|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
that 1973 judicial determination was an affront to humanity, a legal travesty, a distortion of the Constitution surpassing in sheer injustice even the Dred Scott decision of 1857 |
By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) REHNQUIST, dissenting.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. 1 While many States have amended or updated [410 U.S. 113, 176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. 2 Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [410 U.S. 113, 177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.
The Origin and Scope of Roe -- Professor Douglas W. Kmiec presents letters and records of correspondence between members of the Roe court that reveal questionable motivations as well as a fundamental disrespect for normal principles of judicial restraint.
every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword"—whether some yet worse retribution will be exacted of our country by a righteous God righteously stirred at the murder of unborn children in their millions. |
Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)
overthrow of Roe v. Wade, whether by constitutional amendment or by wise judicial appointments |
[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.
(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.)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life. (Introduced in House)
HJ 20 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 20
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Ms. HART, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of final passage of this joint resolution:
`SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the word `person' as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development.
`SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.
`SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.
Ñ Ñ Ñ
|
It is not to slight the propriety of any of those responses, therefore, that we declare Roe v. Wade to be more a symptom of our crisis than its cause. |
Why Abortion Isn’t Important And we must come to the realization that when a society has reached a state in which abortion and other attacks on life are not only tolerated; not only legalized; not only accepted as normal; but are positively embraced by millions of people as the very solution to what ails that society—then we must realize that something has not only gone seriously wrong, but went wrong a long time ago, long before the Sixties, long before any of us was alive.
We need to understand that the anti-life movement is a secondary cancer, a metastasis of a primary tumour that began to grow when the West began to lose its religious sensibilities, its sense of communal obligation, its norms of respect and due deference for the elderly, the wise, the experienced, those who govern in our name, its standards of gentility and politeness, when people began twistedly to interpret manners as hypocrisy, noblesse oblige as exploitation, civic duty as state oppression, state patronage as a human right, love of neighbour as poking one’s nose into the business of others, hypocrisy as the greatest vice of all (to which I reply—better double standards than no standards), and proper autonomy as the right to do as one pleases.
The primary cancer is as deep as it is old, and it is almost certainly terminal.
Our culture, compulsively and even morbidly preoccupied with the here-and-now, is deliberately moribund, depriving itself of anything to look forward to. This truth is lucidly indicated by the disastrously low birthrates in this country (and in the West generally). |
Western values under assault Western values are by no means secure. They're under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement; they want to halt progress in the name of protecting the environment. As such, they pose a much greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist or rogue nation. Multiculturalism and diversity are a cancer on our society, and, ironically, with our tax dollars and charitable donations, we're feeding it.
The Multicultural Theocracy: An Interview With Paul Gottfried
What are the prospects for containing or rolling back the multicultural theocracy?
Note I do not think these battles will solve long-term problems; unless Western peoples start having families again, the social unit and population base needed for a civilization will be lacking.
While societies can assimilate, there are three presuppositions that must obtain: a core population that carries a distinctive culture that it hopes to preserve; a minority that is accepted on the condition that it eagerly embraces that majority culture; and a sufficiently controlled immigration so that assimilation is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Up until and including the part about how reversing Roe v. Wade won't stop most abortions, the OP is mostly on target. But by the time it gets to the stuff in italics above, they're way off the deep end. You know, bin Laden also says it's terminal.
Personally, I think ours is still a country to be proud of.
But, of course, they were "on the right side of history." Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter--four pro-abortion Presidents in a row before Reagan--the first explicitly pro-life President. And even Reagan didn't ACT on the words he wrote in "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." Reagan SAID that Roe was a bogus "interpretation" of the Constitution, and he even quoted Lincoln, saying that the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to set policy for the nation, only the power to decide cases that come before it. But he didn't ACT, as President, as though he really believed Roe was a nullity.
When we can elect a President who will say that Roe is a nullity, and ACT as though it is a nullity, and put pressure on the governors to nullify it, we will be making progress.
:
