Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-34 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 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Outstanding! Thank you.
25 posted on 01/20/2003 7:09:57 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
ping
26 posted on 01/20/2003 7:10:12 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.
28 posted on 01/20/2003 8:53:05 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; rhema; frogsong; tatterdemalion
Thanks for the FYI.
29 posted on 01/20/2003 10:21:12 AM PST by Caleb1411
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
I've never heard that Johnson or Nixon were pro-abortion. Where is that explicit?
30 posted on 01/20/2003 4:16:45 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Excellent! Well said.
31 posted on 01/20/2003 6:29:25 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson