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

To: fortheDeclaration
fortheDeclaration:

"I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved."

______________________________________


Strictly speaking, homicide is a state issue, isn't it?
40 Eastbound

______________________________________


No, because it is denying someone of their life, hence it takes on a Federal aspect.

The punishments may differ, but the taking of an innocent life must be viewed as a crime.
The States cannot legalize it.
44 ftD


______________________________________


Murder is tried in State courts, & guilt is decided by juries, not legislative decrees declaring that abortion is murder.

You say, "IF life is involved". -- Exactly the point. A fertilized human egg is alive. It is not yet a person, a 'life'.
Later in pregnancy the State becomes involved in protecting that soon to be persons life. -- But not at conception.
That is the point of Roe v Wade, as I'm sure you know. It's a State issue.
47 posted on 10/28/2004 10:31:40 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Murder is tried in State courts, & guilt is decided by juries, not legislative decrees declaring that abortion is murder. You say, "IF life is involved". -- Exactly the point. A fertilized human egg is alive. It is not yet a person, a 'life'. Later in pregnancy the State becomes involved in protecting that soon to be persons life. -- But not at conception. That is the point of Roe v Wade, as I'm sure you know. It's a State issue.

The point I was making was that if it could be proven that life began at conception then the Federal gov't would have an obligation to defend it.

What they did in Roe vs Wade was deal with life on the premise of viability, could it survive by itself.

Hence, the first 3 months unlimited abortions were allowed.

After that, they were to be more restrictive based on other factors (life of the mother)

Never were they to be totally free as the pro-abortion movement would have us believe.

Now, Roe vs Wade may have been as bad a decision as the Dred Scott decision which stated that the slave was a non-person.

The point is that no state can ignore murder as a crime.

If the state of Texas stated that it was ópen season'on people with red hair and if anyone committed a crime against them, the state would not prosecute them, then the federal gov't would be obligated to step in.

While judically the states handle the crimes, the 'right'of life is protected by the Federal gov't insuring every state and local gov't protects it equally.

If the Federal gov't itself rejected this principle then the people would be justified in overthrowing that Federal gov't as being at war with the principles of the Declaration

55 posted on 10/29/2004 12:46:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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