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

Skip to comments.

The Fallacy and Sheer Stupidity of Roe Vs Wade -- Case in point, Scott Peterson
Abortions -- The Truth ^ | 11-20-04 | Frank Joseph, M.D.

Posted on 11/22/2004 4:34:23 PM PST by cpforlife.org

Scott Peterson has been found guilty on two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci and unborn son, Conner.

Because of California's fetal homicide law, Scott Peterson was convicted of a double Homicide. This is driving Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League and NOW (National Organization of Women) absolutely batty.

How could this be possible, they lament, since it is lawful to kill unborn children right up to term?

I certainly can understand their plight, but I must say that I am relishing in it. They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, that killing a child in the womb would be perfectly legal right up to term.

So, how could Scott Peterson be charged with a double homicide, if the unborn child was not a human being?

Well, it seems that the only way a person could kill an unborn child and get off scott (pardon the pun) free is if the killing is done by licensed physician, as long as the woman gives her permission.

In trying to figure this thing out, the only conclusion that I can arrive at, is that the unborn child is not a human being if the mother wants her child dead, BUT if third party kills the child without permission from the mother, then and only then is the child a human being.

Now, let me see if I have this right. An unborn child is a human being and entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if killed, the perpetrator should have the book thrown at him, as in the Peterson case.

But if the mother has her unborn child killed because the child would be an inconvenience to her, then that child is no longer a human being.

Wow! This is news, a transfiguration right before our very eyes. Now a child -- Now not a child -- just nothing.

As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court in 1973 opened up a can of worms because their decision was not based on the Constitution and not based on science. It was based on the warped minds of seven justices and from what I have read, a few of their wives.

In the majority opinion it was stated (the vote was 7 to 2) that no one knows when human life begins, thus justifying their conclusion.

Could it be the reason they did not know when human life begins was because no "human" embryologist was called in to testify. No reputable human embryologist would dare to deny that human life begins at conception. Hmm, could this be the reason, one was not called to testify?

Now that we have DNA which gives the ultimate proof that human life begins at conception, one has to wonder why these justices are not now reversing that horrendous decision in 1973, the same way the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was reversed.

This decision declared that black people were not full human beings and therefore could be held as slaves. Sound familiar?

Let me give you another example why the 1973 decision was ridiculous and not given much thought as to all of its ramifications, besides not being based on science or anything that's in the Constitution.

Picture this: A woman has a husband who is a licensed physician. She told him to kill her unborn child, which is perfectly legal, as the child is not a human being because she gave permission.

Her doctor husband also wants to get rid of her because he has met someone else. So instead of doing the abortion in his office or hospital, he takes her to the seashore, where he stabs her in the abdomen. The child dies within minutes. As she is bleeding profusely, to take her out of her misery, he shoots her and then dumps her body with the child still in her womb into the ocean so the sharks and other fish could have a feast.

Now, the difference between this hypothetical case and the Scott Peterson case is that the woman gave permission to her doctor husband to kill her child, whereas Laci Peterson did not. So, the doctor according to the law in California and other states which have a similar law, could only be charged with ONE murder. Right?

This is what happens when justices on the Supreme Court put their ideology before science and common sense. You wind up with a legal mess.

The unborn child in all situations MUST be declared a human being, and not just a human being when killed by an irate husband, such as Scott Peterson. Especially since science with its DNA tells us that human life is created at conception and I also might add the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice -- it does NOT say that all men are "born equal." It says, "all men are CREATED EQUAL (quite a difference) and since it's a scientific fact the human life is created at conception, then unborn children are protected, so says the Declaration of Independence.

So, what's the problem -- it's right there in black and white?

Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be required reading for all attorneys and judges.

If only our judiciary would rely on science and not make up things as they go along, the double homicide under the fetal law would not be open to interpretation.

AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS IF THE CHILD IS WANTED OR NOT, OR WANTED DEAD OR NOT AND REGARDLESS WHO KILLS THE CHILD, A PHYSICIAN OR AN IRATE HUSBAND.

