Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Posted on 10/14/2005 10:12:46 PM PDT by SmithL
Thanks. I suspect that job would turn me gray(er) too.
I hear ya. I could never be a Judge much less a Supreme Court Justice.
I have the patience of a kid in a candy store.
Even more puzzling , aren't you expected to give up your rights , especially those related to freedom , when you are in prison.
Republicans generally stink at appointing sound judges and justices: Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Burger, Souter, Kennedy, O'Conner...
No surprises here.
Of course, the fact that the GOP gets it right about a third of the time is better than the Dems, who appoint badness 100% of the time, but it is still pretty discouraging.
Lets see, is this a simple woman forced by the state into a situation, or a cunning ploy to force changes to state law by a liberal lawyer?
She can borrow the money for an abortion, but not taxi fare, yet has enough money left over for a lawyer advocate... Right...
You know, I like it much better when laws are created by legislature, instead of being forced on the majority by a lawyer with a humanist religious agenda.
More like hundreds of thousands. More babies are killed in their mothers wombs every year than soldiers died in the entire Vietnam war.
All for good reasons I am sure. Must be a very good reason, to justify the slaughter of an innocent baby right?
Abortion (from the Latin word aboriri, "to perish")
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.
Children are not conceived to perish under the knife of an abortionist. They are conceived to be born to a father and a mother, and live their lives without the threat of violence from an unknown hand..
gpapa [aka Catholic Californian]
Now if Clarence can put this on hold for 7 weeks it will take care of itself.
ping
The prison system blocks you from exercising lots of rights. That's the nature of prison.
EXACTLY, one goes to prison and surrenders MANY rights. Can't get to your kids recital, can't go the funeral of your friends brother, can't go to the Super Bowl, or go to McDonalds and buy French Fries, can't take the wife out on the anniversary. So why should she go to an abortion?
Actually, it's more like 1.7 million per year. no joke. so sad.
you have no rights in prison
that is what you're told if you become a guest in MO prisons
it was always my understanding that you are stripped of any rights when incarcerated
that should be carved into the liberals forehead
The ACLU part is missing now. Interesting.
perhaps i am mistaken, but the number of babies murdered in the usa every year is over one million. the accepted figure i always see quoted is some 45 million abortions have taken place since roe. roe is 1973 law so the math is really simple. it equals more or less 1 and a half million a year. each and everyone of those babies blood cries to god for justice, no matter what jackals in black robes think. that is going to be one heck of a sentence, imo.
To be fair, the way the jurisprudence stands, I'm not sure, if I were the trial judge, I'd find any differently. The guy's a district judge, it's not necessarily his fault that the higher courts have ruled like they have.
I personally think this one's kinda close, but given a district judge's aversion to being reversed, this was probably the right decision by him. (No, I don't know anything about the case or the judge other than what's been on this thread, so I'm speculating.)
Of course...that doesn't mean we have to like it...that's something else.
And now maybe we'll get an idea on how much we should trust Bush nominees, since this may give us the first Roberts abortion case...
Thanks for the pics of Clarence Thomas.
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.