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

Skip to comments.

Tony Blankley: Roe v. Wade v. technology
TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, July 27, 2005 | Tony Blankley

Posted on 07/27/2005 12:34:24 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

As the John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination fight opens, the predicted battle to save or kill Roe v Wade already has taken to the streets, the Internet and the media. But the 32-year-old constitutional right to an abortion may face its gravest challenge not from red state values triumphing on the Supreme Court, but from medical research being carried out in elite blue state universities and in Europe and Asia.

It is the very language of Roe that carries the seed of its own possible irrelevance within the next several years. Roe enunciated the more or less unencumbered right of a woman to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. After viability, the right of states to regulate or prohibit abortions arise. The court defined legal viability as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

But medical science is remorselessly advancing on two fronts along paths that may fairly soon seize and destroy in a scientific pincer movement the viability of Roe's reasoning.

When Roe was handed down in 1973, the survivability of prematurely born babies was not medically possible before 28 weeks of gestation. Today, babies born after only 20 weeks of gestation routinely survive -- and thus are viable under the Roe definition (and thus potentially legally safe from the abortionist's medical weapons).

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bravenewworld; cary; technology; thematrix

1 posted on 07/27/2005 12:34:25 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xm177e2; mercy; Wait4Truth; hole_n_one; GretchenEE; Clinton's a rapist; buffyt; ladyinred; Angel; ..

Tony Blankley Mega-ping!


2 posted on 07/27/2005 12:35:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

tear roe down


3 posted on 07/27/2005 12:40:40 AM PDT by TrailofTears (We laugh at honor and are shocked that traitors are in our midst!!! C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Meanwhile, on an another methodological front, Mrs. Chelsea Sinclair, of Fincastle, Nevada, dealt another blow to Roe V Wade by employing an even older technology: applied literacy. Mrs. Sinclair actually read the United States Constitution, beginning to end, aloud, to a professional association previously unfamiliar with the document, the 9th Circuit Federal Court. After a fourth and fifth reading, confused jurists had to admit they had not heard the word "abortion" once.


4 posted on 07/27/2005 1:19:07 AM PDT by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Reread later..too heavy for 5:30 in the morning...


5 posted on 07/27/2005 2:48:14 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Roe allowed state regulation of abortion (as a special medical practice) in the third tri-mester solely for the purpose of protecting the pregnant female, not protecting the baby.

It's always good to bother reading Roe v. Wade from time to time.

In fact, the original decision did not require that states restrict it to being performed by trained medical personnel. That's entirely up to each state.

A quick way to abolish abortion as a widespread activity in any state is to totally privatize it ~ eliminate the requirement that its practitioners have medical training, and remove the government paid guards ~ treat these people the same as if they were running a liquor store.

6 posted on 07/27/2005 2:55:55 AM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Ah, so I was not the only one who read "Brave New World" written by Aldous Huxley some three-quarters of a century ago, just before the rise of Fascism and National Socialism (two similar but distinct political philosophies, by the way), and with the birth of the "new Soviet man".

While the tale was shocking for its time, the world of hedonistic pleasures and the total detachment of sex from its procreative function seem commonplace now. And at last technology is catching up with the predictions made about artificial wombs and cloned workers, each classified into one of five levels of competency.

That was a world that seemed so - predictable. And static.


7 posted on 07/27/2005 3:20:03 AM PDT by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

This is really creepy.


8 posted on 07/27/2005 3:39:31 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Standing athwart history, shouting, "Turn those lights off! You think electricity grows on trees?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Where I think this will get interesting is when we get so far down the path of reading the DNA code of our little tykes that doctors will be able to identify the "gay gene" (if there IS such a thing)...and suddenly mom and dad want to either take out the pink little gene, or remove said baby altogether. We'd have the gay lobby suddenly fighting the abort-anything and everything lobby, but they would only be demanding that every GAY baby has a right to life. Thank heavens I'll be too old to really "get" much of what goes on by then :) ...
9 posted on 07/27/2005 4:11:19 AM PDT by gbtheshark (So thankful to be living in such interesting times!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

This Roe irrelevance via a medical technology pincer movement is precisely what I argued to you last week! But I had argued viability of fetus on one side and non-medical methods of terminating pregnancy on the other.

