Skip to comments.
The Roots of Roe v. Wade
Touchstone ^
| JAN 2003
| Patrick Henry Reardon
Posted on 01/18/2003 8:48:29 PM PST by Remedy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: Arthur McGowan; Congressman Billybob; jwalsh07; Victoria Delsoul; Alamo-Girl; Remedy; toenail; ...
There s another way to void the Roe and Doe cases. By bringing a separate case addressing the issue of protection for an individual human life on life support, a decision could be rendered that would set new precedent. With fetal tissue harvesting and that harvesting occurring without proof of death of the fetus --as is the current practice in 'clinics' such as the body parts market operated by Tiller the serial killer, the potential is ripe for a paradigm shift. When body parts are harvested from adult individual humans, a certificate of death must be rendered. With the fetal tissue market no such certification is issued, establishing on the face of it the disenfranchisement of an entire class of alive indivdual human beings.
21
posted on
01/20/2003 6:56:13 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Manama na, meep meep maneemie, manama na, meep mee menie ...)
To: Steve Eisenberg; wita; betty boop; Caleb1411
Ping
22
posted on
01/20/2003 6:59:11 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Manama na, meep meep maneemie, manama na, meep mee menie ...)
To: Master Zinja
Ping
23
posted on
01/20/2003 7:01:45 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Manama na, meep meep maneemie, manama na, meep mee menie ...)
To: MHGinTN
The exploitation of individual human life in the embryonic stage and pre-born stage is an ominous wrong on the verge of consuming our remaining righteousness as a nation that began on principles espoused in our founding documents beyond any in the history of civilization, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as sovereigns of a representative form of government. |
Federalism: Reconciling National Values with States' Rights and Local Control in the 21st Century A constitutional principle without an actual constituency to back it up will soon crumble.
If we do not make this transition, in my honest and fearful opinion, this nation will not stand much longer. |
Death as Deliverance: Euthanatic Thinking in Germany ca. 1890-1933 Writing in 1989, the late Cardinal John O'Connor of New York City, an ardent pro-life advocate, predicted that euthanasia would "dwarf the abortion phenomenon in magnitude, in numbers, in horror."
24
posted on
01/20/2003 7:04:48 AM PST
by
Remedy
To: Remedy
Outstanding! Thank you.
To: nickcarraway
ping
To: Arthur McGowan
Not being a professional student of the supreme court, I will plead ignorance on your statement of "the supreme court can't reverse a past decision". If the facts come to light, that a decision was based on improper arguments, or outright falsehood, it stands to reason, that a decision must be able to be reversed else what does the court stand for? Rhetorical question, not designed to bring out humorous comments vis-a-vis the court.
27
posted on
01/20/2003 7:19:18 AM PST
by
wita
To: wita
The Supreme Court, precisely because it is a court, cannot act on its own initiative. What I meant was that the Court could not, tomorrow, simply announce that it wants to reverse a past decision. Neither would it ever announce how it is going to decide some future case--because how would you like to go before a judge who had already announced that he knew how he wanted your case to come out? What the Court CAN do is accept some future abortion case, and decide that case on the basis of the principle that there is no right to kill babies in the womb.
To: MHGinTN; rhema; frogsong; tatterdemalion
Thanks for the FYI.
To: Arthur McGowan
I've never heard that Johnson or Nixon were pro-abortion. Where is that explicit?
To: MHGinTN
Excellent! Well said.
To: don-o
Ping
32
posted on
01/20/2003 6:45:09 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Manama na, meep meep maneemie, manama na, meep mee menie ...)
To: Arthur McGowan
and decide that case on the basis of the principle that there is no right to kill babies in the womb.Thus in effect nullifying and or reversing the original decision, but only for that one case, and that is my problem or one of them with the way the court has positioned itself over the years, not as a judge of the law but in many cases, a maker of law, by virtue of it's interpretation.
I think what I would like to see the court do, if they can't see their way clear to nullify, than to at least apologize for keeping in effect a law they made, by unconstitutional means, which was made clearly based on false testimony as we have the retraction of that testimony in hand, and the court has never sought to hear the case after the retraction.
And as you have not quite said, "not in a million, zillion, years will we ever hear such an apology, but if we do we will know the court is on the right track.
33
posted on
01/21/2003 7:36:50 AM PST
by
wita
To: Aquinasfan; CSM
Bump to a link on the questions you've posed.
34
posted on
01/30/2004 8:24:51 AM PST
by
Solson
(Our work is the presentation of our capabilities. - Von Goethe)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson