyone disagreeing with majority opinion is a dolt. Pro-lifers are weary of the anti-abortion stigma, and have no desire to bear the additional burden of illiteracy.
The link in point #1 is most informative. It contains several salient points. Rehnquist stated, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate with respect to this matter [i.e., abortion]." Every pro-lifer should be in agreement with Rehnquist; because the documentation noted in post one of this thread removes all reasonable doubt about Rehnquist’s statement. This fact has been well known for decades; but politicians fail to act upon it. Their failure to act is caused by pro-life’s failure to demand action!
Consider what these judges are telling the President, Congress and each State in the link you posted:
Justice White stated that "this issue [i.e., abortion], for the most part, should be left with the people and the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."
In his brief dissent in Carhart, Justice Scalia stated that "the Court should return this matter to the people—where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it—and let them decide, state by state, whether this practice should be allowed."
And in dissenting from the Court’s decision to strike down the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas once more urged that the issue of abortion be returned to the states.
On post 21 of this thread, Dan Middleton quoted his late uncle: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” The Tenth Amendment is the pro-life Amendment for the 30 states with unenforced abortion laws. [1] cpforlife.org made a very good point elsewhere: The perfect demand all or nothing at all. It’s every state or no state. Obviously, that’s not a good idea. In fact, it is antithetical to one of Free Republics stated mission goals on the About Free Republic webpage: “The preservation and complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments and, of course, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- free of government intervention….A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues.” Jim Robinson hasn’t given up on the Constitution. They are not just a jumble of meaningless words. They were written in a day when “the pen was mightier than the sword.” When that is no longer true, you have Mao’s dictum: “Power flows through the barrel of a gun." The day when a gun has to do the job that words once did is point of no return for a nation. One way to hasten the transition from Penn to Mao is to continue disregarding those words millions have died for.
Another objection is that women would just cross state lines, until they arrived in a murder state. Does the fact that they will obtain them in another country, or illegally in this country after passing an amendment preclude the argument for an amendment? There is an underlying, unstated theme that ties objections of this nature together. Vote for the smiley face whose anti-Constitutional actions contradict their pro-life rhetoric; because that’s what we have always done. They have told us that the only options are amendment or appointment of federal judges; and to keep voting for them. And don't forget to work on that culture while you are promoting us for office.
36 states have fetal homicide laws based on the same facts that abortion is murder! Why do pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge this? Why do they refuse to acknowledge that the liar, Blackmum, lied about the inability to discover the onset of life?[2] Why do they refuse to acknowledge that a court opinion repugnant to the Constitution is VOID? Why do they disregard the fact that the paramount duty of state government is includes the protection of human life? Why to they reject the fact that state officials take an oath to the Constitution, not a court’s opinion of it. Why do they refuse to acknowledge that nullification of a state´s properly promulgated laws is specifically delineated as an offense committed by King George against the states, for which separation became necessary via The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
Point #2 only applies to the minority of states without abortion laws. Education is overflowing out of every bodily orifice in the majority of states; else they would not have fetal homicide laws and unenforced laws against abortion. The problem is a lack of Constitutional WILL POWER. The reason the situation is getting worse must be blamed on voters electing politicians who refuse to abide by their oath of Office. If education has any part to play, it must focus on the pro-life electorate’s susceptibility to the lie that politicians must kowtow to an errant court.[3] BUSH proved that to be LIE![4] Lincoln proved it to be a LIE. Jackson proved it to be a LIE! Why do pro-lifers refuse to follow their lead to the simple Constitutional truth? "In questions of power, then," Jefferson declared in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution, "let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Further, "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of powers which that instrument gives."[5]
Point #3 Christians should have anathematized those pagan temples and forced Reagan to live up to his promise to abolish the Dept of Cultural Transformation via Pagan Indoctrination. [6] They sowed to this wicked institution; and the reaping will be in the weeping after this election. This is the point that may have already put this nation in a position where tyranny will experience little to no resistance.
You can not beat something with nothing in the political arena; but pro-lifers have entered that arena decade after decade thinking they can. How many take a copy of the Constitution with them so they can refute the idiot opinions against it. Politicians need to be interrogated about the Constitution. The instant they start quoting some opinion contrary to the Supreme law of the land, they should be politely told to wise up, or take a very long walk off a very short pier. If the electorate never does this, it's not going to magically happen.
[1] http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=236 Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby August 01, 2004
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Who-Chooses-American-Reproductive-History/dp/0813031990 In 1860, the American Medical Association launched a campaign to convince state legislatures to prohibit abortions. RESOLVED, That, while physicians have long been united in condemning the procuring of abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child, it has become the duty of this Association, in view of the prevalence and increasing frequency of the crime publicly to enter an earnest and solemn protest against such unwarrantable destruction of human life. Source: Records of the Rhode Island Medical Society, Rhode Island Medical Society Library, Providence, Rhode Island http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=gestation&use1828=on Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition: GESTATION,n. [L. gestatio, from gero, to carry.] The act of carrying young in the womb from conception to delivery; pregnancy.
[3] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290860/posts KRAMER ENDS THE BOOK with a call for ordinary citizens to "lay claim to the Constitution ourselves." He suggests that we must censure judges rather than submissively yielding to whatever the Supreme Court decides. As for more concrete actions, Kramer does note that judges can be impeached, the Court's budget cut, and the Court's jurisdiction curtailed. But, unfortunately, he spends little time developing these themes. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/JudicialSupremacy.pdf The Founding Fathers never meant to give federal courts ultimate power. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=1464 Five Judicial Myths : Talking Points About the Judiciary:Despite what we hear today . .
[4] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”
[5] http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1138 Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution: Jeffersons View By Clarence B. Carson. Who, then, does decide constitutional questions? Let us leave to the side for the moment how they may be ultimately decided, so far as they ever are, in order to get to Jefferson’s intermediate answer. So far as the Federal government is concerned, each of the branches—and in the Congress, each of the houses—decides for itself in matters that come before them. “The constitution has,” Jefferson pointed out, “wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”[16] What I have been describing is a system of checks and balances, a system in which no branch has a monopoly of interpretation, in which any branch with a will can work to restrain the others. It is a system of limited government, limited toward the branch which most strictly construes the Constitution. Jefferson hoped that clashes between the branches over the Constitution could be avoided. To that end, he recommended that each branch refrain from approaching too near to the bounds of its powers. That would tend to limit government even more and give room for the liberty of the people, which he thought was the greater end of government.
[6] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41802 The federal Department of Education was made a part of the president's Cabinet by new world order facilitator Jimmy Carter. Prior to that, America had the finest education system in the world. In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised that, if elected, he would get this unconstitutional department abolished. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html Cultural Marxism
I really appreciate your numerous, accurate posts on this thread:
Your post #76 about "double effect" should help many folk. It seems self-evident; but a few need the concept illustrated in an analogy they can relate to. And even then, they need time to think it over. The difficulty seems related to a hands-off God’s Will policy, where both must share life or death. They think "double effect" is related to situational ethics; and in a moment of crisis, make a regretful decision.
Your post #77 about the A.M.A work was referenced in post #88, note 2 on this thread.
And your post #79 “in ventre sa mere” has a pro-life article with that phrase in the title. 1
The candid citizen must admit your lifesaving & mind-changing posts are pro bono publico! May your tribe increase exponentially and your opposition convert, or decrease by the same order of magnitude.
1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51345 The unalienable right to life in ventre sa mere "An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes." – Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England," Vol. I, p. 126 (1765)
I appreciate your mother-and-baby-loving heart.
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.