My point to you was twofold:

  1. that the Christian Right should not, therefore, divert its focus and waste its precious energy fighting abortion, an issue that will be mooted by medical science in the very near future
  2. and more important, that the Christian Right should not effectively play the role of Ross Perot in 2008 to elect another unpopular and dangerous clinton by a plurality.

    That is to say, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT MUST NOT ELECT HILLARY CLINTON BY DEFAULT by either voting for a third candidate or sitting out the election if the 2008 GOP candidate is not to its liking on the abortion issue.

 

The Christian Right--and all of us--must focus all of our energies winning the war on terrorism so that all of our children, the born and the unborn, will live.... In order to do that, we must roundly defeat hillary clinton... or any other dangerously inept Democrat that moribund party decides to put forth.


MAD hillary talks series #1
ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON
+ CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY



THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS
A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE
MAD hillary talks series #2
HILLARY'S
MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET



Do you really want THAT finger
on the button?

MAD hillary talks series #3
"What, me worry?"



THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS
A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE

MAD hillary talks series
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN,
FOR AMERICA,
FOR THE WORLD



BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET (MAD COVER 2)
Do you really want THAT finger on the button?



THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update


For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads


HEAR
MAD hillary talks #3:
"What, me worry?"


the significance of missus clinton's gratuitous gerundial g-droppings


CONDI RICE-HILLARY CLINTON VIRTUAL MATCHUP-2008
(BEAUTY AND THE HILDABEAST2)


ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall



How did the flower children fall for the clintons, 2 such self-evident thugs and opportunists?
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!)


Alfred E. Neuman + the threat of terrorism, according to hillary


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS part 1
BEWARE THE SYNERGY

Nixonian paranoia
and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important,
easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.



KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE


THE OLYMPIC HILDABEAST FLOPS
hillary stupidly invokes clinton utter failure: 9/11


HILLARY CLINTONSTAHL
clinton agitprop machine censors truth about hillary


BEAUTY AND THE HILDABEAST
 
CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN


hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")


hillary clinton: ABUSER, NOT VICTIM


retrograde feminist fraud positions herself as victim (again) in order to win White House
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]


NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN CLINTON REACTION TIME AND CONTENT TO THE TWO RAPE CHARGES


CATCHING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE KINGFISH
differential reaction to the two rape charges snares the clintons


CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)


1st Feminist Prez Impeached
(clinton, pushed by the "smartest woman in the world," managed to impeach himself)


HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue


JENNINGS DOES A DIMBLEBY: clinton legacy-RAGE redux


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2


THE JEANINE PIRRO--HILLARY CLINTON VIRTUAL MATCHUP


Hillary vs. Jeanine?


JEANINE PIRRO: indefinite prison/psych-ward term for all rapists
(HILLARY CLINTON: 16-year oval-office term for 2 certain rapists)


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS part 2
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important,
easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.

deletehillary.blogspot.com
virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
hillarytalks.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update

coming soon! deletehillary.com
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005


10 posted on 07/27/2005 4:21:53 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; JohnHuang2; All

Sorry, this post was meant for jla.


11 posted on 07/27/2005 4:22:56 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

12 posted on 07/27/2005 4:50:47 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; jla; All
ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON
13 posted on 07/27/2005 5:07:34 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Freee-dame

Very Important Point!!!


######



That is to say, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT MUST NOT ELECT HILLARY
CLINTON BY DEFAULT by either voting for a third candidate or sitting out
the election if the 2008 GOP candidate is not to its liking on the abortion
issue.



The Christian Right--and all of us--must focus all of our energies winning the
war on terrorism so that all of our children, the born and the unborn, will live.... In
order to do that, we must roundly defeat hillary clinton... or any other
dangerously inept Democrat that moribund party decides to put forth.


14 posted on 07/27/2005 5:18:41 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maica
Of course the irony of all this cut so many ways, it is hard to count. A technology designed to help homosexual couples and radical feminists have wombless babies may come into the service of conservatives (who oppose homosexual marriage and feminist values) as a means of ending abortion.

Cutting the other way, it is the technology of stem cell research and cloning (which many right-to-life conservatives want to outlaw) that may be needed to develop a technology that could be used to effectively legally end abortion -- thus creating for such conservatives the moral dilemma of supporting the use of what they judge to be unethical or immoral technologies to end the greatest slaughter of the innocent (millions of abortions a year).