Then and only then will the conjecture be taken out of the equation, but since we are a society where killing comes easy and we are a self-indulgent country without pity for children who are brutally killed, with many suffering excruciating pain, this common sense and scientific reasoning will never happen unless our country repents this great sin of the American holocaust.

If not, there will be standing room only in hell and satan will have a feast day.

Oh, I forgot, the hereafter should not be mentioned. Keep it secular and scientific. OK, forget the last sentence.


Frank Joseph MD

DFjosephMD@aol.com
http://www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: childsupport2avoid; conner; deathpenaltytime; getarope; laci; life; prolife; sonkiller; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Life begins at conception—NOT birth.
Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.

1 posted on 11/22/2004 4:34:24 PM PST by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

i must admit i like this 2 murders from the peterson case.

as soon as this sinks in, you're going to hear a lotta screaming from the radical feminists!


2 posted on 11/22/2004 4:35:45 PM PST by ken21 (against the democrat plantation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

It is not a CHOICE,
It is a CHILD!


3 posted on 11/22/2004 4:37:20 PM PST by buffyt (~It is not a choice ~ It is a CHILD!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

You know, every time I hear Kerry in the campaign say that the Dems want ot be the "science party"..which statement was an implicit jibe against people of faith, I was comforted by the fact that SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, like the 3D ultrsound, is actually reaffirming what we believe.


4 posted on 11/22/2004 4:39:41 PM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

The article covers why NARAL and NOW would be against such laws, simply because it blows their arguments about "choice". But it's also why liberal Dems in Congress oppose all kinds of reasonable legislation that protects the unborn. If a fetus is a child at nine months, then why not eight? And if eight, why not seven and so forth.


5 posted on 11/22/2004 4:40:10 PM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

IMHO...
If the Republican Party would take the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice question out of the party platform, GW Bush would have won by an enormous margin.

The majority of people I know who vote DemoRat do so because they are Pro-Choice.

Yes, I know what you are going to say - but that's the truth as well.

PS... wouldn't it be nice if
A) People (both Male and Female) took responsibility for birth control?
B) everyone valued life enough that there was no need for abortions?


6 posted on 11/22/2004 4:40:41 PM PST by Dashing Dasher (Bush/Cheney -- Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

7 posted on 11/22/2004 4:40:42 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of The Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

The states can define murder anyway they want, but it does not impact the United States Constitution.

The real legal problem with abortion is that there is no Constitutional right to abortion in the actual language of the Constitution. The Supremes invented it out of whole cloth.


8 posted on 11/22/2004 4:40:56 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS IF THE CHILD IS WANTED OR NOT, OR WANTED DEAD OR NOT AND REGARDLESS WHO KILLS THE CHILD, A PHYSICIAN OR AN IRATE HUSBAND.

State Unborn Victim Laws a summary of the laws of the 30 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn victims of federal and military crimes.

stemcellresearch.org - Founding Statement

CBHD: On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research

It may strike some as surprising that legal protection of embryonic human beings can co-exist with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 legalization of abortion.29 However, the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life outside the abortion context,30 and public sentiment also seems even more opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion.31 The laws of a number of states-including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah-specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb.32

In FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork stated,"Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception." This objective fact refutes any wishful subjective speculation stating otherwise!

9 posted on 11/22/2004 4:43:18 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

The Abortion Gallery

10 posted on 11/22/2004 4:43:36 PM PST by Tarpaulin (Look it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher

If the Republican Party would take the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice question out of the party platform, GW Bush would have won by an enormous margin.

If the Republican Party would adopt the Democrat Platform, GW Bush would have won by an enormous margin.

11 posted on 11/22/2004 4:47:00 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
It was going pretty good with logic until it asserted that the Declaration of Indepence created some legal rights. It didn't.

At most, it is evidence of the mindset of the Founding Fathers, but none of its statements carry any import in terms of law or legal significance.

12 posted on 11/22/2004 4:47:09 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;

Jer 1:5

13 posted on 11/22/2004 4:49:09 PM PST by Jay Howard Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
At its September 1996 meeting the Board of Directors of the National Lawyers Association adopted the following resolution:

National Lawyers Association is a full service organization of attorneys from every state in the Union committed to the concept that the Founding Fathers of the government of our Nation established a government based upon the truths and principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence; that all officeholders, including judges, in the performance of their official duties, are to interpret the Constitution in the light of those truths and principles; and that among those truths and principles is the principle that all humans are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This resolution is obviously based upon the following assumptions: (1) there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution; and (2) all officeholders, by their oath or affirmation, are obligated to recognize and honor that connection or relationship in the performance of their official duties.

Article VI of the Constitution contains the following provision: "the Senators and Representatives before mentioned and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation. to support this Constitution:...." Accordingly, there is no question but that this constitutional provision applies to all officeholders, local, state and federal, including "all executive and judicial Officers."

The question to be answered, therefore, is what is meant by the term "to support this Constitution.'' If the Constitution is a freestanding document, then the oath or affirmation of the officeholder is limited to the language of that document. On the other hand, if there is a legal connection or relationship between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence then the oath or affirmation commits the officeholders to recognize and honor both documents in the exercise of their official duties to the extent of such connection or relationship.

The importance of this question was emphasized by former President Jimmy Carter in a recent television interview. In response to a question President Carter replied that as President he had enforced the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. There was no intimation of any limitations on the power of the Supreme Court or that the Supreme Court was obligated to recognize any guidelines or limitations on its powers.

I.

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution based, in part, on the following:

A. Our Founding Fathers intended for the Declaration to be the
foundation for the Government that was being established.

The "first draft" of the Declaration was basically prepared by Thomas Jefferson and submitted to a Congressional Committee of Five. The Committee ultimately agreed on a new draft and on Friday, June 28,1776 reported this draft to Congress. Congress immediately laid this draft on the table. Congress was not yet ready to consider this document involving the establishment of the government of the new nation since they had not yet declared the independence of the Colonies from the British Empire. Accordingly, Congress first took up what was designated as the Richard Henry Lee Resolution of Independence. On July 2, 1776 Congress adopted the first paragraph of the Lee Resolution -- the part respecting independence -- thereby officially separating the Colonies from the British Empire.

Having taken the necessary action to separate the Colonies from the British Empire, Congress then began consideration of the draft of the Declaration of Independence that the Committee of Five had reported. After numerous changes, the document was officially approved by Congress on July 4, 1776. Thus. among other things. our founding fathers left as a legacy to America the idea that liberty -- individual unalienable rights -- is a reality for which men will sacrifice their lives. their fortunes and their sacred honor. The foundation of the government of the United States of America had been established. That foundation consisted of the principles set forth in the Declaration. These principles were to be permanent. They were to be unchanging end unchangeable. There was no provision whatsoever for any amendment being made to the Declaration. The Creator endowed unalienable Rights of the individual were to be "secure" -- that was the assigned task of the government that was being instituted. This was specifically set forth in the Declaration as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Founding Fathers clearly intended to preserve for the people of the United States the same unalienable rights which the Founding Fathers claimed as the justification for their separating the colonies from the government of Great Britain. They expressed this justification in the Declaration as follows:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The government which they were instituting was to be a "guard" of the God-endowed unalienable rights of each individual in the United States. The government was not to be authorized to destroy those rights. To the contrary, the government was to guard or secure those rights.

Dean Clarence Manion, the Dean of the College of Law at Notre Dame University for more than a quarter of a century, in his book The Key to Peace defined this "government" as follows:

Constitutions and Bills of Right are but vain and futile barricades against tyranny unless, as our Declaration of Independence says-they are firmly founded in and upon the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

Dean Manion, in his book also made the following observation:

In both "form" and "substance" our American system is basically different from any politically organized society now or heretofore existing in the world.

The "rights," namely the unalienable rights of each person in the land, constitute the "substance" of American government. The "device" by which these rights can be secured is the American "form" of government. The conjunction of this "form" and this "substance" was unique and new in Jefferson's time and it is completely unique today.

A Republican form of government strictly and constitutionally dedicated to the protection of the God-given unalienable rights of men appeared in the world for the first time with the organization of the United States of America This "form" was then and there composed and designed to hold and contain its precious substance. (Emphasis added.)

For the first time in the history of the world there was placed in the document establishing a nation the concept that the government being established for the new nation was to be a government with limited powers; a government that had no authority to supersede or contradict the Laws of Nature: a government that was charged with the responsibility of securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the individual. Yet, and this is extremely important, the document made no reference to any religion. The officeholders in the government were to recognize and honor the principles and truths set forth in the document establishing the government but these truths and principles were to be considered as "self evident" and not part of any religion. The Founding Fathers did not intend to establish a totalitarian government nor did they intend to establish a government into which a religion was intermingled. They intended to establish a government based upon self-evident truths. They accomplished this in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration had two purposes: (1) give a justification to the world for its previous actions in separating from Great Britain and (2) take the first step in creating a government with limited powers -- establish its unchangeable foundation.

B. The language in the Declaration of Independence itself makes it
clear that it is to be a vital and necessary part of the government.

It is the language in the Declaration that sets forth the assigned purpose of the government -- the government is being instituted to "secure" the unalienable individual rights with which all humans have been endowed by their Creator. In addition, the language in the Declaration provides specifically that wherever any form of government fails to "secure" those unalienable rights then it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish that government. The Declaration then goes on to provide that if the people do decide to alter or to abolish the government and to institute a new government then the new government should consist of (a) a foundation composed of principles and (b) powers in the officeholders which are organized in a way and manner satisfactory to the poeple. In other words, the Declaration not only sets up the foundation for the government being established but it goes further and states that if the government leaves that foundation the people have the right to alter and abolish that government and then sets forth the two steps that the people should take in establishing a new government. Those two steps are to establish a foundation composed of principles and then to organize the powers of the officeholders. There is simply no question but that the Founding Fathers intended that the principles and self-evident truths set forth in the Declaration were to constitute the foundation for the new government. It is the Declaration that sets forth the assigned purpose of the government and prescribes what is to be done if the government fails to serve in accordance with that purpose.

C. The language in the Constitution acknowledges its legal
connection or relationship with the Declaration.

1. The Preamble to the Constitution recites that its purpose is "to form a more perfect union ...." The Declaration had been in effect for 12 years and the Articles of Confederation, which was the first document organizing the powers of the officeholders, had been in effect for 10 of those years. Some changes in the organization of the powers of the officeholders were needed and thus the Constitution was written and adopted to take the place of the Articles of Confederation-to form a "more perfect union."

2. The Constitution which was adopted in 1787 provided that a member of the House of Representatives was required to be a citizen of the United States for at least 7 years and a member of the Senate was required to be a citizen of the United States for at least 9 years. Since the Declaration had established the United States of America as a nation in 1776, candidates for the House and for the Senate who had lived in this nation for the required years could meet this requirement. The Declaration had established the nation so that citizenship could begin any time after the enactment of the Declaration. Had it not been for the Declaration there would have been no nation in which the people could have been citizens so that no one could have qualified for these offices. Interestingly, the Constitution also provided that a person, in order to serve as President, must have been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years. Accordingly, the first President had to have been a resident of the geographic area before the formation of the nation by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and continue to be a resident of the geographic area until his election as president. Citizenship, as such, for this period of time could not be required since the nation, at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, had not been in existence for 14 years. Clearly, the Declaration is recognized as the document creating the nation in which there could be "citizens."

3. In its final paragraph, the Constitution recognizes that it, the Constitution, is being executed on the 17th Day of September 1787, "And of the Independence of the United States of America, the Twelfth." This reference in the Constitution is obviously to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was dated July 4, 1776 and the Constitution was adopted in 1787 -- the twelfth year after the adoption of the Declaration.

D. The Declaration has been referenced by various federal courts in hundreds
of decisions including several decisions by the United States Supreme Court. E. Legislation by Congress admitting states into the union acknowledges
and confirms that the principles set forth in the Declaration constitute
the foundation of the government of America.

