Posted on 05/16/2019 8:43:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 05/16/2019 8:58:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Robertson is concerned with forcing the mother, the victim of a forced pregnancy ( rape or incest ), to raise a child she never wanted in the first place. I think that was his rationale for speaking out.
It’s also a red herring. If you allow abortion in cases of rape, suddenly the number of “reported” rapes will go up significantly, if you get my drift.
RE: He said, as he does frequently, that Roe vs. Wade was bad law and needs to be overturned.
OK, if it is bad law, how is it to be overturned? He does not say. Isn’t what Alabama did one way of overturning it? That is — A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE?
That is what the Supreme Court should have decided in Roe v. Wade instead of imposing abortion legalization on the whole country.
Robertson is very vague here. All he has done is provided ammo for the liberals with his remark.
Don’t get your hopes up.
The inflexibility of the law almost guarantees it will be overturned.
Even murders have more flexibility than this law does.
Thank you!!!
“for the life of the mother”
Apparently today these cases are negligible anyway, to where it becomes a needless distraction to the argument, or a gateway to defeating the whole pro-life argument.
Apparently today these cases are negligible anyway, to where it becomes a needless distraction to the argument, or a gateway to defeating the whole pro-life argument.
It could be dangerous to the mothers mental health, or a disaster to her financial health but very rarely is pregnancy dangerous to the mother’s physical health. The doctor can always state this as a way to make it legal.
So Pat believes the baby is guilty with rape or incest.
The cheese slid off his cracker years ago.
Since when were all incest pregnancies "forced"? I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them are consensual. This whole "incest" exception is a red herring.
He must need to expand his donor base.
There is this thing, it’s called “adoption.”
What I don’t understand is why mothers who have abortions aren’t being charged with murder and given the death penalty.
Glad to know he has some rules when baby murder is okay and when its not.
A fetus is never an unjust aggressor. A fetus is never “no longer innocent”.
Bingo. And Pat should realize that. If he has dementia that doesn’t allow him to realize that, he shouldn’t be on the air spouting stuff.
A fetus is never an unjust aggressor. A fetus is never “no longer innocent”.
But, honestly, the main core of my comment is that the reason it is sacrificed for the mother is that if it is not, they BOTH die. That’s all. And that kind of decision is prudent. It’s better than taking some sort of religiously fanatical view that when it is obvious that the baby will die if you abort it, but if you don’t the baby and mother will both die - you still can’t abort it.
My problem with this bill is that it is more likely to be swatted down by the Supreme Court - thus SUPPORTING abortion - than a more moderate bill.
There are 4 justices who will absolutely vote for any & all abortions being legal. Roberts & Kavanaugh will seek compromise on a moderate bill but who are very likely to deny a more extreme bill. The only justice I trust I Thomas.
The Constitution is very straightforward on abortion. It isn’t mentioned and therefor is an issue for states to decide. But there is only on justice who I trust to vote that way.
Mr. Robertson, I declare thee RINO!
— rhinohunter
Agreed.
If the AL law were to come before the SC today, these are the odds I would give on each Justice allowing it to stand:
Thomas 100%
Alito 70%
Gorsuch 50%
Kavanaugh 25%
Roberts 10%
Breyer 0%
Sotomayor 0%
Kagan 0%
RBG 0%
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.