How horribly possible!

15 posted on 07/27/2005 5:22:50 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maica

thanx :)

(see private note)


16 posted on 07/27/2005 5:27:32 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Logic, shmogic. It's not about logic. People want to reserve the right to kill their babies.

This is a straightforward fight between good and evil. Anyone who thinks that a reasonable "middle ground" can be found is kidding himself.

17 posted on 07/27/2005 5:36:08 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

You are absolutely correct.

Logic annihilates the "pro-choice" position. Therefore, the "pro-choicers" avoid logic and reason at all costs, and focus instead on screeching emotionalism and the subtle deception of euphamism.

The philosophical argument for "abortion rights" has been thoroughly discredited for decades. It has been all about crass emotionalism ever since.


18 posted on 07/27/2005 5:46:33 AM PDT by Skooz (Political Correctness will eventually destroy America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Thanks for the ping!


19 posted on 07/27/2005 6:21:14 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; Skooz; jla; All
The logical point is not to change ones ethics of abortion. It is to change the focus of ones energy AND ELECTORAL SUPPORT IN 2008.

The continual pushing back of the viability of the fetus to earlier and earlier stages of development by medical science will, in the near future, render all medical abortions illegal under current law.

With technology, in a sense, overturning Roe v. Wade, it makes infinitely more sense to concentrate ones efforts saving all the children, the born and the unborn alike, by winning the war on terrorism... which means, by defeating hillary clinton or any other inept, corrupt and dangerous democrat served up by that moribund and shamelessly seditious political party.

ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON

20 posted on 07/27/2005 6:22:50 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
The continual pushing back of the viability of the fetus to earlier and earlier stages of development by medical science will, in the near future, render all medical abortions illegal under current law.

You're assuming that words mean something to the justices. They'll either ignore the meaning of the words or find some other compelling societal interest to justify the continuance of Roe v. Wade. Of course, this depends on whether President Bush can replace a few more of these bozos.

21 posted on 07/27/2005 6:47:04 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

I kind of like the simple "words have meaning" approach, not only in the text of the U.S. Constitution, but also in the observation that: if it's not a "baby", well, then you're not "pregnant".

On the technological front, though, advances in medical science have shown the whole extent of the voodoo in Roe v. Wade. The clearest example I can think of is the ultrasound which has stripped the whole veil of mystery about the unborn child. That was not available in 1973, at least not to the general public.

But science makes no difference to abortion supporters because they are operating on a set of pagan religious beliefs and are completely closed to any facts.


22 posted on 07/27/2005 6:50:26 AM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maica
The writer is hopelessly naive if he thinks that advances in medicine are going to end abortions.

Abortion is not about abortion, it is about responsibility-free sex. Gaining the freedom to have sex with an absolute guarantee it will not produce a baby was the biggest "advance" in centuries for a certain type of character. Those who value that "freedom" pretty much value it ABOVE ALL ELSE IN LIFE (and above all lives), though they will never express it that way out loud.

The entire Democratic Party is organized around legal abortion. If you fight to protect abortion they will simply tolerate any other behavior from you.

The Left will do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to protect that freedom. For example, all the Left has to do is re-define the concept of "viability" -- which they are experts at, since no word is not living and evolving and emanating new penumbras by the second.

It's sad, in a way, to think that our society is polarizing into warring camps over the right to kill babies in their mothers.

23 posted on 07/27/2005 6:53:01 AM PDT by Taliesan (The power of the State to do good is the power of the State to do evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Seems to me we've a win-win opportunity in 2008.
It will take a true conservative to defeat HRC, and naturally a true conservative would be pro-life.
But, I'll iterate, if the GOP candidate in 2008 is a Rudy Giuliani-type, conservative Christians will not vote for him.

Ball's in the GOP's court.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, Mia. But it is the truth.

24 posted on 07/27/2005 7:06:59 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

No. I am saying that Roe v. Wade WILL BE MOOTED BY MEDICAL SCIENCE. Technology will de facto overturn Roe. If the fetus is viable from day one, Roe becomes totally irrelevant.


25 posted on 07/27/2005 7:24:19 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
operating on a set of pagan religious beliefs

Sexuality is the metaphysics of materialism-and paganism for that matter.
26 posted on 07/27/2005 7:25:00 AM PDT by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jla

If abortion is the determinative issue, and if all abortions are rendered illegal (and Roe rendered moot) by medical science pushing back viability to day one, why would Roe still matter to you?