The original thirteen states had been a party to the enactment of the Declaration and the Constitution and thus as to those states there was clearly a legal connection or relationship between those two documents. The statutes admitting states into the Union prior to 1864 provided that they were being admitted with the same rights and subject to the same conditions as the original thirteen states. Beginning in 1864, every state admitted into the Union has been admitted under specific legislation which provides, in essence, that the Constitution of the state "shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence." This provision, or provisions similar thereto, appear in legislation admitting the states of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington, with the states of Alaska and Hawaii being admitted in 1958 and 1959 respectively. In this way the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution has been specifically recognized and honored by Congress within the last 50 years. This would appear to be conclusive as to this question of whether there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution.

SUMMATION

The above constitutes only a part of the evidence that is available to show that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution.

II.

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.

A. The United States Code Annotated treats the Declaration as a part of the organic law of the government of the United States of America.

1. The Preface to the United States Code - Annotated states that "this code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925...." The Preface also states that there is also contained therein a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution with Amendments.

In the Explanation page of the Code there is a statement setting forth what makes up the Organic Laws of the government of the United States of America. That statement is as follows:

Organic Laws

The complete text of the United States Constitution is set out in this volume. It is preceded by the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance.

Under the title "The Organic Laws of the United States of America" there is included the complete texts of the Declaration of Independence, the articles of Confederacy, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution.

Black's Law Dictionary contains the following definition for the term "organic law":

The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.

Thus. the official publication of the laws of the United States of America. the United States Code Annotated, defines the connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution to be that they are both part of the "law or system of laws or principles which define and establish the organization of" the government of the United States of America.

2. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court in the case of McGowan v. Maryland, 166 US. 420 (1961), stated:

The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that the" is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, which government must respect. The Declaration of Independence states the now familiar them: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrined those principles.

Justice Douglas states that the principles of the Declaration are "enshrined" in the Constitution as well as in the Bill of Rights. This is the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution as viewed by Justice Douglas.

3. The platform of the Republican Party of 1860, upon which Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States of America, contains the following resolution:

Resolved that the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution . . . is essential to the preservation of our Republican Institutions.

The Republican Party, as of 1860, and Abraham Lincoln viewed the principles of the Declaration as being "embodied" in the Constitution. This is their view of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution.

4. Prominent constitutional lawyer William Bentley Ball expressed this legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution as follows:

The Declaration is the Preamble to the Preamble to the Constitution.

Other lawyers state that the Declaration constitutes the "letter of intent" for the drafting and signing of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

The practical effect of all of these approaches to the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that all officeholders are to interpret the Constitution in the light of the principles of the Declaration of Independence -- to function in accordance with the Organic Laws creating and organizing the government.

It is a self-evident truth that the government of any democracy that does not recognize and honor any transcendent truths or principles -- absolutes -- will inevitably turn into a government exercising totalitarian powers. The shadow of a totalitarian government is hanging over Americans today. Failure to act promptly means a government with totalitarian powers for America.

 

 

14 posted on 11/22/2004 5:02:34 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

How sad is it that the Supreme Court has "discovered" via the penumbras of the Constitution, a "right" to kill unborn children, engage in homosexual sodomy, discrimate in a law school/college admissions based on race of the applicant- yet cannot read the simple, straightforward 2d Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -14 WORDS!- as rendering per se unconstitutional such drivel as the Assault Weapons ban, Brady Bill, D.C. & NYC handgun laws, etc.
O'Connor, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens aren't fit to carry Alexander Hamilton's judicial jock-strap. I've seen more rational decisions made by Ouija Boards than these 4 hacks. Please, Bush, replace these 4 clowns ASAP.
And as for you, Mr. Arlen "Q-Tip Head" Specter, please join your spineless loser pal Jumpin' Jimmy Jeffords on the D side of the aisle, you ungrateful Keystone State disgrace.


15 posted on 11/22/2004 5:04:54 PM PST by scottybk (Asking Americans to vote for Kerry on defense is like asking a chicken to vote for Colonel Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher
IMHO... If the Republican Party would take the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice question out of the party platform, GW Bush would have won by an enormous margin.

So? Then we would be the party that fails to stand up for the rights of the unborn. That would be far worse than winning the election by a greater margin.

The majority of people I know who vote DemoRat do so because they are Pro-Choice.

So?

PS... wouldn't it be nice if A) People (both Male and Female) took responsibility for birth control? B) everyone valued life enough that there was no need for abortions?

Yes. So what's your point? It would be "nice" if we everyone was so nice that we didn't need laws against rape, murder, child-molesting, kidnapping, etc. That's not the real world.

-A8

16 posted on 11/22/2004 5:07:44 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
The link for post #14 National Lawyers Association
17 posted on 11/22/2004 5:08:48 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
I don't disagree that the Declaration should be considered in its historic context. That should help judges in determining original intent.

But by its own words, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it doesn't incorporate any other documents by reference to make them equal. The Declaration of Independence is one of the greatest writings in history. The rationale expressed therein is simply brilliant. It was not intended to be law, however. It's purpose was far different, and to elevate it Constitutional law, for any purpose, is simply misguided. It should be looked at just like the Federalist Papers are looked at -- guidance as to original intent.

18 posted on 11/22/2004 5:17:33 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher
PS... wouldn't it be nice if . . . everyone valued life enough that there was no need for abortions?

One more thing: the failure to value life does not create a "need" for abortion. Wants are not needs.

- A8

19 posted on 11/22/2004 5:23:37 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The United States Code Annotated treats the Declaration as a part of the organic law of the government of the United States of America.


20 posted on 11/22/2004 5:24:15 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
"They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, that killing a child in the womb would be perfectly legal right up to term."

You have to admire the absolute stupidity of the pro-abortion Leftist scum on this point. After all, if a fetus isn't alive, there's not much reason to abort it.

21 posted on 11/22/2004 5:27:06 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

To put it into perspective:
Would you rather see the Declaration cited in federal court opinions, or OLD European law referenced as SCOTUS has recently done?


22 posted on 11/22/2004 5:27:31 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher

Go back to the feminist movement. One of their purported aims was court-help in child-support. Instead of holding MEN to higher standards sexually (like forcing part of the responsibility for the production of a child on the male--DNA makes false claims of fatherhood impossible), feminists delightedly sank to the accountability-free sex men "enjoyed." This jump to equality could not have been accomplished without the otherwise unthinkable legalization of abortion--at any time (because, after all, neither love nor child-support payment lasts forever.


23 posted on 11/22/2004 5:28:30 PM PST by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tarpaulin
That's an awful website.

Should be required viewing for everyone choosing abortion.

24 posted on 11/22/2004 5:29:25 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...

Ping for life!


25 posted on 11/22/2004 5:41:21 PM PST by narses (Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

No question when you phrase it that way. My only point is the Declaration wasn't legislation, wasn't a constitution, or anything other than it purported to be.


26 posted on 11/22/2004 5:44:19 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
This is what happens when justices on the Supreme Court put their ideology before science and common sense. You wind up with a legal mess. The unborn child in all situations MUST be declared a human being, and not just a human being when killed by an irate husband...........

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has not declared when a human being is a human being.

Instead, the Supreme Court decided, for all practical purposes, to grant pregnant American women the ancient Roman right of Patria Potestas over their own unborn children.

A Roman father had the legal right under Patria Potesta to put his own child, of whatever age, to death. If someone other than the father did so, the killer was guilty of murder.

In Roman times, a father exercising his power of life and death over his own children under Patria Potestas acknowledged and understood perfectly well that he was taking a human life as was his right under Roman law. The modern American woman, on the other hand, would prefer to pretend otherwise. It makes her Inner Child feel better about it.

27 posted on 11/22/2004 5:53:04 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
I love that, "Birth is one day in the life of someone who is already nine months old."

I think the Dred Scott case is prophetically relevant after the Scott Peterson trial conviction.

28 posted on 11/22/2004 5:54:08 PM PST by Taiwan Bocks (Thanks again Swifties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
In trying to figure this thing out, the only conclusion that I can arrive at, is that the unborn child is not a human being if the mother wants her child dead, BUT if third party kills the child without permission from the mother, then and only then is the child a human being.

