Penetrating Insights into the Obvious
He is truly satanic.
Pro-Life Ping
Don’t have the time to waste on this empty suit. Did the opinion contain words containing more than two syllables? (besides abortion, that is....)
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Good find. I’m sending it to my liberal “friend” who ran off and stuck me with a $65 lunch bill when I told him that Barak wrote no papers at Harvard or while teaching at the University of Chicago law school for three years. My “friend” is an extremely devout Catholic.
Proving once again that Obama supporters are idiots, and dishonest to boot.
Being unfamiliar with the how the Harvard Law Review works, is it normal protocol for writers NOT to sign off on their work ?
Since he didn't sign off on it, can't he simply deny the work ?
“In a discussion of abortion itself, Obama wrote that government has more important business than “ensuring that any particular fetus is born.”
“He is truly satanic.”
Truly satanic indeed! How could someone make such a cold and heartless statement? Abortion is America’s Holocaust and we should have a memorial for the 50 million+ precious and innocent children that have been slaughtered.
What issue #? Just great! Sigh.
(I'm trying to find it in our university's database)
His obsession with abortion makes me think he got some woman out there pregnant and she refused to get rid of it! I heard part of his “punishment” speech and I swear he said it was punishment on the boy too. He said it like it was an afterthought. It made me GASP!
As a typical leftist anything he wrote would almost certainly concern either abortion, the environment, homosexual “rights” or race. Or he might write something on “social justice” and hit all four as these subjects would constitute the bulk of any such essay with any left over blather being devoted to income redistribution. There isn’t much else that lefties are concerned with. Also note that the left’s preoccupation with disarming the nation has as its ultimate goal the redistribution of the monies “saved” into projects promoting abortion, the environment, homosexual “rights” and racial reparations in one form or another. That the U.S. might find itself under attack and retreating across the world is just an added bonus.
How could he have been the President of the Harvard Law Review and not have published at least one major work?
If he believes so strongly in abortion, why doesn’t he just abort himself?
Maybe deep down he wishes he had been aborted. He is one messed up dude!
What by killing them????
Oftentimes the handicapped have moments of pain and despair. The mentally ill live lives of pain and despair. The poor sometimes live lives of pain and despair. Should we kill all of them?
This is the most evil, self-serving argument for murder I have ever heard.
Indeed. Anyone this obsessed with abortion has to have a very evil mind.
Very evil.
The full title is:
Tort Law -- Prenatal Injuries -- Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against Its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries. -- Stallman v. Younquist 125 Ill. 2d 267, 531 N.E. 2d 355 (1988)I've printed it out and when I return home I'll scan it and post it if it hasn't been posted already.
What a ghoul. His soul is in peril.
What a ghoul. His soul is in peril.
Let’s see...he formed an opinion on this subject - when - while in law school. Ok...but at the Saddleback Q & A session he said that deciding when life begins was/is “not in his pay-grade.” So what pay-grade was he in while at Harvard law school? What a blithering bafoon this Barack character is.
Without the benefit of a clear constitutional pronouncement on these issues, the Stallman court rightly concluded that, at least in cases arising out of maternal negligence, women's interests in autonomy and privacy outweigh the dubious policy benefits of fetal-maternal tort suits. However, the more difficult cases -- those involving maternal activities that might be considered intentional or reckless infliction of prenatal injuries on the fetus -- remain to be decided. As these cases arise, states should avoid adopting constitutionally dubious laws in pursuit of ill-conceived strategies to promote fetal health. Expanded access to prenatal education and health care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born into lives of pain and despair.