It seems to me you are stuck in a time warp disguised as an ethics warp. ;)


27 posted on 07/27/2005 7:30:09 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Abortion is not the determinative issue, it is one of several.
You may deem it silly, but millions of Christians follow the dictates of a higher source than the powers-that-be of the Republican Party.
28 posted on 07/27/2005 7:37:07 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jla

I am not arguing that you follow the GOP.
To the contrary.
What I am arguing is that we save the children.

I suspect that goal is consistent with the dictates of your G-d and mine.


29 posted on 07/27/2005 7:47:30 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jla

i.e., voting GOP is simply a means to that end (by ensuring the defeat of hillary clinton).


30 posted on 07/27/2005 7:50:07 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan

The entire Democratic Party is organized around legal abortion. If you fight to protect abortion they will simply tolerate any other behavior from you.


#####


Yes, and more and more people are recognizing that fact. As "pregnant couples" show off the first photo of their baby - still in the womb, the idea that it is something that is up to the mother to keep or discard, is becoming less tolerable.

Using power language and soundbites, like the dems do, we should stress the "ownership" of a fetus is like the "ownership" of a slave - which was ruled illegal by our same constitution.

As a corollary of this point, we can stress that it was the churches in America who started the Abolitionsit Movement. Devout churchgoers and preachers gave up their "right" to own slaves long before Lincoln came along.


Mia T's point is that because public opinion and technology are going to limit abortion in the future, fighting to overturn Roe v Wade should not fracture the conservative movement, thus allowing another Clinton to live in the White House.


31 posted on 07/27/2005 8:26:18 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All

Abortion, and Roe in particular, has NEVER been about science. Science has been the excuse.

The talking point now is one of health. It is the upside down notion that abortion "saves life".

The abortion activists are not pushing the buzz words that parental notification is the really "parental involvement" and that "parental involvement" causes death because all families are disfunctional.

It is ALL based on anecdotes like all things on the left. No facts just political power aquisition.

When science has made artificial wombs and there is no longer a SCIENTIFIC reason for abortion, the abortion crowd will STILL demand abortion on demand.


32 posted on 07/27/2005 8:35:13 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th; JohnHuang2

Roe v Wade was passed by the SCOTUS based on a woman's right to privacy, not the right to an abortion.

The right to an abortion is predicated on a woman's right to PRIVACY, a First Amendment issue!

I, along with many others, would like to see Roe V Wade overturned, and then it can become what it always should have been - a state's right issue.


33 posted on 07/27/2005 8:37:52 AM PDT by TruthNtegrity (The sound of jets, the sound of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity
Roe v Wade was passed by the SCOTUS based on a woman's right to privacy,

The right to life is substantially more evident in the Constitution than even a right to privacy. (Even if you find a constitutional right to privacy, would it then give you the right to privately committ suicide? privately self-mutilate? privately murder another human being?)

On the contrary, an originalist would more properly find any state law allowing abortion as a violation of the unborn's right to life.
34 posted on 07/27/2005 10:52:24 AM PDT by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

Sorry - I wasn't arguing with you or anyone on this thread.

I just thought it was worth throwing into the mix that the right to privacy was why the SCOTUS wrote law - and wrote law they did, with Roe V Wade. It was the privacy rights, of the right a woman has to her body (Yes, over the life of her baby). Ugh - I hated even typing that horrible argument.

One that I hope is over-turned and thrown out, very soon.

I am not arging for abotion under any circumstances, nor am I trying to justify it or the SCOTUS.


35 posted on 07/27/2005 2:08:16 PM PDT by TruthNtegrity (The sound of jets, the sound of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

pinging you to some posts advocating surrender.


36 posted on 07/27/2005 2:21:21 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity
I am not arging for abotion under any circumstances, nor am I trying to justify it or the SCOTUS.

Understood. If the document "lives," they can make it out to be anything they want. Sometimes, in fact, I think the leftists see it as not just a living document, but a morphing one.
37 posted on 07/27/2005 2:34:22 PM PDT by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

BTTT


38 posted on 07/27/2005 3:59:11 PM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

If the Supreme Tyrants were at all interested in the strawman of protecting the child post-viability, then why is it impossible for states to outlaw third trimester abortions?

Because Roe's companion, Doe v. Bolton, is explicit that the state cannot protect the baby, even post-viability, if it "interferes" with the mother's health, which has been defined even as being upset that she won't fit into her prom dress. Certainly, some woman will be made to claim, (put up to it by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and all the other usual suspects) that forcing her to relinquish her unborn baby so that the little one may grow to term in an environment other than the woman's womb creates a psychological harm, and thus cannot be forced by the state.

And the Supreme Tyrants, if they are unwilling to actually overturn Roe, will not permit the state to act in this way, either.

It is a delusion, a hallucination to think that unborn children will ever be protected in law in the United States without overturning Roe.

Roe must go.


39 posted on 07/27/2005 4:10:37 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maica; Mia T
That is to say, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT MUST NOT ELECT HILLARY CLINTON BY DEFAULT by either voting for a third candidate or sitting out the election if the 2008 GOP candidate is not to its liking on the abortion issue.

Then the GOP better not nominate a pro-abort.

If it does, then Catholics will have a good reason to vote Democratic.

It is not the Christian Right, but True Christians cannot approve murder. That is sort of like saying the murder of 5 million Jews by Hitler was something that can be overlooked by Christians.

Terrorists only killed less than the number of babies killed in a day with the 9/11 attacks.

And one million babies killed per year is more than:

Auto accidents in the US and Europe kill each year

Cancer deaths in the US

Deaths by crimes

Death by AIDS in the US

All the civilian, terrorist, Iraqi forces, and US forces killed in Iraq since the invasion of Iraq since 2003.

All the civilian, terrorist, Taliban, Afghanistan forces and Allied forces (including US) in Afghanistan since 2002.

Combine all of the above, and it is still less than the number of babies killed in a year.

So Christians have to put abortion first, and the Republicans had better find a President who is Pro-Life, or Hillary may be elected.

40 posted on 07/27/2005 6:46:29 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; NYer; Salvation
ping - technology is on the breakthrough of making viability of the unborn just a few weeks after conception (and maybe earlier).

From the article:

... successfully removed goat fetuses from mother goats and placed them in tanks of amniotic fluid stabilized at goat body temperature, while connecting the baby goat's umbilical cord to machines that pump in nutrients and dispose of waste.

41 posted on 07/27/2005 6:51:55 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: topher

You miss my point. In this scenario, abortion will no longer be an option. It will have been rendered illegal UNDER CURRENT LAW by technology.

If abortion is no longer possible, ones position on abortion is of no consequence.
Under this scenario, therefore, wouldn't it make more sense in this post-911, post-clinton-debacle world to focus your energies on defeating hillary clinton and electing someone who will make certain all the little children live?


42 posted on 07/27/2005 7:19:06 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You miss my point. In this scenario, abortion will no longer be an option. It will have been rendered illegal UNDER CURRENT LAW by technology.

If that were true under Current Law, PBA would be illegal (doctors describe PBA as Infanticide, PBA=Partial Birth Abortion).

There are two rulings by the US Supreme Court -- Roe v. Wade (Norma McCorvey vs the DA of Dallas) and Doe v. Bolton (Sandra Canoe vs the DA of Fulton County).

The Doe v. Bolton decision makes abortion legal during any time of the pregnancy!

The Roe v. Wade ruling made abortion legal, but did not say the term of the abortion (it supposedly was only 1st Term abortions).

Currently, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban signed by President Bush and the Congress is in jeopardy of being overruled by the US Supreme Court (if Roberts is not on that court come October).

Roberts being on the court in October is important -- Sandra Day O'Connor can come out of retirement to take the bench in October with two cases I care about coming up.

43 posted on 07/28/2005 7:18:46 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: topher

You make an interesting point. Does Doe v. Bolton make abortion for ANY reason legal during any time of the pregnancy?

I suppose what may happen is that rather than changing minds on abortion, instantaneous viability of the fetus at conception, which is the theoretical limit that technology is approaching, will force the redefining of what it means to be born. Only then, apparently, will abortion be murder in the legal sense.


44 posted on 07/29/2005 12:58:40 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Yes.

I even posted a source that has pointed this out this past week.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1452991/posts?page=39#39 Abortion is legal all nine months of the pregnancy

45 posted on 07/29/2005 3:55:25 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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