The good doctor is too hung up on the term "human being" - it's lawful to kill a fully grown human being under certain circumstances - a fact which anyone who carries a defensive firearm is well aware.

The question of whether a fetus is a "human being" is only tangentially related to the legal issues regarding how and when it is killed.

29 posted on 11/22/2004 5:58:24 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
No, but that Declaration of Independence and the Scott Dred case are good talking points for excitedly bringing up this discussion with Christians.

"Hey! I just heard something amazing! Did you hear about the Scott Dred decision of 1857? It's so clear and relevant as we recall the words of the Declaration of Independence."

30 posted on 11/22/2004 5:58:47 PM PST by Taiwan Bocks (Thanks again Swifties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tarpaulin

Thank you for that link. I praise God I didn't abort my firstborn when I became unexpectedly pregnant nearly 21 years ago. This child has broken our hearts many times over during the last few years, but he is our son and we love him dearly. I can't imagine life without him. His existence brought my husband and I together as a family, and we now have three beautiful children. God indeed works in mysterious ways.


31 posted on 11/22/2004 6:09:53 PM PST by Siouxz (Freepers are the best!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Taiwan Bocks
Dred Scott.

The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself. You can find a handful of cases in our history out of hundreds of cases.

Dred Scott was one of them. I'm less optimistic that Roe will be another, no matter how many conservative judges we appoint to that bench. There's little doubt that Roe was decided on dubious grounds and by an activist court. But there's also little doubt that the court generally reflects public opinion in public policy matters and it's delusional to think that the Court will "take away a constitutional right to an abortion" easily.

The public is divided on the issue, albeit apparently against the practice by a slim majority. But given the Court's reluctance to overturn previous decisions and the public sentiment, I'm not holding my breath.

32 posted on 11/22/2004 6:12:04 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bob Mc

That website is extremely disturbing.I would not belong to any party that sanctions this slaughter. I could care less if it is repub or democrat. I would vote for a pro-life dem over a pro-choice repub any day of the week.


33 posted on 11/22/2004 6:12:41 PM PST by boop (Testing the tagline feature!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
.
RE: Your text in BLUE COLOR.

"Life begins at conception—NOT birth.
Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old."

  [already nine months old.]    Sometimes less than nine months and sometimes more than nine months.

...But I understand your point!
And I believe it to be true...Life begins at conception.
.

34 posted on 11/22/2004 6:14:07 PM PST by Buddy B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

BTTT


35 posted on 11/22/2004 6:18:37 PM PST by auboy (Dishonesty is NOT a virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buddy B; Taiwan Bocks
Thanks Buddy & Taiwan Bocks!

I tinkered with the line for a bit, but it had to stay short and sweet and so....voila!
36 posted on 11/22/2004 6:24:46 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of The Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Thank you Polybius,

Everyday I learn something new at FR!


37 posted on 11/22/2004 6:27:10 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of The Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It should be looked at just like the Federalist Papers are looked at -- guidance as to original intent.

Here you are just plain wrong. The Declaration of Independence is the document that establishes the United States of America as a country. The Federalist Papers are a series of articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the pen name Publius. The purpose was to gain support for the constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the foundation on which the Constitution stands.

38 posted on 11/22/2004 6:27:55 PM PST by horizondb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: horizondb

I don't know how you can say that. The Constitution within the four corners of the document says that it's the supreme law of the land. To say I'm plain wrong means that you're passionate, but it's plain silly to pretend that the Declaration is part of the Constitution.


39 posted on 11/22/2004 6:34:31 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
The good doctor is too hung up on the term "human being"

The good doctor is not hung up on the term "human being" Like me the doctor is hung up on how good men can not read simple English. The Declaration of Independence is vary simple and vary clear in the establishment of our inalienable rights. The Declaration forms the government and set forth it's limitations. The foremost being it can not violate the inalienable rights. It also provides a remedy if the government does, and that is the right for the populace to abolish the government and start anew.

The problem here is we have let those in power get away with silly acts like righting a 400 word document just to say no and to search for the meaning of the word "is". The enactment of so many and so complex and convoluted laws that the citizens of this country have no clear meaning of right and wrong.

The original intent was for us to have vary few yet strict laws and those laws were to be interpreted vary liberally.

40 posted on 11/22/2004 6:53:29 PM PST by horizondb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
You are right it is not part of the Constitution. It is the foundation on which our country and government was born. In it the Declaration is vary specific on the limitations of that that government. The Constitution is the walls of our Government "house" if you will. Built by the on the foundation. To disregard the foundation and look solely at the walls leads us into a quagmire and a crumbling house.

This is were we find ourselves in the Woe v Wade dilemma. The ruling only looked at the walls and the Court deliberately ignored the foundation on which is sits.

41 posted on 11/22/2004 7:06:02 PM PST by horizondb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

What the 1973 court did was dehumanize the entire of the unborn in the human species. This, just to make it easy to then grant an evil right to hire these human beings killed at the whim of a pregnant woman. And how was this specious 'right' served to the American 'palate'? In an unspoken agreement that a woman has a right to self defense. Oh, to be sure, the way to say that has many many forms, but they all come down to protecting a woman's right of self defense. So, if the unborn are innocent alive human beings, how is it that they do not have the same inalienable right that the pregnant woman has? And in fighting to save them, are we engaging in the defense of those tiny selves? Is there a way to reconcile this schizophrenic situation?... I believe there is, by openly admitting first that abortion has some foundation in a woman's right to protect her life ... but that ought not mean a killing is warranted for another innocent human being, unless of course Blackburn, et al are allowed to once again establish 'the law of the land'.
42 posted on 11/22/2004 7:16:41 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; Askel5; attagirl; axel f; ...
Well put.

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

43 posted on 11/22/2004 8:09:15 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (I used to be a lumberjack, but I just couldn't hack it. They gave me the axe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Special PING V!


44 posted on 11/22/2004 8:11:18 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of The Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
...and since we are talking about a human life, the only time abortion should ever be considered, IMO, is if the mother's life is clearly at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. This situation then becomes exactly like any other case of self defense. If the continued development of the child in the womb will kill the mother, then there are some very serious and heartrending decisions to be made. Such decisions must be made with the utmost sobriety, seriousness and reverence for life. May the Spirit of God guide the parents and their physicians in such a situation.

Any other circumstance, to me, does not justify ending the baby's life. Perhaps in the case of rape or incest resulting in pregnancy there may be consideration as well, but I'm still undecided there. I suppose I'm not really qualified to say, since I have never been and probably never will be in that situation.

</$0.02 worth>

45 posted on 11/22/2004 8:28:42 PM PST by TChris (You keep using that word. I don't think it means what yHello, I'm a TAGLINE vir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; AlbionGirl; anniegetyourgun; Aquinasfan; Archangelsk; A-teamMom; ...
Pro-life/pro-baby ping...


46 posted on 11/22/2004 8:45:53 PM PST by cgk (The Left was beaten by Pres Bush twice & will never have another shot at him... who's dumb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

You can't have it both ways. Either taking the life of an unborn child is murder or it isn't. If it is murder, then abortion is also murder. I'm surprised the liberals haven't been all up in arms about the Peterson verdict. Maybe their logically reasoning skills haven't figured this out yet.


47 posted on 11/22/2004 10:08:35 PM PST by RightMindedMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

read later


48 posted on 11/22/2004 10:36:03 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21; cpforlife.org; shaggy eel

<< i must admit i like this 2 murders from the peterson case.

as soon as this sinks in, you're going to hear a lotta screaming from the radical feminists! >>

Gunna be tough -- given that their were-gunna-be progeny are all gunna be dead -- for that strain of anti-creationist moron to evolve, too!

Poor Charly Darwin must be spinning in his grave with the FRustration of it all.

BUMPping


49 posted on 11/23/2004 2:17:45 AM PST by Brian Allen (I am, thank God, a 2X-blessed hyphenated American: An AMERICAN-American - AND a Dollar-a-Day FReeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

bttt


50 posted on 11/23/2004 2:27:37 AM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next 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